From the Bee of last Tuesday, a really great bunch of letters about flood issues, including mine, which is copied in total, with some selected comments from others after.
A really excellent public discussion is occurring and this is what local media can really do well.
Excerpts follow my letter.
Dutch flood control example
Re "Areas at higher risk may face new rules," Feb. 21: Isn't there some responsibility from public leadership to protect the public from natural disasters through wise policies that reduce their potential occurrence when the technological solutions are available, like flooding or, in another public safety area, crime.
Rather than penalizing the victim of flooding or crime, shouldn't public leadership be advocating for those solutions available to protect the public from being victimized in the first place? Three strikes laws and more prisons seem to have reduced the crime rate substantially and the public is much safer as a result.
The Dutch accept nothing less than 1,000-year flood protection in their planning and they have reduced flooding substantially, so flood protection technology is available.
What are the Dutch doing about flooding that we can't do and what has California's public leadership done about crime that can't be done about flooding?
- David H. Lukenbill, Senior Policy Director, American River Parkway Preservation Society
1) In 1998, Chris Quackenbush pointed out that SAFCA was performing levee work without proper approval from various authorities and was being done at the expense of others. The Bee personally attacked her, calling her an obstructionist and a meddler ("Quackenbush vs. SAFCA," Sept. 28, 1998).
Initially the levee work was being done on the pretext of protecting 130 homes in North Sacramento and would minimally affect only five homes in Rio Linda. As facts were produced contradicting SAFCA, the number of homes being protected increased until the number was in the thousands.
Looking at who purchased the property when a building moratorium was placed on the floodplain, political contributions, etc. it was quite obvious these levees were being constructed to protect Natomas. In the end, a lot of politicians and developers made a lot of money, including The Bee. Now a lot of innocent working citizens are going to pay for it.
- Gaylord Chapman, Rio Linda
2) A bill to require flood insurance on all new construction in the 1-in-200 flood zone would be easier to pass. It could be in the form of an assessment similar to assessments for schools and parks. The assessment money would be kept in a fund that could be expanded to pay for flood amelioration measures such as levee maintenance as well as for flood insurance. The builder, of course, would pass this cost on to the buyer. The full costs of building below high-water level would thus be paid up-front.
- Clarence F. Kooi, Sacramento
3)What is needed is to require counties to advise new property owners that their property lies in a 100 or 200 year flood plain and state and federal legislation that exempts anyone who knowingly lives in a designated flood plain from receiving state or federal disaster relief if they don't purchase insurance.
Such legislation would be an excellent example of how cooperation between all parties at the state and federal level can solve a vexing problem. It would also save millions of taxpayer money, which is why the legislation will never come about.
- David Houghton, Sacramento
4) First the Sacramento City Council and the SAFCA believed the developers that Natomas was safe to build on. This was in 1997, the same year major levee seepage was discovered. Then homebuyers believed the real estate agents who said there was no flood risk. Now it comes out that the area is an ancient lake bed with no real levee protection and, surprise, the city needs $270 million to fix the levees because so many people live there now. - Neville Loberg, Sacramento
5) It is just ludicrous for Stein Buer to say, "We owe it to our community to do the most thoughtful job of laying this out." What were he and SAFCA, the city, county, state and feds thinking about when the levees were under scrutiny prior to the first home being built in an area formerly known as American Lake? Who ultimately was so thoughtless as to give the go to build thousands of homes in harm's way? A thorough investigation is appropriate.
Meanwhile, Mayor Heather Fargo needs to go to her builder buddies to say, "Sorry, boys. The game's over until we figure how to pay for your play." A complete halt to building is in order. It's the one clear way to assure the residents of Natomas that their plight will get prompt attention. Developers have a huge stake in Natomas. They'll work to get things financed and resolved when it hits their pocketbooks. - Judy Cook, Sacramento
6) As a former journalism student, I read the Feb. 19 article, "A torrent of doubts" and had to recheck to see if it was an article or an opinion piece because there were so many opinions inserted into it. It was clear The Bee opposes the Auburn dam. This explains why the article focuses on the cost-benefit analysis without considering the future costs of electricity and water. The article also left out the most important benefit the dam has to offer: If constructed, it would provide the highest level of flood protection available to the city of Sacramento. Flood protection? Hey, who would have thought of putting that into the article? What about the cost of not putting in the Auburn dam? - Dan Dove, Colfax
7) The right says we need the water, while the left cautions about earthquakes, expense and improving levees. The question I have is this: If Folsom fills early in the winter and we have to release large amounts of water on old levees that can barely handle it to keep from overflowing the dam, what are the people downstream going to do when we have to release large amounts of water from two dams at the same time on levees we know can't handle it?
- Jim Wiiliams, Fair Oaks
