In the Dan Walters column from this morning’s Bee, the argument about mandatory flood insurance is put into its proper larger perspective and we understand the importance of bringing the development community, local government and state government into congruence around flood liability, which will stimulate further congruence around flood protection.
This can lead to a powerful alliance of support, not only for the necessary levee improvements, but for the optimal flood protection, a major new dam on the American River.
Here is an excerpt.
Dan Walters: If locals want land-use power, they should share flood liability
By Dan Walters -- Bee Columnist Published 2:15 am PDT Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Everyone knows that it's risky to build large tracts of homes beside flood-prone rivers, but developers and local governments, especially in the fast-growing Sacramento area, are continuing to do it with little regard for the potential consequences - because financially and legally, they are protected from the consequences.
As long as the subdivisions comply with very outdated federal floodplain maps, or the promoters have obtained some sort of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, there are no restrictions or flood insurance requirements. And under a recent state appellate court decision, if a levee fails and nearby homes are flooded, the state of California is liable, not developers or the local governments that approve the housing plans.
That court decision, involving a 1986 levee break in Yuba County that cost the state nearly a half-billion dollars, put the bifurcation of authority and responsibility in sharp focus. Local governments can approve all the housing they want next to levees in full knowledge that the state alone is liable for any flood damage, even though the state has no authority over development decisions.
The "Paterno decision," as it's called, sparked several reactions, from sighs of relief among developers and pro-development cities and counties, to heartburn among state officials, who realized that it represented a multibillion-dollar sword hanging over the state's neck. It played a role in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal for a massive levee improvement program but may have also cost members of the State Reclamation Board their jobs when they voted to begin interceding in local land-use decisions adjacent to levees. As soon as they voiced that policy, Schwarzenegger replaced them with new members who seem bent on watering it down, no pun intended.
The decision and the somewhat confused response to it typify California's indecisive position on the grave flood danger in and around Sacramento and several other cities (the capital is said to face the worst flood peril of any major U.S. city). And in the larger context, they are a microcosm of California's chronic crisis of governance, in which critical decisions are postponed for decades because of buck-passing.
