In this editorial from today’s Bee the topic is the flood insurance bill that would mandate flood insurance in flood prone areas, and while the concern with money affects the decisions of the legislature (development equals growth equals tax revenue) underneath all of this is the unanswered question of what to do about flooding in California, and that still lies in the path of being able to store flood waters, before they flood cities and farms, behind the new dams California needs.
Here is an excerpt.
Editorial: Profits before safety
They sided with builders, killed flood bill
Published 12:01 am PDT Tuesday, June 6, 2006
If a levee breaks and floods a Central Valley city next winter, taxpayers across California will face billions of dollars in potential court damages.
The state could be bankrupted by this liability, Assemblywoman Lois Wolk recently noted. Last week, lawmakers had a chance to approve Assembly Bill 3050 by Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento. It would have required local governments to share liability with the state for any future development they approve in floodplains.
Instead of approving this prudent measure, lawmakers chose to side with big homebuilders, who mounted a fierce and misleading campaign against Jones' bill.
On May 26, the California Building Industry Association and executives with 24 of the state's largest development firms sent letters to all members of the Assembly. They wrote that AB 3050 would force developers to "pull back on plans to build housing in already flood-protected areas of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys." The result would be that "housing that tens of thousands of families look to us to produce in growing areas of the Central Valley would simply not get built."
What a crock. If AB 3050 were approved, local governments would share liability with the state following a levee break, but they wouldn't assume all liability. Tens of thousands of homes could still be built on higher ground, infill areas and truly "flood-protected areas of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys." The main result would be local governments steering development toward the safest of the safe areas and requiring indemnification from builders for development they attempted in more suspect zones.
The problem, unfortunately, is that many homebuilders have already purchased or optioned cheap land in risky areas such as Plumas Lake in Yuba County, which has flooded twice in 20 years. They are preparing to develop an island in the Delta that has flooded three times in a century, and are building in deep floodplains around Stockton and Sacramento.
