Logic dictates that those responsible for providing flood protection are liable when that protection fails, but public policy is too often a struggle to determine, logically or not, whose fault it is when things don’t work out.
In the case of flooding in the Sacramento region, building the Auburn Dam will go a long way to making a serious flood a virtually unknown event, and that is the direction—of optimal protection—public leadership needs to be looking.
If levee fixes fail, who pays?
Local agencies balk at state plan to shift responsibility
By Judy Lin - Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:00 am PST Monday, January 8, 2007
As state officials preview guidelines for distributing bond funding for levee improvements in California communities, there is a catch: The state wants local governments and private builders to promise to share financial liability if there is a devastating flood.
But that proposal is being met with jeers.
Cities, counties and builders complain that the state shouldn't get off the hook for paying for flood damages when it serves as the lead agency in funding the maintenance and improvement of 1,600 miles of Central Valley levees.
"That's not what the voters approved," said League of California Cities lobbyist Yvonne Hunter, referring to the November passage of a pair of flood control bond measures, Propositions 1E and 84.
As California prepares to dole out nearly $5 billion in bond money for flood control, the dispute underscores state officials' difficulty in forging a formula to share liability with local governments if a Katrina-type disaster strikes.
"It is a difficult issue," said Les Harder, deputy director of public safety and business operations at the Department of Water Resources. He said the department is "tasked to reduce the state's liability, and how we do that is a matter that still needs to be fully developed."
Ever since a court decision stemming from the floods in 1986 found the state liable when it assumed responsibility for the levee system, the state has been trying to figure out how to protect itself from having to pay out huge financial judgments.
The state paid out more than $400 million to settle the 1986 flood claims.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to outline his plan for flood control bond spending -- including funding criteria -- when he releases his budget Wednesday.
State officials say local governments have already submitted project requests totaling about $200 million.
Meanwhile, Democrats in the Legislature plan to respond with their own flood control spending plan, while seeking to clarify the financial responsibilities of different agencies.
Last month, the Department of Water Resources presented local governments and builders with a set of goals for the new bond money. They include reducing the public's risk, developing a statewide flood management plan and preparing an emergency response plan in case of a catastrophe.
While participants were supportive of those ideas, one sentence didn't sit well with many.
According to a slide show of the presentation, "FloodSAFE California," the state would like "local land use agencies benefiting from the project (to) agree to indemnify and hold harmless the state" as a qualification for receiving funding for flood control projects.
Hunter and other local government representatives balked at the idea, saying it could discourage cities and counties from accepting the state bond money. The move could potentially delay much-needed emergency levee repairs.
"That is absolutely unacceptable and it makes no sense," Hunter said.
Kathy Mannion of the Regional Council of Rural Counties said local land use agencies have no say in how a levee is built or maintained. She said it wouldn't make sense to hold them accountable if a levee fails.
