This story from Sunday’s Bee gives us a clear example of the perceptive dissonance between the public using the Parkway, and the public agencies responsible for it.
A central aspect of the Parkway are the trees, and about 300 of them, including many heritage oaks, are threatened with removal to maintain the flood control conveyance aspect of the river, (its ability to funnel water released from Folsom Dam to create more space in Folsom Lake for American River Watershed run-off) by building a larger levee.
This is directly related to our contention, that to protect the “integrity of the Parkway” we must consider building a major new dam on the American River to allow for a much higher level of surface water storage to allow for reliance on dams for flood control rather than levees.
It is also important to keep in mind that the present reason we are able to consider building a dam to protect the integrity of the Parkway, one of the most important urban parks in the country, is because the Parkway is also in the center of the most flood-prone city in the nation, and the larger benefit to the surrounding city makes our proposal part of the ongoing community discussion about flood control.
In the future, as we discuss removing a dam (which we support) to restore the important natural area, Hetch Hetchy Valley; the thought of building one to preserve another will not seem remote.
Here is an excerpt.
Tempting Fate: Trees vs. levee
Century-old oaks stymie flood wall
By Matt Weiser -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 am PST Sunday, March 5, 2006
Sacramento's Mayhew levee could be a poster child for the challenges that often surround simple urban flood-control projects.
The Mayhew levee is located on the American River's south bank, in unincorporated Rosemont, across the river from Rio Americano High School. It is the lowest levee on the American River, and, therefore, would seem a high priority for Sacramento flood protection.
But a project to raise the levee by 3 feet has crawled through the approval process since it was authorized by Congress in 1999.
The new levee would stretch 4,300 feet long and, if federal design standards are applied, up to 90 feet wide. Such a levee would take out nearly 300 mature trees along the American River Parkway - a federally designated Wild and Scenic River corridor and beloved public park.
The threatened trees include three heritage oaks that are more than 100 years old.
"We're pushing them on the design to do something that's innovative," said Jim Morgan, secretary of the neighborhood group, the Butterfield-Riviera East Community Association. "We're trying to improve the flood protection, and at the same time we're trying to minimize damage to the parkway."
In a worst-case storm scenario, when federal officials would be forced to open all the spillway gates at Folsom Dam to save it from washing out during torrential upstream runoff, the Mayhew levee is the only American River levee that is too short to contain the flows.
If dam operators had to push the American River to an emergency flow of 160,000 cubic feet per second, water could overflow the Mayhew levee and flood about 300 homes. The rushing water would run across Folsom Boulevard, eventually inundating the city of Sacramento.
The flood could cut off key evacuation routes for many Sacramento residents trying to flee the unthinkable.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Preventing Floods, Our Governor's Leadership
In this story from Saturday’s Bee, the Governor, providing leadership of an increasing trend, is on the side of providing flood protection rather than accepting flooding as inevitable.
It is only the conditions for flooding that are inevitable, as are those for earthquakes and other natural disasters, but as we have seen in San Francisco and Japan, building codes can require builders to build strong enough to protect against overwhelming disasters from earthquakes.
So it is with flooding.
We cannot change the conditions that cause the amount of rainfall that leads to flooding, but we can build big enough dams, strong enough levees, good enough drainage systems, and keep local creeks and streams able to handle downpours without overflowing into peoples homes and businesses.
Here is an excerpt.
Governor: Bond plan is flood answer
By Andy Furillo -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 am PST Saturday, March 4, 2006
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday brushed off the ideas of mandatory flood insurance and building moratoriums if legislators fail to put his $6 billion levee bond on the ballot this year.
In a telephone interview with The Bee, the governor described talk of flood insurance or building moratoriums as "hypothetical" and dismissed both concepts as falling short of the bond-funded levee fixes that he sees as the long-term answer to the region's flood problem.
"We will get it approved," he said of his bond proposal.
Schwarzenegger said it is crucial to persuade people living in a disaster-prone state to properly insure their property. But, he added, "I don't think we want to make it mandatory."
Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, proposed a bill in January that would require property owners in "levee protection/inundation zones" to maintain flood insurance.
Jones declined to directly respond to Schwarzenegger's comments and how they might affect the prospects of his Assembly Bill 1898, which would require insurance for properties in areas with less than 200-year flood protection or that lack a "standard project flood estimate."
Levels of protection in the Sacramento region vary, with much of it not even reaching the federal government's minimal 100-year threshold.
But Jones quoted from a report put out last year by the administration's Department of Water Resources that said any homes or businesses located in high-risk zones "should have some form of flood insurance."
"We're the city and region at greatest risk of flooding in the nation, and we know in New Orleans they thought they had one-in-250-years flood protection," Jones said. "They didn't, and they didn't have insurance, and hundreds of thousands of people are ruined as a result."
As for building moratoriums, Schwarzenegger said, "The reason I don't like to go toward not building - there are some people who believe that's the way to go - is that, if you say to yourself, let's not build in flood-prone areas, what do we say about earthquake-prone areas? Then you say, the Bay Area, it has a lot of earthquakes. ... Should no one build in the Bay Area?"
Schwarzenegger again extolled a massive levee restoration program as the best long-term flood cure.
It is only the conditions for flooding that are inevitable, as are those for earthquakes and other natural disasters, but as we have seen in San Francisco and Japan, building codes can require builders to build strong enough to protect against overwhelming disasters from earthquakes.
So it is with flooding.
We cannot change the conditions that cause the amount of rainfall that leads to flooding, but we can build big enough dams, strong enough levees, good enough drainage systems, and keep local creeks and streams able to handle downpours without overflowing into peoples homes and businesses.
Here is an excerpt.
Governor: Bond plan is flood answer
By Andy Furillo -- Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 2:15 am PST Saturday, March 4, 2006
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday brushed off the ideas of mandatory flood insurance and building moratoriums if legislators fail to put his $6 billion levee bond on the ballot this year.
In a telephone interview with The Bee, the governor described talk of flood insurance or building moratoriums as "hypothetical" and dismissed both concepts as falling short of the bond-funded levee fixes that he sees as the long-term answer to the region's flood problem.
"We will get it approved," he said of his bond proposal.
Schwarzenegger said it is crucial to persuade people living in a disaster-prone state to properly insure their property. But, he added, "I don't think we want to make it mandatory."
Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, proposed a bill in January that would require property owners in "levee protection/inundation zones" to maintain flood insurance.
Jones declined to directly respond to Schwarzenegger's comments and how they might affect the prospects of his Assembly Bill 1898, which would require insurance for properties in areas with less than 200-year flood protection or that lack a "standard project flood estimate."
Levels of protection in the Sacramento region vary, with much of it not even reaching the federal government's minimal 100-year threshold.
But Jones quoted from a report put out last year by the administration's Department of Water Resources that said any homes or businesses located in high-risk zones "should have some form of flood insurance."
"We're the city and region at greatest risk of flooding in the nation, and we know in New Orleans they thought they had one-in-250-years flood protection," Jones said. "They didn't, and they didn't have insurance, and hundreds of thousands of people are ruined as a result."
As for building moratoriums, Schwarzenegger said, "The reason I don't like to go toward not building - there are some people who believe that's the way to go - is that, if you say to yourself, let's not build in flood-prone areas, what do we say about earthquake-prone areas? Then you say, the Bay Area, it has a lot of earthquakes. ... Should no one build in the Bay Area?"
Schwarzenegger again extolled a massive levee restoration program as the best long-term flood cure.
Broken Windows Theory and The Lower Reach
This article from National Review Online of February 28, 2006, updates the continued effectiveness of the Broken Windows Theory, which we mention in our Lower Reach Report, www.arpps.org as the tool that needs to be used in that area of the Parkway to stop illegal camping by the homeless, which has grown to epidemic proportions through lack of enforcement of the illegal camping laws.
The thesis is that if the community and local police allow broken windows in abandoned buildings, or any form of blight or misdemeanor crime to reign unchecked, it will attract more crime of a more serious nature.
This was the tool Mayor Rudolf Giuliani and Police Chief Bratton (article co-author and now LA police Chief) used to clean up New York.
Many have tried to disprove this theory but it remains a vital law enforcement tool of proven effectiveness.
Here is an excerpt.
There Are No Cracks in the Broken Windows
Ideological academics are trying to undermine a perfectly good idea.
By William Bratton & George Kelling
We've argued for many years that when police pay attention to minor offenses — such as prostitution, graffiti, aggressive panhandling — they can reduce fear, strengthen communities, and prevent serious crime. One of us co-originated (with James Q. Wilson) this theory, which has come to be known as "fixing broken windows"; the other implemented it in New York City, first as chief of the transit police under Mayor David Dinkins, and then more broadly as police commissioner under Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Yet despite the demonstrable success of this theory, some criminologists and sociologists continue to attack it, with arguments that are factually and philosophically false. Policymakers should not be misled by these misrepresentations into returning our cities to the failed police policies of the past.
According to a recent Boston Globe article by Daniel Brook, for instance, "scholars are starting to question whether fixing broken windows really fixes much at all." In fact, the theory always had its critics. Some were anti-police groups seizing any opportunity to detract from police achievements. Others were liberals who deeply resented Giuliani and his policies.
An early charge of these critics was that the police had to be "cooking the books." They abandoned this argument, though, as the homicide rate in New York City plunged, from 2,262 murders in 1990 to 629 in 1998; it's hard to hide that many bodies.
Others argued that crime reductions came with an unacceptable level of police harassment and brutality. This charge was not sustainable, either. Police shootings, and complaints against police, actually declined in New York City during the Giuliani years. In 1998, police shootings reached their lowest level since the 1970s, when data on police shootings was first recorded.
The most sustained attack on broken windows and NYPD achievements has not been practical or factual, but political and ideological. Many social scientists are wedded to the idea that crime is caused by the structural features of a capitalist society — especially economic injustice, racism, and poverty. They assume that true crime reduction can come only as the result of economic reform, redistribution of wealth, and elimination of poverty and racism.
Responding to such academic criticism is difficult when it claims support in "scientific" evidence. While challenges to their scientific research on the basis of research design, sampling methodology, data interpretation, or misrepresentation of theories can come across as academic quibbling, these elements of research lie at the core of the issue and determine the validity of conclusions reached.
The thesis is that if the community and local police allow broken windows in abandoned buildings, or any form of blight or misdemeanor crime to reign unchecked, it will attract more crime of a more serious nature.
This was the tool Mayor Rudolf Giuliani and Police Chief Bratton (article co-author and now LA police Chief) used to clean up New York.
Many have tried to disprove this theory but it remains a vital law enforcement tool of proven effectiveness.
Here is an excerpt.
There Are No Cracks in the Broken Windows
Ideological academics are trying to undermine a perfectly good idea.
By William Bratton & George Kelling
We've argued for many years that when police pay attention to minor offenses — such as prostitution, graffiti, aggressive panhandling — they can reduce fear, strengthen communities, and prevent serious crime. One of us co-originated (with James Q. Wilson) this theory, which has come to be known as "fixing broken windows"; the other implemented it in New York City, first as chief of the transit police under Mayor David Dinkins, and then more broadly as police commissioner under Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Yet despite the demonstrable success of this theory, some criminologists and sociologists continue to attack it, with arguments that are factually and philosophically false. Policymakers should not be misled by these misrepresentations into returning our cities to the failed police policies of the past.
According to a recent Boston Globe article by Daniel Brook, for instance, "scholars are starting to question whether fixing broken windows really fixes much at all." In fact, the theory always had its critics. Some were anti-police groups seizing any opportunity to detract from police achievements. Others were liberals who deeply resented Giuliani and his policies.
An early charge of these critics was that the police had to be "cooking the books." They abandoned this argument, though, as the homicide rate in New York City plunged, from 2,262 murders in 1990 to 629 in 1998; it's hard to hide that many bodies.
Others argued that crime reductions came with an unacceptable level of police harassment and brutality. This charge was not sustainable, either. Police shootings, and complaints against police, actually declined in New York City during the Giuliani years. In 1998, police shootings reached their lowest level since the 1970s, when data on police shootings was first recorded.
The most sustained attack on broken windows and NYPD achievements has not been practical or factual, but political and ideological. Many social scientists are wedded to the idea that crime is caused by the structural features of a capitalist society — especially economic injustice, racism, and poverty. They assume that true crime reduction can come only as the result of economic reform, redistribution of wealth, and elimination of poverty and racism.
Responding to such academic criticism is difficult when it claims support in "scientific" evidence. While challenges to their scientific research on the basis of research design, sampling methodology, data interpretation, or misrepresentation of theories can come across as academic quibbling, these elements of research lie at the core of the issue and determine the validity of conclusions reached.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Sacramento Flood Protection, The Best or Less, Part Two
In this column from the Bee Friday, March 3rd , Dan Walters reminds us of infrastructure politics, and most importantly, informs us that the $222 billion infrastructure plan pushed by the Governor, should be larger.
From our perspective, while agreeing a lot more funding is probably needed, we feel proper distribution of the existing $222 billion proposal could do wonders, particularly for flood protection.
For instance, just to provide the Sacramento area 500+ year level of flood protection will require about $5 billion for a major new dam on the American River, and another $5 billion to raise Shasta Dam the 200 more feet it was originally engineered for, tripling its storage capacity.
As a small percentage of the proposed infrastructure plan, this distribution could render the capitol of California pretty secure against any major flooding for a long time.
Here is an excerpt.
Dan Walters: Population growth underscores urgency of infrastructure projects
By Dan Walters -- Bee Columnist
Published 2:15 am PST Friday, March 3, 2006
It's still very uncertain whether Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislators will agree on some version of the governor's 10-year infrastructure improvement plan.
The chances of something being done in time to make the June primary ballot are quickly dissolving, and the odds are no better than 50-50 that something will make the November ballot for two very big reasons - sharp disagreements among politicians and influential interest groups over the size, scope and fine-print details, and election year politics.
If anything, wrangling over the details has become more intense as various "stakeholder" groups have ramped up their lobbying to gain and/or protect pieces of the pie, and as Schwarzenegger has boosted what he wants the state to spend on levee improvements, citing the potential threat of a Katrina/New Orleans-scale flood disaster should levees give way.
Schwarzenegger continues to push levees, highways and other elements of his $222 billion infrastructure scheme in the public realm, telling reporters Thursday that "we know we need to build" and reacting negatively to suggestions inside and outside the Legislature to scale back the $71.5 billion in state bonds that are the centerpiece of the plan. Schwarzenegger boosted the bonds this week from $68 billion to finance levee work even if the federal government doesn't contribute.
Purely political factors also are making themselves evident. A new Field Poll indicates that voters are responding favorably to Schwarzenegger's infrastructure crusade, elevating his approval ratings as he seeks re-election. Democrats must decide, therefore, whether they truly want to give the Republican governor a legacy achievement or will merely string him along for public consumption and then torpedo it.
As this multifaceted political drama plays itself out in the ensuing months, however, no one should doubt that the issue itself - investing in public facilities that have been neglected for decades - is vital, as a new report on population growth underscores.
California's population, Department of Finance demographers concluded, expanded by nearly 3 million during the first half of this decade, thus putting it on a well-worn track to add about 6 million in this decade - just about par for growth in the last quarter-century.
From our perspective, while agreeing a lot more funding is probably needed, we feel proper distribution of the existing $222 billion proposal could do wonders, particularly for flood protection.
For instance, just to provide the Sacramento area 500+ year level of flood protection will require about $5 billion for a major new dam on the American River, and another $5 billion to raise Shasta Dam the 200 more feet it was originally engineered for, tripling its storage capacity.
As a small percentage of the proposed infrastructure plan, this distribution could render the capitol of California pretty secure against any major flooding for a long time.
Here is an excerpt.
Dan Walters: Population growth underscores urgency of infrastructure projects
By Dan Walters -- Bee Columnist
Published 2:15 am PST Friday, March 3, 2006
It's still very uncertain whether Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislators will agree on some version of the governor's 10-year infrastructure improvement plan.
The chances of something being done in time to make the June primary ballot are quickly dissolving, and the odds are no better than 50-50 that something will make the November ballot for two very big reasons - sharp disagreements among politicians and influential interest groups over the size, scope and fine-print details, and election year politics.
If anything, wrangling over the details has become more intense as various "stakeholder" groups have ramped up their lobbying to gain and/or protect pieces of the pie, and as Schwarzenegger has boosted what he wants the state to spend on levee improvements, citing the potential threat of a Katrina/New Orleans-scale flood disaster should levees give way.
Schwarzenegger continues to push levees, highways and other elements of his $222 billion infrastructure scheme in the public realm, telling reporters Thursday that "we know we need to build" and reacting negatively to suggestions inside and outside the Legislature to scale back the $71.5 billion in state bonds that are the centerpiece of the plan. Schwarzenegger boosted the bonds this week from $68 billion to finance levee work even if the federal government doesn't contribute.
Purely political factors also are making themselves evident. A new Field Poll indicates that voters are responding favorably to Schwarzenegger's infrastructure crusade, elevating his approval ratings as he seeks re-election. Democrats must decide, therefore, whether they truly want to give the Republican governor a legacy achievement or will merely string him along for public consumption and then torpedo it.
As this multifaceted political drama plays itself out in the ensuing months, however, no one should doubt that the issue itself - investing in public facilities that have been neglected for decades - is vital, as a new report on population growth underscores.
California's population, Department of Finance demographers concluded, expanded by nearly 3 million during the first half of this decade, thus putting it on a well-worn track to add about 6 million in this decade - just about par for growth in the last quarter-century.
Protect Rather Than Ban
This story in the Bee from Friday, March 3, about flood protection in Natomas and growth policies there, makes some good points; primarily that we should be protecting people from flooding, when possible, rather than banning them from living in floodplains, when practical.
That perspective, that we can solve problems, is typically American, and provides the foundation for the way of life most of us enjoy. It is good to see that some of our public leaders understand this.
Here is an excerpt.
Natomas growth has many backers
Council majority wants to fix levees, not keep people out.
By Carrie Peyton Dahlberg -- Bee Staff WriterPublished 2:15 am PST Friday, March 3, 2006
The troubled flood defenses in Sacramento's Natomas area will test state and local leaders on a critical safety issue: How much development are they willing to allow behind weak levees?
A majority of Sacramento City Council members say they have no interest in acting now to suspend building in Natomas, although several left the door open to partial growth curbs once they learn more.
At the state level, a key board that could be a strong voice against development in flood-threatened areas is re-examining its tough stance and may reverse tracks.
And federal regulators remain locked in a system that involves lengthy review before revising official flood maps in ways that could limit building.
Even the sight of a major American city drowned by levee breaks after Hurricane Katrina has not been enough to slow settlement onto lands of dubious safety, said Ron Stork of Friends of the River.
"The system was broke before Katrina and the system is still broke today," he said. "It is clear that there shouldn't be any more people in Natomas until there is 100-year protection."
The plight of Natomas, where 67,000 people live in a basin surrounded by rivers and canals, could become one of the state's most visible illustrations of the political forces favoring growth in floodplains.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has moved aggressively to address flood safety on one level, proposing a massive state bond to shore up levees, alter dam gates and catch up on deferred maintenance.
However, keeping floodwaters away from people is only part of the solution, say experts in managing America's flood-prone regions. It's also critical to adopt policies that keep people away from floodwaters, by elevating buildings, reducing insurance guarantees and limiting growth in the most vulnerable locations.
From New Orleans to Sacramento, such efforts face enormous resistance.
"The city of Sacramento is on a roll now, and I don't want to see that slow down," said Councilwoman Bonnie Pannell. "We're finally becoming the city we knew we were. We need to keep building, and make sure all of our levees and creeks and canals are reinforced heavily."
That perspective, that we can solve problems, is typically American, and provides the foundation for the way of life most of us enjoy. It is good to see that some of our public leaders understand this.
Here is an excerpt.
Natomas growth has many backers
Council majority wants to fix levees, not keep people out.
By Carrie Peyton Dahlberg -- Bee Staff WriterPublished 2:15 am PST Friday, March 3, 2006
The troubled flood defenses in Sacramento's Natomas area will test state and local leaders on a critical safety issue: How much development are they willing to allow behind weak levees?
A majority of Sacramento City Council members say they have no interest in acting now to suspend building in Natomas, although several left the door open to partial growth curbs once they learn more.
At the state level, a key board that could be a strong voice against development in flood-threatened areas is re-examining its tough stance and may reverse tracks.
And federal regulators remain locked in a system that involves lengthy review before revising official flood maps in ways that could limit building.
Even the sight of a major American city drowned by levee breaks after Hurricane Katrina has not been enough to slow settlement onto lands of dubious safety, said Ron Stork of Friends of the River.
"The system was broke before Katrina and the system is still broke today," he said. "It is clear that there shouldn't be any more people in Natomas until there is 100-year protection."
The plight of Natomas, where 67,000 people live in a basin surrounded by rivers and canals, could become one of the state's most visible illustrations of the political forces favoring growth in floodplains.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has moved aggressively to address flood safety on one level, proposing a massive state bond to shore up levees, alter dam gates and catch up on deferred maintenance.
However, keeping floodwaters away from people is only part of the solution, say experts in managing America's flood-prone regions. It's also critical to adopt policies that keep people away from floodwaters, by elevating buildings, reducing insurance guarantees and limiting growth in the most vulnerable locations.
From New Orleans to Sacramento, such efforts face enormous resistance.
"The city of Sacramento is on a roll now, and I don't want to see that slow down," said Councilwoman Bonnie Pannell. "We're finally becoming the city we knew we were. We need to keep building, and make sure all of our levees and creeks and canals are reinforced heavily."
Linking Flood Protection & National Security
In this editorial from the Bee Thursday, March 2nd , we hear again that the flooding danger is a security issue, which we completely agree with, and that the chief of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will be visiting the area soon to see for himself.
That national attention could be very good for our local flood protection solutions, and we anticipate the search will begin to address an optimal solution, in the 500+ year range of protection, (which we believe is a major new dam and also more easily protected) beyond the temporary one of levee strengthening, which can only reach the 200-250 year range of protection, about what New Orleans had when it flooded.
Here is an excerpt.
Editorial: Al-Qaida vs. El Niño
Here, homeland security means levee fixes
Published 2:15 am PST Thursday, March 2, 2006
One hourlong aerial tour of Northern California river levees was enough for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The governor, who was joined in the helicopter by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, saw some of the 24 critical weaknesses that have been identified along Northern California levees, most of them along the Sacramento River. At the current pace of maintenance, it will take about four years just to patch up these known weaknesses.
That pace is too slow. The governor is now trying to speed things up. Good. The faster, the better.
The only way the governor can accelerate progress is to declare a state of emergency. That is what he did shortly after last week's levee tour. This procedural move frees up some state emergency funds, probably more than $50 million, to start fixing these earthen levees before a big storm wipes them out.
"This worsening condition," says Schwarzenegger, "creates conditions of extreme peril to the public and property protected by the levees, to the environment and to the very foundation of California's economy."
When a state declares an emergency, it raises the question of whether the federal government will as well. Inside the Bush administration, the matter falls to the struggling Department of Homeland Security. This is the agency that Bush set up after the 9/11 attacks revealed weaknesses in how the various intelligence agencies communicated (or didn't) with one another.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which responds to disasters, is now part of this department as well.
Homeland Security doesn't seem to take natural disasters nearly as seriously as terrorism. The department, for example, recently proposed to drop Sacramento from the list of regions that faced risks significant enough to qualify for a special pot of security funds.
That national attention could be very good for our local flood protection solutions, and we anticipate the search will begin to address an optimal solution, in the 500+ year range of protection, (which we believe is a major new dam and also more easily protected) beyond the temporary one of levee strengthening, which can only reach the 200-250 year range of protection, about what New Orleans had when it flooded.
Here is an excerpt.
Editorial: Al-Qaida vs. El Niño
Here, homeland security means levee fixes
Published 2:15 am PST Thursday, March 2, 2006
One hourlong aerial tour of Northern California river levees was enough for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The governor, who was joined in the helicopter by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, saw some of the 24 critical weaknesses that have been identified along Northern California levees, most of them along the Sacramento River. At the current pace of maintenance, it will take about four years just to patch up these known weaknesses.
That pace is too slow. The governor is now trying to speed things up. Good. The faster, the better.
The only way the governor can accelerate progress is to declare a state of emergency. That is what he did shortly after last week's levee tour. This procedural move frees up some state emergency funds, probably more than $50 million, to start fixing these earthen levees before a big storm wipes them out.
"This worsening condition," says Schwarzenegger, "creates conditions of extreme peril to the public and property protected by the levees, to the environment and to the very foundation of California's economy."
When a state declares an emergency, it raises the question of whether the federal government will as well. Inside the Bush administration, the matter falls to the struggling Department of Homeland Security. This is the agency that Bush set up after the 9/11 attacks revealed weaknesses in how the various intelligence agencies communicated (or didn't) with one another.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which responds to disasters, is now part of this department as well.
Homeland Security doesn't seem to take natural disasters nearly as seriously as terrorism. The department, for example, recently proposed to drop Sacramento from the list of regions that faced risks significant enough to qualify for a special pot of security funds.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Police Helicopters Find Levee Seepage
In this story from yesterday’s Bee we hear about a program of having the police helicopters patrol the levees regularly and use their infrared cameras to look out for water seepage.
What a terrific collaboration between government agencies, and we applaud it.
It also reminds us that when we get focused on a problem, we do, often, have the technology and the political will to resolve it.
Let’s hope this renewed sense of resolve keeps bubbling its way through our public leadership.
Here is an excerpt.
Sacramento police copters will monitor levees
Deb Kollars -- Bee Staff WriterPublished 2:15 am PST Thursday, March 2, 2006
The Sacramento Police Department has added levee inspections to its helicopter patrols in an effort to be more proactive when flooding threatens.
The helicopters have been outfitted for years with a camera system that can provide infrared thermal images.
The cameras traditionally are used to patrol neighborhoods and track crime suspects on the ground, said Sgt. Terrell Marshall, a police spokesman.
The department has decided to use that same technology, which detects energy or heat emissions, to identify potential levee problems by picking up changes in ground temperature when water seeps through a levee.
The video images can be sent to flood officials via the helicopter's downlinking system, enabling authorities to keep tabs on what is happening on the levees in real time, Marshall said.
What a terrific collaboration between government agencies, and we applaud it.
It also reminds us that when we get focused on a problem, we do, often, have the technology and the political will to resolve it.
Let’s hope this renewed sense of resolve keeps bubbling its way through our public leadership.
Here is an excerpt.
Sacramento police copters will monitor levees
Deb Kollars -- Bee Staff WriterPublished 2:15 am PST Thursday, March 2, 2006
The Sacramento Police Department has added levee inspections to its helicopter patrols in an effort to be more proactive when flooding threatens.
The helicopters have been outfitted for years with a camera system that can provide infrared thermal images.
The cameras traditionally are used to patrol neighborhoods and track crime suspects on the ground, said Sgt. Terrell Marshall, a police spokesman.
The department has decided to use that same technology, which detects energy or heat emissions, to identify potential levee problems by picking up changes in ground temperature when water seeps through a levee.
The video images can be sent to flood officials via the helicopter's downlinking system, enabling authorities to keep tabs on what is happening on the levees in real time, Marshall said.
Flood Preparedness Meeting Bulletin
In this bulletin from yesterday’s Bee we hear about the continued focus on flood preparedness through a report on the meeting being held at CSUS, which is the 11th held since Katrina, and over 10,000 people have attended the series, which is great news.
Here is the bulletin.
Emergency preparedness to be discussed
By Deb Kollars -- Bee Staff WriterPublished 2:15 am PST Thursday, March 2, 2006
SACRAMENTO - The city will conduct another emergency preparedness meeting at 11:30 a.m. Monday in the University Union Ballroom at California State University, Sacramento.
This will be the city's 11th such meeting, and the first during daytime hours. Flood-control, police and fire officials will be on hand to describe emergency preparedness plans and to answer questions.
The city began the sessions last fall after the Gulf Coast was hit with flooding from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Because Sacramento faces serious flooding risks, Mayor Heather Fargo and other city officials want people in Sacramento to understand the dangers and be prepared for a possible crisis.
About 10,000 people have attended the meetings so far, said Jessica Hess, media and communications specialist for the city's Department of Utilities.
More meetings will be held, Hess said.
Here is the bulletin.
Emergency preparedness to be discussed
By Deb Kollars -- Bee Staff WriterPublished 2:15 am PST Thursday, March 2, 2006
SACRAMENTO - The city will conduct another emergency preparedness meeting at 11:30 a.m. Monday in the University Union Ballroom at California State University, Sacramento.
This will be the city's 11th such meeting, and the first during daytime hours. Flood-control, police and fire officials will be on hand to describe emergency preparedness plans and to answer questions.
The city began the sessions last fall after the Gulf Coast was hit with flooding from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Because Sacramento faces serious flooding risks, Mayor Heather Fargo and other city officials want people in Sacramento to understand the dangers and be prepared for a possible crisis.
About 10,000 people have attended the meetings so far, said Jessica Hess, media and communications specialist for the city's Department of Utilities.
More meetings will be held, Hess said.
Levee Politics Heat Up
In this story from yesterday’s Bee we see how the politics around flood protection strategies are heating up.
Let’s hope that the heat and increased attention being paid to a long overdue problem results in long-term fixes that give the community of Sacramento optimal protection from flooding.
From our perspective that will require a major new dam on the American River to hold the water from the pineapple express storms that are often prone to target the American River Watershed.
Here is an excerpt.
Levee talks spark anger, doubt
Democrats question if governor's really serious about plan.
By Andy Furillo -- Bee Capitol Bureau Published 2:15 am PST Thursday, March 2, 2006
With the deadline for a June bond ballot bearing down fast, Democratic legislative leaders expressed befuddlement and anger Wednesday over Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's latest proposal to front-load spending on Northern California levee repairs.
Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, called the Governor's Office sloppy for presenting a new, $6 billion plan as recently as Tuesday night, just days from the March 10 deadline the Legislature must meet if it wants to put an infrastructure bond on the June ballot.
"I gotta tell you," Núñez told reporters on his way into a "Big Five" meeting with Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders, "a lot of members of my caucus feel the way this is being handled by the governor and his administration is not only sloppy, but that there is no seriousness here."
The speaker also questioned the new-found urgency the governor has placed on the state's levee system.
"We all know what the problem is. What has changed in the last month?" Núñez said, adding, "Hopefully, it's not just gamesmanship."
Schwarzenegger communications director Adam Mendelsohn noted the Republican governor first proposed a levee bond in January. But he said the governor's recent tour of the Sacramento region with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., persuaded him to speed up state efforts.
"The governor and Senator Feinstein toured the levees by helicopter," Mendelsohn said. "She told him the state needed to do more, and he felt this was critical enough to declare a state of emergency. In Washington, Senator Feinstein applauded the governor's action, and now the two of them will work together to strengthen the levees."
Let’s hope that the heat and increased attention being paid to a long overdue problem results in long-term fixes that give the community of Sacramento optimal protection from flooding.
From our perspective that will require a major new dam on the American River to hold the water from the pineapple express storms that are often prone to target the American River Watershed.
Here is an excerpt.
Levee talks spark anger, doubt
Democrats question if governor's really serious about plan.
By Andy Furillo -- Bee Capitol Bureau Published 2:15 am PST Thursday, March 2, 2006
With the deadline for a June bond ballot bearing down fast, Democratic legislative leaders expressed befuddlement and anger Wednesday over Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's latest proposal to front-load spending on Northern California levee repairs.
Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, called the Governor's Office sloppy for presenting a new, $6 billion plan as recently as Tuesday night, just days from the March 10 deadline the Legislature must meet if it wants to put an infrastructure bond on the June ballot.
"I gotta tell you," Núñez told reporters on his way into a "Big Five" meeting with Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders, "a lot of members of my caucus feel the way this is being handled by the governor and his administration is not only sloppy, but that there is no seriousness here."
The speaker also questioned the new-found urgency the governor has placed on the state's levee system.
"We all know what the problem is. What has changed in the last month?" Núñez said, adding, "Hopefully, it's not just gamesmanship."
Schwarzenegger communications director Adam Mendelsohn noted the Republican governor first proposed a levee bond in January. But he said the governor's recent tour of the Sacramento region with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., persuaded him to speed up state efforts.
"The governor and Senator Feinstein toured the levees by helicopter," Mendelsohn said. "She told him the state needed to do more, and he felt this was critical enough to declare a state of emergency. In Washington, Senator Feinstein applauded the governor's action, and now the two of them will work together to strengthen the levees."
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Public Policy Institute Research on Water Supply
For those of you interested in pursuing further research on California’s water supply issues from a public policy think tank, this link will connect you to a two-page research brief of the 196 page report summarized here.
Water for Growth: California's New Frontier, by Ellen Hanak, July 2005
Public Policy Institute of California: Research Brief
California’s population is expected to add another 14 million people by 2030, reaching a total of 48 million. One of the most serious concerns of policymakers is whether the state will be able to supply the water needed to sustain such a population.
Although many large water projects in the past were undertaken with state and federal leadership, most current options are local or regional in scope. The frontline agencies responsible for water supply are the hundreds of municipal utilities serving the state’s residential and commercial customers.
In this report, the author examines how well California is faring in meeting the water supply challenges of growth throughout the state and the extent to which local governments are integrating water supply concerns into their land-use planning. The report also evaluates progress in implementing the new “show me the water” laws, SB 610 and SB 221, which require up-front screening of water availability for large development projects.
Water for Growth: California's New Frontier, by Ellen Hanak, July 2005
Public Policy Institute of California: Research Brief
California’s population is expected to add another 14 million people by 2030, reaching a total of 48 million. One of the most serious concerns of policymakers is whether the state will be able to supply the water needed to sustain such a population.
Although many large water projects in the past were undertaken with state and federal leadership, most current options are local or regional in scope. The frontline agencies responsible for water supply are the hundreds of municipal utilities serving the state’s residential and commercial customers.
In this report, the author examines how well California is faring in meeting the water supply challenges of growth throughout the state and the extent to which local governments are integrating water supply concerns into their land-use planning. The report also evaluates progress in implementing the new “show me the water” laws, SB 610 and SB 221, which require up-front screening of water availability for large development projects.
Increase Levee Bond?
This story from the Bee yesterday reveals that the governor appears to be asuming the leadership role needed to fix the levees and is asking for $6 billion to do so, and we heartily support moving into the big money range to fix what is a big time flooding danger.
Bigger levee bond urged
Failing to get U.S. pledge of help, governor wants voters to approve the full $6 billion.
By David Whitney and Amy Chance -- Bee Staff Writers Published 2:15 am PST Wednesday, March 1, 2006
WASHINGTON - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, after lobbying the White House without immediate success Tuesday for help in fixing Central California levees, proposed asking voters to approve $6 billion for repairs rather than wait for federal help.
Schwarzenegger originally had proposed a state bond package that included raising $2.5 billion for flood control over 10 years. That plan would have relied on another $3 billion from the federal government and $500 million from local governments. In a letter late Tuesday to Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, he proposed that the state front the full $6 billion cost.
"I realize that by assuming responsibility for entire costs of levee repair up front we may lessen the pressure on the federal government to provide its share of the cost, but I believe the threat of levee failure in California is too great and we must take action," Schwarzenegger wrote. "We will continue to seek reimbursement by the federal government for its share of repair costs, but, in the meantime, we will not delay critical repairs."
Democrats said Schwarzenegger's change in plans is an admission that he was unable to secure any commitments from the Bush administration. They said it reduces pressure on the federal government to provide funds in the future, and will make it difficult to negotiate an overall bond package in time for the June statewide ballot.
"It's the administration's incredible-changing infrastructure plan," said Núñez spokesman Steve Maviglio. "Why would the feds give us a dime knowing we're going to put apparently unlimited funds into the issue?"
If approved by voters, the $6 billion would mean faster progress on levee repairs and bolster protection for urban areas, including Sacramento, said Les Harder, acting deputy director of public safety at the state Department of Water Resources.
The money would mean that projects outlined by the governor when he first detailed his bond package could be completed without languishing during battles for federal matching funds, Harder said.
"California has a flood crisis," he said, and one of the lessons of Hurricane Katrina is that repairs now could avert devastating losses. "Flood control is extremely expensive, but something has to be done."
Bigger levee bond urged
Failing to get U.S. pledge of help, governor wants voters to approve the full $6 billion.
By David Whitney and Amy Chance -- Bee Staff Writers Published 2:15 am PST Wednesday, March 1, 2006
WASHINGTON - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, after lobbying the White House without immediate success Tuesday for help in fixing Central California levees, proposed asking voters to approve $6 billion for repairs rather than wait for federal help.
Schwarzenegger originally had proposed a state bond package that included raising $2.5 billion for flood control over 10 years. That plan would have relied on another $3 billion from the federal government and $500 million from local governments. In a letter late Tuesday to Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, he proposed that the state front the full $6 billion cost.
"I realize that by assuming responsibility for entire costs of levee repair up front we may lessen the pressure on the federal government to provide its share of the cost, but I believe the threat of levee failure in California is too great and we must take action," Schwarzenegger wrote. "We will continue to seek reimbursement by the federal government for its share of repair costs, but, in the meantime, we will not delay critical repairs."
Democrats said Schwarzenegger's change in plans is an admission that he was unable to secure any commitments from the Bush administration. They said it reduces pressure on the federal government to provide funds in the future, and will make it difficult to negotiate an overall bond package in time for the June statewide ballot.
"It's the administration's incredible-changing infrastructure plan," said Núñez spokesman Steve Maviglio. "Why would the feds give us a dime knowing we're going to put apparently unlimited funds into the issue?"
If approved by voters, the $6 billion would mean faster progress on levee repairs and bolster protection for urban areas, including Sacramento, said Les Harder, acting deputy director of public safety at the state Department of Water Resources.
The money would mean that projects outlined by the governor when he first detailed his bond package could be completed without languishing during battles for federal matching funds, Harder said.
"California has a flood crisis," he said, and one of the lessons of Hurricane Katrina is that repairs now could avert devastating losses. "Flood control is extremely expensive, but something has to be done."
Public Discussion, Letters to Editor About Flooding
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
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
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Emerging Political Consensus? Levee Tours.
In this article from the Bee last Monday, and seeing the emerging political consensus that might be hinted at in these visits, should gives us all hope that the public leadership needed to resolve this terrible deficit in our safety from flooding, will follow through and act on what all agree is an emergency situation.
Eroding confidence: House members see levee woes firsthand
Doolittle, Matsui and key fiscal leaders look at what must be fixed.
By Deb Kollars -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 am PST Monday, February 27, 2006
Two influential leaders of the House of Representatives studied Sacramento area rivers and levees from every vantage point this past weekend, and on Sunday declared their commitment to helping solve the area's flooding risks.
"We're going to do everything we can," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, a longtime Republican lawmaker from San Bernardino County.
Lewis spoke Sunday morning from the top of a Sacramento River levee in the Pocket-Greenhaven area. He was on his third day of tours and briefings, which included bus travel and a helicopter ride over the region's waterways to learn more about the ailing flood control system in Sacramento and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Lewis was in town at the invitation of Rep. John Doolittle, R-Rocklin. Joining them were Reps. David Hobson, an Ohio Republican, and Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento.
The visit by Lewis and Hobson marked a significant step in elevating Sacramento's flood concerns at the national level.
The two hold powerful posts in Congress. Lewis is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, which doles out federal dollars. Hobson heads the Appropriations subcommittee on water and energy, which reviews flood control projects.
Lewis said they would study how "Uncle Sam" could help state and local leaders solve Sacramento's flooding risks.
Sunday morning's tour began with the House members scrambling down the side of a levee near 43rd Street and Riverside Boulevard to inspect a crumbling erosion site.
"If you walk over here, you can see how deteriorated the levee is," said Stan Wallin, a project manager for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "It won't be long before this tree topples in."
Shaking their heads, the lawmakers climbed back to the levee top to hold a news conference.
The winding river made a peaceful backdrop, though the clouds above were restless, a sign that the sunny spell of recent days soon would be overtaken by rainstorms.
"You can look at maps. You can look at charts," Hobson said. "But until you get on the ground and especially up in the air, you cannot appreciate the degree of the problem."
It was the second time in a week that high-ranking politicians had gone up in helicopters to view the rivers and levees.
On Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also took an aerial tour. They were joined by Matsui; Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy; Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Gold River; Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo; and local flood experts.
On Friday evening, citing the helicopter ride, Schwarzenegger took the sudden and unusual step of declaring a state of emergency on Central Valley levees. The governor announced he would spend up to $100 million in state reserve funds to repair 24 critical erosion sites.
In addition, Feinstein and Pombo pledged to try to get a separate $36 million for Sacramento levees through an emergency supplemental funding bill for the current fiscal year.
Eroding confidence: House members see levee woes firsthand
Doolittle, Matsui and key fiscal leaders look at what must be fixed.
By Deb Kollars -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 am PST Monday, February 27, 2006
Two influential leaders of the House of Representatives studied Sacramento area rivers and levees from every vantage point this past weekend, and on Sunday declared their commitment to helping solve the area's flooding risks.
"We're going to do everything we can," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, a longtime Republican lawmaker from San Bernardino County.
Lewis spoke Sunday morning from the top of a Sacramento River levee in the Pocket-Greenhaven area. He was on his third day of tours and briefings, which included bus travel and a helicopter ride over the region's waterways to learn more about the ailing flood control system in Sacramento and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Lewis was in town at the invitation of Rep. John Doolittle, R-Rocklin. Joining them were Reps. David Hobson, an Ohio Republican, and Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento.
The visit by Lewis and Hobson marked a significant step in elevating Sacramento's flood concerns at the national level.
The two hold powerful posts in Congress. Lewis is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, which doles out federal dollars. Hobson heads the Appropriations subcommittee on water and energy, which reviews flood control projects.
Lewis said they would study how "Uncle Sam" could help state and local leaders solve Sacramento's flooding risks.
Sunday morning's tour began with the House members scrambling down the side of a levee near 43rd Street and Riverside Boulevard to inspect a crumbling erosion site.
"If you walk over here, you can see how deteriorated the levee is," said Stan Wallin, a project manager for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "It won't be long before this tree topples in."
Shaking their heads, the lawmakers climbed back to the levee top to hold a news conference.
The winding river made a peaceful backdrop, though the clouds above were restless, a sign that the sunny spell of recent days soon would be overtaken by rainstorms.
"You can look at maps. You can look at charts," Hobson said. "But until you get on the ground and especially up in the air, you cannot appreciate the degree of the problem."
It was the second time in a week that high-ranking politicians had gone up in helicopters to view the rivers and levees.
On Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also took an aerial tour. They were joined by Matsui; Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy; Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Gold River; Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo; and local flood experts.
On Friday evening, citing the helicopter ride, Schwarzenegger took the sudden and unusual step of declaring a state of emergency on Central Valley levees. The governor announced he would spend up to $100 million in state reserve funds to repair 24 critical erosion sites.
In addition, Feinstein and Pombo pledged to try to get a separate $36 million for Sacramento levees through an emergency supplemental funding bill for the current fiscal year.
Auburnd Dam Discussion, Letters to Editor
Here are excerpts from last Sunday’s Bee, letters to the editor section, continuing the public discussion about the Auburn Dam.
1) "Feb. 19 articles discussed flood control and the Auburn dam in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the great flood threat of 1986. That the Auburn dam is needed is not conjecture. Further studies are not needed. What is needed is money.
"The Bee seemed to understand the need in 1996. On June 12, a Bee editorial examining options for flood protection proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers said an expandable flood control dam being proposed by a coalition of local congressional representatives (including Rep. Robert Matsui) would preserve the options of strengthening levees and increasing the outlets of the Folsom Dam. In addition to providing a 400-year level of flood protection and the best return on federal investment - "- Joe Sullivan, SacramentoExecutive Director, Sacramento County Taxpayers League
2) "I want to thank The Bee for the Feb. 19 article "A torrent of doubts." Auburn dam proponents want to ignore the risks of building a massive 700-foot-high dam in a multi-stranded fault zone right above Sacramento. Dam proponents ignore estimates by geologists that this fault zone could produce an earthquake over three times more powerful than the dam would be designed to withstand.
"Unfortunately, the article did not mention the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's estimates of consequences if Auburn dam failed when full. Floodwaters would hit Folsom in five minutes (also destroying Folsom Dam), hit Nimbus Dam in 25 minutes, then sweep 70 feet over it."
- Jimmy Spearow, Davis
3) "An Auburn dam is probably the only real solution to the problem of flooding in Sacramento. Whatever its cost is, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the potential cost of a flood.
An Auburn dam would be a concrete gravity dam set between canyon walls of solid rock. It would take an atomic bomb to breach it. It can easily be engineered to withstand any potential earthquake.
"Folsom Dam, on the other hand, is a concrete dam between miles of earth dikes (levees) that can be breached by a small amount of conventional explosives or the hydrostatic pressure of water. Raising the water level higher on these dikes is insane. It would be putting a time bomb above the city." - Bill Palazzini, P.E., Granite Bay
4) "Re "A torrent of doubts," Feb. 19: Is a $5 billion dam too costly compared with the possible $100 billion life, property and job loss in this region if the imminent flood predictions become a reality (consider the rising costs occurring for New Orleans and slow recovery).
A recent state study found that California can meet its water needs through 2030 by maximizing conservation and recycling. Then what? The Auburn Dam would supply an additional 700,000 homes with water. With public support this dam could be built before 2030."- Jo Nastal, Granite Bay
5) "The Feb. 19 front page article "A Torrent of doubts" was a poor addition to the "Tempting Fate" series. How did a good series on Sacramento's flood risk turn out such an anti-flood-control article? Doesn't The Bee ever get tired of kissing up to the environmentalists? When is The Bee going to realize that Sacramento is in danger? This kind of article is precisely the reason Sacramento has a better chance of flooding like New Orleans than any major American city. "- Tony Small, Sacramento
1) "Feb. 19 articles discussed flood control and the Auburn dam in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the great flood threat of 1986. That the Auburn dam is needed is not conjecture. Further studies are not needed. What is needed is money.
"The Bee seemed to understand the need in 1996. On June 12, a Bee editorial examining options for flood protection proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers said an expandable flood control dam being proposed by a coalition of local congressional representatives (including Rep. Robert Matsui) would preserve the options of strengthening levees and increasing the outlets of the Folsom Dam. In addition to providing a 400-year level of flood protection and the best return on federal investment - "- Joe Sullivan, SacramentoExecutive Director, Sacramento County Taxpayers League
2) "I want to thank The Bee for the Feb. 19 article "A torrent of doubts." Auburn dam proponents want to ignore the risks of building a massive 700-foot-high dam in a multi-stranded fault zone right above Sacramento. Dam proponents ignore estimates by geologists that this fault zone could produce an earthquake over three times more powerful than the dam would be designed to withstand.
"Unfortunately, the article did not mention the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's estimates of consequences if Auburn dam failed when full. Floodwaters would hit Folsom in five minutes (also destroying Folsom Dam), hit Nimbus Dam in 25 minutes, then sweep 70 feet over it."
- Jimmy Spearow, Davis
3) "An Auburn dam is probably the only real solution to the problem of flooding in Sacramento. Whatever its cost is, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the potential cost of a flood.
An Auburn dam would be a concrete gravity dam set between canyon walls of solid rock. It would take an atomic bomb to breach it. It can easily be engineered to withstand any potential earthquake.
"Folsom Dam, on the other hand, is a concrete dam between miles of earth dikes (levees) that can be breached by a small amount of conventional explosives or the hydrostatic pressure of water. Raising the water level higher on these dikes is insane. It would be putting a time bomb above the city." - Bill Palazzini, P.E., Granite Bay
4) "Re "A torrent of doubts," Feb. 19: Is a $5 billion dam too costly compared with the possible $100 billion life, property and job loss in this region if the imminent flood predictions become a reality (consider the rising costs occurring for New Orleans and slow recovery).
A recent state study found that California can meet its water needs through 2030 by maximizing conservation and recycling. Then what? The Auburn Dam would supply an additional 700,000 homes with water. With public support this dam could be built before 2030."- Jo Nastal, Granite Bay
5) "The Feb. 19 front page article "A Torrent of doubts" was a poor addition to the "Tempting Fate" series. How did a good series on Sacramento's flood risk turn out such an anti-flood-control article? Doesn't The Bee ever get tired of kissing up to the environmentalists? When is The Bee going to realize that Sacramento is in danger? This kind of article is precisely the reason Sacramento has a better chance of flooding like New Orleans than any major American city. "- Tony Small, Sacramento
Connecting the Dots, Natomas Levees
This story from the Bee last Sunday is another in their series about flooding in the capital region and one fact leaps out, the necessity to increase the slurry trenching on the American River levees to 80 feet deep while only requiring it to be 35 to 40 feet deep on the Sacramento River near Natomas.
Gosh, what was the leadership who made that decision thinking? Their response should sound familiar, they never connected the dots, well, let’s surely connect them now, it is still not too late.
Here is an excerpt.
Tempting fate: Natomas flood risk wasn't pushed
Building soared behind levees whose reliability was uncertain.
By Carrie Peyton Dahlberg -- Bee Staff WriterPublished 2:15 am PST Sunday, February 26, 2006
For more than six years, as new suburbs exploded in Natomas, flood officials missed chance after chance to ask tougher questions about whether levees had ever been strong enough to allow such growth.
In retrospect Butch Hodgkins, who headed Sacramento's flood agency for more than a decade, saw enough signs of trouble by the late 1990s that he now believes he should have probed deeper back then.
City officials recall pressing federal engineers at least three years ago - and getting ambiguous answers - about whether levees could restrain the Sacramento River in a 100-year flood, the kind brought by storms with a 1 percent chance of striking any year.
Yet, as Natomas' population more than doubled, no one took the steps required for most areas without federally recognized 100-year flood protection: Stop the building. Make people already there buy flood insurance.
Until last week, no one even told Natomas residents their risk might be much greater than once believed.
And it is still unclear whether city, state or federal flood leaders will act to require insurance or prevent thousands more people from moving to a community that a draft study indicates falls short of 100-year protection.
"It makes me very indignant," said Jean Salvino, who wishes someone had sounded a warning before she and her husband bought their retirement place in Natomas in late 2004.
"If we needed flood insurance, we probably wouldn't have moved here. Why would you buy into a problem?" she asked, especially on a fixed income.
The disconnect in Natomas, an oblong basin enclosed by two rivers and two canals, throws into sharp relief the ways that America's sometimes baffling approach to flood control affects communities and lives.
The nation relies on at least two ways to gauge safety. The scientific one evaluates storm size, river capacity and levee strength and uses computer models to predict whether a community has 100-year protection, or 200-year, or perhaps just 15-or 20-year.
The science is constantly evolving. A bigger storm, a levee failure elsewhere can alter the calculations and suddenly, with no difference in what's built around them, people are told they're less well-protected.
Then there's the regulatory approach to safety. The Federal Emergency Management Agency recognizes one stark line: If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or FEMA consultants certify a community has 100-year protection, there are no building restrictions, no insurance requirements and the optional insurance offered is cheaper. Dip below that and, unless special exemptions are carved out, flood insurance is mandatory for those with federally backed mortgages. Buildings must be raised above the anticipated height of floodwaters - which in deep basins like Natomas could mean 15 or 20 feet.
Gosh, what was the leadership who made that decision thinking? Their response should sound familiar, they never connected the dots, well, let’s surely connect them now, it is still not too late.
Here is an excerpt.
Tempting fate: Natomas flood risk wasn't pushed
Building soared behind levees whose reliability was uncertain.
By Carrie Peyton Dahlberg -- Bee Staff WriterPublished 2:15 am PST Sunday, February 26, 2006
For more than six years, as new suburbs exploded in Natomas, flood officials missed chance after chance to ask tougher questions about whether levees had ever been strong enough to allow such growth.
In retrospect Butch Hodgkins, who headed Sacramento's flood agency for more than a decade, saw enough signs of trouble by the late 1990s that he now believes he should have probed deeper back then.
City officials recall pressing federal engineers at least three years ago - and getting ambiguous answers - about whether levees could restrain the Sacramento River in a 100-year flood, the kind brought by storms with a 1 percent chance of striking any year.
Yet, as Natomas' population more than doubled, no one took the steps required for most areas without federally recognized 100-year flood protection: Stop the building. Make people already there buy flood insurance.
Until last week, no one even told Natomas residents their risk might be much greater than once believed.
And it is still unclear whether city, state or federal flood leaders will act to require insurance or prevent thousands more people from moving to a community that a draft study indicates falls short of 100-year protection.
"It makes me very indignant," said Jean Salvino, who wishes someone had sounded a warning before she and her husband bought their retirement place in Natomas in late 2004.
"If we needed flood insurance, we probably wouldn't have moved here. Why would you buy into a problem?" she asked, especially on a fixed income.
The disconnect in Natomas, an oblong basin enclosed by two rivers and two canals, throws into sharp relief the ways that America's sometimes baffling approach to flood control affects communities and lives.
The nation relies on at least two ways to gauge safety. The scientific one evaluates storm size, river capacity and levee strength and uses computer models to predict whether a community has 100-year protection, or 200-year, or perhaps just 15-or 20-year.
The science is constantly evolving. A bigger storm, a levee failure elsewhere can alter the calculations and suddenly, with no difference in what's built around them, people are told they're less well-protected.
Then there's the regulatory approach to safety. The Federal Emergency Management Agency recognizes one stark line: If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or FEMA consultants certify a community has 100-year protection, there are no building restrictions, no insurance requirements and the optional insurance offered is cheaper. Dip below that and, unless special exemptions are carved out, flood insurance is mandatory for those with federally backed mortgages. Buildings must be raised above the anticipated height of floodwaters - which in deep basins like Natomas could mean 15 or 20 feet.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Emergency Proclamation on Levees
We couldn’t ask for a better result of the levee tours than this story from the Bee last Saturday announcing an emergency proclamation from the Governor.
An excerpt.
Levee emergency declared
Governor moves to speed repairs at critical sites.
By Deb Kollars and Matt Weiser -- Bee Staff WritersPublished 2:15 am PST Saturday, February 25, 2006
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency Friday for the Central Valley's levee system and announced plans to spend up to $100 million over the next several months to repair 24 critical erosion sites.
Many of the sites are along the Sacramento River on levees that protect urban areas of the Sacramento region, including the Pocket neighborhood. Flood leaders fear the crumbling sites could give way in a big storm.
The Republican governor made the rapid decision to declare an emergency after taking a helicopter tour Wednesday over the American and Sacramento rivers with U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and other congressional leaders.
Given the number of homes, businesses and people at risk, Schwarzenegger said, he felt a responsibility to move fast.
"I don't want to be in the situation they were in New Orleans," he said, speaking to reporters at the Republican Party convention in San Jose on Friday evening.
"Two days ago, we took a tour by helicopter to see our whole levee system. It became really clear then that we are not really responding fast enough in order to rebuild our levees."
The money will come from California's reserve fund for economic uncertainties. The emergency declaration means the state will be able to set aside state environmental and contracting regulations to hasten repair of individual erosion sites.
State and local leaders hope to complete the work before the next flood season begins in late fall, said Lester Snow, director of the state Department of Water Resources.
The department and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers identified the weak spots during boat tours of the Sacramento River system last fall. Scientists and engineers identified about 100 serious erosion sites; 24 were deemed "critical," Snow said.
The critical label means the river has eaten away at the bank, edging near the top of the levee and making failure a possibility.
"These erosion sites could actually fail the next time there is a major flood event," Snow said Friday.
The governor also plans to ask President Bush to declare a federal state of emergency, which would allow federal environmental regulations also to be set aside during site repairs.
An excerpt.
Levee emergency declared
Governor moves to speed repairs at critical sites.
By Deb Kollars and Matt Weiser -- Bee Staff WritersPublished 2:15 am PST Saturday, February 25, 2006
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency Friday for the Central Valley's levee system and announced plans to spend up to $100 million over the next several months to repair 24 critical erosion sites.
Many of the sites are along the Sacramento River on levees that protect urban areas of the Sacramento region, including the Pocket neighborhood. Flood leaders fear the crumbling sites could give way in a big storm.
The Republican governor made the rapid decision to declare an emergency after taking a helicopter tour Wednesday over the American and Sacramento rivers with U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and other congressional leaders.
Given the number of homes, businesses and people at risk, Schwarzenegger said, he felt a responsibility to move fast.
"I don't want to be in the situation they were in New Orleans," he said, speaking to reporters at the Republican Party convention in San Jose on Friday evening.
"Two days ago, we took a tour by helicopter to see our whole levee system. It became really clear then that we are not really responding fast enough in order to rebuild our levees."
The money will come from California's reserve fund for economic uncertainties. The emergency declaration means the state will be able to set aside state environmental and contracting regulations to hasten repair of individual erosion sites.
State and local leaders hope to complete the work before the next flood season begins in late fall, said Lester Snow, director of the state Department of Water Resources.
The department and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers identified the weak spots during boat tours of the Sacramento River system last fall. Scientists and engineers identified about 100 serious erosion sites; 24 were deemed "critical," Snow said.
The critical label means the river has eaten away at the bank, edging near the top of the levee and making failure a possibility.
"These erosion sites could actually fail the next time there is a major flood event," Snow said Friday.
The governor also plans to ask President Bush to declare a federal state of emergency, which would allow federal environmental regulations also to be set aside during site repairs.
New Flood Protection Coalition?
This story in the Thursday, February 23, 2006 edition of the Bee, signifies a potentially wonderful first step in renewing the flood protection coalition, though with different politicians, that several years ago resulted in the approval of the Auburn Dam, promising 500 year flood protection for Sacramento.
The politics are still very dicey, but as one participant in the outing to inspect the levees mentioned, the folks along the Santa Ana River in Southern California did it and secured $1.4 billion for flood protection, and on a much less threatening situation in terms of the potential size of the disaster than exists here, so working together does, as it always has, still work.
Congressional team, after tour, vows to seek more funding.
By Deb Kollars -- Bee Staff WriterPublished 2:15 am PST Thursday, February 23, 2006
A helicopter tour Wednesday of the region's river levees so punctuated the flooding risks in the capital that state Sen. Dianne Feinstein and other congressional leaders vowed to seek emergency funding in Washington and to help Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger get a state bond issue passed.
The aerial excursion over the American, Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers was an eye-opener.
"You can have all of that area inundated by water?" Feinstein asked through her on-board headset as she passed over the southern end of Natomas, a growing region north of downtown vulnerable to deep flooding.
While in the air, the Democratic senator turned from asking technical questions about levees to asking her seatmate, Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, whether he thought they could secure $36 million in extra federal dollars to help with a package of urgent levee repairs in Sacramento.
By the time they hit the ground, the two were talking strategies for getting it done.
Area flood control agencies received close to $40 million in federal funds for the current year, said a spokeswoman for Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, who joined her congressional colleagues on the tour. But the agencies needed almost twice that much to complete the work they were ready to do this year.
If the supplemental funding can be secured through an emergency appropriation bill - Pombo and Feinstein stressed it would be difficult in the tight budget climate - it would include $17 million for Pocket-area levees. Right now, the neighborhood does not even have the 100-year protection considered minimal by federal standards.
"We think that's an emergency," Feinstein said during a news conference on a Pocket levee following the tour. "We will try very hard to get it."
Feinstein, Pombo and Matsui were among a contingent of elected officials who joined the Republican governor in what was billed as a bipartisan effort to find solutions for Sacramento's flood control problems.
Others on Wednesday's tour: Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Gold River, Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo and a representative for California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer. Leaders for the state Department of Water Resources, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency also took part.
The politics are still very dicey, but as one participant in the outing to inspect the levees mentioned, the folks along the Santa Ana River in Southern California did it and secured $1.4 billion for flood protection, and on a much less threatening situation in terms of the potential size of the disaster than exists here, so working together does, as it always has, still work.
Here is an excerpt.
Drive to fix levees boostedCongressional team, after tour, vows to seek more funding.
By Deb Kollars -- Bee Staff WriterPublished 2:15 am PST Thursday, February 23, 2006
A helicopter tour Wednesday of the region's river levees so punctuated the flooding risks in the capital that state Sen. Dianne Feinstein and other congressional leaders vowed to seek emergency funding in Washington and to help Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger get a state bond issue passed.
The aerial excursion over the American, Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers was an eye-opener.
"You can have all of that area inundated by water?" Feinstein asked through her on-board headset as she passed over the southern end of Natomas, a growing region north of downtown vulnerable to deep flooding.
While in the air, the Democratic senator turned from asking technical questions about levees to asking her seatmate, Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, whether he thought they could secure $36 million in extra federal dollars to help with a package of urgent levee repairs in Sacramento.
By the time they hit the ground, the two were talking strategies for getting it done.
Area flood control agencies received close to $40 million in federal funds for the current year, said a spokeswoman for Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, who joined her congressional colleagues on the tour. But the agencies needed almost twice that much to complete the work they were ready to do this year.
If the supplemental funding can be secured through an emergency appropriation bill - Pombo and Feinstein stressed it would be difficult in the tight budget climate - it would include $17 million for Pocket-area levees. Right now, the neighborhood does not even have the 100-year protection considered minimal by federal standards.
"We think that's an emergency," Feinstein said during a news conference on a Pocket levee following the tour. "We will try very hard to get it."
Feinstein, Pombo and Matsui were among a contingent of elected officials who joined the Republican governor in what was billed as a bipartisan effort to find solutions for Sacramento's flood control problems.
Others on Wednesday's tour: Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Gold River, Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo and a representative for California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer. Leaders for the state Department of Water Resources, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency also took part.
Levees in Disrepair
This article from the Bee of Wednesday February 22, 2006 says the levees are in bad shape, even worse than we already knew, and it is continuing validation that something desperately needs to be done to provide flood protection to Sacramento.
One problem with levees as the major flood protection tool, is that they are continually worn down by the normal high-water periods of heavy winter and spring storms, on the American River especially, and without seeking water storage capacity further upstream to hold the run-off they will need to be adequately maintained forever, which we see has not been happening.
Dams, due to their centrality of location and as there is only one of them to maintain, and the possibility of catastrophe being so much larger if neglected, tends to cause their upkeep to be kept up.
Sometimes the best public policy is one, which not only does the job, but leaves little choice for future compliance around maintenance issues.
Here is an excerpt.
Group gives levees poor grade
Valley system pulls a D overall from engineers' study
By Matt Weiser -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 am PST Wednesday, February 22, 2006
If the Central Valley flood protection system was hoping to finish high school, it would need some serious tutoring.
On Tuesday, an engineering trade group released a report card on the valley's levees to draw attention in simple terms to their dire condition. The results are not something you'd want to show Mom and Dad: The system as a whole, consisting of more than 2,500 miles of levees, got a D grade. Some areas did worse.
"A 'D' is like running around on bald tires," said Tom Smith, chairman of the committee that assigned the grades. "A 'D' is a warning sign. Maybe we've got a few more miles before a tire blows out."
The report card was produced by the Sacramento chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers and is the first in a series of report cards planned on the valley's infrastructure.
A committee of six engineers worked on the levee report. All are private engineering consultants who design and build levees for government agencies, including the state Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
They estimate repairing the Valley's levees will cost $12 billion, and they hope to encourage politicians to devote more public spending to infrastructure, which in turn will mean more work for engineers.
The group will present its findings to members of the state Legislature in a series of meetings today.
Smith, an engineer and manager of the Sacramento office of Ayres Associates, a consultant to the corps, said his members also feel a strong sense of personal responsibility about the poor grades.
"I don't want to see a failure on my watch," Smith said. "In the past, the engineers that have been real knowledgeable have been too quiet. If we continue to accept D's as a passing grade, we're going to be hurt."
Most of the Valley's levees were built more than 100 years ago, often by the most simple means: scraping muck and sand out of river bottoms and piling it along each side.
Some have been shored up over the last 50 years using modern techniques. But even these, in many cases, have not been adequately maintained.
More importantly, none of them was built to protect human lives. Instead, they were built mainly to protect crops. To protect people in a rapidly urbanizing valley, they must be bigger and stronger.
One problem with levees as the major flood protection tool, is that they are continually worn down by the normal high-water periods of heavy winter and spring storms, on the American River especially, and without seeking water storage capacity further upstream to hold the run-off they will need to be adequately maintained forever, which we see has not been happening.
Dams, due to their centrality of location and as there is only one of them to maintain, and the possibility of catastrophe being so much larger if neglected, tends to cause their upkeep to be kept up.
Sometimes the best public policy is one, which not only does the job, but leaves little choice for future compliance around maintenance issues.
Here is an excerpt.
Group gives levees poor grade
Valley system pulls a D overall from engineers' study
By Matt Weiser -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 am PST Wednesday, February 22, 2006
If the Central Valley flood protection system was hoping to finish high school, it would need some serious tutoring.
On Tuesday, an engineering trade group released a report card on the valley's levees to draw attention in simple terms to their dire condition. The results are not something you'd want to show Mom and Dad: The system as a whole, consisting of more than 2,500 miles of levees, got a D grade. Some areas did worse.
"A 'D' is like running around on bald tires," said Tom Smith, chairman of the committee that assigned the grades. "A 'D' is a warning sign. Maybe we've got a few more miles before a tire blows out."
The report card was produced by the Sacramento chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers and is the first in a series of report cards planned on the valley's infrastructure.
A committee of six engineers worked on the levee report. All are private engineering consultants who design and build levees for government agencies, including the state Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
They estimate repairing the Valley's levees will cost $12 billion, and they hope to encourage politicians to devote more public spending to infrastructure, which in turn will mean more work for engineers.
The group will present its findings to members of the state Legislature in a series of meetings today.
Smith, an engineer and manager of the Sacramento office of Ayres Associates, a consultant to the corps, said his members also feel a strong sense of personal responsibility about the poor grades.
"I don't want to see a failure on my watch," Smith said. "In the past, the engineers that have been real knowledgeable have been too quiet. If we continue to accept D's as a passing grade, we're going to be hurt."
Most of the Valley's levees were built more than 100 years ago, often by the most simple means: scraping muck and sand out of river bottoms and piling it along each side.
Some have been shored up over the last 50 years using modern techniques. But even these, in many cases, have not been adequately maintained.
More importantly, none of them was built to protect human lives. Instead, they were built mainly to protect crops. To protect people in a rapidly urbanizing valley, they must be bigger and stronger.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Mandatory Flood Insurance? Part Two
This article from the Bee Tuesday February 21, 2006 continues the flood insurance discussion.
I’m sure I’m missing something, but isn’t there some responsibility of 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 issue, crime.
Rather than penalizing the victim of flooding or crime, shouldn’t public leadership be using those solutions available to protect the public from being victimized in the first place?
Three strikes and more prisons 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 the urban planning and they have virtually reduced flooding to zilch, so the technology is available.
What are they doing that we can’t?
Here is an excerpt.
Areas at higher risk may face new rules
Homes repeatedly hit by floods may be penalized as national costs grow.
By Carrie Peyton Dahlberg -- Bee Staff WriterPublished 2:15 am PST Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Barry Cecil wanted a home that would be a project, and he knew he'd found it in the vacant, flood-damaged place on a pretty creekside lot in Citrus Heights.
He didn't know that federal flood insurance had paid out four different claims to previous owners, totaling more than the house was worth, according to city records.
"That's crazy," said his wife, Lynn Cecil, shaking her head. But it's not uncommon.
As undaunted as a kid with a sandcastle, Americans build and are flooded, build and are flooded, helped by special insurance policies designed and backed by the federal government.
From Sacramento to New Orleans, Guerneville to Miami, the National Flood Insurance Program has spent billions to rebuild the same houses the same way to face the same danger.
Now, with the program virtually bankrupted by 2005 hurricane losses, questions about its cost and effectiveness are growing increasingly pointed in Washington.
Some are even suggesting that if flood insurance cannot be fixed, it should simply be abolished.
The system is so plagued by bad maps, subsidies and shoddy enforcement that it runs the risk of being "a danger to the nation," J. Robert Hunter, one of its former administrators and now a consumer advocate, said in written testimony this month to the Senate Banking Committee.
The committee's chair, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., is considering a complete overhaul to restore the program's fiscal health, said spokesman Andrew Gray.
Nothing is off the table, said Gray, including policies that are basically "giving a subsidy to people to live in harm's way."
Some of the options being discussed in Washington could have a major impact in thousands of flood-prone communities, including Sacramento.
Among them are ending subsidized insurance rates, denying coverage altogether for some homes or areas, spending more to prevent repeat flooding, and requiring many more people to buy flood insurance.
Some who have counted on flood insurance say it wouldn't be fair to change the rules on them now.
I’m sure I’m missing something, but isn’t there some responsibility of 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 issue, crime.
Rather than penalizing the victim of flooding or crime, shouldn’t public leadership be using those solutions available to protect the public from being victimized in the first place?
Three strikes and more prisons 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 the urban planning and they have virtually reduced flooding to zilch, so the technology is available.
What are they doing that we can’t?
Here is an excerpt.
Areas at higher risk may face new rules
Homes repeatedly hit by floods may be penalized as national costs grow.
By Carrie Peyton Dahlberg -- Bee Staff WriterPublished 2:15 am PST Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Barry Cecil wanted a home that would be a project, and he knew he'd found it in the vacant, flood-damaged place on a pretty creekside lot in Citrus Heights.
He didn't know that federal flood insurance had paid out four different claims to previous owners, totaling more than the house was worth, according to city records.
"That's crazy," said his wife, Lynn Cecil, shaking her head. But it's not uncommon.
As undaunted as a kid with a sandcastle, Americans build and are flooded, build and are flooded, helped by special insurance policies designed and backed by the federal government.
From Sacramento to New Orleans, Guerneville to Miami, the National Flood Insurance Program has spent billions to rebuild the same houses the same way to face the same danger.
Now, with the program virtually bankrupted by 2005 hurricane losses, questions about its cost and effectiveness are growing increasingly pointed in Washington.
Some are even suggesting that if flood insurance cannot be fixed, it should simply be abolished.
The system is so plagued by bad maps, subsidies and shoddy enforcement that it runs the risk of being "a danger to the nation," J. Robert Hunter, one of its former administrators and now a consumer advocate, said in written testimony this month to the Senate Banking Committee.
The committee's chair, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., is considering a complete overhaul to restore the program's fiscal health, said spokesman Andrew Gray.
Nothing is off the table, said Gray, including policies that are basically "giving a subsidy to people to live in harm's way."
Some of the options being discussed in Washington could have a major impact in thousands of flood-prone communities, including Sacramento.
Among them are ending subsidized insurance rates, denying coverage altogether for some homes or areas, spending more to prevent repeat flooding, and requiring many more people to buy flood insurance.
Some who have counted on flood insurance say it wouldn't be fair to change the rules on them now.
Mandatory Flood Insurance?
This article from the Bee on Tuesday February 21, 2006, concerns mandatory flood insurance.
Hmmm, mandatory flood insurance for the entire Sacramento region when only about 130 properties are designated as problematic? And I saw no mention of flood insurance for the parkway, which floods virtually every year the rainfall is a little above normal, causing damage that taxpayers pay for.
It would require most Sacramentans to buy insurance coverage.
By Jim Sanders -- Bee Capitol Bureau Published 2:15 am PST Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Virtually every Sacramento home or business owner, and hundreds of thousands statewide, would be required to buy federal flood insurance under a new legislative proposal.
Assemblyman Dave Jones, who is pushing the measure, said the potential for disaster in a flood-prone area like the Central Valley was demonstrated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which devastated Louisiana and neighboring states.
"They lost their property, they lost their household possessions, they lost their homes," said Jones, D-Sacramento. "We believe it's absolutely critical that people get insurance."
Assembly Bill 1898 is a key element in a package of measures designed to improve flood protection in the Central Valley and other low-lying areas.
Jones said the bill could pay dividends in helping persuade other legislators to invest billions in flood-control improvements.
"Why is someone in Los Angeles going to vote to spend billions of dollars in the Sacramento area if they don't know at the same time that we're doing things here to mitigate risk?" he asked.
But critics say homeowners should decide for themselves what level of financial risk to take from natural disasters.
"As a matter of policy, we never like mandatory insurance," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
State Sen. Dave Cox agreed.
"I think the people I represent would look at this, by and large, as just another intrusion," said Cox, R-Fair Oaks.
Jones' bill would expand on a federal law requiring flood insurance for structures within a 100-year floodplain, defined as an area likely to be inundated by a severe storm with a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year.
AB 1898 would create a similar mandate for levee-protected property within an even wider area, the 200-year floodplain.
Much of the Central Valley would be affected by Jones' bill.
Hmmm, mandatory flood insurance for the entire Sacramento region when only about 130 properties are designated as problematic? And I saw no mention of flood insurance for the parkway, which floods virtually every year the rainfall is a little above normal, causing damage that taxpayers pay for.
Here is an excerpt.
Bill opens flood debateIt would require most Sacramentans to buy insurance coverage.
By Jim Sanders -- Bee Capitol Bureau Published 2:15 am PST Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Virtually every Sacramento home or business owner, and hundreds of thousands statewide, would be required to buy federal flood insurance under a new legislative proposal.
Assemblyman Dave Jones, who is pushing the measure, said the potential for disaster in a flood-prone area like the Central Valley was demonstrated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which devastated Louisiana and neighboring states.
"They lost their property, they lost their household possessions, they lost their homes," said Jones, D-Sacramento. "We believe it's absolutely critical that people get insurance."
Assembly Bill 1898 is a key element in a package of measures designed to improve flood protection in the Central Valley and other low-lying areas.
Jones said the bill could pay dividends in helping persuade other legislators to invest billions in flood-control improvements.
"Why is someone in Los Angeles going to vote to spend billions of dollars in the Sacramento area if they don't know at the same time that we're doing things here to mitigate risk?" he asked.
But critics say homeowners should decide for themselves what level of financial risk to take from natural disasters.
"As a matter of policy, we never like mandatory insurance," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
State Sen. Dave Cox agreed.
"I think the people I represent would look at this, by and large, as just another intrusion," said Cox, R-Fair Oaks.
Jones' bill would expand on a federal law requiring flood insurance for structures within a 100-year floodplain, defined as an area likely to be inundated by a severe storm with a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year.
AB 1898 would create a similar mandate for levee-protected property within an even wider area, the 200-year floodplain.
Much of the Central Valley would be affected by Jones' bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)