Flood Risks Take Center Stage: 

Setback Levees Rear Ugly Head Again

Finally, the abysmal state of the Sacramento River flood control system, designed to protect our communities from flooding and reclaim productive farmland, has received the attention it deserves. Stuart Leavenworth, writer for the Sacramento Bee, recently published an informative three part series entitled "Rising Risk" (See Sacramento Bee, March 28-30), putting our state’s cavalier attitude toward the threat of flooding under the microscope.

The series begins by reporting that our state lawmakers have cut the flood control budget of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) by 74% in the last 4 years, from $116 million to $30 million. DWR admits that it cannot presently meet many of its flood control obligations. Budget cuts and environmental regulations have compromised repairs of 1,600 miles of state-controlled levees, resulting in 183 erosion sites, 25 deemed critical or potentially critical by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Costs to repair a 100-foot stretch of levee have jumped from $20,000 to $250,000 in the past decade, primarily due to environmental regulation and mitigation. Despite multiple state and federal agency involvement, none take full responsibility for flood control, resulting in what the author calls a "total lack of programmatic clarity." A truly troubling scenario in light of a recent California Appellate Court decision that held the State responsible for the 1986 levee failures and resulting damage.

Part two describes the false sense of security provided by the levees, the flood-plain mapping process, the resulting insurance ramifications, the related flood protection misperceptions, and the resulting unwise development taking place.

Part three focuses on the destruction and devastation that would occur if a catastrophic flood event occurred in Sacramento. It analyzes the state of preparedness of the city and the state. Quoting the author, "The results aren’t encouraging". A study cited in the article predicts that a major Sacramento flood would affect well over 200,000 jobs, cause $7.7 billion in damage, and would temporarily paralyze city and state services.

FWA commends the Bee for finally giving this crucial issue the attention it deserves. However, recognizing the problem is only half the battle, now for the solutions.

On April 2nd, the Bee reported that the USACE was launching a (so-called) new approach for levee repairs in response to its series of articles. The proposal calls for the relocation of levees, widening of flood channels, and restoration of habitat at several undetermined locations along the Sacramento River, in exchange for permission from wildlife agencies to use rip-rap to fortify critical erosion sites. This is not a new concept. Just as FWA had predicted, the Comprehensive Study and the issue of setback levees rears its ugly head again.

Setback levees are NOT the answer. The setback levee proposals contemplate taking valuable and productive agricultural land out of production, causing loss of jobs and revenues, reduced tax base for counties, reduction of our ability to produce food and fiber, and an assortment of negative impacts on neighboring farmland. These proposals are not supported by local interests, and will in all likelihood devastate the economy of many rural communities. Further, the incredible expense of acquiring the necessary land, planting habitat, and rebuilding the levees, especially at a time when the state is in financial crisis, is not only imprudent, but also completely unrealistic.

It is much cheaper and wiser to maintain the existing system, prohibit further habitat planting within the levees and bypasses, reestablish dredging at choke points, emphasize human life as a priority, and put an end to the unproductive bureaucratic power plays between competing resource agencies.

In light of California’s need for increased water supply and flood control, wouldn’t new surface storage seem to make perfect sense to address both concerns. Maybe the obvious answer is just too simple. n