STORYLINE Politics

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Flood control for Natomas is one city focal point for 2012

by Melissa Corker, published on December 12, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Storyline: Politics RSS Feed

1 of 4
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 4
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image

Flood protection – particularly in the Natomas area – is a top priority for the city going into the new year as the City Council Law and Legislation Committee approved the city’s legislative priorities at last week’s meeting.

“I wonder what New Orleans’ priorities were a year before Hurricane Katrina hit?” asked City Councilwoman Angelique Ashby Tuesday. “Was it working on that levee? Probably not.”

Ashby’s District 1 includes the Natomas Basin – an area surrounded by 42 miles of levees and vulnerable to floodwaters.

There has not been a significant flood in the Natomas Basin since the levees were constructed in the late 1800s, Rick Johnson, executive director of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), said in an email Monday.

However, the Natomas levees nearly failed in the flood of 1986.

“Fortunately, emergency repairs averted a major catastrophe,” Johnson said.

That event led to a review by the Army Corps of Engineers that downgraded the level of flood protection for the area and made Sacramento second only to New Orleans in its vulnerability to a catastrophic flood.

Between 1990 and 1997, SAFCA, the Army Corps of Engineers and the State Reclamation Board made major improvements to the levees, Johnson said, but even stricter federal safety standards were adopted in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) remapped the Sacramento region in December 2008 – showing the Natomas basin to be within the 100-year floodplain – and a moratorium was placed on construction in the basin.

It also mandated area homeowners buy flood insurance, which can cost up to $1,300 a year, according to a press release from the office of Congresswoman Doris Matsui.

In order to get the moratorium removed so building and development of the area can resume, SAFCA began construction of the Natomas Levee Improvement Program.

“By the end of (2011), SAFCA will have completed approximately 50 percent of the (levee) project,” Johnson said. “This includes 18 miles of levee improvements along the Natomas Cross Canal and Sacramento River east levee.”

The total project cost is estimated at just under $1 billion, according to the 2011 District Annual Report from Ashby’s office.

In order to be eligible for federal dollars for the project, a portion of the cost had to be paid for with funds from state, county, city and local sources.

“The residents in Natomas have taxed themselves twice to bring in their local matching funds,” Ashby said.

Natomas property owners agreed to taxes in April 2007 and again in April 2011, Johnson said, bringing in $160 million.

All totaled – state, county, city and local funding sources – $510 million of the $1 billion estimated project cost has been collected so far.

“All we need now is the federal portion,” Ashby said.

In January, Matsui introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that would authorize additional construction work on the levees in Natomas.

The tricky part is, Ashby said, that the federal government will not authorize the funds because, as the legislation is written, it is considered an “earmark” – and earmarks have been prohibited in the House of Representatives.

Earmarks are funds that benefit a single congress member’s district.

“Post-Katrina, the federal government spent $15 billion to repair New Orleans levees,” Ashby said, “and tens of billions of dollars more to make repairs afterward to roads, schools and buildings – New Orleans to this day is not the same."

Natomas is asking for less than 3 percent of that cost to prevent a Katrina-type disaster in Sacramento, Ashby said.

Because of the mandatory flood insurance for Natomas homeowners, Ashby said that 100 percent of the people would have a claim to rebuild their home in the event of such a disaster.

“You’re talking about a lot of homes – expensive homes – a lot of people and a lot of businesses,” Ashby said. “We’d be looking at hundreds of thousands of (insurance) claims.”

In order to prevent all of that, Ashby said, all we need is to finish a levee.

Typically, the Army Corps of Engineers is the lead in constructing flood control projects, Johnson said. The Army Corps of Engineers currently estimates that – once the project is federally authorized – the work on the Natomas levees could be completed by 2019.

The timing of when the corps can fully complete the project will depend on when federal authorization is obtained, Johnson said.

Although the moratorium would be lifted with the authorization, mandatory flood insurance will remain in effect until the project is 100 percent complete.

Melissa Corker is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Twiter @MelissaCorker.

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

December 12, 2011 | 8:41 PM
Why the city was allowed to build on a floodplain I will never be able to understand. When the levees finally give way, Sacramento will make New Orleans look like a walk in the park.

The federal government should agree to pay for the completion of the levees only if the city agrees to keep the building moratorium in place.
0 0
REPLY
edited on  December 13, 2011 | 9:16 PM
As if the Grid *isn't* on a floodplain? Sacramento is where it is. And a moratorium for Natomas now would be too late, and it would be that much less incentive to protect what is in Natomas already.
0 1
REPLY
December 13, 2011 | 8:57 AM
This might be the single biggest issue we've covered because the potential for disaster is very real. We've seen what can happen in other cities and we've brushed up against that same thing 25 years ago. The fact that I remember 1986 so well and I was only 5 years old ...
1 0
REPLY
December 13, 2011 | 9:21 AM
Having grown up a block from the American River and also having been a tourist stuck in the dank Superdome during Katrina and the levee failures this issue is especially poignant to me. I urge anyone interested in this disaster waiting to happen, which should be all Sacramentans, to see the Harry Shearer documentary, "The Big Uneasy" and to check out levees.org. You will be quite enlightened.

Paul Harris
Author, "Diary From the Dome, Reflections on Fear and Privilege During Katrina"
2 0
REPLY
edited on  December 13, 2011 | 1:44 PM
Two words: Auburn. Dam.

Real flood protection.
Real water storage.
Real hydropower.

Not Mickey Mouse (Delta Rat?) levee improvements.

In a state where drought years and flood years alternate, those who get goo-goo about "wild and scenic rivers" need to be institutionalized.
0 1
REPLY
December 13, 2011 | 4:15 PM
Sacramento is easily the most flood prone major river city in the country, but, had the initial plans to build Shasta Dam to its originally engineered height (as reported by the Los Angeles Times (archived at: http://www.watershedportal.org/news/news_html?ID=165 )and build Auburn Dam as Curmudgeon wrote, that would no longer be the case, and the inevitability of major floods in the Valley would have been substantially reduced.

An excerpt from the Los Angeles Times article.

“Raising Shasta Dam has been under on-again, off-again consideration for at least two decades. Some of the most detailed studies date back to the 1980s, when Don Hodel, who served as energy secretary and then Interior secretary under President Reagan, proposed the project as an alternative source of water for San Francisco if Hetch Hetchy Dam in Yosemite National Park were knocked down.

“From an engineering standpoint, it’s a piece of cake. The dam, built between 1938 and 1945, was originally planned to be 200 feet taller. At 800 feet, it would have been the highest and biggest in the world.

“Sheri Harral, public affairs officer at the dam, said World War II and materials shortages associated with the war effort led to a decision to stop construction at 602 feet.

“The thinking was to come back and add on to it if ever there was a need to,” Harral said. “They started looking at raising it in 1978.”

“If Shasta Dam had been built up to its engineering limit in 1945, it is arguable that Northern and Central California would not be facing a critical water shortage now.

“According to a 1999 Bureau of Reclamation study, a dam 200 feet taller would be able to triple storage to 13.89 million acre-feet of water.

“Still, tripling the size of Shasta Lake, on paper at least, would store nine times the projected 2020 water deficit for the Sacramento, San Joaquin and Tulare Lake basins during normal water years.”

2 1
REPLY
December 14, 2011 | 9:41 AM
Levees fail. Dams fail. Rivers will always flood.
Continued building in the flood plain, particularly with sea level rise, is a very high risk for those who live and work there. The benefits of taking that risk, however, go primarily to the development industry. The costs of providing those benefits are borne primarily by the public and taxpayers.

Rivers will always flood at levels above the engineered levels of protection. When, not if, the levees fail, or are overtopped by larger storms, the people and businesses lured into the Natomas basin by assurances of 'full protection' will be devastated, with huge losses of life and property. The development of the former Sacramento River delta is based on a foundation of thousands of years of unconsolidated sediments, subject to sinking and liquifaction.

This remains a terrible place to encourage more development, yet that is the Corps' politically-directed mssion. Bad news for people, the economy, public policy, and river and water management.
1 1
REPLY
December 14, 2011 | 8:20 PM
Grasslands burn. Forests burn. Earthquakes happen. Hurricanes happen. Let's not live anywhere....Or let us realistically do what we can with what we have and where we are.
0 1
REPLY
December 15, 2011 | 12:26 AM
I didn't say that disasters won't happen. They do. But I sure wish Curmudgeon and others would take some responsibility for where they choose to live.

If Curmudgeon wants to live in the flood plain, that's his choice. Just don't ask the rest of us taxpayers to bail him out for the next 50+ years with our tax money to subsidize his building there, or to make repairs or buy him out after the deluge. Bad public, fiscal, and safety policy.
1 1
REPLY
edited on  December 19, 2011 | 5:36 PM
My flood insurance payments are up to date. And frankly, I am uphill in Antelope/Roseville, where that isn't such a problem.

But let's examine your policy a little further. Shall we just stop building in the old "Grid", which is no less floodplainy?

And does the advantage of living minutes from downtown and driving less exceed the flood risk, relative to higher road accidents from longer commutes, especially in killer fog like this morning? Somebody pull out the actuarial calculations....
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background