HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04232013 - SD.2RECOMMENDATION(S):
ACCEPT the following status report on flood protection infrastructure in light of the statewide infrastructure
assessment report California’s Flood Future: Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk, released April
3, 2013 by the State Department of Water Resources and REFER this to the Transportation Water and Infrastructure
Committee to develop a county level assessment of Flood Control District infrastructure and report back to this
Board.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact for accepting this report.
BACKGROUND:
I. Key Findings
The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s (District) ability to adequately maintain
our flood protection system and the District’s ability to keep pace with development to provide acceptable levels of
flood protection for the residents of this county has been sharply curtailed, and in some watersheds virtually
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 04/23/2013 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
Contact: Mitch Avalon, (925)
313-2203
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: April 23, 2013
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: , Deputy
cc:
SD. 2
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Date:April 23, 2013
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:ACCEPT Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure Operated by the Flood Control District
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
eliminated, by passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 and Proposition 218 in 1996. The District has not been able to
collect the necessary funds to complete the county’s planned flood protection system or adequately operate and
maintain our existing flood protection system. The following are some key findings with rough estimated costs:
• Maintenance Backlog
The District currently has an estimated $24 million backlog of flood protection maintenance. This backlog, along
with other factors, has reduced the level of flood protection in our channels.
• Capital Replacement
The District has no means to replace its aging infrastructure, some of which is over 50 years old. The asset value
of the District’s 79 miles of channels and 29 detention basins, based on 2010 dollars, is approximately $1 billion.
This includes estimated costs for environmental compliance that was not part of construction costs decades ago
but does not include improvements needed to address climate change or sea level rise. Replacement costs,
assuming a 75 year life cycle, are estimated at $2.4 billion (in future dollars), with replacement starting in 2029.
• Level of Protection
A detailed study in one of our watersheds indicated that the flood control channel level of protection provided for
the community was reduced from 100 percent in 1965 to 22 percent in 2008. Various factors contributed to this
decrease, such as continued upstream development, increased Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood protection standards, silt accumulation, and lack of funds to
respond to these issues. This same problem will be found true in other watersheds as well. It will cost an estimated
$2 million to determine the existing level of protection our facilities provide in all watersheds.
• Dam Safety
The District is responsible for five dams, all constructed prior to current earthquake standards. The seismic
stability of the dams needs to be determined at an estimated cost of $1,250,000.
• Planning Activities
The District is currently working with the Corps on four flood control improvement projects. However, due to
Federal budget cuts none of these projects are moving forward.
• District Levee System
With the exception of the Marsh Creek Flood Control Channel downstream of Cypress Road in Oakley, the
District is responsible for no wet levees. The District’s dry levees are in fairly good structural condition, although
FEMA decertified several miles of levees in 2009. Bringing these levees up to FEMA standards is in the District’s
Capital Improvement Plan, although there is not adequate funding to complete all the work.
• Regulatory Requirements
The Districts major flood protection facilities were constructed by the federal government, and retain federal
oversight. Federal flood protection requirements have increased since these facilities were constructed. The need
for habitat preservation has also increased, which causes more areas to be protected, and curtails the use of
less-expensive traditional flood protection structures. The District does not have the funds necessary to respond to
these increased requirements.
II. Introduction
After Hurricane Katrina and the damage it wreaked on our nation’s infrastructure, a lot of attention was focused
on levees and flood control facilities. In January 2005 the California State Department of Water Resources
(DWR) released a report entitled “Flood Warnings: Responding to California’s Flood Crisis”. The report
identified the following challenges, which are valid for our Flood Control District as well as for Flood Control
Districts throughout the State.
• Our flood protection system is comprised of aging infrastructure built in the 1960’s and 70’s, which has been
further weakened by deferred maintenance.
• State and local funding for effective flood protection and management programs has steadily been reduced since
the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.
• Several court decisions have resulted in greater flood damage liability to State and local government.
• Development in floodplains increases the potential for flood damage to homes, businesses and communities.
Building on their 2005 report, DWR has for the last several years been conducting an assessment of flood
protection infrastructure throughout the state. The attached California’s Flood Future: Recommendations for
Managing the State’s Flood Risk, released April 3, 2013 has identified the following:
• There is more than $50 billion in capital investment needs for currently identified flood protection projects in the
state.
• More than $100 billion is the estimated additional investment needed in flood protection projects not yet
formally developed.
• One in five Californian’s live in a floodplain, over one million in the Bay Area.
• $575 billion in structures are at risk of flooding, with $130 billion in the Bay Area.
• Potentially 40,000 residents of Contra Costa County would be exposed to flooding in a major flood event, with
the potential for $4.9 billion in structure and contents damage and $48 million in agricultural damages.
The report finds that flood protection infrastructure throughout the state does not meet current and future needs. In
conducting research for the report, DWR interviewed over 140 public agencies in all 58 counties, as well as state
and federal agencies, that provide flood protection services. These agencies identified over 900 flood management
projects in different stages of planning and implementation. Spending $50 billion on these projects would not
bring all regions of the state to a minimum 100 year level of protection, whereas 200 year level of protection is
now mandated by SB 5 in many parts of the state. Many Flood Control Districts, including Contra Costa County,
need to conduct a conditions assessment of their facilities to identify their true infrastructure needs. After these
additional assessments are completed, it is estimated the state will need an additional $100 billion investment in
flood protection projects and improvements ($150 billion total). In addition to recommending regional flood risk
assessments, the report also recommends establishing sufficient and stable funding mechanisms to reduce flood
risks.
Flood Control Districts are often a victim of their own success. When we complete a flood protection project, the
surrounding area no longer floods and the floodwaters are out of sight and out of mind. As a result, there is little
support for funding ongoing maintenance of flood protection facilities even though each home removed from a
FEMA floodplain saves the homeowner approximately $1000 each year in avoided flood insurance premiums.
FEMA indicates that flood insurance premiums are increasing substantially nationwide over the next several
years. In California, during a typical 30-year mortgage period for a home protected by a flood control facility,
there is about a one in four chance (26%) that the homeowner will experience a flood larger than the 100-year
flood. This risk is many times greater than the risk of a major home fire during that same 30-year period, and the
risk will increase with time due to climate change impacts.
About 80% of the County’s current flood protection infrastructure cost was funded by generous federal and state
programs. Those funding program formulas have become less generous over time. For example, the Corps of
Engineers cost share in the 1950s and 1960s was 95 to 100 percent, which was subsequently reduced to 75%. In
1996, Congress reduced the maximum federal cost share on Corps flood control projects from 75% to 65% of the
total project cost and then reduced it further to 50% in 2007 for new projects. State funding has also been reduced.
The State’s Subvention Program, which assisted local Flood Control Districts in funding the local match for
federally funded projects, experienced a severe drop in funding starting in 1992 and has been unfunded for the last
several years.
III. Flood Control District Infrastructure Assessment
The following describes the assessment needs for various types of Flood Control District infrastructure. The costs
cited are rough estimates.
A. Levees
There are generally two types of levees, wet levees and dry levees. Wet levees are typically those levees that hold
back major rivers with a water surface that is continuously higher than the adjacent protected land surface. Dry
levees are elevated creek banks that intermittently contain flood waters that exceed the capacity of the creek
channel. When most people think of levees they are thinking of wet levees, such as those in the Delta, holding
back the Sacramento River. The only wet levee the Flood Control District maintains is at the mouth of the Marsh
Creek Flood Control Channel where it holds back the waters of the Sacramento River at Big Break. This levee
protects farmland which has been purchased for a wetlands restoration project (Dutch Slough Project). The project
proponents are considering breaching this levee to allow waters to flow into the property for wetlands restoration.
Many of our flood control channels, such as Wildcat Creek, San Pablo Creek, Pinole Creek, Grayson Creek, Pine
Creek and Walnut Creek have dry levees. These levees are generally at the lower reach; usually support
maintenance access roads; and are in fairly good structural condition. Each year the Army Corps of Engineers
inspects the channels and dry levees. In July of 2009 FEMA decertified several miles of the Wildcat Creek and
San Pablo Creek levees, which could affect future flood insurance requirements for the surrounding communities.
Most wet levees in Contra Costa County are maintained by a variety of Reclamation Districts. Attached is a map
of the County showing the various Reclamation Districts and the tracts of land the Reclamation District levees are
protecting. Bethel Island has a separate Municipal Improvement District to maintain its levee system.
B. Dams
The Flood Control District is responsible for five dam structures that are large enough to be regulated by the
California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams. The Deer Creek, Marsh Creek, and two
Dry Creek dams are in East County and the Upper Pine Creek dam is in Central County. The Marsh Creek
reservoir is the only dam that has water impounded behind it year round although the water depth and volume
stored during dry weather is quite low. Only during heavy storms does the water depth and volume in the Marsh
Creek reservoir increase to significant levels, but this recedes after the storm passes. The other four dams only
have water in them during heavy storms.
Each year the Division of Safety of Dams does a field review of the dams for functional safety. However, the
dams have not been analyzed with respect to seismic stability. Earthquake damage will reduce the flood detention
capacity of the facilities resulting in increased flood risk. Failure of the Marsh Creek reservoir would result in
inundation of downstream properties. A structural analysis of the seismic stability of the District’s dams will cost
an estimated $1,250,000. Until the studies are done it is unknown if improvements will be required or how much
those would cost.
C. Flood Control Channels
The District’s major flood control channels, such as Rodeo Creek, Pinole Creek, Grayson Creek, Marsh Creek,
and Walnut Creek, are engineered channels that are earthen or concrete lined. The District is currently working
with the Army Corps of Engineers to modify four of our channels. These projects include the following:
• Restoration improvements to Pinole Creek in Pinole.
• Modifications to Wildcat Creek in North Richmond to improve habitat and fish passage.
• Construct improvements to Wildcat Creek and San Pablo Creek in North Richmond to provide flood capacity
and meet FEMA standards.
• Modification of the Lower Walnut Creek Channel in Pacheco to establish floodplains and habitat and increase
capacity.
In response to a local proposal to restore one of our channels, the District did a detailed analysis of the upstream
hydrology and channel hydraulics. We discovered that changes in land use, subsequent to the channel construction
in the 1960’s, resulted in flows that exceed the original design capacity by over 40%. This results in reduced flood
protection for the community and a false sense of security for residents thinking they have a higher level of
protection than they really do. The original design capacity provided 100 year flood protection for the entire
community, and all properties were removed from the FEMA floodplain maps. If FEMA revises their floodplain
maps with this new information, many properties will have to acquire flood insurance.
This situation exists in other communities as well. The District needs to conduct studies to determine which
communities are affected. The District is working with the Corps in two watersheds on studies that will provide
some of this information. A study to determine the level of protection provided by all District facilities is
estimated to be $2 million.
Sediment buildup is another ongoing issue that translates into a reduced capacity in the channels and resultant
reduction in the level of flood protection. The cost to study the lower reaches of our channels to accurately
determine the scope and cost of sediment removal is estimated at $250,000.
Our current channel structure assessment practice is to visually inspect the structures every year for signs of
distress, such as spalling concrete, rust spots, cracks, etc. This type of superficial inspection is adequate for fairly
new infrastructure and for observing potential failure points. Some of our infrastructure, however, is getting to the
age where an in-depth analysis should be performed that goes beyond the visual surface inspection. The cost to
assess the structural integrity of our oldest concrete channels is estimated to be $850,000. A detailed structural
analysis of the drop structures on Walnut Creek, San Ramon Creek and Marsh Creek channels should also be
done at an estimated cost of $1,000,000.
IV. Capital Replacement
Most channels are structurally in fairly good condition. However, some of the concrete lined channels and most of
the concrete grade control/drop structures are reaching the end of their design life. We anticipate that a structural
assessment will confirm that some of these facilities will need to be replaced in the next 20 years. The District
currently has no funding to replace its aging infrastructure. Yet, based on current cursory assessments, it is
estimated that several drop structures and certain portions of concrete channels will need to be replaced over the
next 20 years.
The current estimated asset value of the Flood Control District’s 79 miles of channels and 29 detention basins is
approximately $1 billion. This estimate is based on researching the original construction cost for each of the flood
control district facilities and converting that cost to a present value in 2010 dollars. How much is our capital
replacement liability? When will it be needed? It would cost approximately $2.4 billion to replace our existing
infrastructure if it is replaced in kind. This estimate is based on future dollar value when the infrastructure is
replaced using a 75 year service life. We may need to begin replacement work as soon as 2029 when the first
flood protection facility reaches the age of 75 years. Assessment studies need to be completed on the District’s
infrastructure to provide this information and guide future decisions.
There are other factors that go into estimating the replacement costs of our infrastructure than just converting the
original construction cost to present value. There were no environmental regulations when most of our
infrastructure was built. For today’s projects the environmental permitting and mitigation costs can be a
significant portion of the project cost. There are also different community design and expectations today that favor
a more natural project with habitat value that costs more than a traditional concrete channel. Replacement costs
will also be more than the original cost due to restricted access. Development has occurred around many of our
channels and structures making replacement more difficult. While we are discussing replacement of our
infrastructure, we also need to determine the improvements needed to address climate change and sea level rise –
improvements that will likely add to the overall replacement cost.
V. Maintenance
There currently is insufficient funding to adequately maintain our flood protection system. The bulk of the
District’s $24 million backlog is due to anticipated sediment removal costs in the lower reaches of our flood
control channels. Generally, sediment removal is a periodic maintenance requirement performed at intervals of 5
or more years, however, some facilities like Wildcat Creek requires sediment removal on average every two years.
To complicate matters, sediment removal is often not the solution because lower reaches of channels are often
quickly filled with sediment due to tidal influence, and anticipated sea level rise will move the sediment problem
further upstream. In addition, regulatory agencies are developing policies to require mitigation for short term
impacts of maintenance activities. Thus, significant additional funding must be committed in perpetuity for
sediment removal or alternative solutions.
VI. Forecasting
The success of flood control facility planning depends on the accurate prediction of storm water volumes
developed in a watershed. The District has a good system of rain gauges that provides excellent information on
the amount of rain falling in the watershed. To assure the adequacy of regional facilities, however, stream gauges
are required to measure the actual runoff volumes and the change in volume as the amount of impervious surfaces
from development increases in a watershed. The District currently receives information from four stream gauges
operated by others. Comprehensive coverage of the county would require the installation of four additional
gauges. To assure the availability of adequate long range planning and forecasting information, the additional
stream gauges should be installed and arrangements made for long term operation of the existing gauges operated
by others. The cost to install eight stream gauges at various locations throughout the county is estimated to be
$160,000. The annual cost of maintaining these gauges, developing flow rating curves and collecting stage data is
estimated at $80,000 per year.
VII. Regulatory Requirements
Additional requirements by agencies that regulate our flood protection facilities increase the costs to maintain,
construct, and replace them. The District does not have funding programmed for these additional requirements.
• Corps and FEMA requirements for structural integrity, safety factors, access, and inspections have increased.
• Local communities require recreation amenities and environmental features in new flood protection facilities.
• New stormwater permit (NPDES) requirements restrict herbicide use, require extensive trash cleanup, and have
added monitoring for pollutants.
• Federal and state environmental protection laws essentially no longer allow the use of concrete in channels.
• Local communities and advocacy groups are requiring fish passage be provided at drop structures and dams or
that they be eliminated altogether.
• Project mitigation often cannot be accommodated on site, requiring the need to purchase land offsite and
maintain the mitigation in perpetuity.
• The above additional requirements increase the need for project rights of way, which is normally not available in
urban areas, and points to the difficult and controversial purchase of properties next to flood protection channels.
The total estimated cost for all of the above described assessment studies and installation of stream gauges is
$5,510,000.
VII. Next Steps
Staff recommends this report be referred to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee to review
development of a plan for needed assessment studies and flood risk analysis, more accurate estimates, and a
strategy to move forward in addressing the long range flood protection needs in the County. The Flood Control
District does not have the resources to conduct all these assessment studies in one year, so the Flood Risk and
Conditions Assessment Plan will likely describe a multi-year effort. The estimated costs provided in this report
are rough estimates, but are provided to convey the scale of the aging infrastructure, additional flood protection
needs, and funding issues facing the Flood Control District.
VIII. Conclusion
There is insufficient funding to adequately operate and maintain our current flood protection infrastructure. Lack
of maintenance funding has created a backlog in several watersheds. Due to reduced funding for planning studies,
the District has not been able to keep up with the level of development in the county and the level of protection
provided by our flood control infrastructure has been reduced by an unknown amount. The major Flood Control
District facilities are inspected on an annual basis by various Federal Agencies for serviceability. The District is
partnering with the Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies to leverage and maximize the District’s limited
funding for flood protection projects. The District is also partnering with other agencies to garner grant funding
for various projects throughout the County. However, although the District is leveraging existing funds as much
as possible and applying for grants, there is insufficient funding to adequately operate and maintain the current
flood protection infrastructure. An estimated $5.5 million will be required to assess the flood carrying capacity of
the District’s facilities, to determine the structural maintenance needs of its most vulnerable structures, and to
provide long range planning information.
The risk of not adequately assessing flood protection infrastructure for the purpose of planning for all future
maintenance and capital needs is great. Several years ago the State of California paid $484 million in damages
from the failure of one flood control facility, in this case a levee on the Yuba River. This levee failure was due to
lack of adequate maintenance and understanding of the structural integrity of the facility. DWR’s top
recommendation in their recent report is to conduct flood risk assessments to better understand flood risk in the
state. Staff’s recommendation is similar, by working with the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
to development an assessment plan for the condition of our infrastructure and a flood risk assessment of our
communities.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
This report would not be accepted and further assessment of the Flood Control District’s infrastructure would not
occur, leading to increased likelihood of catastrophic failure and liability risk.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
Not applicable.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Speaker: Rollie Katz, Public Employees' Union, Local 1.
ATTACHMENTS
Flood Future Report
FCD Accomplishments
The complete report, California’s Flood Future: Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk,
including technical attachments and other supporting information is available for review at:
http://www.water.ca.gov/SFMP
California’s Flood Future
Highlights
Recommendations for Managing
the State’s Flood Risk
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT March 2013
California’s Flood Future is provided to help inform local, State, and Federal decisions about
policies and financial investments to improve public safety, foster environmental stewardship,
and support economic stability
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk1 30
The California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed
California’s Flood Future to provide the first look at statewide exposure to flood risk, and
to identify and address the barriers to improved flood management. Information for this
comprehensive report was received from 142 local agencies throughout California, as well
as State and Federal agencies.
The findings here are relevant to all Californians. All 58 counties have declared a flood
disaster in the past 20 years, and one in five Californians live in a floodplain. With millions
of people and $580 billion in assets exposed to flood risk, California faces an unacceptable
threat to public safety, to the State and national economies, and to vital environmental
resources.
The State of California and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have worked for decades
to reduce the risk and consequences of flooding in California. Likewise, many local
agencies have taken significant steps to reduce the flood risk in their communities. Flood
management officials agree that these improvements prevented recent flood events
from becoming major flood disasters, but much more still needs to be done. Even with
this history of ongoing investment and action by local, State, and Federal agencies, flood
risk continues to increase due to population growth, increased environmental awareness,
climate change, and land-use practices.
The California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed
California’s Flood Future based on these guiding principles:
y Floods cannot be entirely prevented. Flood management seeks to reduce the risk and
consequences of flooding to improve public safety, enhance environmental stewardship,
and support economic stability.
y Multiple-benefit flood management solutions designed from a systemwide perspective
provide the most responsible use of public resources.
y Flood management is a shared responsibility. Effective flood management is enhanced
by collaboration and partnerships among public agencies at all levels (local, State, Federal)
and across geographic boundaries.
y Public agencies must achieve sustainable solutions while making risk-informed decisions
for flood management that will be durable across a spectrum of variables, including
climate change.
A catastrophic flood event in California is only a matter of time. Preventing the
consequences of disasters is a more cost-effective and responsible strategy than recovering
from disasters. California’s Flood Future presents a thoughtful look at the issues involved,
and recommendations for the path forward.ResultsPublic Safety
Environmental Stewardship
Economic Stability
THE PATH FORWARD
Results
The recommendations outlined in California’s Flood Future are designed to deliver
measureable results to achieve public safety, environmental stewardship, and economic
stability. These include:
y Reduced risk and consequences of flooding.
y Informed decisions for flood risk made by policy leaders and the public.
y Protected ecosystems and preserved floodplain functions.
y Multiple benefits delivered for projects funded by State and Federal agencies.
y Improved flood management governance and policies.
y Identification of statewide investment priorities.
y Sufficient and stable funding for flood management.
California’s future depends on elected officials,
stakeholders, and agencies at every level of
government working together to improve public
safety, enhance environmental stewardship, and
achieve economic stability.
ResultsActions
2DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
THE PATH FORWARD
29
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................3
Understanding the Situation.......7
The Problem ...............................13
The Solution ...............................20
Recommendations .....................21
The Path Forward ......................29
The complete California’s Flood Future report,
including technical attachments and other research
findings, is available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/SFMP
Population projections are based on the 2000 census
and all monetary values are in Year 2010 dollars.
Photos in this document are courtesy of the Alluvial
Fan Taskforce, California Department of Conservation,
CalEMA, Central Valley Flood Protection Board, City
of San Luis Obispo, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works, and Orange County Public Works
A foundation of alignment among public agencies
charts the path to success.
Flood management is at a crossroads. Either we continue down the path of fragmented
planning, unreliable funding, and narrowly focused projects, or we use an integrated water
management (IWM) approach to flood management that provides more benefits, sufficient
and stable funding, broad support, and improved public safety.
Inaction could result in flood consequences of catastrophic proportions, risking lives and
jeopardizing property and environmental resources.
As described in the recommendations, the path forward to effective results is charted using
tools, plans, and actions.
Tools
Improved information and understanding leads to enhanced public safety and other
IWM benefits. The tools described in the recommendations, such as flood risk assessments,
should be implemented in the short term while longer-term actions are pursued.
Plans
Flood management solutions must be developed using an IWM approach. Regional
planning must be part of statewide planning for policy and investment priorities. Regional
flood management planning areas and forums must be established to:
y Overcome perceived or real institutional barriers
y Reduce the regulatory and administrative burden to operate, maintain, and improve flood
infrastructure
y Develop multiple-benefit solutions
Actions
Agencies throughout the state should strive for alignment on governance and policies
for flood management. Agency alignment will make the best use of limited time, money,
and staff resources.
Financial investment priorities and sustained funding must be established. Public
agencies at every level must work together to develop and pursue both short-term and
long-term sustainable financing to support flood management that uses an IWM approach.
2ResultsPlansTools
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
6
427
The impacts of a major flood would be devastating
to California and to the nation.
In addition to tragic loss of life, flooding in California can have a serious impact on the State’s
economy and environmental resources.
As one of the world’s largest economies, a major flood in California will have
an unprecedented impact on the national economy as well.
When California floods:
y Critical infrastructure is damaged and could be out of service for long periods.
»At risk are interstate highways, airports, ports, and transit facilities; gas and electric
utilities; and military installations.
y Vital services become isolated or are closed.
»Communities suffer and public funds are depleted when necessary facilities, such
as hospitals, police and fire stations, schools and public infrastructure, are flooded.
y Jobs are lost or put at risk when businesses are distributed or closed.
y Vast areas of agricultural lands become unproductive, possibly for long periods.
»Flooded farmland could have major impacts on local business, national food
supplies, and the state’s economy.
y Water supplies and water quality are affected.
»Flood events damage critical regional water supply and wastewater
treatment facilities.
»A catastrophic levee failure in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta would endanger
a major source of water supply for 60 percent of California residents and for
a portion of the State’s vital agricultural industry.
Increase collaboration among public agencies
to improve flood management planning,
policies, and investments.
California has more than 1,300 agencies with direct responsibility for flood management. This
complex governance situation makes agency coordination fragmented and difficult. California’s
flood and water management agencies oversee operation, maintenance, and improvement
of vital infrastructure facilities within agency boundaries. This traditional “silo” approach is
inefficient and expensive. Improved agency collaboration and alignment will provide a variety
of benefits, including: fostering innovative solutions to problems; improving planning and
permitting processes; developing high-value multiple benefit projects; and prioritizing investment
needs.
Goal: Improved coordination and alignment between local, State, and Federal public
agencies, providing increased effectiveness and efficiency in all aspects of flood
management.
Strategies:
y Establish regional working groups to foster efficient permitting, planning,
and implementation of flood management projects.
Local, State, and Federal agencies must work together to develop solutions and
work through regional issues. Agencies can work together to incentivize participation
of resource agencies in regional working groups that focus on planning and implementing
flood management projects. These working groups would provide a forum to prioritize
projects, facilitate discussions about permitting, and address regional issues.
y Provide funding and in-kind credit programs for regional planning.
State and Federal agencies can set financing program guidelines to encourage local
agencies to collaborate on multiple-benefit projects. Funding programs could be
realigned to direct more funding toward multiple-benefit or watershed-based projects.
y Develop a methodology to prioritize and implement flood management
investments.
Current funding criteria and processes are complex and hamper the development and
implementation of priority projects. A new methodology should be developed and used
by local, State, and Federal agencies to establish investment priorities across the state.
Alignment among current and future local, State, and Federal resources is needed
to implement priority flood projects and programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
ActionsINTRODUCTION
All Californians,
regardless of
whether they live
in a floodplain,
would be
impacted by
catastrophic
flooding.
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
7
283
INTRODUCTION
California is at risk for
catastrophic flooding.
More than 7 million people and $580 billion in assets (crops, buildings,
and public infrastructure) are exposed to the hazards of flooding in
California.
Even with a history of continuing investment and action by local, State, and Federal flood
management agencies, residual flood risks exist in every California county. Residual risk is the
likelihood of damage or other adverse consequences remaining after flood management
actions are taken. No one is 100 percent protected from flooding. Here are the facts:
y One in five Californians lives in an area exposed to flood risk.
y Flooding in California has resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives and billions of dollars
in damages.
y Flooding occurs in almost all parts of California.
y California’s diverse geography contributes to the state’s significant flood risk. In many
California regions, peak flows – the largest volume of water flowing per second through
a water system – occur in a very short timeframe, which spells disaster.
y The number of flood insurance policyholders in California has almost tripled since 1982,
in part because of the increase in the number of structures located in floodplains and
other factors. (Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance
Program, BureauNET, 2012).
Establish sufficient and stable funding
mechanisms to reduce flood risk.
The backlog of identified flood management projects is primarily due to lack of funding, which
puts the State’s economy, environmental resources, and millions of people at risk. Prioritizing and
communicating flood management investment needs will help generate support for increased
funding. Sustained investment in California’s flood management systems can help avoid much
larger future costs for flood recovery.
Goal: Funding to implement planned and future flood management programs and
projects in California.
Strategies:
y Assess the applicability of all potential sources and propose new options
to provide sufficient and stable funding for flood management.
Local and State flood management partners can work together to propose changes
or alterations to local funding methods. For example, changes to current law
(e.g., Proposition 218 - 1996 Right to Vote on Taxes Act) could include reclassification of
flood management agencies as exempted public safety utilities. Regional assessment
districts can be established where needed to support flood management.
y Improve and facilitate access to information about State and Federal funding
sources.
Develop a central online resource catalog that describes the different funding programs
and provides guidance to local agencies on how to apply for funding.
y Increase funding for flood management projects.
Local and State agencies must work together to advocate for sufficient and stable funding
for regionally based integrated water management projects.ActionsAll 58 California
counties have
experienced at
least one major
flood event in
the last 20 years,
resulting in loss
of life, and billions
of dollars in
damages.
RECOMMENDATIONS
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
More than
$100B
Estimated
additional capital
investment
needed for ood
management
projects.More than
$50B
Estimated capital
investment
needed for
currently
identied
projects from
local, State, and
Federal agencies.$11B
Capital investment
in California ood
management projects
in the last decade,
including funding
from bond measures.
Implement flood management from regional,
systemwide, and statewide perspectives to
provide multiple benefits.
Historically, flood management projects have primarily been developed on a site-by-site
basis. This approach does not consider California’s complex regulatory, permitting, and water
management environment. It is important for flood management agencies and water agencies
to work together to develop regional solutions that produce integrated benefits.
Goal: Agencies at all levels of government use an integrated water management (IWM)
approach for flood management.
Strategies:
y Identify regional flood planning areas.
Establish specific regions for flood management planning throughout the state.
Boundaries could be watershed based, systemwide, and consistent with existing State and
Federal agency boundaries, including existing Integrated Regional Water Management
(IRWM) Plan funding areas. IRWM is the application of IWM principles on a regional basis in
California.
y Prioritize flood management projects in each region.
Regional priorities for flood management actions can foster IWM actions and make the
best use of funding.
y Expand State and Federal processes for developing, funding, and implementing
flood management projects with an integrated approach in each region.
Encourage and incorporate project components that achieve a broad range of objectives,
including risk reduction. Develop common terminology for State and Federal programs to
help grantors and grantees understand IWM projects.
y Improve coordination between programs and entities for water management and
flood management planning.
State and Federal funding requirements must include coordination between flood
management and water management programs.
y Link funding to an IWM approach.
Incentivizing an IWM approach with State and/or Federal funds will encourage local
agencies to consider systemwide, multiple-benefit projects when developing options
for flood management.
265
INTRODUCTION
Sufficient and stable capital
investment in flood management
must become a public policy priority.PlansWhat would it
cost to recover
from a major
flood event
in one of
California’s
urban regions?
With many more
people and
structures per
square mile in
California’s urban
areas, California
would likely see
much higher
recovery costs
from a major
flood than
the $110 billion*
that has been
spent on recovery
from Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita.
*Congressional
Budget Office, 2007
RECOMMENDATIONS
We must take action. Now.
We must invest now to help prevent flood disasters and to reduce
the impacts of flooding, or we will spend billions more – and face the
consequences of loss of life, livelihoods, and ecosystems – to recover from inevitable flooding.
Major flood events in the country’s recent history provide important lessons for elected
and appointed public officials.
The financial investment in flood management is a small percentage of the economic
impact of a major flood, and an equally small percentage of the money spent recovering
from a major flood.
Research for California’s Flood Future identified the immediate
need for more than $50 billion to complete flood management
improvements and projects. These flood management projects
include maintenance projects and other identified actions.
The research also indicated the need for substantial additional
funding to complete flood risk assessments throughout the state,
and to conduct flood management improvements based on the
assessments.
5
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
RECOMMENDATIONS
25
Short-term and long-term solutions are necessary.
Although it will take many years to reduce flood risk to acceptable levels, elected and
appointed officials at all levels must take steps now to reduce risks, and to lay the
groundwork for long-term solutions.
Some short-term actions do not require substantial additional financial resources:
y Land use planning and decisionmaking must consider flood management. This includes
limiting development in floodplains.
y Federal and State agencies must improve planning and permitting processes to allow
critical flood management planning, implementation, operations, and maintenance
actions to proceed.
y Flood management projects must be broadened to deliver multiple benefits such as
environmental and water supply benefits.
y Ongoing public agency outreach programs must inform policymakers at all levels
of government about the risks and consequences of flooding.
Long-term solutions require immediate attention:
y Sufficient and stable funding mechanisms must be developed to invest in public safety.
y Public funding for flood management requires alignment among public agencies
to deliver the most efficient and economical multiple-benefit projects.
Flood management using an Integrated Water
Management approach
Integrated Water Management (IWM) is a strategic approach that combines specific flood
management, water supply, and ecosystem actions to deliver multiple benefits.
An IWM approach promotes system flexibility and resiliency to accommodate changing
conditions such as regional preferences, ecosystem needs, climate change, flood or drought
events, and financing capabilities.
Using an IWM approach is not a one-time activity. Long-term commitments and alignment
among the responsible public agencies is necessary to create sustainable, affordable water
resources systems.
Achieving agency alignment and regional collaboration can be a challenge, as an IWM
approach requires striking a balance between sometimes competing objectives. However,
using an IWM approach can provide broader stakeholder support, faster project completion,
and access to additional funding sources.
Seven recommendations were developed to achieve this vision for flood management.
The recommendations can be found on page 21.
6
The current
economic and
ecosystem
conditions make
it more important
than ever for all
public agencies
to use an IWM
approach to
short-term
and long-term
planning.
Encourage land use planning practices that
reduce the consequences of flooding.
Development in California has increased in areas that are at risk for flooding. Some local land use
agencies experience pressure to foster economic growth by approving development in areas with
high exposure to floods.
Goal: Reduced risk to people, property, and economies in floodplains.
Strategies:
y Work with organizations that represent flood management and land use
professionals to develop planning principles that will help decision makers
determine if property is at risk for flooding.
Promote these principles as “best management practices” to increase wise land use
planning.
y Facilitate regular coordination at all levels among land use planners, resource
managers, floodplain managers, and emergency response managers.
Coordination among planners, flood managers, resource managers, and emergency
response managers can help to reduce impacts of flooding and improve public safety.
y Link funding for flood management improvements to implementation of best
management practices for floodplain management.
Fiscal incentives can help improve land use planning to reduce risks to people and
property, as well as to maintain and restore natural functions of floodplains. PlansINTRODUCTION
4
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
RECOMMENDATIONS
823
Local agencies speak out
The California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
developed California’s Flood Future: Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk.
California’s Flood Future contains the first comprehensive look at flooding throughout the
state and presents recommendations to improve flood management in California.
Research used to develop this document included soliciting information from local, State,
and Federal agencies throughout California. More than 140 public agencies responsible
for flood management provided information used to describe problems facing flood
management and develop recommended solutions.
The research findings are alarming.
y Different methodologies and inadequate data make risk assessment complex and
costly to complete.
y Public understanding of flood risk is inadequate. If residents are even aware that they
live or work in a flood-prone area, they usually do not understand that flood management
facilities do not provide 100 percent protection for public safety.
y Emergency preparedness and response does not always receive necessary funding
in all regions in the state. Residents depend on first responders to have the personnel,
expertise, and equipment necessary to do their jobs, especially during community-wide
disasters.
y Land use decisions may not adequately prioritize public safety. Uninformed residents
and policymakers can make decisions that put people and property at increased risk.
y Flood management projects are not prioritized from a systemwide or multiple-
benefit perspective. State and Federal flood management funding has traditionally been
provided to narrow-benefit, local projects.
y Flood management responsibility is fragmented. Responsibilities for planning,
administering, financing, and maintaining flood management facilities and emergency
response programs are usually spread among several agencies.
y Delayed permit approvals and complex permit requirements are obstacles to flood
risk reduction. Many agencies wait years for permits, resulting in poorly maintained
projects and missed funding opportunities for new projects.
y Lack of reliable, sustained funding puts California at significant risk. Inadequate
funding for flood management maintenance, operations, and improvements makes flood
risk reduction difficult or impossible for many local agencies.
Increase public and policymaker awareness
about flood risks to facilitate informed
decisions.
Policymakers and the public have varying levels of understanding about the risks and
consequences of flooding. Historically, they have made decisions that lead to putting people
and property at increased risk.
Goals: Local, State, and Federal officials support policies, programs, and financing
strategies to reduce flood risk in California. California voters support funding mechanisms
to reduce flood risk. California residents in flood-prone regions support local flood
preparedness efforts and develop personal preparedness plans.
Strategies:
y Develop consistent messaging of local, State, and Federal initiatives for public
awareness of flood risks.
Public agencies using common language and outreach tools will help avoid public
confusion and will maximize limited financial resources.
y Provide State and Federal outreach program tools, templates, and other resource
materials to local agencies.
Sharing resources saves time and money, and will facilitate public awareness efforts
in many regions. Sharing resources will foster consistency among outreach programs.
y Catalog, provide, and promote online information resources about flood risk
programs, grants, and other related topics.
A lot of information is available online about flood management, including data, case
studies, budget information, and planning tools. Making agencies aware and providing
easy access to this information will improve flood management at all levels of government.
y Share research data and other information between public agencies in a timely
fashion.
Sharing information fosters collaboration and cooperation between agencies, which helps
save time and money as regional plans and projects are developed.ToolsUNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION
2
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
NORTH LAHONTAN • Alpine County • Lassen County • City of Susanville • Susanville Rancheria • NORTH COAST • Blue Lake Rancheria • Caltrans Region • City of Arcata • City of Eureka • Crescent City • Crescent City Harbor • Del Norte Flood Control District • Hoopa Valley Tribe Office of Emergency Services (OES) • Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District • Humboldt County Public Works Department • Mendocino County Water Agency • Siskiyou County • Smith River Rancheria • Sonoma County Water Agency (Beta Test) • Town of McCloud • Trinidad Rancheria • Trinity County Planning Department • Trinity River Restoration Program • Yurok Tribe •
SACRAMENTO RIVER • American River Flood Control District • Butte County Public Works • Central Modoc Resource Conservation District • City of Alturas • City of Chico • City of Corning • City of Orland • City of Red Bluff • City of Sacramento • City of West Sacramento • City of Willows • City of Woodland • Colusa Basin Drainage District • Colusa County Public Works • El Dorado County • Feather River Coordinated Resource Management • Gerber/Las Flores CSD • Glenn Colusa Irrigation District • Glenn County Public Works • Knights Landing • Ridge Drainage District • Lake County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • M & T Ranch • Modoc County • Nevada County • Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Plumas County Public Works • Reclamation District 10 • Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency • Sacramento County Department of Water Resources • Sacramento River West Side Levee District • Shasta County Water Agency • Sierra County • Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency • Sutter County • Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority • West Sacramento Flood Control Agency • Yolo County • Yolo County Service Area No. 6 • Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Yuba County Public Works • Yuba County Water Agency • SAN FRANCISCO
BAY • Alameda County – Zone 7 • Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District • City and County of San Francisco • City of Corte Madera • City of Mill Valley • City of Novato • City of San Rafael • City of Sausalito • City of Tiburon • Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Reclamation District 2068 • San Francisco Department of Public Works • San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority • San Mateo County • Santa Clara Valley Water District • Solano County Water Agency • CENTRAL COAST • Monterey County Water Resources Agency • San Benito Water District • San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Santa Barbara Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Santa Cruz County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • SAN JOAQUIN RIVER • Amador County • Calaveras County • Calaveras County Water District • Lower San Joaquin Levee District • Madera County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Mariposa County • Merced County Public Works • Merced Irrigation District • San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency • San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Stanislaus County Public Works • Stockton-East Water District • Tuolumne County • Turlock Irrigation District • SOUTH LAHONTAN • Inyo County • Mono County • Town of Mammoth Lakes •
TULARE LAKE • City of Bakersfield • County of Kern • Fresno County Public Works • Fresno Irrigation District • Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District • Indian Wells Valley Watershed Coordinator/Eastern Kern County Resource Conservation District • Kern County Water Agency • Kern Delta Water District • Kings County • Kings River Conservation District • North Kern Water Storage District • Semitropic Water Storage District • Tulare County Flood Control District • SOUTH COAST • City of Chula Vista • City of Coronado • City of El Cajon • City of Imperial Beach • City of Lancaster • City of Los Angeles • City of Oceanside • City of Palmdale • City of San Diego • City of San Diego Storm Water Division • City of Vista • Los Angeles County Department of Public Works • Orange County Public Works • San Bernardino County Department of Public Works • San Diego County Flood Control District • Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency • Ventura County Public Works • Ventura County Watershed Protection District • COLORADO
RIVER • Coachella Valley Water District • Imperial County • Imperial Irrigation District • Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
247
Information for the California’s Flood Future was
provided by 142 local agencies located in all 58 counties,
as well as by State and Federal agencies.
Increase support for flood emergency
preparedness, response, and recovery
programs to reduce flood impacts.
Flood emergency management is a cost-effective, non-structural tool to reduce flood risk. Flood
emergency preparedness, response, and recovery are often fragmented between local agencies
within a region and even within different departments of a single agency. Funds for emergency
planning are often reduced during difficult or contracting budget cycles.
Goal: Effective and comprehensive flood emergency preparedness, response, and recovery
at all levels of government.
Strategies:
y Provide funding specifically for increased coordination among responders, facility
managers, planners, and representatives of State and Federal resource agencies
to improve readiness.
Pre-event coordination improves emergency preparedness by identifying and reinforcing
areas of expertise, available resources, and planning agreement.
y Develop or improve Flood Emergency Management Plans.
Consistent emergency plans based on the State Emergency Management System will
help local responders work together to solicit and accept State and Federal assistance
during emergencies.
y Conduct flood emergency preparedness and response exercises statewide and
increase participation among public agencies at all levels in flood-fight training.
Regular training, tabletop drills, and functional exercises are necessary parts of disaster
preparedness.
y Identify data and forecasting needs for emergency response and water
management.
Accurate and timely forecasts for flood events can increase warning time, save lives, and
reduce property damage. Additional data will help improve the readiness and response
to floods.ToolsUNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION
California’s 10 hydrologic regions
are identified in bold text.
RECOMMENDATIONS
3
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
RECOMMENDATIONS
229
Flooding in California
Flooding occurs in all regions of the state.
Flooding varies according to the complexities and diversity of the physical features
of the landscape, weather, climate, and human manipulations of the land (e.g., regional
demographic differences, in part due to historical settlement patterns, land use regulations,
and economic drivers). In addition, flood warning times vary across the state, with longer
lead times for slow-rise flooding and often little to no lead time for flash flooding.
Flooding can affect California at different times of the year and in different forms—
from stormwater flooding in urban areas to alluvial fan flooding at the base of hillsides.
Rivers and streams flood in different ways—from fast-moving flash floods in Southern
California to slow-rise deep flooding in the Central Valley.
The different types of flooding are shown on pages 11 and 12.
Flood management financing
Aside from the original planning for the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems, flood
risk management in California has primarily focused on individual projects; often without
full consideration of life-cycle operations and maintenance costs, environmental impacts,
and increased hazard exposure. Most major flood management projects have been a
partnership among the California Department of Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), and one or more local agencies, although many significant California
water projects have not relied on Federal funds.
Flood agencies throughout the state have cumulatively invested $11 billion in flood
management in the last decade, with temporary financing from California’s Proposition 1E
and 84 bond funds accounting for most of this money.
Research conducted for California’s Flood Future identified flood management needs
of more than $50 billion. However, many regions must still conduct basic flood hazard
analyses to identify potential flood projects. In addition to identifying future projects,
significant annual costs are associated with the operations and maintenance of
existing projects.
Conduct regional flood risk assessments to
better understand statewide flood risk.
Identifying flood risks is an important first step toward reducing risk and prioritizing flood
management infrastructure needs in California; however, few detailed risk assessments have been
completed. This often causes agencies to default to overly simplistic methods or leave their flood
risk undetermined. Several complex methods are currently used to assess flood risk, which results
in confusion and inconsistent assessment of risk. A consistent method of assessing risk would be
more cost effective and result in better understanding of risk.
Goal: Consistent and locally appropriate assessments of flood risk to help local
governments make informed decisions about priorities for land use, emergency response,
ecosystem functions, and flood management projects throughout the state.
Strategies:
y Identify regional methods and evaluate flood risk to prioritize areas where flood
risk exists.
Standard methods to evaluate flood risk in California must be identified for each region
of the state. Technical support for risk evaluations and data collection are needed
to support the efforts of local agencies.
y Assist in identifying regional flood risk reduction goals and corresponding
acceptable levels of residual risk throughout the state.
Goals can be based on the number of lives and amount of property at risk, degree
of urbanization, critical facilities, flood types, and level of acceptable risk for the region.
y Identify opportunities to restore or maintain natural systems.
Flood risk evaluations should explore opportunities to restore or maintain the function
of existing natural systems.
y Assist agencies in assessing the impacts of climate change and sea level rise.
Climate change and sea level rise information must be developed for all areas of the state
and made uniformly available to public agencies.
Flood management in California is complex.
A number of ongoing technical and planning efforts will impact flood and water
management in California. The efforts listed here are led or funded by the State of
California unless otherwise noted by parenthesis.
y California Water Plan
y Integrated Regional Water
Management Plans
y Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
y Delta Islands & Levees Feasibility
Study (USACE)
y Delta Stewardship Council
Delta Plan
y Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
y Central Valley Integrated Flood Management
Study (USACE)
y Climate Change Initiative
y National Flood Insurance Program Remapping
Effort (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
y California Coastal Sediment Master Plan
(USACE)ToolsUNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION
1
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
UNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION
Flood Basics
Managing flood risk includes managing floodwater (keeping floodwater away from people),
managing floodplain resources (keeping people and assets out of the path of floodwater),
and protecting and restoring natural ecosystems.
Several factors influence flood risk, including storm frequency, development in floodplains,
and operations and maintenance of flood facilities. A smaller flood that causes less damage
generally occurs more frequently than a very severe flood with much greater consequences.
Engineers, scientists, and floodplain managers typically define flood risk using these factors:
Hazard identifies the cause (flood) and frequency of the problem (how often).
Performance calculates how well existing systems function (e.g., flood
management system inadequacy or failure).
Exposure identifies who and what is impacted by flooding.
Vulnerability identifies level of exposure expected (i.e., how flooding adversely
affects people and property).
Consequence calculates impact of flooding in terms of lives lost and cost
(i.e., what is the loss or damage incurred from flooding).
While the 500-year and 100-year flood events are a simple description of the frequency
of flooding, a complete flood risk analysis must consider all of the above factors.
It is important to understand these factors because they help calculate the impact and cost
of potential floods. Once computed, “flood risk” is used to plan budgets for operations and
maintenance, and to set project priorities.
1021
500-Year Flood is a shorthand expression for a flood that has a 1 in 500 probability
of occurring in any given year. This may also be expressed as the 0.2 percent annual
chance flood.
100-Year Flood has a 1 in100 (or 1 percent) probability of occurring in any given year.
*These levels indicate a percentage of probability and severity. It does not mean a flood only happens every 100 or 500 years.
Recommendations for managing California’s
flood risk.
The recommendations in California’s Flood Future are consistent with the overall
Integrated Water Management (IWM) approach. The foundation of the IWM planning
approach is improved agency alignment and interaction, which leads to agreement on
tools, planning activities, policy and investment actions, and ultimately more beneficial
results.
The recommendations in this document are directed to all local, State, and Federal agencies
with responsibility for one or more of the following: land use planning, flood management,
water resources, environmental habitat and ecosystem restoration, cultural and recreation
resources, agriculture, and public safety. These recommendations are intended to guide
discussions and encourage collaboration between public agencies, elected officials,
and key stakeholders to achieve necessary policy reforms and program results. The
recommendations in this document are organized under the categories “Tools”, “Plans”,
“Actions”. They are outlined here, and are described in more detail on the following pages.
Tools
y Risk Assessments: Conduct regional flood risk assessments to understand statewide
flood risk.
y Flood Risk Awareness: Increase public and policymaker awareness about flood risks
to facilitate informed decisions.
y Flood Readiness: Increase support for flood emergency preparedness, response, and
recovery programs to reduce flood impacts.
Plans
y Land Use Planning: Encourage land use planning practices that reduce
the consequences of flooding.
y Regional, Systemwide, and Statewide Planning: Implement flood management
from regional, systemwide, and statewide perspectives to provide multiple resources.
Actions
y Increase Agency Collaboration: Increase collaboration among public agencies to
improve flood management planning, policies, and investments. Actions also include
the infrastructure improvements and other innovations conducted by flood and water
management agencies.
y Establish Sufficient and Stable Funding: Establish sufficient and stable funding
mechanisms to reduce flood risk.
Two flood event levels* are commonly used for insurance and planning purposes.
Any storm can
cause flood
damage. Large
storms, although
infrequent, can
have disastrous
consequences
to entire regions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
y Risk Assessments
y Flood Risk Awareness
y Flood Readiness
y Land Use Planning
y Regional, Systemwide, and
Statewide Planning
y Agency Collaboration
y Sufficient and Stable
Funding
9 Public Safety
9 Environmental Stewardship
9 Economic Stability
500-Year Flood500-Year Flood
100-Year Flood100-Year Flood
Slow rise flooding example
ResultsActionsPlansTools
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
30
20
10
0
d management approaches.
THE PROBLEM
1219
Funding is limited and increasingly
unreliable.
Funding sources typically drive flood management projects, rather
than flood management priorities driving funding. Additional
financing challenges include:
Inconsistent and Insufficient Funding
y Funding for flood management projects usually increases following a flood disaster,
and then gradually decreases.
y Flood management budgets are especially susceptible to reductions in dry-weather years
and economic downturns.
y Flood management budgets generally do not adequately address full life-cycle operations
and maintenance needs and environmental mitigation.
y The full costs associated with providing flood management or flood response may not be
considered by public agencies making land use decisions.
y Existing state bond funding for flood management will be depleted by 2017. This funding
is being used primarily for critical repairs, early implementation projects, and other high-
priority flood risk-reduction efforts. The bond legislation designated that the majority of the
funds be directed towards the Central Valley.
Declining Local Resources
y Flood management agencies supported by local general funds must compete with
other public demands for resources (i.e., water, sewer, transportation, parks, social services,
education, health services).
y Agencies that are partially funded through development fees or special project assessments
can be limited by assessment-zone boundaries.
y The ability of flood management agencies to fund projects, as well as operations and
maintenance, has suffered from public opposition to additional property-based assessments.
y Small agencies in rural or agricultural communities are often responsible for large areas
without the resources, tax base, or funding mechanisms to partner with Federal agencies or
apply for State grant funding.
y The costs of ongoing operations and maintenance on existing facilities, along with rising
permitting costs, consume a large portion of local agency budgets. In addition, local
agency budgets are often unable to provide set aside replacement funds for deteriorating
infrastructure.
Reduced Federal Cost Shares
y The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) process for identifying Federal interest in flood
risk-reduction projects has historically emphasized damage-reduction benefits, while placing
less emphasis on other project outputs, such as ecosystem restoration, regional economic
development, and other social benefits.
y Constrained in Federal spending results in that USACE not being able to continue to fund
studies or ongoing projects at the same rate as it has in the past.
y Funding a large number of studies and projects over long periods of time is inefficient, too
often resulting in delayed delivery and more costly products.
Potential Occurence by County
Absent Present Likely
Tsunami Flooding
Duration of Flood: Minutes to hours
Time to Peak: Variable
(hours to days)
Area Flooded: Coastal areas
Causes of Flood: Earthquake
Coastal Flooding
Duration of Flood: Seasonal
Time to Peak: Hours to days
Area Flooded: Coastal areas,
bays, back bays, sounds, and
inland tidal waterways
Causes of Flood: Winter and
Spring coastal storms, high winds,
storm surges and high tides
Engineered Structure Failure Flooding
Duration of Flood: Variable
Time to Peak: Minutes to hours
Area Flooded: Areas downstream
of engineered structure
(i.e., levees, dams)
Causes of Flood: Failure
of structures
Debris Flow Flooding
Duration of Flood: Hours
Time to Peak: Hours
Area Flooded: Areas downstream
of denuded hillsides
Causes of Flood: Heavy localized
rainstorms on hillsides with charred
or denuded ground
Alluvial Fan Flooding
Duration of Flood: Hours
Time to Peak: Hours
Area Flooded: Surface and
toe of alluvial fans
Causes of Flood: High-volume
rainstorms and thunderstorms;
displaces high volume of sediment
Flash Flooding
Duration of Flood: Hours
Time to Peak: Hours
Area Flooded: Steep slopes
and impermeable surfaces,
as well as adjacent to local
streams and creeks
Causes of Flood: High-volume
rainstorms, thunderstorms,
or slow-moving storms
Slow Rise Flooding
Duration of Flood: Weeks
Time to Peak: Days
Area Flooded: Deep floodplains
and low-lying urban areas
Causes of Flood: Heavy
precipitation especially with snowmeltTsunami Flooding
South
Coast
North
Coast
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
C
o
a
s
t
Colorado
River
South
Lahontan
North
Lahontan
Tulare Lake
San Joaquin
River
Sacramento
River
San Francisco Bay
Coastal Flooding
Engineered Structure
Failure Flooding
Debris Flow Flooding Alluvial Fan Flooding
Flash Flooding
Slow Rise Flooding
Stormwater Flooding
Stormwater Flooding
Duration of Flood: Hours
Time to Peak: Hours
Area Flooded: Localized urban areas
Causes of Flood: Rainstorms along
with blocked or overwhelmed storm
drainage systemsWater SupplyFlood ManagementANNUAL EXPENDITURES (2009, $Billions)WastewaterFlood management
agencies typically
lack a direct
funding source
unlike water supply
and wastewater
agencies, which are
rate payer funded.
UNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION
(Water and the California
Economy - Technical
Appendix, Public Policy
Institute of California,
2012)
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
California’s variable flood conditions and risks require regional flood
THE SOLUTIONUNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION
2011
Potential Occurence by County
Absent Present Likely
Tsunami Flooding
Duration of Flood: Minutes to hours
Time to Peak: Variable
(hours to days)
Area Flooded: Coastal areas
Causes of Flood: Earthquake
Coastal Flooding
Duration of Flood: Seasonal
Time to Peak: Hours to days
Area Flooded: Coastal areas,
bays, back bays, sounds, and
inland tidal waterways
Causes of Flood: Winter and
Spring coastal storms, high winds,
storm surges and high tides
Engineered Structure Failure Flooding
Duration of Flood: Variable
Time to Peak: Minutes to hours
Area Flooded: Areas downstream
of engineered structure
(i.e., levees, dams)
Causes of Flood: Failure
of structures
Debris Flow Flooding
Duration of Flood: Hours
Time to Peak: Hours
Area Flooded: Areas downstream
of denuded hillsides
Causes of Flood: Heavy localized
rainstorms on hillsides with charred
or denuded ground
Alluvial Fan Flooding
Duration of Flood: Hours
Time to Peak: Hours
Area Flooded: Surface and
toe of alluvial fans
Causes of Flood: High-volume
rainstorms and thunderstorms;
displaces high volume of sediment
Flash Flooding
Duration of Flood: Hours
Time to Peak: Hours
Area Flooded: Steep slopes
and impermeable surfaces,
as well as adjacent to local
streams and creeks
Causes of Flood: High-volume
rainstorms, thunderstorms,
or slow-moving storms
Slow Rise Flooding
Duration of Flood: Weeks
Time to Peak: Days
Area Flooded: Deep floodplains
and low-lying urban areas
Causes of Flood: Heavy
precipitation especially with snowmeltTsunami Flooding
South
Coast
North
Coast
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
C
o
a
s
t
Colorado
River
South
Lahontan
North
Lahontan
Tulare Lake
San Joaquin
River
Sacramento
River
San Francisco Bay
Coastal Flooding
Engineered Structure
Failure Flooding
Debris Flow Flooding Alluvial Fan Flooding
Flash Flooding
Slow Rise Flooding
Stormwater Flooding
Stormwater Flooding
Duration of Flood: Hours
Time to Peak: Hours
Area Flooded: Localized urban areas
Causes of Flood: Rainstorms along
with blocked or overwhelmed storm
drainage systems
Flood management solutions must be developed
using an Integrated Water Management approach.
The California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
are committed to an Integrated Water Management (IWM) approach and have started
to structure flood management programs to support multiple-benefit projects.
The Integrated Water Management Approach
IWM is a strategic approach to planning and implementation that combines specific
flood management, water supply, and ecosystem actions to deliver multiple benefits.
IWM relies on blending knowledge from a variety of disciplines, including engineering,
economics, environmental sciences, public policy, and public information.
This approach also promotes system flexibility and resiliency to accommodate changing
conditions such as regional preferences, ecosystem needs, climate change, flood or drought
events, and financing capabilities.
High Value, Multiple Benefits
The value of using an IWM approach is in the results—improved public safety,
enhanced environmental stewardship, and statewide economic stability.
Localized, narrowly focused projects are not the best use of public resources and might have
negative unintended consequences in nearby regions. The IWM approach helps deliver more
benefits at a faster pace, using fewer resources, than what is possible from narrowly focused
projects.
Regional Collaboration and Cooperation Are Necessary
Californians must think holistically to develop long-term, integrated approaches
to flood management.
Using an IWM approach to meet flood management needs is not a one-time activity.
Efforts to reduce flood risk will require unprecedented alignment and cooperation among
public agencies, tribal entities, landowners, interest-based groups, and other stakeholders.
Collaboration must address information gathering and other tools, policies, planning,
regulations, and investments.
Broader Access to Funding
Sources
One of the benefits of using an IWM
approach is the potential to access
funding sources that may not have been
available to narrowly focused projects.
This is particularly important to achieving
sufficient and stable funding for long-
term flood management.
Economic Stability
Public Safety
Environmental Stewardship
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
less than 40
40 to 80
80 to 120
greater than 120
North Coast
Central Coast
Sacramento River
San Francisco Bay
South Coast
South Lahontan
San Joaquin River
North Lahontan
29
109
Tulare Lake
78
118
326
208146
265
23
Colorado River
41
1417
$575 billion in structures are at risk.
Property is exposed to flood hazards in all regions of California. Fourteen
California counties have structures valued at more than $10 billion in 500-year
floodplains. The largest numbers of facilities and structures exposed to flooding in California
are in the South Coast, San Francisco Bay, and Sacramento River regions.
The $575 billion figure does not include the economic impact to families, communities,
local businesses, and entire regions when worksites and critical public facilities are closed
due to flood damage.
Serious flood damage in the state’s urban areas would have significant economic impacts
to the region, state, and nation. Importantly, it will not take a 500-year flood event to
cause significant impacts. Even a few inches of flood water can have an expensive and
disruptive impact on structures. When flooding occurs, businesses, homes, schools, and
other important structures must be vacated for proper rehabilitation, causing significant
economic impact on families and communities.
The number of structures and corresponding contents exposed to flooding will likely
continue to increase because of population growth and development in floodplains.
Flood management responsibilities are
complex and fragmented.
Flood management in California is affected by a complex framework of public
agencies with overlapping and, in some cases, conflicting mandates.
Agency roles and responsibilities are sometimes limited by an agency’s enabling legislation,
charter, ownership, or agreements with other agencies. Other challenges include:
y Overlapping – and sometimes conflicting – responsibilities and priorities among the many
regulatory agencies complicate the task of protecting human life, property, economic
interests, and the environment.
y Agencies must navigate through a maze of new or conflicting regulations as projects are
planned, constructed, operated, and maintained.
y Traditional planning processes rely on project proponents that typically have a narrow
mission and a specific geographic focus. Such projects miss the opportunity to provide
a broader suite of benefits that consider systemwide and regional benefits.
Although some public agencies are progressing toward an integrated planning approach,
much more can be accomplished by linking State and Federal funding to the broader-based
Integrated Water Management approach to flood management in California.
Flood
management
agencies are
responsible for
operation and
maintenance of:
y More than
20,000 miles
of levees
y More than
1,500 dams
and reservoirs
y More than
1,000 debris
basins
y Other facilities
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Los AngelesOrangeEXPOSED STRUCTURE AND CONTENTS VALUE ($Billion)Santa ClaraCounties with the
greatest number
of structure values
within 500-year
floodplains
North Coast
Central Coast
Sacramento River
San Francisco Bay
South Coast
South Lahontan
Colorado River
San Joaquin River
North Lahontan
$10 billion
$20 billion
$4 billion
Tulare Lake
$40 billion
$30 billion
$70 billion
$40 billion$130 billion
$230 billion
$1 billion
less than $10 billion
$10 billion to $50 billion
$50 billion to $200 billion
greater than $200 billion
THE PROBLEM
Structures exposed to
flooding in California by
hydrologic region
Statewide Total = $575 billion
Statewide Total = 1,343
Agencies with flood
management
responsibilities by
hydrologic region
THE PROBLEM
Structures Exposed
Flood Management Agencies
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
33
25
26
Tulare Lake
41
30
160
54119
334
14
less than 25
25 to 50
50 to 100
100 to 200
greater than 200
North Coast
Central Coast
Sacramento River
San Francisco Bay
South Coast
South Lahontan
Colorado River
San Joaquin River
North Lahontan
South Lahontan
150,000
230,000
North Coast40,000
Colorado River
San Joaquin River
Tulare Lake
Central Coast430,000
500,000
Sacramento River930,000
540,0001,040,000
3,410,000
San Francisco Bay
South Coast
North Lahontan
4,000
less than 50,000
100,000 to 500,000
500,000 to 1 million
greater than 1 million
1813
One in five Californians live in a floodplain.
Four of the nation’s 15 largest cities (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and
San Francisco) are in California, and all of them are at risk for some type of
flooding. Since 1950, there have been 50 State or Federally declared flood
disasters in California.
Exposure to flood hazard is distributed throughout the state, with all counties having some
level of exposure to flooding. For example, in Yuba, Yolo, Merced, and Colusa counties
more than 25 percent of the residents live in the 100-year floodplain.
The South Coast region has the greatest population exposed to the hazards of flooding,
with more than 250,000 residents in the 100-year floodplain and more than 3 million people
living in the 500-year floodplain.
The number of Californians exposed to flooding is likely to continue to increase because
of increasing population and development in floodplains.
Flood infrastructure does not
meet current and future needs.
California’s flood management facilities have prevented billions of dollars of damage
and saved many lives. However, resources for operations, maintenance, and much
needed improvements have not kept up with demands, putting people and property
at increased risk.
As part of the research effort for California’s Flood Future, local public agencies identified
over 835 near-term and long-term flood management projects in different stages
of planning and implementation.
Many are high priority – “crisis projects” – necessary to keep facilities functioning properly,
while others are designed to increase protection for residents and structures located in
areas where there is flood risk.
Even if all of these projects are completed, many regions in California will continue to
be at high risk to flooding. Many regions must complete flood risk assessments to better
understand risk and assist with efforts to identify additional projects for improving public
safety.
The projects included in this priority list are the projects that agencies perceive as feasible,
but not necessarily all that is required to provide protection from a 100-year flood.Santa ClaraLos AngelesEXPOSED POPULATION (Millions)OrangeCounties with
greatest
population
within 500-year
floodplains
More than
$100 billion is
needed in capital
investment,
including
$50 billion
for currently
identified
projects.
THE PROBLEM
Population exposed to
flooding in California
by hydrologic region
Statewide Total = 7.3 million
Statewide Total = 836
Number of proposed
flood management
projects in California by
hydrologic region
THE PROBLEM
Population Exposed
Proposed Local Flood Management Projects
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk 1615
California’s agricultural economy is at risk.
A major flood event in California has the potential to devastate regional
agriculture-based economies and cause serious impacts on the state’s economy.
More than $7 billion in crop values are exposed to California’s 500-year
floodplains, and approximately 40 percent of agricultural land in the state is located
in floodplains.
Three hydrologic regions (Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake hydrologic
regions) each have more than $1 billion in agricultural crops exposed in 500-year
floodplains.
A major flood event could have an impact on national and international food supplies.
California contributes 12 percent of the nation’s total agricultural production and accounts
for almost $15 billion in agricultural exports worldwide. In fact, California grows nearly half
of the produce and nuts and 18 percent of the rice produced in the United States. (California
Department of Food and Agriculture, California Agricultural Statistic Review 2011-12)
Environmental stewardship suffers from
competing regulations and processes.
Effective floodplain management includes finding the appropriate balance
between providing for public safety while protecting sensitive ecosystems.
Floodplains can provide a variety of regional benefits. However, competing regulations and
processes present significant challenges to realizing the broad environmental and other
benefits of effective floodplain management. Even projects that were developed to consider
natural functions struggle to maintain floodplain capacity due to antiquated processes and
conflicting resource agency standards.
Well-functioning floodplains provide habitat for a significant variety of plant and wildlife
species and provide for natural reduction of flood flows. Flooding can recharge groundwater
basins, improve water quality, and control erosion.
Development in floodplains can permanently alter natural floodplain functions, destroy
habitat of sensitive species, and reduce the beneficial connections between different types of
habitat and adjacent floodway corridors. Extreme flooding in floodplains also deposits debris,
contaminants, and decay.
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
FresnoSan JoaquinEXPOSED CROP VALUES ($Million)TulareCounties with the
largest value of
agricultural crops
within 500-year
floodplains
North Coast
Central Coast
Sacramento River
San Francisco Bay
South Coast
South Lahontan
Colorado River
San Joaquin River
North Lahontan
$60 million
$280 million
$90 million
Tulare Lake
$690 million
$2,300 million
$1,700 million
$1,900 million$20 million
$420 million
$10 million
less than $50 million
$50 million to $100 million
$100 million to $500 million
$500 million to $1,000 million
greater than $1,000 million
THE PROBLEM
217
186
320
Tulare Lake
316
197
347
262279
347
114
less than 150
150 to 300
greater than 300North Coast
Central Coast
Sacramento River
San Francisco Bay
South Coast
South Lahontan
Colorado River
San Joaquin River
North Lahontan
State and Federal threatened,
endangered, listed, and rare
species within the 500-year
floodplains by hydrologic region
Crop value exposed to
flooding in California
by hydrologic region
Statewide Total = $7.5 billion
THE PROBLEM
Threatened,
rare, listed, or
endangered
(“sensitive”)
plant and
animal species
are exposed to
flood hazards
throughout the
state, with all
regions having at
least 100 sensitive
species exposed
to flooding.
Crop Value Exposed Sensitive Species in Floodplains
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk 1615
California’s agricultural economy is at risk.
A major flood event in California has the potential to devastate regional
agriculture-based economies and cause serious impacts on the state’s economy.
More than $7 billion in crop values are exposed to California’s 500-year
floodplains, and approximately 40 percent of agricultural land in the state is located
in floodplains.
Three hydrologic regions (Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake hydrologic
regions) each have more than $1 billion in agricultural crops exposed in 500-year
floodplains.
A major flood event could have an impact on national and international food supplies.
California contributes 12 percent of the nation’s total agricultural production and accounts
for almost $15 billion in agricultural exports worldwide. In fact, California grows nearly half
of the produce and nuts and 18 percent of the rice produced in the United States. (California
Department of Food and Agriculture, California Agricultural Statistic Review 2011-12)
Environmental stewardship suffers from
competing regulations and processes.
Effective floodplain management includes finding the appropriate balance
between providing for public safety while protecting sensitive ecosystems.
Floodplains can provide a variety of regional benefits. However, competing regulations and
processes present significant challenges to realizing the broad environmental and other
benefits of effective floodplain management. Even projects that were developed to consider
natural functions struggle to maintain floodplain capacity due to antiquated processes and
conflicting resource agency standards.
Well-functioning floodplains provide habitat for a significant variety of plant and wildlife
species and provide for natural reduction of flood flows. Flooding can recharge groundwater
basins, improve water quality, and control erosion.
Development in floodplains can permanently alter natural floodplain functions, destroy
habitat of sensitive species, and reduce the beneficial connections between different types of
habitat and adjacent floodway corridors. Extreme flooding in floodplains also deposits debris,
contaminants, and decay.
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
FresnoSan JoaquinEXPOSED CROP VALUES ($Million)TulareCounties with the
largest value of
agricultural crops
within 500-year
floodplains
North Coast
Central Coast
Sacramento River
San Francisco Bay
South Coast
South Lahontan
Colorado River
San Joaquin River
North Lahontan
$60 million
$280 million
$90 million
Tulare Lake
$690 million
$2,300 million
$1,700 million
$1,900 million$20 million
$420 million
$10 million
less than $50 million
$50 million to $100 million
$100 million to $500 million
$500 million to $1,000 million
greater than $1,000 million
THE PROBLEM
217
186
320
Tulare Lake
316
197
347
262279
347
114
less than 150
150 to 300
greater than 300North Coast
Central Coast
Sacramento River
San Francisco Bay
South Coast
South Lahontan
Colorado River
San Joaquin River
North Lahontan
State and Federal threatened,
endangered, listed, and rare
species within the 500-year
floodplains by hydrologic region
Crop value exposed to
flooding in California
by hydrologic region
Statewide Total = $7.5 billion
THE PROBLEM
Threatened,
rare, listed, or
endangered
(“sensitive”)
plant and
animal species
are exposed to
flood hazards
throughout the
state, with all
regions having at
least 100 sensitive
species exposed
to flooding.
Crop Value Exposed Sensitive Species in Floodplains
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
less than 40
40 to 80
80 to 120
greater than 120
North Coast
Central Coast
Sacramento River
San Francisco Bay
South Coast
South Lahontan
San Joaquin River
North Lahontan
29
109
Tulare Lake
78
118
326
208146
265
23
Colorado River
41
1417
$575 billion in structures are at risk.
Property is exposed to flood hazards in all regions of California. Fourteen
California counties have structures valued at more than $10 billion in 500-year
floodplains. The largest numbers of facilities and structures exposed to flooding in California
are in the South Coast, San Francisco Bay, and Sacramento River regions.
The $575 billion figure does not include the economic impact to families, communities,
local businesses, and entire regions when worksites and critical public facilities are closed
due to flood damage.
Serious flood damage in the state’s urban areas would have significant economic impacts
to the region, state, and nation. Importantly, it will not take a 500-year flood event to
cause significant impacts. Even a few inches of flood water can have an expensive and
disruptive impact on structures. When flooding occurs, businesses, homes, schools, and
other important structures must be vacated for proper rehabilitation, causing significant
economic impact on families and communities.
The number of structures and corresponding contents exposed to flooding will likely
continue to increase because of population growth and development in floodplains.
Flood management responsibilities are
complex and fragmented.
Flood management in California is affected by a complex framework of public
agencies with overlapping and, in some cases, conflicting mandates.
Agency roles and responsibilities are sometimes limited by an agency’s enabling legislation,
charter, ownership, or agreements with other agencies. Other challenges include:
y Overlapping – and sometimes conflicting – responsibilities and priorities among the many
regulatory agencies complicate the task of protecting human life, property, economic
interests, and the environment.
y Agencies must navigate through a maze of new or conflicting regulations as projects are
planned, constructed, operated, and maintained.
y Traditional planning processes rely on project proponents that typically have a narrow
mission and a specific geographic focus. Such projects miss the opportunity to provide
a broader suite of benefits that consider systemwide and regional benefits.
Although some public agencies are progressing toward an integrated planning approach,
much more can be accomplished by linking State and Federal funding to the broader-based
Integrated Water Management approach to flood management in California.
Flood
management
agencies are
responsible for
operation and
maintenance of:
y More than
20,000 miles
of levees
y More than
1,500 dams
and reservoirs
y More than
1,000 debris
basins
y Other facilities
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Los AngelesOrangeEXPOSED STRUCTURE AND CONTENTS VALUE ($Billion)Santa ClaraCounties with the
greatest number
of structure values
within 500-year
floodplains
North Coast
Central Coast
Sacramento River
San Francisco Bay
South Coast
South Lahontan
Colorado River
San Joaquin River
North Lahontan
$10 billion
$20 billion
$4 billion
Tulare Lake
$40 billion
$30 billion
$70 billion
$40 billion$130 billion
$230 billion
$1 billion
less than $10 billion
$10 billion to $50 billion
$50 billion to $200 billion
greater than $200 billion
THE PROBLEM
Structures exposed to
flooding in California by
hydrologic region
Statewide Total = $575 billion
Statewide Total = 1,343
Agencies with flood
management
responsibilities by
hydrologic region
THE PROBLEM
Structures Exposed
Flood Management Agencies
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
33
25
26
Tulare Lake
41
30
160
54119
334
14
less than 25
25 to 50
50 to 100
100 to 200
greater than 200
North Coast
Central Coast
Sacramento River
San Francisco Bay
South Coast
South Lahontan
Colorado River
San Joaquin River
North Lahontan
South Lahontan
150,000
230,000
North Coast40,000
Colorado River
San Joaquin River
Tulare Lake
Central Coast430,000
500,000
Sacramento River930,000
540,0001,040,000
3,410,000
San Francisco Bay
South Coast
North Lahontan
4,000
less than 50,000
100,000 to 500,000
500,000 to 1 million
greater than 1 million
1813
One in five Californians live in a floodplain.
Four of the nation’s 15 largest cities (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and
San Francisco) are in California, and all of them are at risk for some type of
flooding. Since 1950, there have been 50 State or Federally declared flood
disasters in California.
Exposure to flood hazard is distributed throughout the state, with all counties having some
level of exposure to flooding. For example, in Yuba, Yolo, Merced, and Colusa counties
more than 25 percent of the residents live in the 100-year floodplain.
The South Coast region has the greatest population exposed to the hazards of flooding,
with more than 250,000 residents in the 100-year floodplain and more than 3 million people
living in the 500-year floodplain.
The number of Californians exposed to flooding is likely to continue to increase because
of increasing population and development in floodplains.
Flood infrastructure does not
meet current and future needs.
California’s flood management facilities have prevented billions of dollars of damage
and saved many lives. However, resources for operations, maintenance, and much
needed improvements have not kept up with demands, putting people and property
at increased risk.
As part of the research effort for California’s Flood Future, local public agencies identified
over 835 near-term and long-term flood management projects in different stages
of planning and implementation.
Many are high priority – “crisis projects” – necessary to keep facilities functioning properly,
while others are designed to increase protection for residents and structures located in
areas where there is flood risk.
Even if all of these projects are completed, many regions in California will continue to
be at high risk to flooding. Many regions must complete flood risk assessments to better
understand risk and assist with efforts to identify additional projects for improving public
safety.
The projects included in this priority list are the projects that agencies perceive as feasible,
but not necessarily all that is required to provide protection from a 100-year flood.Santa ClaraLos AngelesEXPOSED POPULATION (Millions)OrangeCounties with
greatest
population
within 500-year
floodplains
More than
$100 billion is
needed in capital
investment,
including
$50 billion
for currently
identified
projects.
THE PROBLEM
Population exposed to
flooding in California
by hydrologic region
Statewide Total = 7.3 million
Statewide Total = 836
Number of proposed
flood management
projects in California by
hydrologic region
THE PROBLEM
Population Exposed
Proposed Local Flood Management Projects
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
30
20
10
0
d management approaches.
THE PROBLEM
1219
Funding is limited and increasingly
unreliable.
Funding sources typically drive flood management projects, rather
than flood management priorities driving funding. Additional
financing challenges include:
Inconsistent and Insufficient Funding
y Funding for flood management projects usually increases following a flood disaster,
and then gradually decreases.
y Flood management budgets are especially susceptible to reductions in dry-weather years
and economic downturns.
y Flood management budgets generally do not adequately address full life-cycle operations
and maintenance needs and environmental mitigation.
y The full costs associated with providing flood management or flood response may not be
considered by public agencies making land use decisions.
y Existing state bond funding for flood management will be depleted by 2017. This funding
is being used primarily for critical repairs, early implementation projects, and other high-
priority flood risk-reduction efforts. The bond legislation designated that the majority of the
funds be directed towards the Central Valley.
Declining Local Resources
y Flood management agencies supported by local general funds must compete with
other public demands for resources (i.e., water, sewer, transportation, parks, social services,
education, health services).
y Agencies that are partially funded through development fees or special project assessments
can be limited by assessment-zone boundaries.
y The ability of flood management agencies to fund projects, as well as operations and
maintenance, has suffered from public opposition to additional property-based assessments.
y Small agencies in rural or agricultural communities are often responsible for large areas
without the resources, tax base, or funding mechanisms to partner with Federal agencies or
apply for State grant funding.
y The costs of ongoing operations and maintenance on existing facilities, along with rising
permitting costs, consume a large portion of local agency budgets. In addition, local
agency budgets are often unable to provide set aside replacement funds for deteriorating
infrastructure.
Reduced Federal Cost Shares
y The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) process for identifying Federal interest in flood
risk-reduction projects has historically emphasized damage-reduction benefits, while placing
less emphasis on other project outputs, such as ecosystem restoration, regional economic
development, and other social benefits.
y Constrained in Federal spending results in that USACE not being able to continue to fund
studies or ongoing projects at the same rate as it has in the past.
y Funding a large number of studies and projects over long periods of time is inefficient, too
often resulting in delayed delivery and more costly products.
Potential Occurence by County
Absent Present Likely
Tsunami Flooding
Duration of Flood: Minutes to hours
Time to Peak: Variable
(hours to days)
Area Flooded: Coastal areas
Causes of Flood: Earthquake
Coastal Flooding
Duration of Flood: Seasonal
Time to Peak: Hours to days
Area Flooded: Coastal areas,
bays, back bays, sounds, and
inland tidal waterways
Causes of Flood: Winter and
Spring coastal storms, high winds,
storm surges and high tides
Engineered Structure Failure Flooding
Duration of Flood: Variable
Time to Peak: Minutes to hours
Area Flooded: Areas downstream
of engineered structure
(i.e., levees, dams)
Causes of Flood: Failure
of structures
Debris Flow Flooding
Duration of Flood: Hours
Time to Peak: Hours
Area Flooded: Areas downstream
of denuded hillsides
Causes of Flood: Heavy localized
rainstorms on hillsides with charred
or denuded ground
Alluvial Fan Flooding
Duration of Flood: Hours
Time to Peak: Hours
Area Flooded: Surface and
toe of alluvial fans
Causes of Flood: High-volume
rainstorms and thunderstorms;
displaces high volume of sediment
Flash Flooding
Duration of Flood: Hours
Time to Peak: Hours
Area Flooded: Steep slopes
and impermeable surfaces,
as well as adjacent to local
streams and creeks
Causes of Flood: High-volume
rainstorms, thunderstorms,
or slow-moving storms
Slow Rise Flooding
Duration of Flood: Weeks
Time to Peak: Days
Area Flooded: Deep floodplains
and low-lying urban areas
Causes of Flood: Heavy
precipitation especially with snowmeltTsunami Flooding
South
Coast
North
Coast
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
C
o
a
s
t
Colorado
River
South
Lahontan
North
Lahontan
Tulare Lake
San Joaquin
River
Sacramento
River
San Francisco Bay
Coastal Flooding
Engineered Structure
Failure Flooding
Debris Flow Flooding Alluvial Fan Flooding
Flash Flooding
Slow Rise Flooding
Stormwater Flooding
Stormwater Flooding
Duration of Flood: Hours
Time to Peak: Hours
Area Flooded: Localized urban areas
Causes of Flood: Rainstorms along
with blocked or overwhelmed storm
drainage systemsWater SupplyFlood ManagementANNUAL EXPENDITURES (2009, $Billions)WastewaterFlood management
agencies typically
lack a direct
funding source
unlike water supply
and wastewater
agencies, which are
rate payer funded.
UNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION
(Water and the California
Economy - Technical
Appendix, Public Policy
Institute of California,
2012)
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
California’s variable flood conditions and risks require regional flood
THE SOLUTIONUNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION
2011
Potential Occurence by County
Absent Present Likely
Tsunami Flooding
Duration of Flood: Minutes to hours
Time to Peak: Variable
(hours to days)
Area Flooded: Coastal areas
Causes of Flood: Earthquake
Coastal Flooding
Duration of Flood: Seasonal
Time to Peak: Hours to days
Area Flooded: Coastal areas,
bays, back bays, sounds, and
inland tidal waterways
Causes of Flood: Winter and
Spring coastal storms, high winds,
storm surges and high tides
Engineered Structure Failure Flooding
Duration of Flood: Variable
Time to Peak: Minutes to hours
Area Flooded: Areas downstream
of engineered structure
(i.e., levees, dams)
Causes of Flood: Failure
of structures
Debris Flow Flooding
Duration of Flood: Hours
Time to Peak: Hours
Area Flooded: Areas downstream
of denuded hillsides
Causes of Flood: Heavy localized
rainstorms on hillsides with charred
or denuded ground
Alluvial Fan Flooding
Duration of Flood: Hours
Time to Peak: Hours
Area Flooded: Surface and
toe of alluvial fans
Causes of Flood: High-volume
rainstorms and thunderstorms;
displaces high volume of sediment
Flash Flooding
Duration of Flood: Hours
Time to Peak: Hours
Area Flooded: Steep slopes
and impermeable surfaces,
as well as adjacent to local
streams and creeks
Causes of Flood: High-volume
rainstorms, thunderstorms,
or slow-moving storms
Slow Rise Flooding
Duration of Flood: Weeks
Time to Peak: Days
Area Flooded: Deep floodplains
and low-lying urban areas
Causes of Flood: Heavy
precipitation especially with snowmeltTsunami Flooding
South
Coast
North
Coast
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
C
o
a
s
t
Colorado
River
South
Lahontan
North
Lahontan
Tulare Lake
San Joaquin
River
Sacramento
River
San Francisco Bay
Coastal Flooding
Engineered Structure
Failure Flooding
Debris Flow Flooding Alluvial Fan Flooding
Flash Flooding
Slow Rise Flooding
Stormwater Flooding
Stormwater Flooding
Duration of Flood: Hours
Time to Peak: Hours
Area Flooded: Localized urban areas
Causes of Flood: Rainstorms along
with blocked or overwhelmed storm
drainage systems
Flood management solutions must be developed
using an Integrated Water Management approach.
The California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
are committed to an Integrated Water Management (IWM) approach and have started
to structure flood management programs to support multiple-benefit projects.
The Integrated Water Management Approach
IWM is a strategic approach to planning and implementation that combines specific
flood management, water supply, and ecosystem actions to deliver multiple benefits.
IWM relies on blending knowledge from a variety of disciplines, including engineering,
economics, environmental sciences, public policy, and public information.
This approach also promotes system flexibility and resiliency to accommodate changing
conditions such as regional preferences, ecosystem needs, climate change, flood or drought
events, and financing capabilities.
High Value, Multiple Benefits
The value of using an IWM approach is in the results—improved public safety,
enhanced environmental stewardship, and statewide economic stability.
Localized, narrowly focused projects are not the best use of public resources and might have
negative unintended consequences in nearby regions. The IWM approach helps deliver more
benefits at a faster pace, using fewer resources, than what is possible from narrowly focused
projects.
Regional Collaboration and Cooperation Are Necessary
Californians must think holistically to develop long-term, integrated approaches
to flood management.
Using an IWM approach to meet flood management needs is not a one-time activity.
Efforts to reduce flood risk will require unprecedented alignment and cooperation among
public agencies, tribal entities, landowners, interest-based groups, and other stakeholders.
Collaboration must address information gathering and other tools, policies, planning,
regulations, and investments.
Broader Access to Funding
Sources
One of the benefits of using an IWM
approach is the potential to access
funding sources that may not have been
available to narrowly focused projects.
This is particularly important to achieving
sufficient and stable funding for long-
term flood management.
Economic Stability
Public Safety
Environmental Stewardship
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
UNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION
Flood Basics
Managing flood risk includes managing floodwater (keeping floodwater away from people),
managing floodplain resources (keeping people and assets out of the path of floodwater),
and protecting and restoring natural ecosystems.
Several factors influence flood risk, including storm frequency, development in floodplains,
and operations and maintenance of flood facilities. A smaller flood that causes less damage
generally occurs more frequently than a very severe flood with much greater consequences.
Engineers, scientists, and floodplain managers typically define flood risk using these factors:
Hazard identifies the cause (flood) and frequency of the problem (how often).
Performance calculates how well existing systems function (e.g., flood
management system inadequacy or failure).
Exposure identifies who and what is impacted by flooding.
Vulnerability identifies level of exposure expected (i.e., how flooding adversely
affects people and property).
Consequence calculates impact of flooding in terms of lives lost and cost
(i.e., what is the loss or damage incurred from flooding).
While the 500-year and 100-year flood events are a simple description of the frequency
of flooding, a complete flood risk analysis must consider all of the above factors.
It is important to understand these factors because they help calculate the impact and cost
of potential floods. Once computed, “flood risk” is used to plan budgets for operations and
maintenance, and to set project priorities.
1021
500-Year Flood is a shorthand expression for a flood that has a 1 in 500 probability
of occurring in any given year. This may also be expressed as the 0.2 percent annual
chance flood.
100-Year Flood has a 1 in100 (or 1 percent) probability of occurring in any given year.
*These levels indicate a percentage of probability and severity. It does not mean a flood only happens every 100 or 500 years.
Recommendations for managing California’s
flood risk.
The recommendations in California’s Flood Future are consistent with the overall
Integrated Water Management (IWM) approach. The foundation of the IWM planning
approach is improved agency alignment and interaction, which leads to agreement on
tools, planning activities, policy and investment actions, and ultimately more beneficial
results.
The recommendations in this document are directed to all local, State, and Federal agencies
with responsibility for one or more of the following: land use planning, flood management,
water resources, environmental habitat and ecosystem restoration, cultural and recreation
resources, agriculture, and public safety. These recommendations are intended to guide
discussions and encourage collaboration between public agencies, elected officials,
and key stakeholders to achieve necessary policy reforms and program results. The
recommendations in this document are organized under the categories “Tools”, “Plans”,
“Actions”. They are outlined here, and are described in more detail on the following pages.
Tools
y Risk Assessments: Conduct regional flood risk assessments to understand statewide
flood risk.
y Flood Risk Awareness: Increase public and policymaker awareness about flood risks
to facilitate informed decisions.
y Flood Readiness: Increase support for flood emergency preparedness, response, and
recovery programs to reduce flood impacts.
Plans
y Land Use Planning: Encourage land use planning practices that reduce
the consequences of flooding.
y Regional, Systemwide, and Statewide Planning: Implement flood management
from regional, systemwide, and statewide perspectives to provide multiple resources.
Actions
y Increase Agency Collaboration: Increase collaboration among public agencies to
improve flood management planning, policies, and investments. Actions also include
the infrastructure improvements and other innovations conducted by flood and water
management agencies.
y Establish Sufficient and Stable Funding: Establish sufficient and stable funding
mechanisms to reduce flood risk.
Two flood event levels* are commonly used for insurance and planning purposes.
Any storm can
cause flood
damage. Large
storms, although
infrequent, can
have disastrous
consequences
to entire regions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
y Risk Assessments
y Flood Risk Awareness
y Flood Readiness
y Land Use Planning
y Regional, Systemwide, and
Statewide Planning
y Agency Collaboration
y Sufficient and Stable
Funding
9 Public Safety
9 Environmental Stewardship
9 Economic Stability
500-Year Flood500-Year Flood
100-Year Flood100-Year Flood
Slow rise flooding example
ResultsActionsPlansTools
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
RECOMMENDATIONS
229
Flooding in California
Flooding occurs in all regions of the state.
Flooding varies according to the complexities and diversity of the physical features
of the landscape, weather, climate, and human manipulations of the land (e.g., regional
demographic differences, in part due to historical settlement patterns, land use regulations,
and economic drivers). In addition, flood warning times vary across the state, with longer
lead times for slow-rise flooding and often little to no lead time for flash flooding.
Flooding can affect California at different times of the year and in different forms—
from stormwater flooding in urban areas to alluvial fan flooding at the base of hillsides.
Rivers and streams flood in different ways—from fast-moving flash floods in Southern
California to slow-rise deep flooding in the Central Valley.
The different types of flooding are shown on pages 11 and 12.
Flood management financing
Aside from the original planning for the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems, flood
risk management in California has primarily focused on individual projects; often without
full consideration of life-cycle operations and maintenance costs, environmental impacts,
and increased hazard exposure. Most major flood management projects have been a
partnership among the California Department of Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), and one or more local agencies, although many significant California
water projects have not relied on Federal funds.
Flood agencies throughout the state have cumulatively invested $11 billion in flood
management in the last decade, with temporary financing from California’s Proposition 1E
and 84 bond funds accounting for most of this money.
Research conducted for California’s Flood Future identified flood management needs
of more than $50 billion. However, many regions must still conduct basic flood hazard
analyses to identify potential flood projects. In addition to identifying future projects,
significant annual costs are associated with the operations and maintenance of
existing projects.
Conduct regional flood risk assessments to
better understand statewide flood risk.
Identifying flood risks is an important first step toward reducing risk and prioritizing flood
management infrastructure needs in California; however, few detailed risk assessments have been
completed. This often causes agencies to default to overly simplistic methods or leave their flood
risk undetermined. Several complex methods are currently used to assess flood risk, which results
in confusion and inconsistent assessment of risk. A consistent method of assessing risk would be
more cost effective and result in better understanding of risk.
Goal: Consistent and locally appropriate assessments of flood risk to help local
governments make informed decisions about priorities for land use, emergency response,
ecosystem functions, and flood management projects throughout the state.
Strategies:
y Identify regional methods and evaluate flood risk to prioritize areas where flood
risk exists.
Standard methods to evaluate flood risk in California must be identified for each region
of the state. Technical support for risk evaluations and data collection are needed
to support the efforts of local agencies.
y Assist in identifying regional flood risk reduction goals and corresponding
acceptable levels of residual risk throughout the state.
Goals can be based on the number of lives and amount of property at risk, degree
of urbanization, critical facilities, flood types, and level of acceptable risk for the region.
y Identify opportunities to restore or maintain natural systems.
Flood risk evaluations should explore opportunities to restore or maintain the function
of existing natural systems.
y Assist agencies in assessing the impacts of climate change and sea level rise.
Climate change and sea level rise information must be developed for all areas of the state
and made uniformly available to public agencies.
Flood management in California is complex.
A number of ongoing technical and planning efforts will impact flood and water
management in California. The efforts listed here are led or funded by the State of
California unless otherwise noted by parenthesis.
y California Water Plan
y Integrated Regional Water
Management Plans
y Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
y Delta Islands & Levees Feasibility
Study (USACE)
y Delta Stewardship Council
Delta Plan
y Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
y Central Valley Integrated Flood Management
Study (USACE)
y Climate Change Initiative
y National Flood Insurance Program Remapping
Effort (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
y California Coastal Sediment Master Plan
(USACE)ToolsUNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION
1
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
RECOMMENDATIONS
823
Local agencies speak out
The California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
developed California’s Flood Future: Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk.
California’s Flood Future contains the first comprehensive look at flooding throughout the
state and presents recommendations to improve flood management in California.
Research used to develop this document included soliciting information from local, State,
and Federal agencies throughout California. More than 140 public agencies responsible
for flood management provided information used to describe problems facing flood
management and develop recommended solutions.
The research findings are alarming.
y Different methodologies and inadequate data make risk assessment complex and
costly to complete.
y Public understanding of flood risk is inadequate. If residents are even aware that they
live or work in a flood-prone area, they usually do not understand that flood management
facilities do not provide 100 percent protection for public safety.
y Emergency preparedness and response does not always receive necessary funding
in all regions in the state. Residents depend on first responders to have the personnel,
expertise, and equipment necessary to do their jobs, especially during community-wide
disasters.
y Land use decisions may not adequately prioritize public safety. Uninformed residents
and policymakers can make decisions that put people and property at increased risk.
y Flood management projects are not prioritized from a systemwide or multiple-
benefit perspective. State and Federal flood management funding has traditionally been
provided to narrow-benefit, local projects.
y Flood management responsibility is fragmented. Responsibilities for planning,
administering, financing, and maintaining flood management facilities and emergency
response programs are usually spread among several agencies.
y Delayed permit approvals and complex permit requirements are obstacles to flood
risk reduction. Many agencies wait years for permits, resulting in poorly maintained
projects and missed funding opportunities for new projects.
y Lack of reliable, sustained funding puts California at significant risk. Inadequate
funding for flood management maintenance, operations, and improvements makes flood
risk reduction difficult or impossible for many local agencies.
Increase public and policymaker awareness
about flood risks to facilitate informed
decisions.
Policymakers and the public have varying levels of understanding about the risks and
consequences of flooding. Historically, they have made decisions that lead to putting people
and property at increased risk.
Goals: Local, State, and Federal officials support policies, programs, and financing
strategies to reduce flood risk in California. California voters support funding mechanisms
to reduce flood risk. California residents in flood-prone regions support local flood
preparedness efforts and develop personal preparedness plans.
Strategies:
y Develop consistent messaging of local, State, and Federal initiatives for public
awareness of flood risks.
Public agencies using common language and outreach tools will help avoid public
confusion and will maximize limited financial resources.
y Provide State and Federal outreach program tools, templates, and other resource
materials to local agencies.
Sharing resources saves time and money, and will facilitate public awareness efforts
in many regions. Sharing resources will foster consistency among outreach programs.
y Catalog, provide, and promote online information resources about flood risk
programs, grants, and other related topics.
A lot of information is available online about flood management, including data, case
studies, budget information, and planning tools. Making agencies aware and providing
easy access to this information will improve flood management at all levels of government.
y Share research data and other information between public agencies in a timely
fashion.
Sharing information fosters collaboration and cooperation between agencies, which helps
save time and money as regional plans and projects are developed.ToolsUNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION
2
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
NORTH LAHONTAN • Alpine County • Lassen County • City of Susanville • Susanville Rancheria • NORTH COAST • Blue Lake Rancheria • Caltrans Region • City of Arcata • City of Eureka • Crescent City • Crescent City Harbor • Del Norte Flood Control District • Hoopa Valley Tribe Office of Emergency Services (OES) • Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District • Humboldt County Public Works Department • Mendocino County Water Agency • Siskiyou County • Smith River Rancheria • Sonoma County Water Agency (Beta Test) • Town of McCloud • Trinidad Rancheria • Trinity County Planning Department • Trinity River Restoration Program • Yurok Tribe •
SACRAMENTO RIVER • American River Flood Control District • Butte County Public Works • Central Modoc Resource Conservation District • City of Alturas • City of Chico • City of Corning • City of Orland • City of Red Bluff • City of Sacramento • City of West Sacramento • City of Willows • City of Woodland • Colusa Basin Drainage District • Colusa County Public Works • El Dorado County • Feather River Coordinated Resource Management • Gerber/Las Flores CSD • Glenn Colusa Irrigation District • Glenn County Public Works • Knights Landing • Ridge Drainage District • Lake County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • M & T Ranch • Modoc County • Nevada County • Placer County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Plumas County Public Works • Reclamation District 10 • Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency • Sacramento County Department of Water Resources • Sacramento River West Side Levee District • Shasta County Water Agency • Sierra County • Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency • Sutter County • Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority • West Sacramento Flood Control Agency • Yolo County • Yolo County Service Area No. 6 • Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Yuba County Public Works • Yuba County Water Agency • SAN FRANCISCO
BAY • Alameda County – Zone 7 • Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District • City and County of San Francisco • City of Corte Madera • City of Mill Valley • City of Novato • City of San Rafael • City of Sausalito • City of Tiburon • Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Reclamation District 2068 • San Francisco Department of Public Works • San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority • San Mateo County • Santa Clara Valley Water District • Solano County Water Agency • CENTRAL COAST • Monterey County Water Resources Agency • San Benito Water District • San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Santa Barbara Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Santa Cruz County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • SAN JOAQUIN RIVER • Amador County • Calaveras County • Calaveras County Water District • Lower San Joaquin Levee District • Madera County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Mariposa County • Merced County Public Works • Merced Irrigation District • San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency • San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Stanislaus County Public Works • Stockton-East Water District • Tuolumne County • Turlock Irrigation District • SOUTH LAHONTAN • Inyo County • Mono County • Town of Mammoth Lakes •
TULARE LAKE • City of Bakersfield • County of Kern • Fresno County Public Works • Fresno Irrigation District • Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District • Indian Wells Valley Watershed Coordinator/Eastern Kern County Resource Conservation District • Kern County Water Agency • Kern Delta Water District • Kings County • Kings River Conservation District • North Kern Water Storage District • Semitropic Water Storage District • Tulare County Flood Control District • SOUTH COAST • City of Chula Vista • City of Coronado • City of El Cajon • City of Imperial Beach • City of Lancaster • City of Los Angeles • City of Oceanside • City of Palmdale • City of San Diego • City of San Diego Storm Water Division • City of Vista • Los Angeles County Department of Public Works • Orange County Public Works • San Bernardino County Department of Public Works • San Diego County Flood Control District • Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency • Ventura County Public Works • Ventura County Watershed Protection District • COLORADO
RIVER • Coachella Valley Water District • Imperial County • Imperial Irrigation District • Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
247
Information for the California’s Flood Future was
provided by 142 local agencies located in all 58 counties,
as well as by State and Federal agencies.
Increase support for flood emergency
preparedness, response, and recovery
programs to reduce flood impacts.
Flood emergency management is a cost-effective, non-structural tool to reduce flood risk. Flood
emergency preparedness, response, and recovery are often fragmented between local agencies
within a region and even within different departments of a single agency. Funds for emergency
planning are often reduced during difficult or contracting budget cycles.
Goal: Effective and comprehensive flood emergency preparedness, response, and recovery
at all levels of government.
Strategies:
y Provide funding specifically for increased coordination among responders, facility
managers, planners, and representatives of State and Federal resource agencies
to improve readiness.
Pre-event coordination improves emergency preparedness by identifying and reinforcing
areas of expertise, available resources, and planning agreement.
y Develop or improve Flood Emergency Management Plans.
Consistent emergency plans based on the State Emergency Management System will
help local responders work together to solicit and accept State and Federal assistance
during emergencies.
y Conduct flood emergency preparedness and response exercises statewide and
increase participation among public agencies at all levels in flood-fight training.
Regular training, tabletop drills, and functional exercises are necessary parts of disaster
preparedness.
y Identify data and forecasting needs for emergency response and water
management.
Accurate and timely forecasts for flood events can increase warning time, save lives, and
reduce property damage. Additional data will help improve the readiness and response
to floods.ToolsUNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION
California’s 10 hydrologic regions
are identified in bold text.
RECOMMENDATIONS
3
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
RECOMMENDATIONS
25
Short-term and long-term solutions are necessary.
Although it will take many years to reduce flood risk to acceptable levels, elected and
appointed officials at all levels must take steps now to reduce risks, and to lay the
groundwork for long-term solutions.
Some short-term actions do not require substantial additional financial resources:
y Land use planning and decisionmaking must consider flood management. This includes
limiting development in floodplains.
y Federal and State agencies must improve planning and permitting processes to allow
critical flood management planning, implementation, operations, and maintenance
actions to proceed.
y Flood management projects must be broadened to deliver multiple benefits such as
environmental and water supply benefits.
y Ongoing public agency outreach programs must inform policymakers at all levels
of government about the risks and consequences of flooding.
Long-term solutions require immediate attention:
y Sufficient and stable funding mechanisms must be developed to invest in public safety.
y Public funding for flood management requires alignment among public agencies
to deliver the most efficient and economical multiple-benefit projects.
Flood management using an Integrated Water
Management approach
Integrated Water Management (IWM) is a strategic approach that combines specific flood
management, water supply, and ecosystem actions to deliver multiple benefits.
An IWM approach promotes system flexibility and resiliency to accommodate changing
conditions such as regional preferences, ecosystem needs, climate change, flood or drought
events, and financing capabilities.
Using an IWM approach is not a one-time activity. Long-term commitments and alignment
among the responsible public agencies is necessary to create sustainable, affordable water
resources systems.
Achieving agency alignment and regional collaboration can be a challenge, as an IWM
approach requires striking a balance between sometimes competing objectives. However,
using an IWM approach can provide broader stakeholder support, faster project completion,
and access to additional funding sources.
Seven recommendations were developed to achieve this vision for flood management.
The recommendations can be found on page 21.
6
The current
economic and
ecosystem
conditions make
it more important
than ever for all
public agencies
to use an IWM
approach to
short-term
and long-term
planning.
Encourage land use planning practices that
reduce the consequences of flooding.
Development in California has increased in areas that are at risk for flooding. Some local land use
agencies experience pressure to foster economic growth by approving development in areas with
high exposure to floods.
Goal: Reduced risk to people, property, and economies in floodplains.
Strategies:
y Work with organizations that represent flood management and land use
professionals to develop planning principles that will help decision makers
determine if property is at risk for flooding.
Promote these principles as “best management practices” to increase wise land use
planning.
y Facilitate regular coordination at all levels among land use planners, resource
managers, floodplain managers, and emergency response managers.
Coordination among planners, flood managers, resource managers, and emergency
response managers can help to reduce impacts of flooding and improve public safety.
y Link funding for flood management improvements to implementation of best
management practices for floodplain management.
Fiscal incentives can help improve land use planning to reduce risks to people and
property, as well as to maintain and restore natural functions of floodplains. PlansINTRODUCTION
4
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
More than
$100B
Estimated
additional capital
investment
needed for ood
management
projects.More than
$50B
Estimated capital
investment
needed for
currently
identied
projects from
local, State, and
Federal agencies.$11B
Capital investment
in California ood
management projects
in the last decade,
including funding
from bond measures.
Implement flood management from regional,
systemwide, and statewide perspectives to
provide multiple benefits.
Historically, flood management projects have primarily been developed on a site-by-site
basis. This approach does not consider California’s complex regulatory, permitting, and water
management environment. It is important for flood management agencies and water agencies
to work together to develop regional solutions that produce integrated benefits.
Goal: Agencies at all levels of government use an integrated water management (IWM)
approach for flood management.
Strategies:
y Identify regional flood planning areas.
Establish specific regions for flood management planning throughout the state.
Boundaries could be watershed based, systemwide, and consistent with existing State and
Federal agency boundaries, including existing Integrated Regional Water Management
(IRWM) Plan funding areas. IRWM is the application of IWM principles on a regional basis in
California.
y Prioritize flood management projects in each region.
Regional priorities for flood management actions can foster IWM actions and make the
best use of funding.
y Expand State and Federal processes for developing, funding, and implementing
flood management projects with an integrated approach in each region.
Encourage and incorporate project components that achieve a broad range of objectives,
including risk reduction. Develop common terminology for State and Federal programs to
help grantors and grantees understand IWM projects.
y Improve coordination between programs and entities for water management and
flood management planning.
State and Federal funding requirements must include coordination between flood
management and water management programs.
y Link funding to an IWM approach.
Incentivizing an IWM approach with State and/or Federal funds will encourage local
agencies to consider systemwide, multiple-benefit projects when developing options
for flood management.
265
INTRODUCTION
Sufficient and stable capital
investment in flood management
must become a public policy priority.PlansWhat would it
cost to recover
from a major
flood event
in one of
California’s
urban regions?
With many more
people and
structures per
square mile in
California’s urban
areas, California
would likely see
much higher
recovery costs
from a major
flood than
the $110 billion*
that has been
spent on recovery
from Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita.
*Congressional
Budget Office, 2007
RECOMMENDATIONS
We must take action. Now.
We must invest now to help prevent flood disasters and to reduce
the impacts of flooding, or we will spend billions more – and face the
consequences of loss of life, livelihoods, and ecosystems – to recover from inevitable flooding.
Major flood events in the country’s recent history provide important lessons for elected
and appointed public officials.
The financial investment in flood management is a small percentage of the economic
impact of a major flood, and an equally small percentage of the money spent recovering
from a major flood.
Research for California’s Flood Future identified the immediate
need for more than $50 billion to complete flood management
improvements and projects. These flood management projects
include maintenance projects and other identified actions.
The research also indicated the need for substantial additional
funding to complete flood risk assessments throughout the state,
and to conduct flood management improvements based on the
assessments.
5
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
6
427
The impacts of a major flood would be devastating
to California and to the nation.
In addition to tragic loss of life, flooding in California can have a serious impact on the State’s
economy and environmental resources.
As one of the world’s largest economies, a major flood in California will have
an unprecedented impact on the national economy as well.
When California floods:
y Critical infrastructure is damaged and could be out of service for long periods.
»At risk are interstate highways, airports, ports, and transit facilities; gas and electric
utilities; and military installations.
y Vital services become isolated or are closed.
»Communities suffer and public funds are depleted when necessary facilities, such
as hospitals, police and fire stations, schools and public infrastructure, are flooded.
y Jobs are lost or put at risk when businesses are distributed or closed.
y Vast areas of agricultural lands become unproductive, possibly for long periods.
»Flooded farmland could have major impacts on local business, national food
supplies, and the state’s economy.
y Water supplies and water quality are affected.
»Flood events damage critical regional water supply and wastewater
treatment facilities.
»A catastrophic levee failure in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta would endanger
a major source of water supply for 60 percent of California residents and for
a portion of the State’s vital agricultural industry.
Increase collaboration among public agencies
to improve flood management planning,
policies, and investments.
California has more than 1,300 agencies with direct responsibility for flood management. This
complex governance situation makes agency coordination fragmented and difficult. California’s
flood and water management agencies oversee operation, maintenance, and improvement
of vital infrastructure facilities within agency boundaries. This traditional “silo” approach is
inefficient and expensive. Improved agency collaboration and alignment will provide a variety
of benefits, including: fostering innovative solutions to problems; improving planning and
permitting processes; developing high-value multiple benefit projects; and prioritizing investment
needs.
Goal: Improved coordination and alignment between local, State, and Federal public
agencies, providing increased effectiveness and efficiency in all aspects of flood
management.
Strategies:
y Establish regional working groups to foster efficient permitting, planning,
and implementation of flood management projects.
Local, State, and Federal agencies must work together to develop solutions and
work through regional issues. Agencies can work together to incentivize participation
of resource agencies in regional working groups that focus on planning and implementing
flood management projects. These working groups would provide a forum to prioritize
projects, facilitate discussions about permitting, and address regional issues.
y Provide funding and in-kind credit programs for regional planning.
State and Federal agencies can set financing program guidelines to encourage local
agencies to collaborate on multiple-benefit projects. Funding programs could be
realigned to direct more funding toward multiple-benefit or watershed-based projects.
y Develop a methodology to prioritize and implement flood management
investments.
Current funding criteria and processes are complex and hamper the development and
implementation of priority projects. A new methodology should be developed and used
by local, State, and Federal agencies to establish investment priorities across the state.
Alignment among current and future local, State, and Federal resources is needed
to implement priority flood projects and programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
ActionsINTRODUCTION
All Californians,
regardless of
whether they live
in a floodplain,
would be
impacted by
catastrophic
flooding.
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
7
283
INTRODUCTION
California is at risk for
catastrophic flooding.
More than 7 million people and $580 billion in assets (crops, buildings,
and public infrastructure) are exposed to the hazards of flooding in
California.
Even with a history of continuing investment and action by local, State, and Federal flood
management agencies, residual flood risks exist in every California county. Residual risk is the
likelihood of damage or other adverse consequences remaining after flood management
actions are taken. No one is 100 percent protected from flooding. Here are the facts:
y One in five Californians lives in an area exposed to flood risk.
y Flooding in California has resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives and billions of dollars
in damages.
y Flooding occurs in almost all parts of California.
y California’s diverse geography contributes to the state’s significant flood risk. In many
California regions, peak flows – the largest volume of water flowing per second through
a water system – occur in a very short timeframe, which spells disaster.
y The number of flood insurance policyholders in California has almost tripled since 1982,
in part because of the increase in the number of structures located in floodplains and
other factors. (Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance
Program, BureauNET, 2012).
Establish sufficient and stable funding
mechanisms to reduce flood risk.
The backlog of identified flood management projects is primarily due to lack of funding, which
puts the State’s economy, environmental resources, and millions of people at risk. Prioritizing and
communicating flood management investment needs will help generate support for increased
funding. Sustained investment in California’s flood management systems can help avoid much
larger future costs for flood recovery.
Goal: Funding to implement planned and future flood management programs and
projects in California.
Strategies:
y Assess the applicability of all potential sources and propose new options
to provide sufficient and stable funding for flood management.
Local and State flood management partners can work together to propose changes
or alterations to local funding methods. For example, changes to current law
(e.g., Proposition 218 - 1996 Right to Vote on Taxes Act) could include reclassification of
flood management agencies as exempted public safety utilities. Regional assessment
districts can be established where needed to support flood management.
y Improve and facilitate access to information about State and Federal funding
sources.
Develop a central online resource catalog that describes the different funding programs
and provides guidance to local agencies on how to apply for funding.
y Increase funding for flood management projects.
Local and State agencies must work together to advocate for sufficient and stable funding
for regionally based integrated water management projects.ActionsAll 58 California
counties have
experienced at
least one major
flood event in
the last 20 years,
resulting in loss
of life, and billions
of dollars in
damages.
RECOMMENDATIONS
2DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk
THE PATH FORWARD
29
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................3
Understanding the Situation.......7
The Problem ...............................13
The Solution ...............................20
Recommendations .....................21
The Path Forward ......................29
The complete California’s Flood Future report,
including technical attachments and other research
findings, is available at: http://www.water.ca.gov/SFMP
Population projections are based on the 2000 census
and all monetary values are in Year 2010 dollars.
Photos in this document are courtesy of the Alluvial
Fan Taskforce, California Department of Conservation,
CalEMA, Central Valley Flood Protection Board, City
of San Luis Obispo, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works, and Orange County Public Works
A foundation of alignment among public agencies
charts the path to success.
Flood management is at a crossroads. Either we continue down the path of fragmented
planning, unreliable funding, and narrowly focused projects, or we use an integrated water
management (IWM) approach to flood management that provides more benefits, sufficient
and stable funding, broad support, and improved public safety.
Inaction could result in flood consequences of catastrophic proportions, risking lives and
jeopardizing property and environmental resources.
As described in the recommendations, the path forward to effective results is charted using
tools, plans, and actions.
Tools
Improved information and understanding leads to enhanced public safety and other
IWM benefits. The tools described in the recommendations, such as flood risk assessments,
should be implemented in the short term while longer-term actions are pursued.
Plans
Flood management solutions must be developed using an IWM approach. Regional
planning must be part of statewide planning for policy and investment priorities. Regional
flood management planning areas and forums must be established to:
y Overcome perceived or real institutional barriers
y Reduce the regulatory and administrative burden to operate, maintain, and improve flood
infrastructure
y Develop multiple-benefit solutions
Actions
Agencies throughout the state should strive for alignment on governance and policies
for flood management. Agency alignment will make the best use of limited time, money,
and staff resources.
Financial investment priorities and sustained funding must be established. Public
agencies at every level must work together to develop and pursue both short-term and
long-term sustainable financing to support flood management that uses an IWM approach.
2ResultsPlansTools
DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk DRAFT I California’s Flood Future Highlights I Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk1 30
The California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed
California’s Flood Future to provide the first look at statewide exposure to flood risk, and
to identify and address the barriers to improved flood management. Information for this
comprehensive report was received from 142 local agencies throughout California, as well
as State and Federal agencies.
The findings here are relevant to all Californians. All 58 counties have declared a flood
disaster in the past 20 years, and one in five Californians live in a floodplain. With millions
of people and $580 billion in assets exposed to flood risk, California faces an unacceptable
threat to public safety, to the State and national economies, and to vital environmental
resources.
The State of California and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have worked for decades
to reduce the risk and consequences of flooding in California. Likewise, many local
agencies have taken significant steps to reduce the flood risk in their communities. Flood
management officials agree that these improvements prevented recent flood events
from becoming major flood disasters, but much more still needs to be done. Even with
this history of ongoing investment and action by local, State, and Federal agencies, flood
risk continues to increase due to population growth, increased environmental awareness,
climate change, and land-use practices.
The California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed
California’s Flood Future based on these guiding principles:
y Floods cannot be entirely prevented. Flood management seeks to reduce the risk and
consequences of flooding to improve public safety, enhance environmental stewardship,
and support economic stability.
y Multiple-benefit flood management solutions designed from a systemwide perspective
provide the most responsible use of public resources.
y Flood management is a shared responsibility. Effective flood management is enhanced
by collaboration and partnerships among public agencies at all levels (local, State, Federal)
and across geographic boundaries.
y Public agencies must achieve sustainable solutions while making risk-informed decisions
for flood management that will be durable across a spectrum of variables, including
climate change.
A catastrophic flood event in California is only a matter of time. Preventing the
consequences of disasters is a more cost-effective and responsible strategy than recovering
from disasters. California’s Flood Future presents a thoughtful look at the issues involved,
and recommendations for the path forward.ResultsPublic Safety
Environmental Stewardship
Economic Stability
THE PATH FORWARD
Results
The recommendations outlined in California’s Flood Future are designed to deliver
measureable results to achieve public safety, environmental stewardship, and economic
stability. These include:
y Reduced risk and consequences of flooding.
y Informed decisions for flood risk made by policy leaders and the public.
y Protected ecosystems and preserved floodplain functions.
y Multiple benefits delivered for projects funded by State and Federal agencies.
y Improved flood management governance and policies.
y Identification of statewide investment priorities.
y Sufficient and stable funding for flood management.
California’s future depends on elected officials,
stakeholders, and agencies at every level of
government working together to improve public
safety, enhance environmental stewardship, and
achieve economic stability.
ResultsActions
The complete report, California’s Flood Future: Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk,
including technical attachments and other supporting information is available for review at:
http://www.water.ca.gov/SFMP
California’s Flood Future
Highlights
Recommendations for Managing
the State’s Flood Risk
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT March 2013
California’s Flood Future is provided to help inform local, State, and Federal decisions about
policies and financial investments to improve public safety, foster environmental stewardship,
and support economic stability
RMA:lz (4-23-13)
http://10.10.11.216/docs/2050/BOS/20500423_269/14163_FC Infrastructure 2012 Attachment A.doc
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Even though the District has limited funding, it has made significant strides over the last several years
improving flood protection services, increasing our knowledge of the hydraulic integrity of our
facilities and improving data collection capabilities. The following is a description of some of these
achievements:
Upper Sand Creek Basin – The District received a $2 million grant to help fund this
detention basin on Sand Creek providing flood protection to the communities of Antioch,
Brentwood and Oakley.
Pinole Creek Restoration Project – The District partnered with the City of Pinole who
received a $2.65 million grant to enable restoration of the lower portion of Pinole Creek and
dramaticall y increase flood protection capacity.
Wildcat Creek – The District received a $560,000 grant to fund the engineering analysis on
two miles of levees to determine what improvements are needed to meet FEMA standards. In
addition, the District was recently awarded a $1,515,000 grant to construct the necessary
improvements.
50-Year Plan – In 2009 the Board adopted the “50-Year Plan” as a concept policy to replace
aging concrete infrastructure with natural creek systems. This constitutes the approach for the
District’s capital replacement program.
Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association – The District played a leadership role in
forming this association.
Levee Vegetation – The District has played a leadership role in communicating the impacts on
local Flood Control Districts of the Corps policy on levee vegetation.
Creek and Channel Safety Program – The District has developed a Creek and Channel
Safety Program that is effective and sustainable and has since been emulated by other Flood
Control Districts.
Geographic Information System Resources – The District developed a right-of-way GIS
layer which shows all of the District’s fee ownership and easement parcels throughout the
County and is available on the County’s mapping website. The District is currently working
on a maintenance layer which will show all of the maintenance activities conducted within
each of the Flood Control District maintained facilities.
Rainfall Website – The District displays rainfall data in real time on its website with updates
on fifteen minute intervals. This allows residents throughout the County to view rainfall data
and use the information to predict flooding in their community. The Flood Control District
works with the National Weather Service to share and coordinate rainfall data, which assists
them in their forecasting models.
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan – Participation in the Bay Area IRWMP
provides the opportunity to develop joint flood protection projects with other water resource
services.