HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11052013 - SD.1RECOMMENDATION(S):
ADOPT Resolution No. 2013/424 proclaiming the week of November 4–9, 2013, as California Flood Preparedness
Week; and
ACCEPT the attached report from the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (FC
District) on the 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure and;
DIRECT the Chief Engineer, FC District, or designee, to implement the Action Plans in the Report, with a follow-up
report to this Board annually.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Preparation of this report will cost $115,000, funded by FC District Funds. Implementation of the recommended
action plans and assessment studies over the next fifteen years will potentially cost $10,000,000 to be funded by FC
District and Flood Control Zone Funds, with an effort to offset expenses with grant funds.
BACKGROUND:
On April 3, 2013, the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) released their report entitled, “California’s Flood
Future: Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk.” This preliminary report is DWR’s effort to assess
the state of flood protection, flood risk, and infrastructure needs throughout California. This report is also part of a
statewide flood protection education and awareness campaign culminating with the State’s media rollout the week of
November 4–9, 2013, which has been declared, “California Flood Preparedness Week.” For more information, see
the attached brochure or visit the State DWR web site:
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 11/05/2013 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: Tim Jensen (925) 313-2390
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: November 5, 2013
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc: D. Twa, CAO, T. Geiger, County Counsel’s Office, S. Hymes-Offord, Risk Management, B. Burkhart, CCTV, R. Hernandez, DCD, S. Kowalewski,
Deputy Chief Engineer, M. Carlson, Flood Control, C. Ricci, P.W. Administration, C. Windham, Flood Control
SD.1
To:Board of Supervisors
From:TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Date:November 5, 2013
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Report on Flood Control District Infrastructure & California Flood Preparedness Week, Countywide. (100% Flood
Control District Funds) Proj 7505-6F8135
http://www.water.ca.gov/floodsafe/ca-flood-preparedness/fpw_home.cfm.
In conjunction with the State’s effort, the FC District has reviewed its flood protection infrastructure in order to
understand its history, condition, and future needs. An initial status report was presented to the Board on April 23,
2013, with direction to staff to work with the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee on developing an
assessment plan for the FC District’s flood protection infrastructure. In response to the FC District’s June 18, 2013,
presentation to the East Bay Leadership Council on aging infrastructure, the Council provided the attached letter of
support recommending a comprehensive assessment of the condition of existing facilities.
The attached 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure Report was presented in draft form to the Transportation,
Water and Infrastructure Committee on October 3, 2013. The feedback from that Committee was incorporated into
the report and is hereby referred by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee to this Board.
Many of the action plans recommended in the Report are significant undertakings for the FC District, so a
multi-phased process is proposed as follows: 1) develop pilot project, 2) perform pilot project, 3) evaluate pilot
project, 4) develop strategic plan for remaining sites, and 5) perform studies on those sites per plan. For example, the
pilot project involving concrete structures to provide condition assessments, service life analysis, and preservation
programs will first be performed on a structure with good historical information so the results can be effectively
evaluated. The results from the one site will inform staff of the adequacy of the analysis and guide the future analysis
scope, cost, and schedule for the remaining sites.
The attached report on the 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure provides information regarding the FC
District’s flood protection infrastructure and recommends developing several action plans. In summary;
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
Community Value: The FC District’s current flood protection infrastructure was initiated in the 1950’s by
community involvement in response to flood impacts to public safety, private property, and the local
economy. Due to the successful service of this infrastructure, the damaging flood impacts seen in the past
have not recurred. Today, the original mandate for flood protection has not diminished, but has actually
increased. The FC District’s current flood protection infrastructure is valued at $1 billion in 2010 dollars,
and it protects over $25 billion worth of community resources (17% of the Countywide assessed value of
$145 billion in 2010), and that value continues to rise.
1.
Aging Infrastructure: About 40% of FC District infrastructure will be over 50 years old in 2020 and is
nearing the end of its 75 to 100 year service life, yet condition assessments, service life analysis, and
development of preservation programs have not been performed.
2.
Infrastructure Sustainability: The federal and state programs that provided for over 80% of the original
flood protection infrastructure construction investment are greatly reduced today and are not available for
life cycle replacement, which is estimated to be $2.4 billion dollars. FC District local funds are solely from
property taxes, which are very limited due to Propositions 13 and 218. New funding sources need to
become available in order for the FC District’s flood protection infrastructure to be preserved, as well as
brought up to new standards.
3.
Recommended Actions: The FC District needs to develop focused action plans that will better define the
infrastructure sustainability issues it faces and recommend solutions. Implementation of the recommended
action plans and assessment studies over the next fifteen years will potentially cost $10,000,000 to be
funded by existing FC District and Flood Control Zone funding programs, with an effort to offset expenses
with grant funds. As in the beginning, community involvement will be the key to successfully providing
flood protection infrastructure both now and into the future.
4.
To publicize California Flood Preparedness Week and the need for sustainable flood protection infrastructure in
Contra Costa County, the FC District has prepared a media release and mini-press conference in conjunction with
this Board action.
The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee recommends that the Board declare the week of
November 4–9, 2013, as California Flood Preparedness Week, accept the attached 2013 Status of Flood Protection
Infrastructure Report from the FC District, and direct the Chief Engineer to develop the Action Plans as
recommended in the Report, with a follow-up report to this Board annually.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
The County’s flood protection infrastructure issues will not be adequately addressed, which will lead to lower
levels of flood protection for our communities in the future.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
Not directly applicable.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Supervisor Mitchoff requested staff post the PowerPoint (Tm) presentation to the County website and
distribute to the Board of Supervisors' offices.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 2013/424
EBLC LOS
2013 FCD Status Report
2013 CFPW interim web page
2013 CFPW Brochure 11-5-2013
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
November 5, 2013
Prepared by: Tim Jensen
2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure
First Annual Report: History, Condition, and Future Needs
1 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 Exhibit 2 2013 STATUS OF FLOOD PROTECTION INFRASTRU CTURE
FIRST ANNUAL REPORT: HISTORY, CONDITION, AND FUTURE NEEDS
M essage from Julie Bueren, Chief Engineer
Since its formation in 1951, the Flood Control District has worked with our partners to construct
over $1 billion in regional flood protection infrastructure which protects over $25 billion assessed
property value throughout the County, or about 17% of the total property valuation. This
infrastructure currently consists of 79 miles of flood protection channels and 29 dams and
detention basins. These provide the regional backbone of flood protection for most watersheds
in our County. In addition to providing flood protection, we are working hard to improve our
creek environments and water quality.
In April of 2013, the State Department of Water Resources completed an assessment of flood
protection infrastructure statewide. Their analysis indicated that for Contra Costa County,
40,000 residents still live in a floodplain, $48 million worth of agricultural crops are located in a
floodplain, and $4.9 billion in structures are located in a floodplain and susceptible to flood
damage. Floodplains are the low lying areas adjacent to our creeks where historic flood waters
deposited nutrient rich sediment leading the first settlers to establish their farms and orchards
there. As our communities developed these floodplains often became the heart of a vibrant
downtown which became subject to frequent flooding up until the Flood Control District began
constructing flood protection facilities. Since then flooding has been virtually eliminated in the
communities protected by our regional flood protection facilities.
While our flood protection infrastructure provides a vital service to our communities, it is getting
old. By the end of this decade 40% of the Flood Control District’s facilities will be more than 50
years old. We must begin to plan for the replacement of these aging facilities. At the same
time, the trend in the local, state, and federal government budget process is to reduce spending
on flood protection facilities. This is not only a countywide issue, but a national one.
Collectively, we must lobby the state and federal government to reverse this trend and increase
funding for this key infrastructure need.
In conjunction with 2013 California Flood Preparedness Week, we are providing this report to
outline the status of our flood protection infrastructure, its value to our communities, and the
resources needed to pro-actively continue providing adequate flood protection. Flood protection
infrastructure is often forgotten because it is utilized, and noticed, only during large storm
events. However, if we do not plan for maintaining and replacing this key infrastructure now, the
future impact to our communities will be devastating. We need to only look back at the flood
damage from the 1950’s to see how devastating that impact would be. It is time to work with
our partners to provide the flood protection needed for the next generation.
2 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s (FC District) ability to
adequately maintain our flood protection system and our ability to keep pace with community
needs for acceptable levels of flood protection has been sharply curtailed, and in some
watersheds virtually eliminated, by passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 and Proposition 218 in
1996. The FC 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. There are also capital replacement needs and other projected future issues
on the horizon. Some progress has been made on some of these issues. Below are current and
proposed action plans which need to be developed and implemented to address all the issues
we are aware of:
Several factors contribute to the difficulty of developing the above action plans. The FC
District’s 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, whereas federal funding has decreased. 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. In some cases these two requirements conflict,
causing long and expensive negotiations or no project. Community expectations and
involvement have increased, which can create better projects, but adds another layer of
complexity. The FC District does not have the funds necessary to respond to these increased
requirements and currently has no mechanism to increase its revenue. This report
recommends moving forward with the above action plans to provide sustainable flood protection
infrastructure into the future.
Item Action Plan Description Cost Estimate Time (years)Start
1 Sediment Studies at Channel Mouths $250,000 8 February 2008
2 Study Level of Flood Protection $2,000,000 15 December 2008
3 Review and Report on Financial Status $100,000 2 June 2012
4 Develop Financing Plan $100,000 2 June 2012
5 Develop Communication and Outreach Plan $150,000 2 February 2013
6 Improve Flood Forecasting and Warning Systems $350,000 3 April 2013
7 Conditions Assessment of Critical Infrastructure $5,500,000 7 - 10 October 2013
8 Seismic Study of 5 Dams $1,250,000 5 2014
Assessments Total:$9,700,000 15
9 Corps Improvement Projects $20,000,000 30 1998
10 Levee Improvements to Corps and FEMA Standards $2,000,000 6 October 2011
11 Capital Improvement Program $154,000,000 ?2014
12 Maintenance Backlog Catch-up Process $24,000,000 ?2014
13 Capital Replacement Program $2,400,000,000 ?2029
14 New Flood Protection Standards ???
15 Climate Change Impact Studies ???
Total Financial Need:$2,619,400,000
Financial Need without Capital Replacement Program:$219,400,000
3 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 Exhibit 2
2.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Contra Costa County was organized in 1850. Flooding was a constant companion of
communities struggling to establish and develop within the County. There were 11 floods in
Contra Costa County between 1849 and 1939 the worst being the flood of 1862. Over 15
inches of rain fell in Martinez during the first week in January 1862. The flood waters in the
central valley created a lake 250 to 300 miles long and 20 to 60 miles wide. Telegraph poles
along roads and rail lines in the lower parts of the valley were under water.
On January 10, 1862, newly elected
governor Leland Stanford traveled to his
inauguration ceremony in a rowboat. The
State Capitol was moved to San Francisco
for a few months until Sacramento could
recover. In Contra Costa County, flood
waters washed so much silt down Ygnacio
Valley that Pacheco Slough was filled with
sediment, eliminating Pacheco as a viable
seafaring port town. This flood left the
State bankrupt. Figure 1 below shows the
rainfall for above average rain years in
Martinez since 1849, with 1862 being the
most prominent. Storms that resulted in
flooding occurred regularly, along with the
expensive recovery from flood damages.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
185018521862186718681872187618791881188518891895190519071911191419161919192719381940194119501951195519581966196919731978198019821983198619921993199519971998200020022006Annual Rainfall Average annual rainfall = 20.2 inches
42 out of 164 years had flood events = 26%
Martinez Rainfall History
Figure 1. Historic Above Average Rain Years Where Flooding was Recorded
4 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District was formed as an
independent special district of the State in 1951 at the request of the residents of the County,
and soon after began to build flood protection infrastructure. As Figure 1 indicates, the storms
that historically impacted the County have not become less frequent over the years. We have
seen that since the construction of flood protection facilities the historical flooding has been
virtually eliminated in those watersheds protected by FC District facilities.
Figure 2 (below) shows the flood protection infrastructure owned and operated by the FC
District. The heavy blue lines indicate where the 79 miles of flood control channels are located,
and the District’s 5 dams and 24 detention basins are scattered throughout those areas.
Floodplains (literally the plain that floods) are low lying areas adjacent to the creeks and rivers
that, on average, are inundated with storm flows every other year. Community leaders realized
that flooding would need to be controlled by large dams, or by providing adequate channels or
levees to keep water out of the communities in the flood plain, so they developed a standard
based on the rainfall history at that time. The standard for flood protection facilities became a
“100 year” level of protection. This provides protection from a 100 year storm (statistically a 1%
chance of occurrence within a one year period) and is the basis for FEMA’s flood insurance
requirements. Figure 3 (below) shows the historic floodplain in one of our communities. If a
home is built in a floodplain it is always in a floodplain, even though it is protected by FC District
facilities. And statistically, there is always the chance that a storm larger than the 100-yr design
standard level occurs which would exceed the capacity of our flood protection channels and
Figure 2. Flood Control District Infrastructure
5 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 Exhibit 2 flood the historic floodplain. This recently happened in Colorado where many areas were
flooded due to “1,000 year” storms much greater than the standard “100 year” storm. The
highest level flood that FEMA normally evaluates is the “500 year” flood. The State has already
called for 200 year level of flood protection in urban areas. And experts predict that as climate
change progresses, extreme storm events will become more likely, which will lead to increased
standards for flood protection.
3.0 INTRODUCTION
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 other flood
control agencies throughout the State.
Our flood protection system is comprised of aging infrastructure built in the 1950’s to
1970’s, which has been further weakened by deferred maintenance.
Figure 3. Historic Floodplain in North Richmond Prior to Flood Control Project
6 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 Alhambra Creek Flooding
Downtown Martinez 1997
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.
Continuing to allow development in floodplains continues to increase 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. Their report, “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 for
projects not yet formally developed but
necessary to provide adequate flood
protection in urban areas across the
State.
One in five Californian’s live in a floodplain, and
over one million of those are in the Bay Area.
$575 billion in structures are at risk of flooding, with $130 billion in the Bay Area.
In addition to statewide and regional statistics and conclusions, the report includes the following
statistics for Contra Costa County regarding a standard 100-yr flood event:
40,000 residents are currently in a floodplain and would be exposed to flooding.
There would be up to $4.9 billion in structure and contents damage.
Agricultural damages could reach $48 million.
The report concludes 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
7 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 Exhibit 2 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’s, 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 for $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-designated floodplain saves
the homeowner approximately $1,000 each year in avoided flood insurance premiums. DWR’s
Flood Future report
indicates there are
40,000 residents in the
county that are in
FEMA’s Special Flood
Hazard Area and pay
flood insurance.
County data indicates
that about $5.4 million
in flood insurance
premiums are paid
each year. The primary
goal of the FC District
is reducing flood risk,
which works toward
eliminating the need for
residents to pay flood insurance. Flood insurance premiums reflect only a portion of the cost
savings when all the flood protection provided by the FC District is considered. Since its
formation in 1951, the FC District has worked with our partners to construct over $1 billion in
flood protection infrastructure which protects over $25 billion assessed property value
throughout the County.
FEMA indicates that flood insurance premiums are increasing substantially nationwide over the
next several years as the rates become more actuary-based and federal subsidies are reduced.
In California, during a typical 30-year mortgage period for a home not protected by a flood
control facility, there is about a one in four chance (26%) that the homeowner will experience a
Pine Creek Flooding, Market at Belmont, Concord 1958
8 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 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 flood risk will increase with time due to climate change impacts.
As Figure 4 (below) shows, flooding is by far the most costly of the natural disasters we
experience statewide.
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%, which was subsequently reduced to 75%. In 1996, Congress reduced the maximum
federal cost share on Corps flood control projects to 65% of the total project cost and then in
2007 reduced it further to 50% for new projects. State funding has also been reduced. The
State’s Subvention Program, which assisted local flood control districts with 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.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Severe Weather Earthquake Wildfire FloodMillions Source: Cal EMA 10 Year Disaster History, 2013
Figure 4. California Natural Disasters 10-yr Damage Totals
9 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 Exhibit 2 Figure 5 (below) shows the proportion of federal and local dollars that were invested in the FC
District’s flood protection system each year from the first project until 2010.
4.0 INFRASTRUCTURE CONDITION
The future conditions of various types of FC District infrastructure are impacted by sediment,
storm water runoff, financing, community interest, forecasting, age, and earthquake resiliency.
Specific assessment studies of each of these categories should be performed to provide data
on the scale of their impacts and how best to respond to those issues to provide sustainable
flood protection infrastructure.
4.1 SEDIMENT IMPACT STUDIES
In the past, large quantities of sediment would inundate creeks and channels each winter
Figure 5. Federal and State/Local Share of Flood Protection Infrastructure Cost
10 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 because no sediment controls were placed on construction and agricultural uses. Due to
sediment control regulations, as well as less exposed soil due to urbanization, sediment loads
and their impacts have reduced significantly. However, sediment buildup in the very lower
reaches of our flood control channels continues to be an issue because the Corps of Engineers
constructed them flat. This condition causes sediment from the upper watershed to slow down
and deposit, and it also allows sediment from the bay to travel into the channel during tide
stages and deposit sediment. Today, reduced capacity has developed in some channels with a
resultant reduction in the level of flood protection. The impacted facilities are Pinole Creek,
Rheem Creek, Rodeo Creek, and Walnut Creek. 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. This effort was partially begun in 2008, and we anticipate it taking several more
years to complete.
4.2 LEVEL OF PROTECTION PROVIDED
The FC District’s major flood control channels, such as Rodeo Creek, Pinole Creek, Grayson
Creek, Marsh Creek, and Walnut Creek, are engineered channels that are made in the earth or
made of concrete in a u-shape. They were designed to carry floodwaters quickly through the
community and out to the Bay. Some of these channels also contain levees for a portion of their
length.
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 usually just 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 recently was purchased for a wetlands
restoration project known as the Department of Water Resources Dutch Slough Restoration
Project. The project proponents plan to breach this levee in a few years to allow waters to flow
into the property for wetlands restoration. That levee will be turned over to another agency such
as a reclamation district and the FC District will no longer be responsible for it.
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 as Exhibit 1 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.
11 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 Exhibit 2
In response to a local proposal to restore one of our flood control channels, the FC 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 storm
runoff flows that exceed the original design capacity by over 40%. This resulted 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 fr om the FEMA
floodplain maps. When FEMA revises their floodplain maps with this new information, many
properties will be ‘mapped into the floodplain’ and thus have to acquire flood insurance.
This situation exists in other communities as well. The FC District needs to conduct studies to
determine which communities are affected. FEMA is performing flood capacity studies of the
Marsh Creek and Kellogg Creek watersheds. The FC District is working with the Corps on the
Grayson Creek and Walnut Creek watersheds to provide some of this information. The detailed
studies to determine the level of protection provided by all FC District facilities is estimated to be
$2 million. This effort was started in 2008 and will take at least 10 more years to complete.
4.3 FINANCIAL STATUS
The Flood Control District financial status has changed significantly over the years due to
reductions in federal, state, and local funding as mentioned above. As seen in Figure 5 (above),
the FC District’s first infrastructure boom was winding down just when Proposition 13 was
enacted. This reduction in construction caused the FC District to lower the tax rates in
watersheds where local funding was no longer needed for capital costs, and only the minimal
maintenance was required for a new facility. In some areas, the tax rate was set to zero due to
a funding surplus. Proposition 13 locked in those low or zero tax rates, and the FC District has
not been able to raise them since. The only increases in revenue are due to increased property
values, which go up and down and do not keep pace with construction costs, increasing
regulations, and new standards. Thus, during the second peak of building infrastructure seen in
Figure 5, some of the FC District funding zones incurred debt, and some of that debt is still on
the books.
During the 1980’s the FC District formed Drainage Areas to provide developer-funded capital
improvement programs to install drainage infrastructure in several cities and the unincorporated
County. During the 1990’s the FC District formed Drainage Benefit Assessment Districts to
provide maintenance funding for major drainage facilities that were associated with large
coordinated developments. Also in the 1990’s the FC District became the fiduciary agent for the
Contra Costa Clean Water Program’s Stormwater Utility Fees which require collection f rom
each taxable parcel in the County and distribution to each city and the unincorporated County
for implementing the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Program.
12 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 The FC District has insufficient funding to adequately operate and maintain our current flood
protection infrastructure. To compensate, we limit spending to approximately $3 million per year
on facilities maintenance, which is only 0.3% of our asset value, much lower than the industry
standard.
Today, the FC District manages 71 separate funds, all of which are restricted return to source
funds. The table below provides the past three fiscal year’s average expenditures for the FC
District’s programs.
To put the FC District’s share of property tax revenue into perspective vs. other taxing entities in
the County, we calculated the annual amount collected from a $500,000 home in Walnut Creek
(see Figure 6 below). This was determined by totaling the 1% ad velorem tax portions, special
assessments, and bond measure payments shown on the tax bill. Some of the agencies on the
list to receive property tax also charge use fees or receive revenue from monthly utility bills.
FCD Program Categories Past 3 years Percent
Maintenance $3,549,310 36%
Capital $3,790,207 39%
Public Assistance $1,261,903 13%
Administration $1,240,890 13%
Total $9,842,310 100%
Averages
Figure 6. Annual Property Tax Comparisons - $500,000 Home in Walnut Creek
Bay Area Air Quality: $10 = 0.16%
CCC Mosquito Abatement Dist: $13= 0.21%
County Clean Water: $35 = 0.57%
County Flood Control: $46 = 0.75%
BART: $55 = 0.88%
EBMUD Water: $78 = 1.3%
East Bay Regional Parks: $188 = 3.0%
CCCSD Sewer: $472 = 7.6%
City of Walnut Creek: $536 = 8.7%
Fire/Emergency: $670 = 11%
County General Fund: $779 = 13%
Schools: $3305 = 53%
FCD $9; FCZ 3B $37
13 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 Exhibit 2 The FC District should perform a comprehensive review of its financial status at an estimated
cost of $100,000. A preliminary look at our financial status was performed in 2012 and it will
take about one more year to complete it.
4.4 FINANCIAL PLAN
The ability of the FC District to carry out its mission to provide ongoing flood protection for the
County relies on having adequate funding. When we look at FC District revenue received vs.
other community services and that is compared with the statewide damages caused by flooding
from Figure 4, we see there is an inequality. The argument can be made that flood protection
needs more funding. As in the past, the local community should not and can not support the
entire financial burden for flood protection infrastructure needs. Government programs will need
to be put in place to assist with financing. The FC District should investigate other funding
mechanisms in place for flood control agencies and utilities throughout the State. Potential new
funding sources and mechanisms need to be developed. Since funding is needed nationwide to
deal with ongoing maintenance and replacement of aging infrastructure, we anticipate that state
and federal legislation will need to be enacted. The cost to study this issue and provide
recommendations is estimated at $100,000. A preliminary study of our financial plan options for
some funding entities was held in 2012 and it will take about one more year to complete this for
the remaining funding entities.
4.5 COMMUNICA TION AND OUTREACH PL AN
In the past, the community had recent reminders of the need for flood protection when flooding
occurred at or nearby their community on a regular basis. Today, with the success of our flood
protection infrastructure, and the long time since the historic large floods occurred, we have
seen a diminished perception of the need for flood protection. In order to engage the
communities protected by FC District infrastructure, the FC District needs to develop a
communication and outreach plan. To be successful, this plan will need to engage a variety of
stakeholder groups in various communities throughout the County. We have already started
working with two major stakeholders, the Contra Costa Taxpayer’s Association and the East
Bay Leadership Council, on this issue. The cost to develop a communication plan is estimated
at $150,000. Preliminary discussions regarding communication planning was begun earlier this
year and our goal is to have our plan in place by 2015.
14 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 4.6 FLOOD FORECASTING AN D WARNING SYSTEMS
The success of flood control facility planning depends on the accurate prediction of storm water
volumes generated in a watershed. Over the years the FC District has developed an extensive
system of rain gauges that provides excellent information on the amount of rain falling in the
watersheds throughout the County. To assure the adequacy of regional flood protection
facilities, however, stream gauges are required to measure the actual runoff volumes in a
watershed. The FC District currently receives information from four stream gauges operated by
others.
Comprehensive coverage of the County would require the installation of additional gauges. To
assure the availability of adequate long range planning and forecasting information, additional
stream gauges should be installed and arrangements made for long term operation of the
existing gauges operated by others. The cost to install nine additional stream gauges at various
locations throughout the county is estimated to be $200,000. The FC District just received a
grant to install these gauges which would cover all installation costs. The annual cost of
maintaining these gauges, developing flow rating curves, and collecting stage data is estimated
at $50,000 per year.
The FC District has just applied for a $100,000 grant to install new stream gages in East County
and improve our flood prediction and warning systems. We will continue to plan for flood
forecasting and flood warning improvements and apply for grants to implement those plans.
The total estimated cost to provide adequate flood forecasting and flood warning systems
throughout the county is $350,000. This effort was started earlier this year and should take
about three years to complete.
4.7 CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Our current facility assessment practice is to visually inspect our structures every year for signs
of distress, such as spalling concrete, rust spots, cracks, etc. This type of superficial inspection
is only adequate for fairly new infrastructure and for observing potential failure points.
Most of our channels appear to be 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. The facilities subject to tidal influence are especially vulnerable due to the saltwater
interaction. When our concrete facilities were built they were designed for a 50 year “design
life”. We anticipate getting a 75 to 100 year “service life” from our facilities, but we will not really
know our facilities’ service life unless assessments are completed. For more detailed
information on design life and service life see attached Exhibit 2. The cost to assess the
15 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 Exhibit 2 structural integrity of all FC District facilities is estimated at $5.4 million and anticipated to take
seven to ten years as presented below in Figure 7. This effort is just getting underway and will
require placing some existing efforts on hold so as to not overspend our funds.
4.8 SEISMIC STUDY OF DAM S
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 Dry Creek Dams are in East County and the Kubicek Basin and
Upper Pine Creek Dam are 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 quickly after the storm
passes. The other four dams only have water behind 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. A local
earthquake would impact the structure and/or outlet works, reducing the flood detention capacity
of the facilities resulting in increased flood risk. The failure of any of these dams would result in
inundation of many downstream properties. A structural analysis of the seismic stability of the
FC District’s dams needs to be performed and will cost an estimated $1,250,000 and take about
5 years to complete.
0 Watershed Name Abbreviation
Annual
Budget Total Cost Years
Marsh Creek FCZ 1 $200,000 $1,130,000 5.7
Kellogg, San Pablo, Wildcat,
Rodeo, Pinole, Rheem
FCZ 2, 6, 7, 8, 9,
DA 127 $100,000 $380,000 3.8
Walnut Creek FCZ 3B $400,000 $2,800,000 7.0
Rossmoor Basin DABA 67A $25,000 $85,000 3.4
Canyon Lakes Facilities DABA 75A $100,000 $255,000 2.6
Bogue Ranch Basins DABA 76A $40,000 $255,000 6.4
Rassier Ranch Basin DABA 910 $25,000 $85,000 3.4
West Alamo Creek DABA 1010 $30,000 $100,000 3.3
Shadow Creek Basin DABA 1010A $30,000 $85,000 2.8
Blackhawk Facilities CSA M-23 $50,000 $255,000 5.1
Totals:$1,000,000 $5,430,000
Figure 7. Preliminary Conditions Assessment Action Plan
16 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013
5.0 CAPITAL PROGRAMS
The FC District is already engaged in several capital improvement programs described below,
however, several long-range capital programs have not been evaluated or begun.
5.1 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IMROVEM ENT PROJECTS
The FC District has been working with the US Army Corps of Engineers to modify three of our
channels. These projects include the following:
Habitat enhancements and flood protection restoration to Pinole Creek in Pinole.
Modifications to Wildcat Creek in North Richmond to improve habitat and fish passage, as
well as reduce sediment removal costs.
Modification of the Lower Walnut Creek Channel in Pacheco to establish habitat and
restore original flood protection.
These projects have been progressing very slowly due to the lack of Corps funding. The
estimated cost to complete these projects is $20,000,000. It is difficult to estimate the schedule
to complete these projects because of the long Corps planning process and lack of funding.
5.2 LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS
Several of the FC District’s levees have already been found to be deficient against Corps and or
FEMA flood protection standards, so improvement projects have been identified. These
projects have been progressing very slowly due to the lack of FC District funding, but we have
been able to receive State grant funds enabling us to move forward with improvements to the
Wildcat Creek levees. The estimated cost to complete these projects is $2,000,000 and should
take about four more years to complete.
5.3 CAPITAL IMPROVEM ENT PROGRAM
The FC District is developing a comprehensive Capital Improvement Program which includes
completing the originally planned infrastructure to provide regional flood protection for the
communities that need it. The preliminary reports indicate that the cost to complete these
projects is $154,000,000. It is difficult to estimate the timeframe for this work because all of the
projects and funding have yet to be identified.
17 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 Exhibit 2 5.4 MAI NTENANCE BACKLOG
There currently is insufficient funding to adequately maintain all of the FC District’s flood
protection system, thus a backlog of work has developed. The bulk of this 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 such as Wildcat Creek require 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. Other categories of maintenance backlog include safety fence
replacement, sub-drain rehabilitation, access restoration, and vegetation management. Thus,
significant funding must be identified in perpetuity for sediment removal (or alternative solutions)
and ongoing maintenance needs. The estimated cost of this maintenance backlog is
$24,000,000. It is difficult to estimate the timeframe for performing this work because the
funding has not been identified, and this type of work is actually an ongoing need instead of a
one-time project.
5.5 CAPITAL REPLACEM ENT PROGRAM
The current estimated asset value of the Flood Control District’s 79 miles of channels and 29
detention basins and dams is approximately $1 billion. This estimate was based on researching
the original construction cost for each of the FC District facilities and converting that cost to a
present value in 2010 dollars as shown in Figure 5 (above). Today we are asking, how much is
our capital replacement liability? When will it be needed? It would cost approximately $2.4
billion to replace our existing infrastructure assuming it is replaced in kind. This estimate is
based on future dollar value when the infrastructure is replaced using a 75 year service life, and
assuming we need to begin replacement work as soon as 2029 when the first flood protection
facility reaches the age of 75 years.
There are many other factors that go into estimating the replacement costs of our infrastructure
rather than just converting the original construction cost to future value. There were no or
minimal 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. The
FC District developed its “50 year Plan” specifically to address that issue. 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. The federal and
state programs which provided the majority of the original construction costs are no longer
available.
18 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 The assessments of our existing flood protection infrastructure will provide the data needed to
estimate the cost and schedule for capital replacement. We will then need to identify funding
and community priorities. For this initial estimate, we are using $2.4 billion dollars over a period
of 75 years starting in 2029.
5.6 NEW FLOOD PROTECTION STANDARDS
With the passage of Senate Bill 5, we will soon have to study and implement 200 year level of
protection for urban areas of the County. The US Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA have
increased their flood protection requirements and will continue to do so. The cost to study and
implement these new requirements is unknown at this time.
5.7 CLIMATE CHANGE
With the reports coming out regarding climate change, there is a need to evaluate the impacts
to FC District facilities and prepare to address them. From a flood protection perspective it is
anticipated that storms will be of a shorter duration and more intense, increasing the frequency
of flooding and demand for flood protection services.
Another element of increasing temperatures worldwide due to climate change is the increase in
sea level. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission has adopted a standard of 16
inch sea level rise by 2050, and a 55 inch rise in water levels by 2100. Increased sea level
means an increase in the elevation of San Francisco Bay and the Delta that our flood control
channels drain in to, raising the flood waters ever higher in the lower reaches of our flood
control channels. Sea level rise will slowly reduce the current level of flood protection in our
coastal communities.
The cost to evaluate the impacts of these issues on FC District facilities and prepare plans to
mitigate those impacts is unknown at this time.
6.0 ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Additional requirements by agencies that regulate our flood protection facilities increase the
costs to maintain, construct, and replace them. The FC District does not have funding
programmed to adequately respond to these additional requirements:
Corps and FEMA requirements for structural integrity, safety factors, access, and
inspections have increased.
19 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 Exhibit 2 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 greatly restrict the use of concrete in
channels.
Local communities and advocacy groups are requiring fish passage be provided at drop
structures and dams or that the facilities 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 issues listed above 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 private
property next to flood protection channels.
The FC District partnered with federal agencies to construct our current flood protection
system, most notably with the Army Corps of Engineers. Recently, however, several of
our authorized projects are going through extensive and expensive feasibility studies that
have no end in sight. Confrontational directives such as the Corps requirement to remove
all vegetation from our levees, also strains our relationship. At some point we may have to
reanalyze our long-standing partnership with federal agencies and reauthorize some
projects to include more realistic requirements.
Sediment from the upper watersheds deposits into our flood control channels, which the
Army Corps of Engineers requires us to remove to maintain flood capacity. The Regional
Water Quality Control Board considers sediment a pollutant and requires us to manage
the sediment supply, which is typically on park lands. The Regional Board also restricts
our ability to reuse sediment and where it can be disposed, impacting disposal costs. At
the same time there is emerging evidence that there will be an increased need for
sediment supply in the Bay for wetlands to adjust to sea level rise. The FC District could
be caught in the middle between conflicting regulations resulting in increased cost and
inefficiencies.
7 .0 RECENT AND CURREN T INITIATIVES
Even with limited funding, the FC District has made significant strides over the last several years
improving flood protection services, increasing our knowledge of the hydraulic integrity of our
20 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 facilities, and improving data collection capabilities. The following is a description of some of
these achievements:
Upper Sand Creek Basin – The FC District received a $2 million grant to help fund this $17
million regional detention basin on Sand Creek providing flood protection to the
communities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley.
Pinole Creek Restoration Project – The FC 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 dramatically increase flood protection capacity.
Wildcat Creek – The FC 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 FC 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 FC District’s capital replacement program.
Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association – The FC District played a leadership
role in forming this association.
Levee Vegetation – The FC District has played a leadership role in communicating the
difficulties placed on local flood control agencies due to the recent change in Corps policy
requiring that all trees be removed from levees.
Creek and Channel Safety Program – In 2011 the FC District 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 FC District developed a right-of-way
GIS layer which shows all of the FC District’s fee ownership and easement parcels
throughout the County and is available on the County’s mapping website. The FC District
is currently working on a maintenance layer which will show all of the maintenance
activities conducted within each of the FC District maintained facilities.
Rainfall Website – The FC District displays rainfall data in real time on its website with
updates on fifteen minute intervals. This allows people throughout the County to view
rainfall data and use the information to predict flooding in their community. The FC 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.
21 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 Exhibit 2 8 .0 SUMMARY
The total estimated cost for the above-described assessment studies (items 1 – 8 in Figure 8
below) is $9,700,000 and this work will take approximately 15 years to accomplish. This work is
in addition to the current flood protection improvement projects already underway represented
under items 9 – 11. The planning and studies needed for items 12 – 15 will be performed at a
later date.
9 .0 CONCLUSIONS
On April 3, 2013, the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) released their report
entitled, “California’s Flood Future: Recommendations for Managing the State’s Flood Risk.”
This preliminary report is DWR’s effort to assess the state of flood protection, flood risk, and
infrastructure needs throughout California. This report is also part of a Statewide flood
protection education and awareness campaign culminating with the State’s media rollout the
week of November 4 – 9, 2013, which has been declared, “Flood Preparedness Week.”
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. The State’s top recommendation in their April report is to
conduct flood risk assessments to better understand flood risk in the state.
Item Action Plan Description Cost Estimate Time (years)Start
1 Sediment Studies at Channel Mouths $250,000 8 February 2008
2 Study Level of Flood Protection $2,000,000 15 December 2008
3 Review and Report on Financial Status $100,000 2 June 2012
4 Develop Financing Plan $100,000 2 June 2012
5 Develop Communication and Outreach Plan $150,000 2 February 2013
6 Improve Flood Forecasting and Warning Systems $350,000 3 April 2013
7 Conditions Assessment of Critical Infrastructure $5,500,000 7 - 10 October 2013
8 Seismic Study of 5 Dams $1,250,000 5 2014
Assessments Total:$9,700,000 15
9 Corps Improvement Projects $20,000,000 30 1998
10 Levee Improvements to Corps and FEMA Standards $2,000,000 6 October 2011
11 Capital Improvement Program $154,000,000 ?2014
12 Maintenance Backlog Catch-up Process $24,000,000 ?2014
13 Capital Replacement Program $2,400,000,000 ?2029
14 New Flood Protection Standards ???
15 Climate Change Impact Studies ???
Total Financial Need:$2,619,400,000
Financial Need without Capital Replacement Program:$219,400,000
Figure 8. Overall FC District Action Plans Cost and Schedule
22 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013
Staff recommends that this report be referred to the Board, to coincide with DWR’s media rollout
in November, for direction to move forward with development of the above action plans for
needed assessment studies and flood risk analysis, and to develop strategies for addressing the
long range flood protection needs in the County. Staff also recommends that the Board be
updated annually on the progress of our efforts both to develop plans and implement them, in
the form of a Flood Control District Annual Report.
23 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013 Exhibit 2
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 1
24 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure | 11/5/2013
Service Life for Concrete Channels and Structures
A concrete flood control channel is a reinforced concrete structure and determination of its
service life is the same as for other concrete structures. Bridge design specifications developed
by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), define
service life as the period of time that a structure is expected to be in operation. Design life is
defined as the period of time that the structure can withstand the various and repetitive loading
anticipated with a given set of design specifications. The AASHTO specifications require a
design life of 75 years. In the 1950’s and 1960’s when the bulk of our flood control facilities
were being planned, designed and built, the focus was on structure design life, which in those
days was 50 years.
A structure’s ability to meet its expected service life can be compromised in several ways. If the
loading is increased over time during the service period, the expected design and service life
will be decreased and structural failure will occur sooner than anticipated. Another problem is
environmental conditions the structure is exposed to, such as chemical reaction with the
concrete, extreme temperatures, freeze thaw cycles or excessive bed load. Certain chemicals,
for example, can invade the concrete’s pore structure and initiate physical or chemical reactions
causing expansive
byproducts. These in turn
cause cracks and access to
the reinforcing steel,
ultimately causing corrosion
and spalling concrete. At that
point if major maintenance
and repairs aren’t performed
the structure will proceed
towards failure.
AASHTO specifications
require earth retaining
structures to be designed for
a 75 year service life
considering the potential
long-term effects of materials
deterioration, seepage and
other potentially harmful
environmental factors on each of the structure’s material components. Although bridges,
retaining walls and concrete channels are all reinforced concrete structures, more research
could be done specifically on the service life expectations associated with flood control
channels.
TJ:tj
G:\fldctl\Administration\Business Plan\Annual Report\2013-11-5 BOS\2013 FCD Status Report.docx
10/22/13
Exhibit 2
San Ramon Creek Drop Structure 5, Alamo
Source: https://sites.google.com/site/cfpw2013/
Source: https://sites.google.com/site/cfpw2013/