Posted on 04/05/2006 12:29:00 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Everyone knows that it's risky to build large tracts of homes beside flood-prone rivers but developers and local governments, especially in the fast-growing Sacramento area, are continuing to do it with little regard for the potential consequences--because financially and legally, they are protected from the consequences.
As long as the subdivisions comply with very outdated federal floodplain maps, or the promoters have obtained some sort of exemption from the Army Corps of Engineers, there are no restrictions or flood insurance requirements. And under a recent state appellate court decision, if a levee fails and nearby homes are flooded, the State of California is liable, not developers or the local governments that approve the housing plans.
That court decision, involving a 1986 levee break in Yuba County that cost the state nearly a half-billion dollars, put the bifurcation of authority and responsibility in sharp focus. Local governments can approve all the housing they want next to levees in full knowledge that the state alone is liable for any flood damage, even though the state has no authority over development decisions.
The "Paterno decision," as it's called, sparked several reactions, from sighs of relief among developers and pro-development cities and counties, to heartburn among state officials, who realized that it represented a multi-billion-dollar sword hanging over the state's neck.
It played a role in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal for a massive levee improvement program, but may have also cost members of the State Reclamation Board their jobs when they voted to begin interceding in local land use decisions adjacent to levees. As soon as they voiced that policy, Schwarzenegger replaced them with new members who seem bent on watering it down, no pun intended.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Hope they park their school buses on higher ground.
Could be that if Cynthia McKinney sponsored the bill, instead of Jones, it would pass in a heartbeat. No one wants to trifle with a black, female racist.
Not even Walters.
This is totally irresponsible. Government at it's worst. Home should not be built in these flood areas. The land is suitable for agriculture - nothing else.
Like New Orleans' Ninth Ward, the lands of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta lie below sea level. Cities around the delta plan to build thousands of houses on lands five feet or more below sea level. Some are already built. To many, this seems incredible. Why would we build houses below sea level, creating our own California version of the Ninth Ward, a flood disaster waiting to happen? We are told levees will protect us. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposes to spend billions on bigger, stronger levees, and to pay for it with bonds, so our children will pick up the tab.
Building bigger levees, however, won't make houses below sea level safe. In the next big earthquake, the ground beneath the levees may liquefy -- such as happened in San Francisco's Marina District during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. No matter how big and strong the levees are, they will fail if the ground beneath them turns to soup. Moreover, the levees protect against the 100-year flood, but not bigger floods like the 200-year flood, and the 500-year flood. This is called the residual risk, the risk that the levee will be overtopped by a flood larger than it was designed to protect against.
(snip)
Clearly, the levees give only the illusion of safety. Yet under our federal-flood insurance system, if a levee is certified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as providing 100-year protection, the "protected" area is removed from the officially recognized floodplain and the property owners are not required to buy flood insurance. Perversely, building 100-year levees or upgrading existing levees to a 100-year level of protection can encourage settlement on floodplains that will still flood.
If we allow houses to be built in the delta, the state of California will be on the hook for billions of dollars in liability when the levees fail. We can expect some deaths. It seems crazy, but it pays. The developments are profitable, and the developers make big contributions to politicians.
(snip)
The choice is ours, but we need to act fast. The developers have paid their politicians and they're building now.
The land should be used as the land owners want to use it. As far as being responsible for the consequences of a flood, this too is the responsibility of the land owners.
The city should not build schools, police departments, or fire houses in the area. Folks who live in the flood area, will just have to pay more for their fire insurance, as they have a longer wait for fire trucks. They will have to pay more for schools, because they will have higher transportation costs. This is all part of the responsibility the land owners will have to bear.
I have to disagree with you here. Building permits should not be issued where there are known geological hazards such as landslides, sea cliff erosion, earthquake faults, and flood zones.
In this case these are known flood zones (I personally saw them flooded in 1997). Counties should not be issuing building permits for these areas because it is well known the levee systems will not provide adequate protection.
When the floods occur lives will be shattered, property destroyed, and you and I will be footing the bill for it.
Walter's pointed out that a recent court decision placed the financial responsibility to repair property damage from natural causes on the shoulders of state government because state government is the final authority controlling the permitting process which lead to the property development. Walter's also pointed out that when a state bureaucracy suggested that the state begin to exercise control over that permitting process, the bureaucrats were replaced by the state's executive , ostensibly to prevent the bureaucracy from exercising authority over local government.
The absurdity in Walter's comments is the reasoning that a prudent individual should be entitled to look to government to make him whole for his risky decisions. The pity in Walter's observation is that Walter's assumes it's right and proper for an individual to look to society to underwrite a personal risk. That somehow, society has an obligation to define the risks and demand that the individual protect himself from those risks.
The most salient observation that Walter's offers is the curiosity of the state's executive apparently preventing the state bureaucracy from seeking a natural protection; limiting the authority of local government in a direct, conflict of interest circumstances. Allowing risky behavior without personal consequences.
If a prudent man wants to develop property in a flood plane, let him. But that prudent man must provide the means to make society whole for his risky decisions. A bond or insurance or an additional component of property taxes. Not to reimburse him for his own losses, but to reimburse society for the expense to protect his neighbors from the cost of his risky behavior.
We are in agreement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.