AgdaPkt 2006-06-19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

FLOOD BILLS from page 5........................................... The League anticipates ultimately supporting Section 12657 of AB 1665 (pages 19-20, AB 802. We thank the author and her staff for especially lines 7 to 17 on page 20) would require their willingness to work through the issues with that before the state will contribute any funds to local governments. AB 802 will be heard in the upgrade a levee beyond its original design flows, Senate Local Government Committee on June cities and counties that "lie in whole or in part 21. within the benefited area of that provide" must have executed an agreement with DWR whereby "those AS 1665 (Laird). Flood Control. cities and counties agree to be subject to joint liability and contribution when any action related to Last year, AB 1665 was the lead flood bill the project is brought against the state." moving through the Legislature, focusing on notification of flood risk, analysis of levee integrity The liability sharing requirement does not apply and other moderate steps improve flood preven- to "projects where repairs are being made to tion in California. Notwithstanding the effects restore previous levels of flood protection associ- from Hurricane Katrina, however, the bill stalled, ated with specific design flows." The League in spite of weeks of intense negotiations among views this provision as counterproductive to many stakeholders. improving flood protection. Why would a local government help fund a levee upgrade beyond its This week, AB 1665 was substantially original design specifications - or even beyond the amended to address a variety of new issues, minimum state or federal requirements - if by many of which are designed to enable the Depart- doing so the city would share in the state's liability? ment of Water Resources to better plan for and respond to flood risks. It applies only to areas This is a disincentive to local governments to within the geographical jurisdiction of the State improve flood protection and could be viewed as Reclamation Board - the watershed of the Sacra- an incentive to deny new housing developments in mento and San Joaquin Rivers. areas where increased flood protection is needed. It could also be viewed as a disincentive to improve While most of the provisions deal with admin- levee protection in existing urbanized areas where istrative or procedural issues, several may be of aging levees need upgrading. The League has interest to local governments that are behind shared these views with DWR representatives. levees, regardless of whether or not the levees are owned or operated by another local agency. The League is studying AB 1665, but unless Cities are encouraged to review those sections the liability provision is deleted the League will and send their comments to Assemblymember oppose the bill. Impacted cities should review AB Laird and the League. 1665 and send their comments to Assemblymember Laird and the League office. AB Of significant interest to cities is a provision 1665 will be heard in the Senate Natural Re- that is designed to provide liability relief to the sources and Water Committee on June 20. state for flooding from failures in state project levees. Since the state paid out nearly $500 S8 1796 (Florez). Reclamation Board. billion in damages due to the Paterno decision (Paterno v. State of California, [2003]), it has SB 1796 proposes to restructure the State searched for ways to share that liability with cities Reclamation Board and to direct the board to and counties, even if the cities and counties have review development projects and land use plans to no control over the ownership and operation of a ensure flood protection. While the League does not levee. have a position on the Reclamation Board compo- sition portion of the bill, we had expressed concern Continued on Page 7 PAGE 6 - PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the league's Official Website..www.cacities.org June 2, 2006 - Issue #22 ~~~_.~ "-,