Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Flood Management <br /> <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The ri\'ers and streams <br />,hat bring prosperity to <br />Ca/{fomia also can bring <br />deaTh and destruction <br />~\'hell they bllrst from <br />their hanks. <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br />The rivers and streams that are the lifeline of <br />California also can be tremendously destructive <br />forces when they burst from their banks. Inundation <br />of developed floodplains are a particular problem. <br />Hydraulic mining practices during the Gold Rush era <br />clogged the rivers with sediment, raised the river <br />beds, and interfered with navigation and farming. In <br />1862. Sacramento was inundated by flood waters. <br />in some areas the water was more than 20 feet deep. <br />In response, landowners, merchants, and <br />farmers joined forces to protest the <br />practice of hydraulic mining. In 1884, it <br />was prohibited by the federal court. <br /> <br />The first plan to control seasonal flood- <br />ing of the Sacramento Valley was tormed <br />by State EngineerWilliam Hammond Hall <br />in 1880. Once called the "Nile of the <br />West," the Sacramento River yields about <br />35 percent of the state's water supply. In <br />its natural state, the river periodically <br />overflowed its banks during heavy winter <br />rains and spring snowmelt. The need for <br />flood control was highlighfed by devas- <br />tating flooding between 1902 and 1909. <br />In 1917 a Sacramento Flood Control <br />Project was authorized consisting of a <br />system of levees, overflow weirs, pumping plants and <br />bypass channels. In times of high flows, the bypasses <br />carry many times the amount of water left in the <br />Sacramento River. Relieved from the threat ot 1I00ds. <br />the area experienced an agricultural renaissance. <br /> <br />Today the Central Valley has a 1I00d protection <br />network that includes 23 reservoirs with flood de- <br />tention space and more than 1.760 miles of feder- <br />ally designated levees. overflow weirs and channels. <br />In addition, a series of dams were built on the west- <br />ern slope of the Sierra Nevada for both flood control <br />and water supply. These include Shasta Dam on the <br />Sacramento River, Oroville Dam on the Feather River <br />and Folsom Dam on the American River. <br /> <br />The flood management system has been sorely <br />tested over the years - most recently by the 1997 <br />New Year's flood. The January deluge, which was <br />the second most devastating flood to hit this century. <br />killed nine people, forced the evacuation ot 120.000 <br />people, and caused nearly $2 billion in damage. The <br />flood's destruction raised many questions - from <br />technical to philosophical - about the limitations of <br />floodplain management and the hazards of flood- <br />plain development. <br /> <br />Flood conditions in 1986, 1995 and 1997 prompted <br />the Sacramento region to improve its existing flood <br /> <br />control system. The long proposed Auburn Dam, on <br />the American River above Folsom Dam, remains a <br />controversial and unfinished leature ot the CVP. <br />Though originally designed as a multi-purpose <br />project, the focus in recent years has been on a flood- <br />control only project at the Auburn site. Work on the <br />dam was halted in 1977 following an earthquake <br />which raised questions about the dam's satety and <br />attempts to get the project completed have failed. In <br />2000. the Bureau began an EIRlEIS for filling in the <br />by-pass tunnel to divert the river around the dam <br />site, restoring the original river channel, and replac- <br />ing the Placer County Water Agency pumps moved <br />when dam construction began. Cost estimates for <br />the proposed restoration hover around the 529 <br />million mark to be cost-shared by state and federal <br />entities. The mitigation plan is opposed by some who <br />feel its implementation would signal an end to the <br />Auburn Dam. <br /> <br />In the state's more arid southern California region, <br />flash floods prompted formation ot a flood control <br />system in Los Angeles in 1915. It was the first <br />flood control district. To protect against flash flood <br />dangers, one of the largest and most intricate <br />flood control systems in the world was constructed. <br />The network is operated by the Los Angeles County <br />Department of Public Works in coordination with <br />the Corps. It includes 15 flood control and water <br />conservation dams, 450 miles of open flood control <br />channels, and 2,500 miles of underground storm <br />drains. <br /> <br />Flood control involves many diflerent local. state and <br />federal agencies and their management philosophies <br />change with the political and economic times. There <br />is growing concern over the costs of providing <br />disaster relief to property repeatedly damaged by <br />floods. Traditional flood control strategies also have <br />been aflected by the massive 1993 Mississippi River <br />flooding. The concept of floodplain management <br />came to the forefront and interest was renewed <br />following the 1997 New Year's flood. Floodplain <br />management includes giving constricted rivers more <br />breathing room by setting back levees. reducing <br />floodplain development and giving equal weight to <br />environmental and economic factors in making <br />management decisions. <br /> <br />Complicating flood control practices and manage- <br />ment are the often contlicfing water supply practices <br />and needs. Flood control managers must keep <br />enough reservoir storage space available to <br />manage floods during heavy precipitation but water <br />suppliers focus on storing enough water to protect <br />against drought. <br />