My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00131
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
PUB00131
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2011 11:14:48 AM
Creation date
9/30/2006 10:21:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
1998
Title
Layperson's Guide to Flood Management
CWCB Section
Watershed & Flood Protection
Author
California Water Education Foundation
Description
Layperson's Guide to Flood Management
Publications - Doc Type
Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />On <br /> <br />. <br />Oln <br /> <br />and Pro <br /> <br />osed Pro · ects <br /> <br /> <br />A $/.3 billion p/"(~iecl is <br />underway to protect urball <br />dn'e/opment near rhe <br />Santa Ana River (the <br />chal11/el on the left) ill <br />southern California. <br /> <br />In the past, many of the West's large water projects <br />such as California's federal CVP, were fully funded <br />by the federal government. In 1986, Congress was <br />faced with a growing national deficit and changed <br />the terms and ratio of cost.sharing for Corps flood <br />management projects with local and state govern- <br />ments under the Water Resources Development Act. <br />Increased cost-sharing was seen as a way to stretch <br />federal dollars over a large number of projects while <br />eliminating less economical ones. It also would <br />enable local agencies to have more influence over <br />the selection of projects, <br /> <br />Cost-sharing ratios may vary, depending upon the <br />project phase, Preliminary studies - called recon. <br />naissance studies - on proposed projects are usually <br />paid 100 percent by the Corps, If the project <br />proceeds and future feasibility and environmental <br />studies are warranted, the cost is shared on a 50-50 <br />basis with non-federal entities. <br /> <br />The 1986 Water Resources Development Act, <br />amended in 1996, afso set forth requirements for <br />the non-federal sponsors of flood control projects, <br />Under the act non-federal sponsors must: <br /> <br />. Provide lands, easements and rights.of.way <br />needed for project construction and operation; <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />. Perform relocations and alterations of buildings, <br />utilities, highways, bridges, sewers and of her <br />facilities required for construction of the project; <br /> <br /> <br />. Pay at least 25 percent but not more than 50 <br />percent of the total cost; <br /> <br />. Operate and maintain the project after construc- <br />tion and hold the federal government harmless. <br /> <br />There are about 100 flood control projects under- <br />way in California, most of them involving smaller <br />streams, The largest project is the $1,3 billion Santa <br />Ana River Mainstem Flood Control Project that aims <br />to protect people and property in San Bernardino, <br />Riverside and Orange counties. More than 20 miles <br />of the 23-mile river were channelized and levees are <br />being built or rehabilitated, A dam on the upper Santa <br />Ana River, the Seven Oaks Dam, is under construc- <br />tion and expected to be completed in 1999, The last <br />phase of the project will involve significantly increas- <br />ing the capacity of Prado Dam spillway, Mitigation <br />for environmental damage by the project includes <br />the purchase of about 1,700 acres of land to be set <br />aside for the preservation of sail marsh habitat for <br />endangered species. <br /> <br />A decades-long, $196 million flood control rehabili. <br />tation project along the Sacramento River was begun <br />after the 1986 floods, One of the proposals to lessen <br />the tfood danger to Sacramento, along with rebuild- <br />ing levees, is to permanently increase the flood <br />storage space behind Folsom Dam from 400,000 <br />acre,feet to as much as 670,000 acre.feet. However, <br />increasing flood storage lessens space available for <br />water storage, potentially causing water shortages <br />in dry years. Less water also is available for <br />hydropower production. In addition, the lower water <br />levels could threaten valuable fish and wildlife <br />habitat and decrease recreational opportunities on <br />the river and reservoir. Temporary reoperation is <br />underway and it, along with increased storage space <br />behind Fofsom, was attributed with averting inunda. <br />tion of Sacramento during the 1997 New Year's <br />storms. <br /> <br />Some suggest that the ultimate flood control solu- <br />tion for Sacramento is Auburn Dam, first authorized <br />for construction in 1965 as a multipurpose project. <br />Construction of the dam, located on the north fork of <br />the American River above Folsom Dam, was stalled <br />in 1975 after an earthquake struck the Oroville area, <br />41 miles north of Auburn. New seismic consider- <br />ations were built into the design but changes in <br />federal cost-sharing rufes, as well as a growing <br />disagreement among project proponents, environ- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.