Flooding in Woodland? Time to Move on to "Plan B"
By Dave Rosenberg, Yolo County Supervisor, 4th District
I talk to a lot of folks from Woodland, many of them who have lived in town for half a century or more. None of them recall floods in Woodland. As the Sacramento Bee recently stated in an editorial: "In its history, Woodland has never flooded." Notwithstanding that historical fact, the Flood Elephant came to sit in the middle of Woodland's living room recently when the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in its infinite bureaucratic wisdom, decided to include a portion of Woodland on a map designating that portion to be in the 100-year flood plain.
That map designation caused many local political leaders to launch the planning process to develop public works which could "protect" Woodland from the 100-year flood. The two major works under consideration in the last few months were a flood wall and a setback levee. Both were very expensive projects. Both would result in the loss of farm land. Both also began to drive a wedge between the farming community and the urban residents of Woodland. The farming community felt that either project would adversely impact agricultural practices, would diminish the value of farm land, and would actually take farm land out of production.
But it was the cost of the two potential projects that presented the largest immediate barrier. The setback levees would cost somewhere between $36 and $46 million to build with $3 million annual maintenance costs thereafter. The flood wall would cost $28 million to construct with $2 million in annual maintenance costs. To pay for projects of this magnitude, Woodland residents would have to step up and tax themselves for a portion of the cost.
The Woodland City Council put just such a measure on the March 5 ballot as Measure G. The result is, in my opinion, telling and conclusive. The residents of Woodland have spoken. They voiced, at the ballot box, a resounding "no" to the flood wall and setback levee options. The defeat of Measure G is crucial. Without a local source of funding, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Water Resources will likely halt the process to consider a flood wall or setback levee. Equally as important, this election was timed so that funding could be included in the current Water Resources Development Act wending through Congress. The next such Act won't be considered until 2004. Accordingly, even if the voters of Woodland were to agree to a local tax next year (highly unlikely in any case), the earliest that such a flood control project could be built is 2009.
I heard the voters of Woodland loud and clear, and I hope and trust that other elected leaders in and around Woodland heard them as well. As a result of FEMA's map, some homes and businesses in Woodland will pay more money each year in increased flood insurance. However, that cost is estimated to be about $2 million per year. Woodland residents have voted to say that they are willing to bear that cost as opposed to the construction costs and annual maintenance costs of a flood wall or a setback levee.
But just because the voters of Woodland have rejected the expensive and divisive flood wall or setback levee projects, doesn't mean we can't explore less expensive and less divisive alternatives to provide some measure of flood protection. Cleaning out Cache Creek only provides a 40-year level of protection for Woodland, but 40 years is 40 years. And it is an inexpensive option that is generally and widely supported.
In my opinion, active pursuit of the Cache Creek Resource Management Plan is the way to go. This Plan is implemented through a partnership between the County of Yolo and the Cache Creek Conservancy. Here is what we can and should do:
· Remove tamarisk and giant reeds to prevent the spread of invasive, non-native species that are hostile to the riparian environment and significantly reduce the flood capacity within the Cache Creek channel. The Conservancy, with the support of the County, is currently working on such a program funded by the Wildlife Conservation Board, to remove these species within Cache Creek, in close cooperation with landowners. · The County's Technical Advisory Committee has established guidelines and provides expertise to ensure that selected, limited sediment removal allows for the targeting on specific problem erosion areas, without significantly and adversely erosion on adjoining properties up and down stream. · The County and the Conservancy are working on planting native species along the sides of the creek, to protect adjoining structures and farmland from erosion, while maintaining a clear area in the center of the channel to allow flood flows to pass through. · The County encourages the use of "soft" bio-engineering techniques, employing a mixture of plants and rock, to allow landowners protection against swift, erosive currents while maintaining and in some cases enhancing habitat values. · Further analysis should be given to clearing and grubbing Cache Creek to remove certain vegetation, sediment and obstructions.
Other options, such as on and off stream storage are to me, less promising alternatives. They cost a lot of money, provide only marginal improvements in flood protection, and take agricultural land out of production. While it may be useful to explore such alternatives, I feel less confident that the exploration will lead to results that we can achieve.
"Plan A" (the flood wall or setback levee options) has been soundly rejected by the voters of Woodland. It's time to move on to "Plan B".