Marysville Levee Commission
2017 Update to the CVFPP CVFPP is a dynamic, programmatic plan with a 30 ‐ year horizon Updated in five year cycles – first adopted in 2012, first “Update” in 2017 Refines and updates the State Systemwide Investment Approach (SSIA) Adds specificity about recommended near and longer ‐ term investment and financing approach Provides broad guidance about more resilient risk management Coordinated and aligned with other major flood management effort s
Purpose of the RFMP Build upon the CVFPP by: describing regional flood management challenges and deficiencies identifying solution strategies and projects, setting priorities developing a local financing plan for their implementation to leverage local, State, and federal funding
Feather River RFMP Regional Goals and Objectives Regional Stakeholders and Outreach Flood Management Hazards, Challenges and Constraints Plan Formulation Solution Strategies and Management Actions Integration of Flood Management with Agriculture and Wildlife Comments Received Alternatives Evaluation, Comparison and Prioritization Financial Planning Draft Final Plan Released to Public August 2014
RFMP Round 2 DWR requested that the Regional Workgroups continue planning efforts through 2017 Continued Outreach on BWFS and CVFPP Update Evaluation of Regional Governance Development of Strategies to address Institutional Barriers
Feather RFMP II Efforts Continued Outreach through electronic communications Continued input and feedback on BWFS and CVFPP Active participation in the following to address institutional barriers: Feather River Regional Permitting Program Agricultural Floodplain Ordinance Task Force Coordinating Committee Study of governance alternatives Development of cost estimates for adequate OMRR&R in the region
Institutional Barriers Feather River Regional Permitting Program State led effort to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan to cover O&M and capital projects in the Feather River Region DWR currently reviewing preliminary plan Ag Floodplain Ordinance Task Force Cost shared by 3 Regions Development of alternatives to allow FEMA and Local Land Use agencies to allow non ‐ residential agricultural development Currently developing draft final technical memorandum
Challenges of O&M Changing Regulations Design Standards Endangered Species Act Increased Urban Development Behind Levees Repair, Rehabilitation, and Replacement Obligations Lack of Understanding regarding the Roles & Responsibilities of Local, State, and Federal Agencies Use of Original System Design Profiles Age of the System Increased Obligations resulting from Capital Funding
The Challenge How things were… How things are now… From Single Purpose To Multi-Benefit 9
Not Just O&M! It’s OMRR&R 10
̶ ̶ DWR OMRR&R Cost Evaluation Need to Identify the “true costs” of OMRR&R 2012 CVFPP, AB 156, and USACE “simple” estimates are • outdated and generally inaccurate Reasonable “true cost” estimates – identify all needs • O&M and RR&R – very different categories Long ‐ term (50 year+) evaluation Repeatable and defensible method • Evaluate and quantify the OMRR&R funding shortfall • Account for and integrate environmental concerns • Identify real ‐ world permitting and mitigation costs •
Bottom-up approach reveals “true cost” 12
Findings by the Numbers $130M What we should be spending annually $30M What we are spending annually Other Numbers and Cost Examples $40K ‐ $60K…. OMRR&R on 1 Mile of Levee $10 ….……… Removal of 1 Cubic Yard of Sediment $25K.……….. Removal of 1 Acre of Arundo (estimated 360 acres total) 2,274……….. # of Pipes potentially the responsibility of LMA’s (out of 5,500 total penetrations based on UCIP data) $2K ….……… Each Video Pipe Inspection (Now as high as $3,500!) $240K ……… Pipe Replacement (lower $ for abandon/removal/slip ‐ lined) 13
Feather River Regional Governance 8 Hydraulic Basins • 12 Local Maintaining Agencies • LDs 1 and 9 • RDs 10, 784, 817, 1001, and 2103 • Marysville Levee District • MAs 3, 7, 13, and 16 • Flood Control Agencies • TRLIA, SBFCA, Sutter Yard, and YCWA • Four Counties: • Sutter, Butte, Yuba, and Placer • Six Cities • Yuba City, Marysville, Live Oak, Biggs, • Gridley, and Wheatland
Feather River Regional Costs More Detailed Evaluation of Costs for Each LMA Typical O&M Costs RR&R Costs for Relief Wells, Piezometers, Inclinometers, Pump Stations, Pipe Crossings, Concrete Lined Ditches for relief well water collection, and Flood Control Structures (i.e. stop logs at railroads) Findings Typical Cost Range between $45,000 ‐ $85,000 per levee mile Existing Budgets are between $700 ‐ $42,000 per levee mile Consolidation scenarios reduce costs per levee mile for overhead expenses including insurance, accounting, management & administration
State Maintenance Areas State Maintenance Areas currently collect less per parcel than most LMAs Differences State Overhead can often be charged to DWR General Funds (Engineering, Legal, Management, and Accounting) State can only legally collect for activities expected in a given year and cannot establish emergency reserve or capital replacement funds This could lead to enormous cost increases in years where repairs or replacements are required Sutter Yard maintains 92 miles of levee in the Feather Region, plus additional sections in the Upper Sacramento River, Lake County and all the Channels and Levees in Water Code Section 8361. During flood events, they are not adequately staffed to monitor and/or flood fight all of the facilities under their responsibility
Governance Alternatives Hydraulic Basin Approach Expanded JPAs or Countywide Authorities Regional Collaboration Agreements One large Regional Oversight Entity Business as Usual * Several alternatives could be combined
Hydraulic Basin Approach Advantages: Disadvantages: More efficiency through Downstream properties benefit combined overhead and more and may have much administration higher assessments Ability to collect from all New district would assume all direct beneficiaries debts and obligations of existing districts Potential inequities between poorly funded and well funded districts
Expanded JPAs or Countywide Authorities Advantages: Disadvantages: Consolidated overhead Developing a sustainable funding source LMAs would continue to Small potential for some loss control day to day operations of local control to the larger Avoid political difficulties by entity keeping in one County
Regional Collaboration Agreements Advantages: Disadvantages: Coordinated Operations Cooperation between multiple agencies LMAs would continue to Geographic Scale control day to day operations Not a stand ‐ alone option and can be combined with other alternatives
One large Regional Oversight Entity Advantages: Disadvantages: Coordinated Operations Developing a sustainable funding source LMAs would continue to Potential for some loss of control day to day operations local control to the larger Large Entity has more entity leverage for funding and Geographic Scale regulatory changes
Business as Usual Advantages: Disadvantages: Continue as is Continued inefficiencies Ability for coordination Lack of adequate funding agreements to provide some Lack of leverage for funding efficiencies or regulatory changes
Next Steps Establish Evaluation Criteria Can local control be maintained or does the alternative have the potential to diminish the existing local control that brings with it local knowledge, experience, and vested interest in flood protection? Does the alternative result in decreased cost for OMRR&R? Does the alternative open expanded opportunities for collecting revenue to support OMRR&R and/or capital improvements? Does the alternative bring increased liability to neighboring basins associated with long ‐ term debt or flood liability? Should the State cost share the new state and federal mandates with LMAs? Others?
Tom Engler, E.I.T., CFM Project Manager (916) 456 ‐ 4400 engler@mbkengineers.com
Recommend
More recommend
