Listen to this post

Guidance

As many in the industry have learned recently, the FY 17 budget only included approximately $3 million nationwide for processing 33 U.S.C. Section 408 review. This is the Section under which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) claims jurisdiction to review and approve any alterations or encroachments to Federally authorized water resources facilities such as levees and channels. As a result, in the last few weeks the funds were all expended and, even after a $500,000 reprogramming, the USACE has only been able to fund a limited number of 408 reviews nationwide. In order to address this issue, and keep review moving, USACE just issued new guidance for a simpler form of funding USACE’s review.

Until now, USACE has recommended that non-Federal interests use Section 214 agreements to fund review. This mechanism, however, was very awkward. First, only public entities were able to use section 214 agreements. Second, even for the public agencies, the agreements were very restrictive (being for a broader range of actions than just Section 408 review) and modifications to the agreements were very hard to obtain. In response, USACE has provided guidance on a simpler form of agreement. The guidance dated June 27 makes clear that it applies to pubic and private entities alike.  It also makes clear that the form of agreement can be amended through negotiation with the Detract or Division, without a need to go to Headquarters.

Upon our first read, we were concerned about paragraph 5(a) which states: “In order to preserve impartial decision making, the funds cannot be used by the final decision maker for his or her review, recommendations, or decision concerning a Section 408 request.” As we read this, it seemed that while funds were available for review, they were not available for approval. However, after consulting with USACE staff, the staff confirmed that this provision only reconfirms USACE’s existing rules that a non-Federal interest can’t buy a decision. In the case of the final 408 decision, the funding for that would be using existing USACE funding sources.

[Please note that as of the writing of this blog, USACE had only posted the Implementation Memo, and the Template Agreement had not yet been posted. We have been assured it will be posted soon.]

Photo of Scott L. Shapiro Scott L. Shapiro

Scott Shapiro is known for his expertise in flood protection improvement projects throughout California’s Central Valley. He is helping clients with more than a billion dollars in projects in California’s Central Valley and issues involving the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the…

Scott Shapiro is known for his expertise in flood protection improvement projects throughout California’s Central Valley. He is helping clients with more than a billion dollars in projects in California’s Central Valley and issues involving the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) throughout the Western United States.

With a special focus on massive flood protection improvement projects, Scott advises clients through regulatory, contractual, financing, and legislative challenges. Acting as general or special counsel, he regularly interacts with senior management at USACE (Headquarters, South Pacific Division, and Sacramento District), the California Department of Water Resources, and the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. He was named to the National Section 408 Task Force and has been invited to give testimony to the National Academies. Scott was instrumental in helping the first regional flood improvement agency that took a basin threatened by flood risk from less than 30-year level of protection to a level of protection approaching 200-year.

Having worked with FEMA on issues of floodplain mapping and levee accreditation for many years, Scott has developed collaborative environments in which he fosters win-win solutions for his clients. He is also currently serving as the lead counsel on a flood insurance rate map (FIRM) appeal and has drafted Federal legislation to modify the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) several times.

Scott is known throughout the region for his extensive litigation experience focusing on cases arising from levee failures. He has litigated levee failures resulting from underseepage, failed encroachments, and rodent burrows as well as briefing levee overtopping cases at the appellate level. Scott is one of the few attorneys with experience litigating flood cases on behalf of plaintiffs as well as defendant government entities.

Photo of Andrea P. Clark Andrea P. Clark

Andrea Clark specializes in water rights and flood control, serving as general counsel to a variety of public agencies from local reclamation districts and water districts to regional joint powers authorities.

Public agencies in the water and flood control fields rely on Andrea…

Andrea Clark specializes in water rights and flood control, serving as general counsel to a variety of public agencies from local reclamation districts and water districts to regional joint powers authorities.

Public agencies in the water and flood control fields rely on Andrea for her ability to explain in understandable terms the wide range of issues impacting them, including basic transparency laws (Brown Act and Public Records Act), public bidding and contracting, bond financing, the unique nature of joint powers authorities, and elections. She also regularly counsels clients on water transfers, Proposition 218 compliance, the California Environmental Quality Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and financing strategies for major capital improvement projects.

With a special expertise in flood control and floodplain management, Andrea is regularly asked to speak on topics ranging from flood insurance to climate change and the future of flood control policy in California. Through her representation of clients in state flood policy and speaking engagements, she has forged strong relationships with key members of the flood control community in California.

Andrea also counsels private clients, including landowners and mutual water companies, on water supply matters, including proceedings before the State Water Resources Control Board, water rights determinations, and contractual disputes with Federal agencies.