The Oroville DamAs many of you know, the big news on Tuesday was that the spillway on Oroville Dam had developed a large crater from water eroding away the Oroville Spillway structure.  Based on the large hole, DWR stopped all flows down the Spillway to evaluate the damage.  Water users downstream started to get nervous as Oroville was rising quickly, and folks feared that water could come over the emergency spillway, which would be uncontrolled.

So this might be time to back-up and offer some context.  Oroville is on the Feather River and holds about 3.5 million acre-feet.  It was about 80% full when this happened, and the operators were releasing about 70,000 cfs to make room for the storm that was on its way in.  Inflow into Oroville has exceeded 200,00 cfs in the past, and the levees downstream have historically started to be stressed at flows approaching the 100-year event, or about 150,000 cfs.  Thus, the strategy was to release enough water to make room to hold back the peak of the latest storm.  In other words, the reservoir was to function as intended.

Flooded AreaResearchers at UC Davis recently concluded that California should consider leaving the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and explore implementation of its own statewide flood insurance program in order to invest in risk reduction rather than premiums.  This is an idea that has been talked about for years by state and local flood management experts.  But does it make sense?

The National Flood Insurance Program

The U.S. Congress established NFIP with the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. NFIP is a Federal program enabling property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses in exchange for state and community floodplain management regulations that reduce future flood damages. Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between communities and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). If a community adopts and enforces a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risk to new construction in floodplains, the government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses.

ThoughtsThis is a follow-up to our blog post last week, “FEMA Issues Draft Regulatory Amendments To Implement President Obama’s Executive Order 13690 And The Federal Flood Risk Management Standard; Comments Due By October 21, 2016.”

FEMA’s Approach to Amending Its Regulations

Many of the proposed amendments to the regulations focus on the details for the implementation methodologies as well as the inter-relationship between them. For example, what should one do when there are contradictory scientific approaches? What should one do when the best available science indicates a flood elevation that is lower than would be used under the freeboard value approach? Is it practical to use the .2 percentage approach when only 18% of FEMA’s maps contain data on the .2% event? Based on these and other questions, on page 35 of the proposed amendment package FEMA proposes to make the freeboard value approach the standard approach for all events that are not critical actions, and to make the freeboard value approach the chosen approach for critical actions unless the agency finds that the climate-informed science approach results in a higher elevation.

EightIntroduction

Executive Order 11988 (EO 11988) requires Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains where there is a practicable alternative. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is now proposing to amend its regulations (found in 44 CFR Part 9) which describes the traditional 8-step process that FEMA uses to implement EO 11988. The amendment is being driven by Executive Order 13690 (EO 13690), issued by President Obama in 2015 to address increased risks as a result of climate change, which changed the definition of “floodplain” for projects that are “Federally funded” (defined as actions involving the use of Federal funds for new construction, substantial improvement, or to address substantial damage to a structure or facility). In these cases, the new broader definition of floodplain (developed under one of three approaches described below) will likely result in a larger floodplain and a requirement to design projects such that they are resilient to a higher vertical elevation. However, for actions that don’t meet the definition of a Federally funded project, FEMA will continue to use the historical definition.

5 DucksIntroduction

The Senate’s Water Resources Development Act (WRDA – S.2848) would reduce the deficit by $6 million in its first decade, the Congressional Budget Office has said. This score makes it more likely that the bill may get floor time, although the very limited number of Congressional sessions between now and the election makes passage of the bill increasingly unlikely.

Discussion

WRDA is the act by which Congress authorizes new water resources projects, including new ports, locks and levee projects while also advancing improvements to the country’s municipal water programs. Once upon a time, WRDA was passed about every two years, but starting in the late 80’s the time between acts started slipping, culminating in acts in 2000, 2007, and 2014. The Republican leadership, in particular Congressman Schuster in the House, has been pushing to pass a bill this year, returning Congress to its every other year schedule. Supporting this effort is a series of Chief’s Reports that have been finalized, a necessary precursor to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers advancing flood risk reduction and ecosystem restoration projects.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scores bills based on their costs to the nation. The lower the score, the less costs, and the more likely that the act will receive floor time in light of the Majority’s PayGo (“pay as you go”) philosophy. The CBO has concluded that the Senate bill would cost $10.6 billion overall in its first decade. But because those are just authorizations, Congress would still need to appropriate funds.

Last fall we crossed our fingers that the predicted El Niño weather pattern would drench us just enough to alleviate California’s critical drought conditions, but not so much that the flood control system would be overwhelmed (even though, as I explained here, past El Niño patterns have not been associated with big flooding events).

The critical factors for past major floods have been how early in the year water falls (earlier means reservoirs fill up and there’s less room for additional rains) and whether there is significant rainfall in a short period of time.

So, did El Niño come through? Yes and no.

Yes, it came through, because we got a lot of rain and snow, at least compared to what we’ve received in the past four years of drought. It’s been the wettest year since the drought began in 2012. Our critical Northern California reservoirs (Shasta, Folsom and Oroville) were each over 100% of historical average levels as of April 7. The State Water Project Contractors, who receive water by contract with the Department of Water Resources, are expecting to get 45 percent of requested water for 2016 (that’s comparatively high based on the last few years of precipitation).

Our statewide snowpack has also fared well in the winter of 2016. As of April 1 it was 89 percent of average; skiers have rejoiced after a few dismal years.

But no, it didn’t come through, because our precipitation remains below average in both Northern and Southern California, and Southern California is particularly low. Reservoirs in the San Joaquin Valley have not recovered the way northern reservoirs have.

Flood Insurance. ProgramjpgPeople definitely care. But not enough people are likely to care to make a political issue out of it due to how the rate increases were designed. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) rate increases called for by the last two acts of Congress are designed as slow and modest increases for the vast majority of folks holding policies. Indeed, this appears to be the reason Congress passed the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 (HFIAA), in order to amend and soften the rate increases called for by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. During this current election year it takes a lot to get Congress focused on action, and the rate increases do not appear to fall on a large enough group to generate the noise that gets Congress’ attention. Added to that, the Republican Party is currently focused on demonstrating fiscal restraint, and rate increases designed to repay an approximately $20 billion deficit fit right into the current messaging.

I think that the following headline would have gotten the attention of people and politicians and possibly caused Congress to change its mind: “NFIP rates for homes to grow more than 20% a year!” However, that is only a true statement for non-primary residences located in AE and VE zones that were constructed before the first NFIP flood insurance rate map (FIRM) issued for the relevant region (so called “pre-FIRM” structures). A pretty small group of folks would be affected by this. Or perhaps a headline like: “25% annual rate increases by FEMA will apply to businesses!” But that is only a true statement for businesses located in AE and VE zones that were also constructed before the first NFIP flood insurance rate map issued for the relevant region. Again, a small group of folks to lobby Congress.

Blog Editor

About this Blog

Welcome to our flood risk and floodplain management blog. Our goal is to provide fresh insights into the laws and policies that affect flood risk and floodplain management and how these issues might affect your agency or business operations.

Learn More