The furor over this bill rested on the shared flood liability between cities and counties “when they approved new development behind state-owned levees.” In addition the bill “would have required cities and counties to consider flood risk when creating their general plans, as well as would have required local agencies to determine whether improved flood-protection facilities designed to benefit new construction would worsen flood risks elsewhere.”
According to an article on thereporter.com bill 1665, “called for developing a plan in which those protected by levees would pay into a fund for their maintenance and repair. Homeowners in flood-prone areas would get annual warnings, and local governments would have to consider flood danger as they develop land-use plans. They also would have to have emergency plans if low-lying areas flood.”
Concerns were raised from local governments “that they would be liable for damage caused by levee breaks” and eventually Solano Assemblywoman Lois Wolk’s Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee axed the bill. Wolk commented on 1665, “’the bill is a cynical package of half-measures; aimed at satisfying ‘the public demand for serious policy changes.’ She added that, ‘it was a shameful maneuver that fooled nobody.’”
My assumption is local government wants the state or better yet the federal government to be responsible for any potential breaks in the levee. Instead of focusing on breaks why not build a levee that can withstand storms and flooding? I would think the “public” would prefer a sturdy levee instead of lame attempts at “serious policy change.”
Comment Preview