Marysville Levee Commission 2017 Update to the CVFPP CVFPP is a - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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 efforts

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

 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

Feather RFMP II Efforts

 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

Institutional Barriers

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

9

From Single Purpose To Multi-Benefit How things were… How things are now…

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
• utdated 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

12

Bottom-up approach reveals “true cost”

$130M What we should be spending annually $30M What we are spending annually

Findings by the Numbers

13

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)

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

 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

Feather River Regional Costs

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:

 More efficiency through

combined overhead and administration

 Ability to collect from all

direct beneficiaries Disadvantages:

 Downstream properties benefit

more and may have much higher assessments

 New district would assume all

debts and obligations of existing districts

 Potential inequities between

poorly funded and well funded districts

Expanded JPAs or Countywide Authorities

Advantages:

 Consolidated overhead  LMAs would continue to

control day to day operations

 Avoid political difficulties by

keeping in one County Disadvantages:

 Developing a sustainable

funding source

 Small potential for some loss

• f local control to the larger

entity

Regional Collaboration Agreements

Advantages:

 Coordinated Operations  LMAs would continue to

control day to day operations

 Not a stand‐alone option

and can be combined with

• ther alternatives

Disadvantages:

 Cooperation between

multiple agencies

 Geographic Scale

One large Regional Oversight Entity

Advantages:

 Coordinated Operations  LMAs would continue to

control day to day operations

 Large Entity has more

leverage for funding and regulatory changes Disadvantages:

 Developing a sustainable

funding source

 Potential for some loss of

local control to the larger entity

 Geographic Scale

Business as Usual

Advantages:

 Continue as is  Ability for coordination

agreements to provide some efficiencies Disadvantages:

 Continued inefficiencies  Lack of adequate funding  Lack of leverage for funding

• r 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