BILL ANALYSIS
AB 74
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 28, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 74 (Chesbro) - As Amended: April 23, 2009
Policy Committee: WPW Vote:13-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
As proposed to be amended, this bill authorizes two flood
management projects in the Sacramento River watershed-the Middle
Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project
in Lake County, and the Hamilton City Flood Damage Reduction and
Ecosystem Restoration Project in Glenn County.
FISCAL EFFECT
1) One-time costs of $3 million for the Hamilton City
project, subject to future legislative appropriation. (Bond
funds or other special funds)
2) One-time costs of $7.5 million for the Middle Creek
project, subject to future legislative appropriation. (Bond
funds or other special funds)
(While this bill authorizes subvention funding for these
projects, actual funding depends on future appropriations to DWR
for flood subventions.)
COMMENTS
1) Rationale. According to the author, both projects
authorized by this bill include significant environmental
benefits, which benefit the public more generally, and
which justified US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) support
and legal authorization.
2)Background. Consistent with state law (AB 1147, Honda,
Chapter 1071, Statutes of 2000), the state must contribute a
portion of the non-federal share of authorized federal flood
AB 74
Page 2
control projects. In most cases, the state portion is 50% of
the nonfederal share, though in some cases the state portion
may be 70%. State authorization for funding is contingent on
preceding federal statutory authorization.
The federal Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (2007
WRDA) authorized the Middle Creek and Hamilton City flood
control projects. According to the Department of Water
Resources, the Corps describes the Hamilton City project as
having dual benefits-10% flood control, 90% ecosystem
restoration-whereas the Middle Creek project has purely
ecosystem restoration benefits. Each project is subject to
Corps cost sharing rules, with a 65%-35% federal, non-federal
split.
3)Middle Creek Flood Project (Lake County). This area of Lake
County was "reclaimed" in the first half of the 20th Century
by local levee construction. In the 1950's, the Corps added
levees, which resulted in the isolation of 1600 acres of
wetlands and floodplains from the largest tributaries to Clear
Lake. As a result of levees and other changes in the
watershed, sediment flows into Clear Lake increased and water
quality deteriorated, as the sediment increased phosphorous.
This project will increase flood protection for certain
buildings and public roads. More significantly, the project
restores the natural ecosystem and improves Clear Lake water
quality, due to restoration of wetlands that will reduce the
nutrient loading in water flows and sediment.
As reflected in the Corps' analysis, these environmental
aspects will benefit the public at large, justifying the
expenditure of public money. These public benefits led to
federal authorization in the 2007 WRDA.
4)Hamilton City Flood Project (Glenn County). The small town of
Hamilton City and surrounding agricultural lands are
marginally protected from flooding by a degraded private levee
build in 1904 called the "J" Levee. Hamilton City has mounted
flood fights and has evacuated six times in the last 20 years.
Neighboring agricultural lands suffer similarly. This
project will build a new 6.8-mile setback levee that will
increase flood protection for Hamilton City and surrounding
lands, while creating 1500 acres of riparian habitat on the
riverside of the new levee.
AB 74
Page 3
These dual flood protection and ecosystem restoration
benefits, together, generated sufficient benefit, under the
Corps' benefit-cost ratio analysis guidelines, which now
emphasize ecosystem benefits, to gain federal support for
funding the project, leading to federal authorization in 2007
WRDA.
The State has funded development of this project, but deferred
its support for construction until the local reclamation
district agreed to be the non-federal sponsor and, in effect,
accept liability for the new levee.
5)Proposed Amendments. As introduced, this bill included
language relative to the state's liability for flood projects.
Amendments to the bill will remove reference to the state's
liability for flood projects.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081