1. committed to our coast Report Summary March 2014 Senate Concurrent Resolution 39 of the 2013 Regular Legislative Session – Phase I Study

2. The Current Landscape 28 131 110 6 1 Levee/Flood Districts 49 Drainage Districts Water Districts State Reservoir Districts Conservation Districts

3. Background on SCR 39 Authored by Senator Morrish Passed unanimously by Louisiana Legislature in May 2013 Directs CPRA and DOTD to conduct a science-based study to better understand the adequacy of the current alignment of our Louisiana levee districts, drainage districts, conservation districts, and other water resource districts The goal is to improve and update the territorial jurisdictions of the various entities responsible for flood protection, storm water management, drainage, and water resource management and to efficiently and effectively meet the needs and safety of Louisiana’s citizens for future decades

4. SCR 39 Study Team

5. Phase I Tasks Gather baseline data Review relevant statutes Consult with districts through survey instrument Analyze existing alignments Develop science based scenarios Prepare report

6. Data Sources Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Louisiana Legislative Auditor reports Louisiana Division of Administration’s Boards and Commissions database Association of Levee Boards of Louisiana (ALBL) U.S. Census Bureau Survey instrument

7. Key Findings - Data Analysis 65 levee and water districts created by state with wide range of responsibilities Operational budgets, revenues, and revenue generation mechanisms vary widely Staffing levels vary widely Spending, O&M budgets, and responsibilities differ from district-to- district Available funding varies in accordance with source of revenues Many adjacent levee districts re responsible for managing connected parts of same flood protection system Many dams exist outside of any surface water control jurisdiction Many district boundaries do not follow watershed boundaries

8. Challenges Posed by Current Alignment Fragmented management of interconnected infrastructure Operation of dams by non-flood control entities Disparate funding

9. Development of Science-Based Alternatives Statewide department of water resources or regional districts, DOTD districts, and No Action scenario –Do not provide science-based solutions FEMA flood hazard mapping –Considered an insufficient dataset due to multiple disputed or incomplete maps Watershed approach Hazard-based approach (address source of threat and include hydraulic modifications)

10. Watershed Approach Examined the current industry standard methodologies, which all point to a watershed-based approach –USACE, EPA, NRCS, USGS all utilize this methodology –Most federally delineated watersheds are based upon USGS divisions Six levels of hydrologic unit delineation: –The lower the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC), the greater the aggregation of sub basins and the fewer watersheds overall –For instance, HUC 2 has divided up the state of Louisiana into only 4 basins; meanwhile HUC 12 has divided the state into 1,273 basins

11. Watershed Approach: USGS Hydrological Unit Codes (HUCs) Watersheds

12. Hazard-Based Approach Hazard-based alternative developed after consultation with stakeholders Mississippi River and Tributaries Project informed initial development of alignment for riverine threats

13. Hazard-Based Approach For hurricane storm surge threat, used northern boundary of 100- year storm extent Threat only in southern portions of state Data includes manmade hydraulic barriers such as levees and floodgates

14. Evaluation of Initial Approaches None of the watershed or hazard-based alternatives were suitable as stand-alone solutions USGS HUC 4 and HUC 6 provide a foundation for combining a watershed approach with hazard-based considerations Three hybrid alignments were then developed to incorporate best aspects of watershed and hazard-based approaches

15. Flooding Hazard-Based Alternative 1 (FHBA 1) Consists of 9 watersheds Similar hazard management actions in each district, and in adjacent districts Based on natural hydrologic patterns while accounting for manmade infrastructure Minimally bisects urban areas Streamlines emergency management actions No districts with 0 population Poorly distributes population in eastern LA

16. Flooding Hazard-Based Alternative 2 (FHBA 2) Consists of 14 areas Similar hazard management actions in each district, as well as in adjacent districts Based on natural hydrologic patterns while accounting for manmade infrastructure Few urban centers in several coastal areas Surge boundary also captures major topography interface from costal plain to upland areas

17. Flooding Hazard-Based Alternative 3 (FHBA 3) Consists of 10 areas Similar hazard management actions in each district, and in adjacent districts Captures surge vs. riverine considerations for most districts Few urban centers in several coastal areas Evenly distributes population Reflects the natural differences in topography in drainage patterns created by the Bonnet Carre Spillway, which segments the Pontchartrain Basin into upper and lower portions –This is captured in all USGS HUC delineations except for HUC 2

18. Evaluation of Hybrid Alignments The three hybrid alignments are potentially viable from a science-based standpoint –All take into account a watershed-based approach –All also consider existing water management infrastructure and actions Alignments also reflect major basins where water management actions are similar and focused Enables coordinated management of hydraulic structures and planned risk reduction measures Potential to reduce fragmented management of infrastructure Compatible with goals and objectives of 2012 Coastal Master Plan

19. Next Steps Additional exploration of these potentially viable options is necessary prior to development of any final recommendations Conduct second phase of study to gather additional data: –Revenue –Asset and infrastructure valuations –Indebtedness and bond issues –Major construction projects underway or planned –Outstanding litigation Prepare Phase II report with recommendations for consideration by the Legislature including implementation actions with timelines, if appropriate

20. Questions?

21. Extras

22. Baseline Data: Levee Districts 26 levee districts currently active 20 responded to survey Includes individual members of SLFPA East (East Jefferson, Lake Borgne, Orleans) and SLFPA West (Algiers, West Jefferson) Includes Chenier Plain and Iberia Parish authorities, although neither has passed tax referenda yet Includes Bunches Bend, although the jurisdictional relationship between Bunches Bend and 5th LA Levee District is ambiguous *Note: Local entities such as Baton Rouge Department of Public Works, St. Tammany Drainage District, Ascension Drainage District, and Angola Penitentiary that are not established by state statute but whose span of control and mission involve significant water control activities are not included in these values.

23. Baseline Data: Water Districts 40+ water districts currently active 14 responded to survey Includes several entities established by state statute but where programmatic authority over surface water control is unclear such as the Stream Control Commission, Natural and Scenic Rivers System, and Wildlife and Fisheries Commission The project team was unable to identify data or information for 15 districts In those instances where districts did not respond to the survey request, the project team supplemented existing data with information from publicly-available data sources such as the Louisiana Legislative Auditor Both the Sabine River Authority and Amite River Basin Drainage and Water Conservation District reported major flood control activities

24. Baseline Data: Water Districts Exact number of active surface water control districts was difficult to ascertain because data was not available for many (only 14 water control districts responded to survey) Some statewide surface water control entities such as the Stream Control Commission are not pictured

25. Problem Definition: Summary of Key Findings Orange circles identify areas where protection crosses (or will cross) jurisdictional boundaries

26. Problem Definition: Summary of Key Findings Many dams lay outside any surface water jurisdiction, yet have inherent flood control aspects

27. Screening of Alternatives Summary AlignmentSCR 39 No. of entities Considers watershed Captures storm surge hazard Accounts for existing infrastructure Reduces no. of entities Reduces fragmented infrastructure Could reduce coordination challenges Can account for dams Enables regional watershed approach Bisects urban areas Difficulties generating revenue Incongruent geometry No Action28-65xxx Single State Entity1xxxxx DOTD DIstricts9x USGS HUC 2 Watersheds X4xxx No, because too few districts, would require further division xxx USGS HUC 4 Watersheds X12xxxxxxx USGS HUC 6 Watersheds X21xxmarginally x xxx USGS HUC 8 Watersheds X59xxxxxx USGS HUC 10 Watersheds X275xxxxx USGS HUC 12 Watersheds X1273xxxxx FHBA 1X9xmarginallyxxxxxx FHBA 2X14xbestxxxxxxx FHBA 3X10xwellxxxxxx