1. K Street, Sacramento – 1861/1862 Flood
Environmental
Commission
February 2018

2. Responsibilities Capital Improvement Projects
SAFCA
Mitigation and other property management
Land Use and Floodplain Managers
Cities and Counties
Levee Maintenance
American River Flood Control District
Reclamation District No. 1000
State of California Maintenance Area 9
City of Sacramento
SAFCA (Fund others to perform maintenance as new capital projects incorporated into the system)

3. Levee Maintaining Agencies

4. Sacramento River Flood Control System
Sacramento most at-risk city in America for riverine flooding
Confluence of two major rivers (American and Sacramento Rivers)
Over half million people in the floodplain
About $70 billion in damageable property
Deep flooding, cold water

6. Water temperature when Katrina hit was 82o F
Water temperature American River during 1986 flood event – approximately 48o F
Adults dressed in average clothing
Hypothermia
Remain conscious
1 hour in 40o F water
2-3 hours in 50o F water
Swimming or struggling in the water
Increases heat loss
Reduces survival time to minutes

7. Consequences of Flooding in Sacramento
Over half million people in the floodplain
Deep flooding, cold water
Retain consciousness 1 – 3 hours
Corps estimates 1,800 deaths
Over 147,000 structures damaged
About $70 billion in damageable property

9. Regulatory Requirements
FEMA 100-Year Accreditation
Natomas remapped into the 100-year floodplain in 2008
Corps withdrew certification for all Sacramento levees August 2013
State of California Certification
Communities had to certify they have a plan to safely handle a State defined 200-year hydrograph by July 2016
Communities need to have this protection in place by 2025

10. Our Levee System System Folsom Dam and Reservoir on American River
106 miles of levees and channels
Sacramento Weir and Bypass
Yolo Bypass
Our Levee System
SAFCA Jurisdiction

11. Yolo and Sacramento Bypasses 1979 Flood Event

12. Federal Flood Control Project Cost Share
Federal Government
65%
State Government
24.5%
Local Government
10.5%
Note: Cost share varies depending on LERRD’s
State/SAFCA cost share set at 70/30 per SB 276 (2007)

13. AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED FOLSOM DAM RAISE (Authorized 2004)
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES –
NATOMAS BASIN
(Authorized – 2014)
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED FOLSOM DAM JOINT FEDERAL PROJECT
(Authorized 1999)
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES –
AMERICAN RIVER
(Authorized – 1996/1999)
AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES –
GENERAL REEVALUATION REPORT (Authorized – 2016)
SOUTH SACRAMENTO STREAMS
(Authorized – 1999)

14. Ongoing Federal/State/SAFCA Projects
Phase
Current Estimate
American River Watershed
Common Features
American River
Construction Close-out
$320,000,000
Natomas Basin
Design/Construction
$1,200,000,000
General Re-evaluation Report
Authorized Awaiting Design Appropriations
$1,590,000,000
Folsom Dam Modifications
Joint Federal Project
$850,000,000
Folsom Dam Raise and Bridge
$325,000,000
South Sacramento Streams Group
$110,000,000
TOTAL
$4,395,000,000

15. Rebuild Folsom Dam
New Dam and Spillway
Raise Dam 15

16. Historic American River Flows

17. Rebuild Levee System

19. Through Seepage and Under-Seepage
Levee Seepage
Through Seepage and Under-Seepage
1997 Central Valley Flood
More than 40 levee failures
35 from geotechnical failures
Post-Katrina
Analyzed past 100 levee failures across the country
80% Seepage
Half through seepage
Half under-seepage
Result – New Federal and State Standards for Urban Levees Addressing Seepage

24. Seepage Cutoff Wall

25. Erosion Site 1986 Flood Event
Erosion Protection
Recommended plan includes erosion protection in critical areas to prevent this from happening
Erosion Site
1986 Flood Event
Since water was high on the levee, erosion could not be seen until water receded
Same site after
erosion protection
similar to that
included in
recommended
plan

26. 1968
1986

27. June 2000
August 2004
Erosion Protection
July 2007

28. Our Levee System
SAFCA Jurisdiction

29. Widen Sacramento Weir and Bypass

30. Construction Status as of February 2018
Green Line Means Essentially Completed
Yellow Line Means to be Constructed
Red Dashed Line Means Under Construction

31. After Currently Authorized Projects Completed

32. Challenges to Advancing Flood-Risk Reduction
Contractor Protests
Have delayed flood risk reduction by over a year
Have hurt our ability to get additional Federal funding
Could result in less projects for Contractors to bid on

33. Challenges to Advancing Flood-Risk Reduction
State of California Funding
Proposition 1e funding fully allocated
Since the Prop 1e was allocated SAFCA has $2.8 billion in new projects moving forward at Federal level
No source of State funding to match

34. Challenges to Advancing Flood-Risk Reduction
Federal Process and Funding
Proposed Infrastructure package
$1.5 trillion total
$200 billion Federal
Proposed 13.3% Federal cost share versus current 65% for flood-risk reduction projects
Does not fit P3 model
Flood-risk reduction projects have no product to monetize

35. Challenges to Advancing Flood-Risk Reduction
President’s Proposed FY 2019 budget significantly reduces Corps of Engineers construction funding
Total Corps Construction funding (not including Mississippi River which has separate funding pot)
Pres Proposed FY $872 million
Pres Proposed FY $1.02 billion
House Bill FY $ billion
Senate Bill FY $1.295 billion

36. April 14, 2015

38. Nutria

39. To date, nutria have been found in wetlands, rivers, canals and other freshwater habitat in Merced, Fresno and Stanislaus counties.
If allowed to establish, nutria will severely impact California’s resources, causing the loss of wetlands, severe soil erosion, damage to agricultural crops and levees and reduced stability of banks, dikes and roadbeds, as they have done in Louisiana, Chesapeake Bay and the Pacific Northwest.

40. Nutria also degrade water quality and contaminate drinking supplies with parasites and diseases transmissible to humans, livestock and pets.
Native to South America, nutria are large, semi-aquatic rodents that reach up to 2.5 feet in body length, 12-inch tail length and 20 pounds in weight.
Nutria strongly resemble native beaver and muskrat, but are distinguished by their round, sparsely haired tails and white whiskers up to 60 pounds.

41. Since March 30, 2017, more than 20 nutria, including males, pregnant females and juveniles, have been documented in the San Joaquin Valley.
The full extent of the infestation is not yet known.