 |
|
 |
| ||
|
Reimagining Flood Control
Flood control agencies have long relied on dams, levees and culverts to protect the homesteads and cities that Californians insist on building along the banks of predictably unpredictable rivers and creeks. Now, however, encasing creeks in concrete is becoming passé. At a handful of Bay Area flood control agencies, a new generation of leaders is trading cement mixers for a more natural approach, and embracing a broad new mission that includes watershed stewardship, water quality and habitat restoration.
"There is a clear public mandate that we change the way we approach drainage and flood control," says Mitch Avalon, of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. In early April, the District co-sponsored a symposium designed to identify common ground and improve cooperation among those involved in watershed and creek issues-an event that some observers say in itself shows a marked departure from the agency's cement-oriented historical practices. Later this summer, Avalon's agency will sponsor a one-week bioengineering course to teach creek engineers how to use plants to repair bank erosion or failure.
"I think there's going to be a movement to convert flood control channels back into creeks,"says Avalon. One of the alternative strategies he is considering involves digging low-flow channels and planting trees and vegetation along banks. This approach would require either a wider-than normal channel or a detention basin upstream to offset the loss of capacity and provide adequate flood protection, he says.
Avalon warns that the big changes he envisions will not happen over night. "We're talking about a 50-year horizon here," he says. He is pushing for a long-term county-wide Creek Enhancement Plan that "reflects the community's vision for its creeks." In the meantime, the District is in preliminary talks with one city regarding a pilot project that would examine the entire system of creeks within their watershed and develop a comprehensive flood control and creek restoration plan for it.
Pam Romo of Friends of the Creeks is "cautiously optimistic" about the direction the District is headed, in part because of what she says is a new willingness on the part of historically concrete centric agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, to explore alternative approaches. The Corps' Karen Rippey agrees. "We have a great opportunity to start doing things in a new way right now, in part because of the leadership of the Administration and especially the Bay Area congressional delegation." Rippey points to the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, which authorizes the Corps to provide technical, planning and design assistance to non-federal agencies for watershed management and restoration projects, including "demonstration of technologies for non-structural measures to reduce destructive impacts of flooding."
The San Francisco Regional Board's Larry Kolb says he thinks the creek restoration movement will only grow with time and "flood control agencies are the logical leaders, since they know the area's waterways better than anyone. They're starting to use their expertise to work with streams rather than against them."
Of course, the biggest constraint on Avalon's plans is money, and to that end public education about the County's creeks is a priority. "We want to increase citizen interest in the creeks because with interest comes funding." Avalon hopes that by developing proactive environmental restoration and enhancement plans, his agency will be in a good position to apply for state and federal grants.
Money is also an issue for the Santa Clara Valley Water District, widely acknowledged pioneer of the new ethos of flood control. Next year a benefit assessment that provides much of the District's discretionary funding will expire; the District will seek voter approval of a new tax to fund a comprehensive program that includes vigorous watershed management. The district's George Fowler says he's hopeful that the tax will receive the required two-thirds vote. "Whenever we interact with the community we get the same message: environmental protection is a major priority," he says, adding that most people seem to understand that addressing this priority has a cost.
In the meantime, Fowler's agency is continuing its existing menu of environmental protection measures, including water quality protection, fish barrier removal, and the use of lower-impact flood protection measures such as bypass channels, setback levees and revegetation projects wherever possible. The District is also staking out a position with regard to new development in the area, which increases runoff and therefore flood risk and water pollution. "We are not trying to take over control of land use, but we are being more proactive in conveying the district's vision" of what constitutes responsible land use, says Fowler. The District recently doubled the number of staff charged with working with city and county planners to evaluate development proposals in terms of their impact on streams and flood flows.
Despite all these good intentions, Contra Costa's Avalon warns that in the urbanized Bay Area "we can never go back to the pre-European creek, the primordial forest. But we can do a much better job of protecting the environment as well as people and property."
Contact: Mitch Avalon (925)313-2203 or George Fowler (408) 265-2607
[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]
Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project