My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SR0084717_SSNL
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
A
>
AUSTIN
>
285
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
SR0084717_SSNL
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/17/2022 12:18:44 PM
Creation date
1/13/2022 9:53:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
FileName_PostFix
SSNL
RECORD_ID
SR0084717
PE
2602
FACILITY_NAME
285 S AUSTIN RD
STREET_NUMBER
285
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
AUSTIN
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
MANTECA
Zip
95336
APN
22802048
ENTERED_DATE
1/12/2022 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
285 S AUSTIN RD
P_LOCATION
04
P_DISTRICT
003
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\tsok
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
1028
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
california Water Today 105 <br />Under federal law, homes in these areas are not required to have flood insur- <br />ance, and land use is not regulated. Levees protect many homes that would <br />otherwise be located in the 100-year floodplain. Flood insurance subscription <br />in California is low. In 2006, just over 30 percent of the households in the <br />100-year floodplain had flood insurance and just 7 percent of those within the <br />101 to 500-year floodplain had insurance.31 <br />Overall, this system protects most of California’s Central Valley from the <br />most frequent floods, with the exception of parts of the Delta. Parts of Southern <br />California, the California coast, and local streams in Northern California have <br />recurrent localized flooding problems, as evidenced by the number of federally <br />declared flood disaster events since the late 1970s (Figure 2.14). For large floods, <br />which occur only a few times per century on average, many parts of the state face <br />much greater challenges. The Sacramento area, in particular, has been singled <br />out as having some of the weakest flood defenses of any major metropolitan <br />area in the country, well below New Orleans—a fact not missed by California’s <br />media and policy community following Hurricane Katrina’s devastation of New <br />Orleans.32 A large flood in the Sacramento area would put thousands of lives at <br />risk and lay waste to tens of billions of dollars in property damage.33 <br />Hurricane Katrina brought renewed attention to flood risks and flood infra- <br />structure in California, the poor state of many levees, the growing numbers of <br />residents living in areas with high flood risk, and the potential for increasing <br />flood risk with climate change (Chapter 1).34 In 2005, federal authorities began <br />requiring testing and recertification of all levees in communities that wish to <br />maintain access to federal flood insurance, resulting in the downgrading of <br />31. Authors’ calculations using estimates of households in floodplains (see the preceding footnote) and data on insurance <br />by zone for California’s communities from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In contrast, over 80 percent of <br />U.S. homes have fire insurance, a hazard that strikes about 0.3 percent of homes per year (a 1-in-330 chance per year) <br />(authors’ calculations using data from the National Fire Protection Association (www.nfpa.org), the National Association <br />of Insurance Commissioners (www.naic.org), and the U.S. Census). California fire insurance coverage and fire frequency <br />rates appear roughly similar to these national averages. <br />32. On August 31, 2005, a Sacramento Bee article titled “New Orleans flooding ‘wake-up call’ for capital” gave an early <br />diagnosis: “Levee failures . . . [are] a chilling reminder that the two cities have a lot in common” (Weiser 2005). The website <br />of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) depicts a graphic comparing the flood risk of Sacramento with <br />that of a number of other major cities, including New Orleans (www.safca.org/floodRisk/floodThreat.html). <br />33. In the area managed by SAFCA (the City of Sacramento and part of Sacramento County), property losses from <br />flooding are projected to be close to $20 billion in 2019 (Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency 2008), and many other <br />communities are at high risk of flooding at the same time, including West Sacramento, Yuba City, Marysville, and <br />surrounding areas. Ongoing efforts to upgrade SAFCA levees are likely to reduce the likelihood of flooding from about <br />1.5 percent per year to about 0.5 percent per year (www.safca.org). But Sacramento will still face large residual risks <br />(defined as damage times likelihood) of more than $90 million per year. Moreover, in some low-lying areas such as <br />Natomas, levee failures could still put many lives at risk. <br />34. The California Department of Water Resources (2005a) issued a white paper on the coming flood crisis in January <br />2005, months before Katrina, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued its order for levee recertification <br />a week before Katrina. But both state and federal policy attention was clearly galvanized by the devastation caused by <br />the hurricane.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.