As New Orleans struggles to rebuild, consider this shocker: Disaster experts have long considered Sacramento and the sprawling suburbs of the Central Valley as carrying the nation's highest risk of catastrophic flooding.
About 6 million people sit behind 1,800 miles of levees that are maintained by the state. Most of these folks live below sea level and near rivers, protected only by a century-old system of earthen levees that are eroding, sinking or prone to the same seepage problem that doomed New Orleans.
Also threatened is the State Water Project, which provides a third of Southern California's supply.
Problems don't get much bigger than this. But here's a welcome surprise: Last week state lawmakers set aside partisan bickering to approve $4.1 billion in flood control bonds for the November ballot as part of a $37 billion infrastructure package.
To say we are relieved understates the case by a wide margin. After all, this is mostly the same crew in the Capitol that reduced flood-control spending over the past seven years.
Meanwhile, families have poured into this dangerous territory, driven from the coast by rising home prices. A study by The Sacramento Bee last year found that 115,000 new homes are in the pipeline for flood-prone areas.
And because of a 2003 appellate court decision, state taxpayers are directly liable for property damage caused by a levee failure. This leaves local governments (not to mention lenders and insurers) off the hook and eager to approve new housing.
Before last week, the only scrap of good news was that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had taken up the cause, spurred by a wet spring and hopes for re-election. Leaders in the Senate and the Assembly deserve much credit. Still, this breakthrough belongs to the governor and his still-considerable ability to persuade the people of California.
Yet spending money is just a start. Schwarzenegger now must support the small band of Central Valley lawmakers who are working to untangle the complex web of competing interests that have stymied progress on flood-control, water supply and development in the region.
For example, a bill by Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis, would make cities demonstrate new developments are safe in a severe flood that has a one-in-200 chance of striking in any given year.
We generally don't like state meddling in local zoning decisions. And Wolk's measure is tougher than federal standards mandating one-in-100 flood insurance. But if state taxpayers must bear the full financial risk of levee failures, then state government must steer development.
Ideally, liability for flooding would reside with local buyers, their lenders and their insurers.
The courts, however, have placed taxpayers on the hook for their government's flood-control debacle. California's cheapest form of insurance is to immediately update flood maps, repair levees, divert floodwaters into wetlands and responsibly guide development into safe areas.
