Santa Cruz County’s nightmare, the potential for another
devastating Pajaro River flood like the one in 1995, could become
San Benito County’s problem.
If Santa Cruz gets its wish, it would relinquish its primary
responsibility of maintenance on a levee in Watsonville along the
Pajaro River to the state’s Department of Water Resources. And San
Benito would be included in a region, the
”
benefit area,
”
that is taxed for its costs.
Santa Cruz County’s nightmare, the potential for another devastating Pajaro River flood like the one in 1995, could become San Benito County’s problem.
If Santa Cruz gets its wish, it would relinquish its primary responsibility of maintenance on a levee in Watsonville along the Pajaro River to the state’s Department of Water Resources. And San Benito would be included in a region, the “benefit area,” that is taxed for its costs.
State officials are currently undergoing final stages of examining possible management strategies – including who pays for the work.
“This is not a game. This is very serious,” said John Gregg, director of the San Benito County Water District. “They are proceeding with an all-out offensive to accomplish it.”
Santa Cruz County officials have written legal briefs to the California DWR – an attempt to bolster their case. They contend the entire Pajaro River Watershed should be held accountable for the potential flooding problem, according to Bruce Laclerque, a senior civil engineer for Santa Cruz County.
The watershed includes such tributaries as the San Benito River, Tres Pinos Creek, Pacheco Creek and Santa Ana Creek, Gregg said.
Gregg said he also believes Santa Cruz County has obtained lobbyists in Washington, D.C., to push the cause on the federal level. Laclerque, however, denied that claim.
“There was a letter written from the (Pajaro authority) Board chair to elected officials,” he said. “We don’t have paid federal or state advocates.”
The extent of a potential tax in San Benito County is not clear at this point. But Gregg said he suspects it would be assessed on the entire watershed, which includes most homes in the county.
“So someone living in the middle of Hollister would be paying,” Gregg said.
Santa Cruz and Monterey counties, along with Caltrans, are still financially reeling from a lawsuit stemming from the 1995 flood – which submerged agricultural land, homes and businesses stretching from the levee to Highway 1. Property owners who won the suit, the value of which has yet to be determined, reportedly could collect in excess of $100 million.
Monterey County, while also currently picking up part of the levee work’s tab, has not supported the proposal to include San Benito and Santa Clara counties on the tax roll, according to Curtis Weeks, general manager of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency.
“The Boards (from Santa Cruz and Monterey counties) don’t always agree,” Weeks said.
A long-awaited project under consideration now – to rebuild and widen the levee – is expected to break ground as early as 2006, according to Dave Patterson with the Army Corps of Engineers, the federal agency designing the project.
The levee rebuild project has been estimated to cost more than $200 million, about 75 percent of which the federal government would pick up; while local jurisdictions would be responsible for the rest.
Whether San Benito and Santa Clara counties will be mandated to help pay for the estimated $50 million local jurisdictions’ share: “That whole issue has yet to play out,” Weeks said.
Though no concrete proposals have come forth yet, Gregg said he suspects Santa Cruz County will seek some financial responsibility on the levee project from San Benito and Santa Clara counties.
In the meantime, financially-strapped Santa Cruz County’s main focus is getting help in paying for the ongoing maintenance of the flood-control system, Laclerque said. The yearly cost to Santa Cruz and Monterey counties approaches $700,000.
That work includes trimming trees and removing sediment to insure preservation of the intended capacity of the channel, Gregg said.
While the proposed project intends to provide what’s called “100-year-storm protection,” the current system maintains only eight-year-storm security, Laclerque said. That means a significant rain storm would likely breach capacity every eight years.
Dollar amounts that San Benito County residents may be charged – if the state mandates it – are not clear at this point, officials said. But one thing remains certain from local officials’ perspective: “They are serious about forcing San Benito County to pay for maintenance of the downstream levee system,” Gregg said.
