Dear Editor,
I believe South County is facing a flooding disaster of a
proportion yet to be experienced from any storm a little above
normal that delivers a significant amount of run-off. Our drainage
channels are in the worst shape to carry off excess water than I
have seen in my 77 years as a resident of the Gilroy area. I am now
87.
Dear Editor,
I believe South County is facing a flooding disaster of a proportion yet to be experienced from any storm a little above normal that delivers a significant amount of run-off. Our drainage channels are in the worst shape to carry off excess water than I have seen in my 77 years as a resident of the Gilroy area. I am now 87.
I am not crying “wolf.” I correctly predicted the Uvas-Gilroy flood fiasco of not too long ago, but it was ignored by those who were responsible for preventing it, the Santa Clara Valley Water District which also functions as the countywide flood prevention district.
The flooding then was caused directly by neglect on the part of the water district. They were warned personally by me and by an official letter from the Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District of which I was a director. I believe this was the third time notification was sent to the water district about that particular area of the Uvas Creek and its problem, a beautiful grove of Eucalyptus trees directly down stream of the Thomas Road (now Luchessa Bridge).
The first two times the trees were sawed off at ground level. At the time of the flooding, the re-growth measured more than 5 inches in diameter – too big and too strong for the water to lay over and close enough together for the flotsam and jetsam to lodge in and against, forming a natural dam. There was no other place for the water to go, so you know the rest.
A few hundred dollars of prevention could have prevented almost $20 million dollars of damage. Inexcusable! Yet, some how they managed to deny any responsibility (good lawyer).
Getting back to the point. The Llagas Creek, which is the main drainage source for our South County area, has been modified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, PL566 small watershed projects with the involvement and cooperation of the Loma Prieta Resource Conservation District (as instigator of the project), the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, as the main planner and the constructor of the project, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, as the local agency with the powers of condemnation for purchase of easements and rights of way.
The South Santa Clara Valley Water Conservation District (Gabilan) was signatory as having water rights and certain authorities on the Llagas Creek system. So this resulted in our modified Llagas Creek, built for an estimated 100-year life to contain a 100-year storm, with a capacity of from 250 cubic feet per second in the upper tributaries to 16,000 cubic feet per second where it discharges into the Pajaro River. This should alleviate any flooding worries. It can’t, unless it’s maintained properly, which it isn’t at present.
The Llagas Creek has been neglected almost since the project was built. I believe they once cleared the lower channel of growth, but that’s history. The channel above and below Bloomfield Avenue is bank-to-bank trees and brush.
I think that area’s 16,000 cubic feet per second capacity is down to less than 2,000. The Llagas Creek, in an area as yet unmodified, is almost bank to bank with trees, brush and bamboo through San Martin down past the airport. I doubt whether it could carry much more than 500 cubic feet which means that flooding could start up there or in that portion from Church Avenue to Buena Vista which is also terrible.
It’s not a case of “if” but “when.” All of the modified areas of the Llagas channels are “owned” by the water district and it’s against the law for anyone, even though he or she owns a portion of the creek channel, to do any clean-up work in a channel. So we have a “dog in the manger” situation – owners can’t and the SCVWD won’t, and we no longer have the “Gabilan” District to clean up the Uvas and Llagas channels.
Complaining to the district directors has received a deaf ear and no action. Our Board of Supervisors formed this water and flood prevention district. I think they should reform it into two separate districts, a water district and a flood prevention district.
As it is now, with the conflict of acquiring and distributing water and getting rid of it through flood prevention, seems to be more than they can handle.
As far as I know, the Board of Supervisors only exercises budget overview on the water district and scrutiny can’t be too close because they have allowed the water district to amass, as I understand, almost $1 billion dollars and that seems unjustifiable.
The water district has exhibited an indifference to flood prevention in South County that borders on “criminal negligence.” Even our Llagas Creek project, which cost around $70 million, is already almost useless in it’s present condition, and it’s not finished yet! The upper part, up to and including Morgan Hill, is still in the development process and when it’s finished we will have that much more water (and quicker) to contend with.
It’s a shame when an agency formed by and for the public, for a specific purpose in the public interest – for safety, health and property protection – violates that public trust. The water district was embodied with taxing abilities and the responsibilities with no apparent impediments to perform an important public service.
Well, they still claim the jurisdiction, the taxing ability and the authority, but have failed in to carry out their responsibilities.
All we as taxpayers can do is to whistle in the wind, while they ignore a real problem that they are very well paid to carry out. The fact that we have not gotten the service we have paid for is nothing less than fraud and requires correction.
A.R. Angelino, Gilroy
