DEAR EDITOR:
I have been meaning to write for almost a year. I had thought
for a long time that any letter I wrote on this subject would just
be a waste of everyone’s time.
DEAR EDITOR:
I have been meaning to write for almost a year. I had thought for a long time that any letter I wrote on this subject would just be a waste of everyone’s time. When the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s bond issue passed handily, that gave me the impression that our local voters were either naive or just plain stupid because that bond issue, despite all the money involved, was very vague as to what it was going to accomplish.
Almost nothing was earmarked for “flood prevention” (I won’t use the words “flood control” because its too positive and isn’t going to be accomplished as I see it).
The only issue mentioned was cosmetic maintenance esthetics of out-of-channel areas – trees and shrubs, landscaping – and, I suppose, of eventually creating a park chain in these areas, something that was promised to landowners along the creek not to happen until the area was completely developed.
The new attempt by the water district to grab an additional 100 feet of land on each side of all of the creeks in the valley by ordinance is really cute. I believe this would involve more than 1,000 acres (I sure wish someone would calculate exactly how much), that I suppose they expected to get free. Boy what a bad joke – I think they would drown in all the lawsuits they would trigger.
But back to my point. Nothing was ever mentioned in the bond issue as to the necessary maintenance, I mean real physical maintenance, of the present developed creek channel to assure the integrity of the volumetric capacity of flood water channels. This is not happening now and has been a minor, very minor, priority in the water district’s flood control responsibility. Consequently we have gravel bars overgrown with trees and brush in channels, trees growing solidly in PL 566 channels that will make good dams when we get a little high water as it happened not too many years ago in Uvas Creek just downstream of the Thomas Road bridge. There was no excuse for that, yet somehow the SCVWD weaseled out of the responsibility.
So what about PL 566. The flood control project has been a very long drawn out process, and still is, mostly because people don’t really believe that government agencies are going to do what they say they are going to do. It’s true. I believe that somewhere in the records is an agreement, signed by the water district with the federal government, that they are and will continue to be the agency responsible for the maintenance and safe operation of the PL 566 Llagas Creek projects, upper and lower. This isn’t happening. We’ve been getting lip service for years and so far the feds haven’t seen fit to enforce anything. Why?
I long ago learned that in flood prevention the first commandment is, above all, the maintenance of the integrity of the volumetric capacity of the channels, no excuses.
So our lower Llagas Creek channels are suffering growing pains, not of capacity, just the unhampered growth of trees within the channel where they can slow or even stop the water flows when it is most necessary to guarantee them free passage. So we have a bad situation coming up unnecessarily – unnecessarily because we have every year paid our taxes to the water district for flood control, plus the benefit assessments, even if we live miles from a creek, for what?
In somebody’s wisdom, it was decreed that the section of Llagas Creek between just south of Church Avenue (where the east and west branches of Llagas Creek come together) and Buena Vista Avenue, (I forget the reach numbers) which with some cleaning is supposed to have a volumetric capacity of 4000 cubic feet per second will not be touched otherwise because of a ruling that said “agricultural land will be protected only to a 10 percent level instead of the 100-year level of a city, because of the problem of attracting developments” or words to this effect.
Which brings us up to the problem of the East Branch being built up to the 100-year level of 4000 cubic feet per second and the West Branch also being built to a level of 4000 cubic feet per second. What is going to happen if and when 8000 cubic feet per second tries to move down a 4000 cubic feet per second channel? Floods!
I have at least 10 times over the years watched when water in Llagas Creek north of Buena Vista Avenue spilled over the banks or just barely reached flood stage in rains much less than the 100-year flood event. In such a case who is going to pay for the damage such induced floods cause? You guess who the final payers will be.
I see by a recent article in The Dispatch that Monterey County is being held somewhat responsible for the recent flooding that caused $500 million in damages because of failure to maintain the river bed and the volumetric capacity of the channel of the Pajaro River near Watsonville. I hope that the Monterey County taxpayers have plenty of money because that’s where the flood control district gets it’s money from. I wonder how many heads rolled on that one?
The local flood control district was not judged solely responsible, I guess the Army Corp of Engineers (who had overall jurisdiction) came in for the majority of the blame.
Though I was one of the local prime movers in our local PL 566 project, I have had some very disturbing attacks of conscience over this coming problem. Our Santa Clara Valley Water District has seen fit in their wisdom or lack thereof, to do nothing on the above mentioned reach of the creek between Church Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue, not even responding to many requests to at least remove gravel from under or around bridges or overgrown gravel bars where gravel deposits create choke points to water passage.
In many cases this would not cost them a thin dime as local entrepreneurs would gladly remove the offending material for free, but no, even when I reported that the Rucker Avenue bridge was in danger because of the washing out of the center support, nothing was done. I believe that less than 20 yards of concrete would have done it. Yes, the next rain collapsed the bridge and the county had to build a new one. I really don’t know who was at fault, the SC County Roads Department or the SCVWD. Annyway, we all paid for it.
I appreciate the good article by Carol Holzgrafe in your Dec. 24 issue, very nicely done, too bad she didn’t have more facts to use.
Your editorial of Dec. 27 is also on the mark although a little late.
Alfred R. Angelino, Gilroy
Submitted Monday, Dec. 30
