185 



mended Plan adopted by the corps in 

 1979 contained traditional flood-con- 

 trol engineering for the 100-year flood 

 in the form of concrete box culverts 

 and trapezoidal and rectangular con- 

 crete channels, but the plan also pro- 

 sided for a dirt, trapezoidal channel on 

 lower Wildcat Creek that would have 

 some landscaping. Also authorized as 

 pan of the flood-control project were 

 several recreational elements, including 

 a regional trail, a nature study area 

 near Verde Elementary School (which 

 stands beside Wildcat Creek), and 

 freshwater impoundments on ponds.' 

 Federal policy requires that all land 

 acquisitions, easements, right-of-ways, 

 and up to 50 percent of the recreation 

 components be paid for by the commu- 

 nity. When North Richmond set about 

 raising its share of the expense for this 

 project, some of the area's major busi- 

 nesses — including Chevron Oil; South- 

 ern Pacific Railroad; Atchison, To- 

 peka and Santa Fe Railroad (which had 

 a train derail over San Pablo Creek in a 

 January 1982 storm); and the Rich- 

 mond Sanitary Company — did not con- 

 tribute. Their parsimony contributed 

 to the community's failure to raise the 

 required local share of the total cost. 

 Thus, the federal cost-sharing require- 

 ments undermined the corps' efforts to 

 design a plan that would use the creeks 

 as part of a community economic re- 

 vival plan, as outlined in the Richmond 

 Cities Plan. 



Under the Reagan Administration 



In the 1980s, federal policies reverted 

 to favoring the construction of projects 

 based on a single objective of economic 

 efficiency. The Reagan administra- 

 tion's standards and guidelines re- 

 quired the selection of a NED Plan that 

 was described by the corps' staff as a 

 least-cost plan to reduce flood dam- 

 ages; neither environmental quality nor 

 nonstructural plans were supposed to 

 be considered in the development of 

 project alternatives. The administra- 

 tion also required local residents to pay 

 a greater portion of the project costs in 

 addition to the cost of land acquisition, 

 easements, and right-of-ways. 



Environment, Vol. 31, No. 10 



In 1982, Contra Costa County offi- 

 cials proposed a bare-bones, structural 

 flood-control project without any envi- 

 ronmental amenities to be constructed 

 in cooperation with the Army Corps of 

 Engineers. The county board of super- 

 visors, as the local sponsor, presented 

 the "Selected Plan" to the North Rich- 

 mond community on a take-it-or-leave- 

 it basis and argued that it was the only 

 affordable alternative (see Figure 3(a) 

 on page 19). Although the corps' staff 

 demonstrated more openness by being 

 willing to discuss alternative plans with 

 the public, the corps decided to take a 

 back-seat role and defer to the county 

 on the issues of project design and citi- 

 zen participation. The corps of engi- 

 neers also discouraged multi-objective 

 planning in the belief that North Rich- 

 mond could not afford anything but a 

 basic channelization project. 



Some North Richmond residents 

 were resigned to accepting any flood- 



control project offered; others felt so 

 strongly about the Richmond Model 

 Cities Plan that they wanted to retain 

 influence in the design process and ex- 

 plore other project options. The lake- 

 it-or-leave-it option ran counter to the 

 long history of active community in- 

 volvement in the Richmond Model Cit- 

 ies Plan and alienated some key com- 

 munity leaders. In the spring of 1983, 

 community leaders organized a meet- 

 ing in North Richmond to determine 

 community reaction to the county/ 

 corps Selected Plan for flood control. 

 The issues raised at that meeting de- 

 fined the next five years of work for the 

 community volunteers who changed 

 both the planning process, the plan de- 

 sign, and funding strategy. 



Members of several North Rich- 

 mond community groups, including 

 the Richmond Neighborhoods Coordi- 

 nating Council, the Urban Creeks 

 Council, Save San Francisco Bay Asso- 



