191 



Federal Water Policies 



(continued from page 20) 



project to a multi-objective project to 

 restore marshes, provide recreational 

 and educational opportunities, and en- 

 hance the environment, as well as to 

 control flood damages, made it possi- 

 ble to attract funding from state agen- 

 cies that could not otherwise have con- 

 tributed. For example: 



• The East Bay Regional Park Dis- 

 trict committed $793,000, which was 

 matched by another $793,000 by the 

 corps, for a regional trail system. The 

 park district later committed $19,000 

 to help enhance creekside educational 

 opportunities near Verde Elementary 

 School and may commit more as the 

 recreational and educational project 

 element is finalized. 



• The California State Lands Coin- 

 mission purchased $240,000 worth of 

 land for the Wildcat Creek wetland 

 transition zone. 



• In February 19S7, the California 

 Coastal Conservancy Board author- 

 ized the expenditure of $578,000 for 

 marsh restoration and riparian en- 

 hancement areas. After the original 

 restoration plan was damaged by the 

 construction mistakes in the Wildcat 

 and San Pablo creek marshes and the 

 county failed to identify willing sellers 

 of riparian land parcels, the Coastal 

 Conservancy headed a task force to 

 come up with a new marsh restoration 

 plan. A total of $46,000 was used from 

 the first Coastal Conservancy authori- 

 zation, $5,000 was provided to the 

 design team effort, and a second au- 

 thorization of $314,870 was committed 

 by the conservancy's board to imple- 

 ment a revised restoration plan. 



• In June 1989, the California De- 

 partment of Water Resources awarded 

 a $ 100,000 grant because the project in- 

 volved design innovations, a commit- 

 ment to citizen participation, and edu- 

 cational opportunities. 



As of fall 1989, the Consensus Plan 

 has attracted funds totaling more than 

 $2 million. A project finance committee 

 composed of local, state, and federal 



Environment, Vol. 31, No. 10 



representatives and agency staffs has 

 not yet completed its fund-raising activi- 

 ties, and there arc reasonable chances of 

 more state, park district, or foundation 

 monies becoming available. 



The federal project cost-sharing pol- 

 icy in the 1980s has been to increase 

 nonlcderal contributions for projecis 

 and to use a community's willingness 

 and ability to pay as an important crite- 

 rion for selecting projects for construc- 

 tion. Such policies discriminate against 

 a poor community trying to meet its 

 share of the large costs associated with 

 a water project. The most effective 

 strategy for helping North Richmond 

 to raise its share of the cost was to di- 

 versify the project and attract state dol- 

 lars. Unfortunately, this strategy re- 

 sulted in a difficult Catch-22. By at- 

 tracting more dollars to the project for 

 these diverse benefits, which are actual- 

 ly classified as project costs by federal 

 standards, the costs side of the cost- 

 benefit ratio was raised and might have 

 upset the required ratio between costs 

 and benefits for project approval. The 

 corps' project manager cleverly adapt- 

 ed to this impossible situation by classi- 

 fying the marsh restoration, some of 

 the riparian areas, the wetland transi- 

 tion zone, the Verde Elementary School 

 revegetation and educational area, and 

 the park district staging area as en- 

 hancements occurring outside the proj- 

 ect's boundaries and, therefore, not 

 part of the official project costs. Be- 

 cause the corps classified these project 

 components as enhancements they be- 

 came the financial responsibility of the 

 community. Ultimately, the transition 

 zone was made a project requirement 

 by the Endangered Species Act as a 

 control pomt for sediment catchment 

 and had to be included in the project 

 costs equation. 



Federal policies for project evalua- 

 tion and funding are strongly biased 

 against a project like North Richmond's 

 flood control. Federal definitions of 

 water-project costs and benefits do not 

 reflect the broad, long-term needs and 

 values of the communities where such 

 projects are often located. Likewise, 

 the federal cost-sharing policies do not 

 recognize unique, local economic and 



social conditions. The policies discrim- 

 inate against financially disadvantaged 

 cornmuniiics attempting to benefit from 

 federal projects even though these com- 

 munities are frequently located in some 

 of the most hazardous areas. Because 

 the cost-sharing policies make it a local 

 responsibility to purchase lands, ease 

 ments, and right-of-ways, there is a 

 built-in bias against the purchase of ri- 

 parian preservation zones, trails, and 

 other environmental features. 



Policies and Practices 



At the same time as corps officials. 

 Congressman George Miller, and local 

 representatives were brandishing their 

 shovels at the project's ground-break- 

 ing ceremony in October 1986, a new 

 policy for the authorization and design 

 of water projects was being set out by 

 the 1986 Water Resources Develop- 

 ment Act. After a follow-up water om- 

 nibus bill was passed in 1988, the corps 

 issued the Digest of Water Resources 

 Policies and Authorities, which is used 

 as a policy guide for the development 

 of water projects by corps personnel.' 6 

 There are no provisions in these poli- 

 cies to design environmental quality 

 plans or nonstructural alternatives as 

 part of the flood-control planning 

 process. The main component of the 

 new policy is to increase substantially 

 the nonfederal share of project costs. 

 Accommodating the financial need of a 

 community is left to the discretion of 

 the assistant secretary of the army in 

 charge of civil works. The corps is to 

 build NED plans that maximize net 

 benefits, and any project enhance- 

 ments beyond this are to be paid for 

 solely by the community. This policy 

 translates into the assumption that the 

 corps will construct channelization 

 projects for flood control, but that en- 

 vironmental features of some kind can 

 be tacked on only if the community 

 pays for them. The new policy also 

 maintains the barrier against any mod- 

 el in which a different design philoso- 

 phy is used to build more natural, sta- 

 ble channels integrated with other envi- 

 ronmental features. 



