192 



There are some possibilities for im- 

 proving ihe policies and practices out- 

 lined in the corps' digest. For example, 

 the policies have left open the possibil- 

 ity that communities may select smaller 

 projects than what is needed for protec- 

 tion from the 100-year flood. This kind 

 of choice is based on the rationale that, 

 if the locals are going to pay for more 

 of the project, they should be able to 

 have more say in the project design. 



Even though North Richmond is a 

 federally recognized poverty area, the 

 assistant secretary of the army in 

 charge of civil works did not respond to 

 the request of Congressman Miller to 

 provide a larger federal share of the 

 project cost. This refusal may be credit- 

 ed to North Richmond's location in an 

 affluent county. Revenues for flood- 

 control projects are raised by assessing 

 the districts where the projects are lo- 

 cated. But in coastal California, it is 

 not unusual for poorer communities to 

 be located in downstream floodplains 

 while the wealthy live on the upstream 

 hills where no flood hazards exist. Typ- 

 ically, segments of the population who 

 live adjacent to projects but do not ben- 

 efit from them do not elect to fund the 

 projects. Federal cost-sharing policies 

 and the assistant secretary of the army 

 need to be more realistic about local so- 

 cioeconomic conditions. If North Rich- 

 mond, with a median annual income of 

 $7,412 and a 64.5 percent poverty rale, 



cannot qualify for flexible cost-sharing 

 arrangements, then what community 

 will? 



In the interest of holding down fed- 

 eral water-project expenditures, the 

 federal government clings to the use of 

 an outmoded cosi-bcncfil analysis and 

 an inequitable cost-sharing system that 

 are biased against low-income areas 

 and nonstructural solutions. Even the 

 environmental lobby supports the fed- 

 eral cost-sharing policies in the belief 

 that such policies will reduce the num- 

 ber of projects and thus reduce damage 

 to the environment. The endorsement 

 of such policies strikes a blow to ration- 

 al planning in which plans are designed 

 to fulfill desirable objectives. It is in- 

 consistent and contradictory for envi- 

 ronmental advocates to challenge the 

 use of the cost-benefit analysis as an 

 oversimplified means to justify the se- 

 lection of projects for federal assis- 

 tance but to accept the use of cost-shar- 

 ing arrangements as a critical aspect of 

 the project justification process. More- 

 over, the cost-benefit analysis and the 

 cost-sharing system should not be the 

 only determinants for qualifying proj- 

 ects for federal support; local priori- 

 ties, needs, and objectives must be in- 

 corporated into the plans, as should 

 broader national goals for social and 

 environmental needs. 



Federal water-project planning has 

 been and will continue to be driven on 



A teacher lakes his students to explore 

 Wildcat Creek. The creek, which runs 

 along the south side of Verde 

 Elementary School, presents many 

 educational opportunities. (Photo: 

 Alan La Potnte) 



the basis of the scarce federal dollar. 

 The great irony of the impasse is that a 

 reformed system using objectives- based 

 planning and technical designs based 

 on concepts of hydrology instead of 

 channel hydraulics would reduce both 

 the federal share of costs and the total 

 project construction bill. Objectives- 

 based planning will save federal dollars 

 because: 



• the projects that will legitimately 

 meet, the test of fulfilling multiple ob- 

 jectives are few; 



• different technologies, such as 

 stream restoration strategies, can lower 

 project costs; 



• different construction and main- 

 tenance techniques may contribute to 

 local economics just as the Works 

 Progress Administration did in the 

 1930s and 1940s; and 



• protection measures against the 

 smaller, more frequent floods instead 

 of the larger, 100-year floods will re- 

 duce the cost of many projects. 



Citizen participation is considered 

 by many water-project planners to be a 

 costly nuisance, but many project engi- 

 neers and members of Congress can tell 

 of dramatic planning-cost overruns 

 that occurred after years of studies and 

 planning when citizens blocked proj- 

 ects after they were authorized or be- 

 fore construction started. Most federal 

 water-project planners do not realize 

 that a high level of citizen participation 

 can attract financial contributors to 

 projects. Citizen participation can also 

 stimulate political support and interest 

 in a project, and such support is crucial 

 to attracting project money from a di- 

 versity of local, county, regional, and 

 state programs. In addition, just as the 

 multiple objectives of the Consensus 

 Plan brought in nonfederal funds, 

 projects that meet more than one ob- 

 jective, such as park development, fish- 

 December 1989 



