BP: Barron Park (the neighborhood)
BPA: Barron Park (Neighborhood) Association
SCVWD: Santa Clara Valley Water District
Board member: SVCWD Board member: used where I recorded a comment,
but didn't record which Board member said it.
Associated presentations
The presentations of the BPA Board and residents (who agreed to provide them)
are accessible from the parent page.
Because they are made available in multiple formats,
I judged it simpler to have people go back to that page
rather than reproducing all the choices at each point the presentation
was referenced.
This document summarizes and interprets the actions of
the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors
at a special meeting held on 10 November 1997
starting at 7:30 PM.
The primary topic of this meeting was
The Barron/Matadero Creek Interim Fix:
(how to cope with recently discovered problem at
the bridge over the Matadero Creek channel at Louis Road).
The channel at this location does not have adequate capacity
to handle the 100-year flood,
and because of this problem, flood protection on lower Matadero Creek
is at the 50-year level, instead of the expected 100-year level.
At this meeting, the Board voted to limit the Barron Creek Diversion
Channel to half the flow it was designed to carry,
a plan that leaves a significant portion of the Barron Park neighborhood
vulnerable to flooding above the 20-year level.
This winter's weather is predicted to be very similar to
the El Niño of 1982-83.
That winter produced two significant floods in the Barron Park neighborhood,
the larger of which is classified as a 17-year event.
This flooding was a major factor behind the current flood control project.
Because the level of flooding is determined by many factors in addition
to the wetness of the winter,
the Barron Park Association believes that the 20-year level of protection
is inadequate
because it provides no margin of error/variability over the level of
flooding that the predicted weather has already been shown to be capable
of producing.
The Barron Park Association supported an alternative that would have
provided flood protection for both Matadero and Barron Creeks
at the 70-year or better level.
Introduction
To understand the SCVWD Board's decision --
and how it might be possible to change it --
one needs to look at the question from the viewpoint
of the public agency
(which can be very different from the private sector).
Legal issues:
Lawsuit, injunctions and other legal actions are much more common
in the public arena that the private sector.
Hence, public agencies place much more weight on what is
"legally defensible".
For public agencies, lawsuits are not just
an after-the-fact occurrence,
but often determine whether or not they will be able to proceed
on a project, when and how.
Board powers:
The SCVWD Board of Directors is similar in power and function
to the outside directors on a corporate board.
They have to depend on the permanent staff to identify and
evaluate options, and then to implement the selected action.
For more discussion, see Background.
This document is not intended as just a simple summary of the
3-hour
meeting on 10 November 1997:
I have arranged items by importance
and relevance to follow-up action,
and
I have also added my interpretation of events
and "readings" of the participants.
Disclaimer: This document is based upon my notes and best recollections.
If there are any errors, please send me (Doug Moran)
< !-- ?SUBJECT=BPA Web pages:Correction of SCVWD-BOD 11/10 mtg notes:" -->
details and I will try to correct them.
I am attempting to obtain an audio tape of the meeting to confirm
what I have written here.
A transcript is expected to be available from the SCVWD
about 3 weeks after the meeting.
Attendees:
SCVWD Board: all present
SCVWD staff: many
BP residents: about 8 or 9
Lower Matadero residents: 2? (one spoke)
Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer, Public Works Planning, City of Palo Alto
Deborah Kong, Staff Writer, San Jose Mercury News
Staff member representing State Senator Byron Sher (same staff member
who attended the public meeting on Thursday 16 October 1997).
Small group of San Jose residents who addressed the Board
on an unrelated problem during the open comment period
at the beginning of the meeting.
others??
The Decision
The SCVWD's Board of Directors unanimously voted to enact
the staff recommendation (Alternative #3) --
to partially block the Barron Diversion Channel
reduce it to half of its designed capacity
(300 instead of 600 cubic feet per second) --
with the following modification:
Make the blockage adjustable.
During a period of high flows, staff shall increase the opening
on the diversion channel to provide increased protection
for Barron Creek.
The operation of the adjustable blockage shall not risk
dropping the level of protection for lower Matadero below
the 100-year flood level.
At first glance, this seems similar to what the BPA Board recommended:
block the diversion channel to provide equal protection
(70-year) to both creeks,
and make the blockage adjustable
so that the SCVWD staff could exploit the differences
in when the two creeks peak,
and thus potentially provide an even greater level of protection to
residents along both creeks.
Background:
Barron rises quickly and typically has fallen dramatically
before trailing edge of storm has passed.
In contrast, Matadero rises slowly,
typically continuing to rise for a day or two after storm has passed.
The default setting of the blockage is key,
as can be seen in the staff's reaction to having an adjustable blockage.
Staff vigorously opposed having any adjustability in the diversion blockage
Without historical data, they have no way to interpret
what the current stream flows mean for the near future.
Note: After the 1982-83 flood, the BPA strongly lobbied
the SCVWD to install gauges and other instruments that would
have provided the historical record they need now.
The SCVWD rejected this request.
Even if they had instruments installed,
they are worried that the devices need to work best when conditions
are at their worst, that is, during a major storm.
Their concerns:
reliability of equipment and data --
first test of its ability to survive
and function in high flows would also be the time
it had to work perfectly
timely availability of
all the needed information
(weather status & forecast, and stream conditions).
They characterized (dismissed) as "anecdotal"
the observations by a wide range of long-term BP
residents about the behavior of Barron and Matadero Creek.
They worried that if they were to increase the flow into the diverter
early in the storm (when Barron needs it the most)
they wouldn't be able to close it in time to prevent flooding
on Matadero.
They joked that whoever gets assigned the task gets fired.
My assessment: The Board's direction that absolute protection be provided
for Matadero will provide the staff with an excuse to follow their
inclination and not allow more water into the diverter
at a time when it could prevent flooding on Barron with no risk on Matadero.
Addedum (February 1998):I was wrong about likely staff actions.
In the storm of 2-3 February 1998, the Water District staff carefully
managed the gate, leaving it open as long as reasonable
and thereby narrowly averted flooding along Barron Creek:
They had to shut the gate late in the storm,
and the Sediment Basin filled and overflowed for a short period,
but not long enough to cause flooding of any homes. Remember: the water district staff is accustomed
to building permanent projects
to provide 100-year flood protection.
They make extensive use of computer models
to evaluate their designs
and have long project lead-times --
and still we find ourselves with a major mistake
that has gone undetected for years.
Here, they are being asked to run a seat-of-the-pants operation
with little data and less personal experience.
The models, and the staff's experience with them,
are little help in the current situation because
they don't include the crucial parameter:
the timings of the rise and fall of the creeks,
and hence the timing differences between the peak flows
on Barron and Matadero.
The BPA Board recommendation
would have allowed the staff to not have to make any decisions
until a much larger
(and much more unlikely) flow rate has been reached.
Major Factors Behind Decision
The 20-some houses near the Waverley bridge were clearly
the dominant/decisive factor in the decision.
The staff claimed that the "break-out" at Waverley
was far more dangerous than flooding in Barron Park:
Large swift flows in the vicinity of the bridge
Occurs without warning
Counter:
It occurs with little warning if you are considering
only the water level at the Waverley bridge.
When the water touches the Louis Road bridge,
the expected situation is that the water rises very quickly
at each of the other bridges in turn.
However, the water does not rise rapidly to touch
the Louis Road bridge,
and by monitoring the water levels there,
you should be able to provide warning.
When the Board attempted to explore ways to get around this,
the SCVWD legal counsel made an aggressive presentation,
maximizing FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). He said:
Since the houses near Waverley bridge are listed as outside
the 100-year flood zone,
doing anything that would put them inside the 100-year flood zone
constitutes a taking (legal term) by the SCVWD,
and this is a long legal process that could not be accomplished in time.
Taking: briefly: the SCVWD would be taking over/away
some of the value of a property that it did not own.
See their recommendation for slightly more detail.
Selecting an option that would not provide 100-year flood protection
for these houses
would create massive legal exposure for the SCVWD.
State Supreme Court decisions allow government agencies to
unevenly distribute the risk over properties that are judged
to be at risk,
but the Court has explicitly excluded cases
where the public agency "induced a risk",
such as "introducing a property into a flood zone".
His reading was
that the Court was excluding such cases
because it regarded it as improper behavior by a public agency,
and thus the Court would rule against the SCVWD
if it pursued this option.
Important New Information
During the staff's initial presentation,
Board members asked about alternatives
that involved reducing the bottleneck at the Louis Road bridge
(for example, demolition of the bridge at the last moment,
creating a channel around it).
The staff response was that the problem first occurred at Louis Road,
but even if this bottleneck was removed,
the problem would then occur at the bridges above Louis.
This caught the Board by surprise,
and they tried unsuccessfully to get more details.
Several Board members, Zlotnick especially, displayed
their frustration and irritation
with hearing of this problem only then
and with not being able to get any more of a description than
"it's a problem".
My reading varied between:
Staff was using this as an excuse
to avoid having to modify their recommendation.
They were gun-shy:
having only recently discovered that the Louis Road bridge
was designed with too little capacity,
they did not want to commit to not having similar errors
related to the other bridges.
In exploring a fix to the Louis Road bridge problem,
they had discovered a larger problem,
but didn't understand it yet.
The Board also asked the staff for a guarantee that the undercapacity
problem could be fixed next summer,
to be ready for the next rainy season.
Staff hemmed and hawed.
Board asked if it was probable.
Staff continued to refuse to make a commitment or explain.
There was discussion about
all the possible problems related to permits and regulatory compliance.
Zlotnick told them to ignore that aspect for now
(the Board and residents could handle pressuring other agencies
to proceed expeditiously):
The question was could the construction likely be completed
before next fall.
Staff said it was a possibility, but it was too hard to predict.
Several Board members showed clear displeasure/irritation
that the staff was backpedaling from the representations
that they made at the public meetings
(Oct 15th & 16th in Palo Alto).
Funding: Board asked staff if funding would be any impediment to
implementing whatever fix was decided on.
Staff response was that District 5 (ours) had sufficient reserves
to handle the construction,
and even if it didn't, money "could be found"
for something this important.
Background: The SCVWD is divided into 5 districts,
and each district has its own tax base, budget, reserves, etc.
Arguments by Residents, Dismissed
Flooding on Barron Creek can make the flooding on Matadero worse
Presented by Ken Poulton (on related Web page: see the charts)
Summary: when Barron Creek floods, where does the water go?
It flows through a lot of houses, and then into Matadero Creek.
Same as if it had been sent down the diversion channel,
except for flooding lots of homes.
See .
Additional problem: because Barron typically rises faster than Matadero,
the delay created by water flowing through the neighborhood
(rather than down the diversion channel)
could well mean that is dumped into Matadero closer to when
Matadero peaks,
creating flooding on Matadero that otherwise would not have
occurred, or making the flooding worse.
Staff response:
We don't believe that this will happen.
We believe that the water will not enter the Matadero channel
until there is adequate capacity.
Counter-argument: The Matadero channel has the capacity to handle
100-year flows in the BP neighborhood.
The under-capacity problem is in lower Matadero,
especially at the Louis Road bridge.
Staff response:
The separation of the peaking of Barron and Matadero Creeks
is based upon anecdotal accounts of BP residents,
and the SCVWD does not have the data to assess this.
Barron Creek was unfairly selected as the fix
From BPA Board position (on related Web page)
Item: Barron diversion channel can be partially blocked
because the project is not technically complete
Rationale: although construction has been completed and
has been in operation for over a year,
the paperwork has not been completed.
What paperwork?: the evaluation of the total project --
the paperwork that required the evaluation that revealed
that the Louis Road bridge segment (in Phase 1)
lacked adequate capacity.
Unequal treatment: construction on lower Matadero (Phases 1 & 2)
is treated as complete,
but the Barron diversion channel
(Phase 5d) is treated as not complete.
Benefit analysis: Barron Creek is evaluated relative to
pre-project levels whereas
Matadero Creek is evaluated relative to post-project levels.
Level of Protection
Creek
Pre-project
Current
Alt #4
Enacted
Post-Project
Barron
4-year
100-year
>70-year
>20-year
100-year
lower Matadero
13-year
50-year
>70-year
100-year
100-year
Current is as of the 10 November 1997 SCVWD Board meeting.
Enacted is the modified Alternative #3 approved by the Board
at this meeting.
Alternative #4 is the one supported by the BPA Board.
Post-project is what the project was designed to provide,
and what will be provided when the current problem is fixed.
>: degree depends upon operation
of the adjustable blockage on the Barron Diversion Channel.
Staff recommendation has Barron Park residents "benefiting"
because their flood protection has been raised from 4- to 20-year level,
but then arguing that lower Matadero should not have their protection
lowered from the 100-year level to 50.
No alternative presented for disabling/dismantling
any of the flood protection
built in Phases 1 or 2 that would prevent the break-out at Waverley.
Only Phase 5d (Barron diversion channel)
is a candidate for being disabled.
From presentation by a BP resident
BP resident questioned Board about her need for flood insurance
because the official maps showed her house outside the 100-year
flood zone, but she has been told that it flooded in 1982-83.
Staff response: official maps have lots of errors
An inconsistency that did not seem to register with the SCVWD:
Official map showing the 20-some houses near the Waverley bridge
as being outside the 100-year flood zone is treated as gospel.
In the 1982-83 flood, there was flooding at all the bridges
below the Waverley bridge.
Based on
the SCVWD's description of how flooding occurs
at the sequence of bridges,
it would seem that Waverley Bridge
(and hence the houses in question)
barely escaped flooding.
Since the 1982-83 event is classified as a 17-year flood,
the claim that those houses had 100-year flood protection
seems preposterous.
Several hundred homes in Barron Park that flooded
in that same event are officially listed
as outside the 100-year flood zone.
Same for many more homes that barely escaped flooding then.
The Insurance Question
One of the ideas put forward by multiple sources was to
eliminate the problem of
introducing 20-some houses into the flood zone
by buying flood insurance for them.
This was raised at the meeting and vigorously pursued
by multiple Board members,
especially Tony Estremera (at-large representative for North County)
Response of the staff (the legal counsel and the risk manager):
Insurance to pay for flood damage is not the same as preventing flood damage
The SCVWD can't purchase insurance for those houses
because it has no insurable interest
(loosely, it has no ownership position in the houses).
The SCVWD cannot reimburse owners for flood insurance
because they could not confirm that owners hadn't cancelled
the insurance and gotten a rebate
(yeah, right -- this would take a modest amount of paperwork,
but for 20-some houses, this is not a big deal)
A condition for SCVWD's paying for a homeowners flood insurance would
be the requirement that they sign a waiver for the district,
but insurance companies do not normally allow policy-holders
the right to sign away the insurance companies right to sue.
The insurance that the district could get is not for damages,
but insurance to cover legal cost:
the cost of defending against lawsuits,
but not the cost of any resulting judgements against the SCVWD.
Background: A risk manager is typically
someone who is part actuary, part insurance purchaser.
He decides what needs to be insured against
and
how to insure against it
(self-insurance or various sources and forms of purchased insurance).
Background
Relationship of SCVWD Board and Permanent Staff
The SCVWD Board of Directors is similar in power and function to
the outside directors on a corporate board,
a school board
the City Council in a Council/Manager-style government (such as
Palo Alto has)
Some boards (both corporate and public) are little more than
rubber stamps for management.
Personal example: in another city, I was at a school board meeting
where the room was packed with parents who were uniformly opposed to
the Superintendent's recommendation and who made clear, sensible arguments.
In the board debate, one Board member publicly commented
"This is too confusing for me. I'm going to support the Super's recommendation."
My observation from this meeting was that this was definitely not
the case for the SCVWD Board.
Board members asked many questions of staff,
and asked followup questions when the answers were not responsive.
However, there were several instances were the staff
persisted in not answering the question being asked,
and the Board members finally gave up.
If you find this surprising and/or interesting,
you might want to read the books
The Complete Yes Minister: The Diaries of a Cabinet Minister
and
Yes Prime Minister: The Diaries of the Right Honorable James Hacker
both by Jonathan Lynn and Anthony Jay "(editors)".
These books are the basis of a BBC-TV series that can be
seen from time to time
on KTEH (PBS, Ch 54, San Jose).
They are widely praised as a "good read" and
very perceptive accounts of the struggles between the
permanent/professional staff at government agencies
and their "political masters".
The Palo Alto Main Library has Yes Minister,
but the books are very hard to find in stores
(my Yes Prime Minister went missing and
I have been unable to find a replacement).
One of the Board members (Larry Wilson?) is a former long-time employee
of the water district.
At one key point, the several Board members turned to him for
a sanity check on what the staff was telling them,
and to see if he could think of any alternatives.
Several of the Board members have backgrounds in engineering,
but the focus of the Board is on public policy questions,
and they depend heavily on the staff for
assessment of the technical and legal issues of projects.
Politics
The SCVWD Board has not typically been a stepping stone
to higher office.
They manage costly projects that aggravate lots of people.
People rarely notice the floods that are prevented by these projects,
but they certainly notice the ones that occur.
It is hard to campaign for higher office when the only noteworthy
events of your tenure are failures.
Candidates and campaigns rarely draw much (if any) notice.
The previous representative from our district was James Lenihan,
who retired after 32 years on the Board.
The current representative, Greg Zlotnick, was elected in 1996
(for a 4-year term).
One of the current pressures on the Water District is to pay
more attention to environmental issues (both human and wildlife)
in their projects.
The Barron/Matadero Creek Bypass is an example of this slow shift.
(Example: article
from the newsletter of the .
This article is also of interest because of a passing mention of this project
in relation to the hyping of El Niño by the news media).
Zlotnick had previously worked on environmental issues,
and this may have been a factor in his support in his first campaign
(and is likely to be a factor in subsequent campaigns).
See his profile in the article
Three compete for seat on Water Board from 20 March 1996 issue
of the .
Public Comment
Note: although presentations at a public meeting
are a matter of public record,
I am identifying here only those people
who have clearly "gone public" about having made a presentation.
BPA Board of Directors: presented by Doug Moran (on Web)
Ken Poulton (on Web)
Bob Moss (not on Web, requested but not provided -
much of it was posted to the BPA e-mail list in a series of messages).
Resident: supporting Alternative 4
Resident:
supporting Alternative 4
requesting siren to warn when Barron was flooding.
Aside (not part of presentation):
the 1982-83 flood occurred in the middle of the night.
At least one person awoke to a house filling with gas
because the waters had snuffed out the furnace
(automatic shutoff valves are supposed to handle such situations,
but it may have malfunctioned or
been an installation that pre-dated this safety feature).
Staff said that the siren was a good idea and
that they would look into it.
Concerned about the just-started Storm Drain project putting
further water into Barron.
Joe Teresi (City of Palo Alto, Public Works Planning)
responded that when the Storm Drain project was designed
and started,
everyone thought the flood project was fully functional.
The inlet into the Barron pipe from the Storm Drain
is designed to not overfill the pipe,
but instead cause the water to be held in the storm drains,
and on the streets, until there is available capacity.
This is no worse than the current situation.
Concern about vegetation in the creek:
Answer: some of it has been judge "no problem"
and other is being removed
(some is outside SCVWD jurisdiction and is being handled
by the City of Palo Alto).
Resident: Question: according to her insurer,
her house is not in the flood zone,
but her neighbors told her that it flooded in 1982-83.
What should she do about insurance?
Answer from SCVWD: She should have flood insurance,
even after your house is taken out of the 100-year flood zone.
Flood insurance becomes cheaper once you are outside that zone.
Lower Matadero
Resident: he made an presentation that seemed to
"turn off" the Board members,
judging from their body language
and the fact that they did not ask him any questions
(they interacted with all other speakers).
A gross simplification of this presentation is
He was clear and direct in that he was concerned only about
the risk of flooding to his house;
whether or not there was flooding on Barron
was of no importance to him.
He said that water from Barron Creek and the Stanford Channel
should not be put into Matadero Creek
if increased the risk of flooding to his house.
It was unclear whether he just couldn't understand the
previous presentations (SCVWD and public)
that explained that this was a combined project,
or if he just decided to reject that decision.
His big concern was keeping water in the the Matadero Channel
well below designed capacity
because a tree might fall and damage the walls,
or a truck run into it, breaching the walls.
City of Palo Alto
Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer, Public Works Planning Department:
Wanted to emphasize to the Board to make sure to keep
the City of Palo Alto informed of all developments.
Other Actions
The Board discussed with staff a variety of other actions that
could reduce the risk of flooding and minimize a damage from flooding.
The Board emphasized how important this was and the staff agreed.
Note:This was not a let them eat cake situation,
as might be inferred from some messages to the BPA e-mail list:
it was a sincere effort to try to make sure that everything
was being done to make the best of a bad situation.
These other actions included:
Sandbag locations
Classes in sandbagging:
One Board member who had just gone through the class remarked
that it wasn't as simple as it seemed.
Board member asked if class could be given in Palo Alto
instead of San Jose.
Staff answer (Kay Whitfield): very difficult because
they have the facilities set up at their HQ
to allow people to work with different scenarios
and reproducing that is difficult.
Board member Joe Judge: how about making video tape and making it available
BP Resident and Board member Kamei: put in Palo Alto libraries
Bob Moss: he could arrange to have it
broadcast on Cable Coop
(people could watch or video tape to watch later)
Board member: additional copies of video tape available
to residents
Seminar on floodproofing your house
two sessions planned
discussion of scheduling and location
Board chair Sanchez:
make sure to have one of those in the North County
(we aren't the only ones with flood worries)
Channel cleanup
Version Info: $Revision: 1.12 $ $Date: 2002/06/22 07:21:11 $