Return to the SAFCA Index page

Jump to previous correspondence

INDEX OF THIS PAGE:

click here for correspondence from the Rio Linda Elverta email list

click here for Erwin Hayer's May 10 letter to Congressman Doug Ose
click here for Erwin Hayer's May 12 letter the SAFCA Board about 500 yr map errors
click here for Erwin Hayer's May 12 letter to Pete Ghelfi in response to his April 18 letter
click here for Erwin Hayer's May 12 letter to Pete Ghelfi about Levee Drains N1 and S10

OTHER LINKS

Erwin Hayer's correspondence with SAFCA and the State Reclamation Board: Reference
 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Letter to Ose on SAFCA 500-yr map errors
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 10:27:20 -0700
From: "Erwin Hayer" <eeh625@hotmail.com>
To: riolinda@vrx.net

Following is my letter to Doug Ose
Erwin
-------------------
May 10, 2001.
The Honorable Doug Ose
1508 Longworth Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

SUBJECT:  Errors of SAFCA’s 500-year Flood Event Map.

Click here for Erwin Hayer's letter to Congressman Doug Ose, complete with attachments.
 
 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] SAFCA 500-yr Flood Map Errors
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 11:08:50 -0700
From: "Erwin Hayer" <eeh625@hotmail.com>
To: scohn@cityofsacramento.org, hfargo@cityofsacramento.org,rogerd@saccounty.net, nielloroger@saccounty.net,murielj@saccounty.net, illac@saccounty.net, donn@saccounty.net,Clyde.macdonald@asm.ca.gov, Amy.dean@sen.ca.gov,hodgkinsb@saccounty.net, franklinma@saccounty.net,kathy@argonautconsulting.com
CC: prabbon@water.ca.gov, MaryAnne.Lyle@fema.gov,Morris.Boone@fema.gov, Karen.Armes@fema.gov, mauserwt@aol.com,BOBRAC25@aol.com, SPZNTAZ@softcom.net, bltk@aol.com, wathor@aol.com,jbmitchell3@aol.com, jmccarthy@kxtv.com, RLNEWS@aol.com,dwerkman@sacbee.com, anchorsandreporters@thekcrachannel.com,assemblymember.cox@assembly.ca.gov, Senator.Ortiz@sen.ca.gov,riolinda@vrx.net, doug.ose@mail.house.gov

SAFCA Board of Directors.  May 12, 2001.

Please look at the May 10, 2001 letter to Doug Ose, located at:
http://jay.mbz.org/safca/safcamaperrors.html

Attachment 1 is a portion of FEMA’s 100-year flood event map, FIRM 060262-0065F July 6, 1998.
http://jay.mbz.org/safca/safcamaperrors.html#1
Notice the ball diamonds labeled # 9 and # 10.  These ball diamonds have had 2 feet or more of floodwater covering the infields during the Jan 1995 floods.

Attachment 2 is a portion of SAFCA’s 500-year flood event floodwater area.
http://jay.mbz.org/safca/safcamaperrors.html#2
Notice the ball diamonds labeled # 9 and # 10.  These ball diamonds are above the floodwater according to this map.

Now, Look at SAFCA,s response by Pete Ghelfi, April 18, 2001 at: http://jay.mbz.org/safca/correspondence201.html#010428a

I can not agree with his answer of why SAFCA’s 500-year map is more accurate than FEMA’s 100-year.

The Jan 1995 floods exceeded SAFCA’s 500-year two-dimensional model (FESWMS) by approximately 2 feet in the area just north of G Street.  The FEMA 100-year (which was created pre-1979) is a one-dimensional model (HEC-1) and in the area just north of G Street was almost an exact display of what the floodwater covered during the Jan 1995 floods.

The following is a comparison of the two maps of the floodwater levels during the Jan 10/11 1995 floods.

When the floodwater was covering # 6, the ball diamond infield, it is reasonable to believe the floodwater elevation was above 48.5 feet.  Following FEMA’s water elevation contours, the 48.5 feet floodwater elevation would extend to about halfway between ball diamonds # 9 and # 10.  The floodwater would be slightly higher at # 9 and slightly lower at # 10.

This would put the floodwater (48.5 feet) about 2 feet deep at locations # 9 (46.4 feet) and # 10 (46.7 feet).

SAFCA’s 500-year map shows the locations # 9 and # 10 as above the 500-year floodwater elevations.  Both of these locations have been covered with floodwater many times

Now, I am still having a hard time believing the 500-year flood will be about 2 feet lower than a 100-year flood, which occurred in Jan 1995.  Who is SAFCA trying to miss lead?

I have been giving this information to SAFCA Staff and SAFCA Board of Directors since early 1997.  The response I received from Pete Ghelfi, dated April 18, 2001 did not answer why the 500-year flood would be 2 feet lower than what has already been under floodwater.  The FEMA map has been equaled or slightly exceeded in this area.  I have not received any other responses to this problem.

I still believe the FEMA map is more accurate and the SAFCA map has serious errors.

Additional correspondence can be seen at: http://jay.mbz.org/safca/

Erwin Hayer

>From the Rio Linda mailing list
 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] SAFCA Mitigation Project Questions 1999-2000
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 14:19:55 -0700
From: "Erwin Hayer" <eeh625@hotmail.com>
To: ghelfip@saccounty.net
CC: jmccarthy@kxtv.com, RLNEWS@aol.com, dwerkman@sacbee.com,anchorsandreporters@thekcrachannel.com,assemblymember.cox@assembly.ca.gov, Senator.Ortiz@sen.ca.gov,scohn@cityofsacramento.org, hfargo@cityofsacramento.org,rogerd@saccounty.net, nielloroger@saccounty.net,murielj@saccounty.net, illac@saccounty.net, donn@saccounty.net,Clyde.macdonald@asm.ca.gov, Amy.dean@sen.ca.gov,senator@feinstein.sen
 

May 12, 2001

Pete

Following is the correspondence between Frances Hood, Roger Dickinson and myself.

I hope this can bring you up to speed on my questions in response to your letter of April 18, 2001.

---------------------------------------

From: "Dickinson, Roger" <rogerd@saccounty.net>
To: 'FRANCES B HOOD' <f.b.hood@juno.com>, riolinda@vrx.net, raya6@juno.com
CC: "Hodgkins, Butch (SAFCA)" <hodgkinsb@SacCounty.NET>, "Dickinson,
Roger" <rogerd@saccounty.net>, "Collin, Illa" <illac@saccounty.net>,
"Johnson, Muriel" <murielj@saccounty.net>, "Niello, Roger"
<nielloroger@saccounty.net>, "Nottoli, Don" <donn@saccounty.net>,
raya6@juno.com, RQuack4131@aol.com, eeh625@hotmail.com, riolinda@vrx.net
Subject: RE: [RL] SAFCA: Robla Creek Project
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:33:17 -0800ate.gov, senator@boxer.senate.gov,doug.ose@mail.house.gov, riolinda@vrx.net,kathy@argonautconsulting.com

Dear Frances:

SAFCA staff has been working with interested residents, elected officials, and others for several years to attempt to identify an affordable solution which provides sufficient protection to Robla and North Sacramento while also helping those in Rio Linda. We have listened and will continue to do so in our effort to find the best solution.

ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, First District
Sacramento County
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From:  "Erwin Hayer" <eeh625@hotmail.com>
To:  rogerd@saccounty.net
CC:  riolinda@vrx.net
Subject:  RE: [RL] SAFCA: Robla Creek Project
Date:  Wed, 07 Feb 2001 11:18:15 -0800
Dear Roger

The last mitigation meeting with SAFCA was in 1998 until the "open houses" of December 2000. I believe this was about 2 years of no mitigation on the increased flooding risks in Rio Linda.

I felt that SAFCA staff and board were going ahead with the project in violation of the Reclamation Board Special Conditions.

Erwin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From:  "Dickinson, Roger" <rogerd@saccounty.net>
To:  'Erwin Hayer' <eeh625@hotmail.com>, "Dickinson, Roger"
<rogerd@saccounty.net>
Subject:  RE: [RL] SAFCA: Robla Creek Project
Date:  Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:19:21 -0800
Dear Erwin:

Thanks for your email.  I'm not quite sure what you have in mind when you say "mitigation meeting", but SAFCA staff have met with various parties between 1998 and the "open houses".  In addition, SAFCA purchased flood insurance for appropriate parties since the construction of the south levee. To my knowledge, SAFCA has complied with the Reclamation Board conditions regarding the south levee.  The current effort is to reach an appropriate level of flood protection for Robla and North Sacramento while also giving appropriate protection to potentially affected areas of Rio Linda.  Your comments have been helpful in formulating the best approach.

ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, First District
Sacramento County
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From:  "Erwin Hayer" <eeh625@hotmail.com>
Reply-To:  riolinda@vrx.net
To:  rogerd@saccounty.net
CC:  riolinda@vrx.net
Subject:  RE: [RL] SAFCA: Robla Creek Project
Date:  Wed, 07 Feb 2001 22:36:53 -0800

Dear Roger,

    The last information that I received from SAFCA is dated August 31, 1998.  This is a letter from Paul T. Devereux, Director of Engineering to “Members of the Lower Dry Creek and Robla Creek Levee Improvements Mitigation Project.”  I considered these meetings as Mitigation Meetings in accordance with special conditions numbers 45 and 46 of The Reclamation Board Permit Number 16033-A-BD.  Sometimes this was called the Working Group, but I considered it Mitigation Meetings.  I had attended every one of these meetings and also was attending the SAFCA Board of Directors meetings after September 1997 until December 1998.

    SAFCA Staff and Consultants seemed to always out number the community members.  At the first meeting, we asked to have the meetings in the evening so more community members could attend.  This was turned down, but later SAFCA had an evening meeting with the community members east of Dry Creek Road and failed to let any of the day time attendees know about the evening meeting.

    In December 1998, with a telephone call to Paul T. Devereux, I ask about getting the agenda for future SAFCA Board meetings so I did not have to attend meetings that did not involve Rio Linda, Dry Creek, Robla Creek or Magpie Creek discussions.  His answer was the agenda would be put on the Internet in January 1999 or I could subscribe to them for $20.00 per year. It was finally on the Internet in January 2001, 2 years later. During this 2 years, I can not find anyone who was notified about or attended any Mitigation Meetings.

    I do not consider the Open Houses at Rio Linda High School and Robla Elementary School as Mitigation Meetings as required by special conditions numbers 45 and 46 of The Reclamation Board Permit Number 16033-A-BD.

   I still say the 500-year flood map displayed at the Open House meetings is very inaccurate. The floodwater across G Street from my home has exceeded SAFCA’s 500-year map many times.

    I called Janice Hayer and she has not been notified of, or attended any mitigation meetings in 1998 or 2000 until the December 2000 Open house at Rio Linda High School.  She also had attended all of the mitigation meetings of 1997 and 1998. Chris Quackenbush, Bill Mauser and Phil Todd were other persons from the community that attended.

    I am very interested in knowing who and what was discussed between SAFCA Staff and “various parties” in 1998 and 2000 that you indicated in your response.

Erwin Hayer
---------------------------------------

I have not received a response to the above correspondence of Wed, 07 Feb 2001 22:36:53 –0800.

I still have not been informed of who the “various parties” were at the mitigating meetings between December 1998 and December 2000 or what was discussed.

My questions are:

1.  What were the dates of any “Mitigation Project Meetings” or “Working Group Meetings” or “SAFCA staff meetings with various parties” between December 1998 and December 2000 on the Robla Creek South Levee, Permit 16033-A BD?

2.  Where were these meetings held?

3.  What was discussed at these meetings?

4.  Are copies of the minutes of these meetings available to the public?

5.  Who were the “various parties” that attended these meetings?

6.  Is a list of attendees at these meetings available to the public?

Thank you for any answers to the above 6 questions.
 

Erwin E. Hayer

>From the Rio Linda mailing list
 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] Levee Drains N1 and S10
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:26:26 -0700
From: "Erwin Hayer" <eeh625@hotmail.com>
To: kathy@argonautconsulting.com, ghelfip@saccounty.net
CC: anchorsandreporters@thekcrachannel.com,scohn@cityofsacramento.org, hfargo@cityofsacramento.org,Clyde.macdonald@asm.ca.gov, Amy.dean@sen.ca.gov,assemblymember.cox@assembly.ca.gov, Senator.Ortiz@sen.ca.gov,eeh625@hotmail.com, mauserwt@aol.com, BOBRAC25@aol.com, bltk@aol.com,wathor@aol.com, jbmitchell3@aol.com, dwerkman@sacbee.com,RLNEWS@aol.com, jmccarthy@kxtv.com, riolinda@vrx.net,donn@saccounty.net, illac@saccounty.net, murielj@saccounty.net,rogerd@saccounty.net, nielloroger@saccounty.net,senator@boxer.senate.gov, senator@feinstein.senate.gov,doug.ose@mail.house.gov

Pete
Following correspondence provided to give you an update on questions.

---------------------------------------
From: Erwin Hayer [mailto:eeh625@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 3:26 PM
To: rogerd@saccounty.net; raya6@juno.com; hodgkinsb@SacCounty.NET
Cc: illac@saccounty.net; murielj@saccounty.net;
nielloroger@saccounty.net; donn@saccounty.net; RQuack4131@aol.com;
jayobrien@att.net
Subject: RE: SAFCA: Robla Creek Project
Dear Roger Dickinson,

   At the CPAC Meeting on January 9, 2001, Butch Hodgkins stated that because the Robla Creek South Levee has been raised, an increased risk of flooding has been created at Bell Acqua and Western Acres Subdivisions, the Bell Acqua Apartments and the Airport.  Also he stated the homes were removed from Ascot Avenue and Dry Creek Road area, as that was cheaper to do than trying to flood protect them from the increased risk of flooding from the raised levee.

   At the SAFCA Board meeting on January 18, 2001 you wanted to talk to me about the levees.  The three minutes allowed for speakers is not enough time as I was able to cover only one item of many that I wanted to cover.  I have sent many letters to SAFCA staff and I hope these letters have been forwarded to SAFCA Board Members.

   At this same meeting, one board member commented that the construction of the levee around Bell Acqua, Airport and the subdivision with out paying into the assessment district is unfair.  I say that it was unfair to construct the levee, which has increase the flood risk to many homes and business in the area described above.  SAFCA staff and consultants originally said that this area would not have an increase in flooding because of the levee.  SAFCA has bought and paid for flood insurance for many homes and business in this area after they agreed that the levee would increase the risk of flooding.

   When levees are constructed to keep floodwater out of the historical floodplains, the floodwater on the wet side of the levees will get deeper under the same water flows.

   The homes on Ascot Avenue and West Second Street area of Rio Linda are at increased risk since the north levee has been constructed.  The floodwater gets higher on the wet side of the levees with the same water flow and the flap valve at drain N-1 does not open until the local floodwater on the dry side are higher than the floodwater on the wet side.  SAFCA staff keeps saying that the floodwater on the wet side will drain before we get local rains on the dry side.  This has not happened as portable pumps have been installed at the N-1 drain to pump the local rain water over the levee to prevent the homes on Ascot Avenue and West Second Street from flooding.  This has been done multiple times since the north levee was constructed.   The homes on Rio Linda Boulevard and Rose Street, just south of the Robla Creek South Levee, dry side, are also at increased risk of flooding due to the raising of the south levee.  Portable pumps have been installed since the south levee was constructed to keep these homes from flooding.   Conditions will get worse in Rio Linda when the proposed Magpie Creek enlargement project is constructed.  Almost 3 times the volume of floodwater will enter the Rio Linda area during a 100-year storm on the Magpie Creek Watershed if this project is completed as planned.  This information is supplied by the US Army Corp of Engineers.

   I understand the homes at Ascot Avenue/West Second, Rose Street and Rio Linda Boulevard are in the assessment district which is paying for the levees that have increased their risk of flooding.  I do not think this is fair.

   I am available to discuss the above with you at your convenience.

Erwin Hayer
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From:  "Dickinson, Roger" <rogerd@saccounty.net>
To:  'Erwin Hayer' <eeh625@hotmail.com>, "Dickinson, Roger"
<rogerd@saccounty.net>, raya6@juno.com, "Hodgkins, Butch (SAFCA)"
<hodgkinsb@SacCounty.NET>
CC:  "Collin, Illa" <illac@saccounty.net>, "Johnson, Muriel"
<murielj@saccounty.net>, "Niello, Roger" <nielloroger@saccounty.net>,
"Nottoli, Don" <donn@saccounty.net>, RQuack4131@aol.com, jayobrien@att.net
Subject:  RE: SAFCA: Robla Creek Project
Date:  Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:36:13 -0800
Dear Erwin:
Thanks for your email regarding the information as to conditions on the dry side of the north and south levees.  I will discuss what you have described further with the SAFCA staff.  However, in general, it seems better to me to address relatively minor accumulations of water on the dry side of a levee than leave people and structures at risk of disastrous flooding by not building up protection. In the same vein, I have specifically discussed interior drainage for Bell Acqua and Western Acres with Pete Ghelfi and Butch Hodgkins to find out what will happen if we build a perimeter levee to protect those areas.  As I understand it, it appears that interior drainage is adequate with the possible exception that a couple of houses may need some further attention.

I appreciate your thoughts.

ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, First District
Sacramento County
---------------------------------------

Questions that need to be answered.

1.  Have the relatively minor accumulations of water on the dry side of the levees at Ascot Avenue and West Second Street on the north levee and Rose Street / Rio Linda Boulevard areas on the south levee been address per Roger Dickinson’s Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:36:13 –0800 correspondence above?

2.  What action is being taken to protect the homes in the area described above?

3.  Who is responsible to install and operate the temporary pumps at flap valve drains N-1 and S-10?

4.  Are the homes at risk in question # 1 above in SAFCA’s assessment district for flood protection.

5. In the statement from Roger Dickinson “As I understand it, it appears that interior drainage is adequate with the possible exception that a couple of houses may need some further attention.”  What homes are the possible exception?
 

Erwin E. Hayer

>From the Rio Linda mailing list