Pájaro River Watershed Flood Protection Plan - The Pajaro River ...
Pájaro River Watershed Flood Protection Plan - The Pajaro River ... Pájaro River Watershed Flood Protection Plan - The Pajaro River ...
Appendix 3: Streambank Property Owners, San Benito River (see separate file) Appendix 7: Mines in the San Benito County Permit files, 2003 (see separate file) Appendix 8: Economic and Socioeconomic considerations Introduction Economic considerations for the Pájaro Watershed are almost as complex as the geological issues. Because the lower Pájaro Valley is cooled by fog in the summer, yet remains under marine influence all winter, the field survey crews recognized it in 1853-54 as an unusually favorable agricultural region (Wm. Johnson, 1854 US Coast Survey). High value crops can be grown and harvested all year in the rich Lake San Benito silt soils. Agricultural drainage tiles were installed at the beginning of the 20 th Century to enhance winter production in the lowermost part of the valley where waterlogging of soils could occur during the winter. By 1950 the flood-tolerant fruit tree and nut crops were being cut down in favor of much more valuable row crops. With the local selective breeding of berry varieties adapted to high production in morning fog sites, there was strong economic pressure to shift to very high value crops such as strawberries and cut flowers. Agriculture in the Lower Pájaro Valley is thus very different than in most agricultural areas of the world. In the Pájaro, it pays to tear down houses and parking lots and plant crops. Agricultural property has among the highest returns on investment as are found anywhere. This means that valuation of flood protection works cannot be treated as they would be for cropland in Iowa or Indiana. It further means that seasonal flooding of silt across fields, as is welcomed throughout most of the world, has a high cost to farmers in the Pájaro. Thus, cost-benefit analyses that must be accomplished for federal flood protection works have to be based on an entirely different metric than elsewhere in the United States. We attempted to disaggregate the Corps’ comparative cost figures for the scenarios that were released to the public as this report was being written. Despite repeated requests to the Corps’ offices in San Francisco, none of the lumped categories for cost assessment were provided to us. In no public meetings that we attended were these various cost categories explained or questioned. We thus cannot accurately estimate the cost-savings that are inherent in the upstream flood storage options presented here. But we take the position that however insubstantially based may be the Corps’ numbers, we can state that our cost estimate for a reduction of 4 feet in the height of the 100-year flood at Murphy’s Crossing in the Lower Valley is less costly. That is, the cost of the top 4-feet of flood protective works envisioned by the Corps’ in their scenarios is more expensive than our zero-public-cost upstream flood storage restoration alternative. DRAFT 7/22/03 60 Pájaro Watershed Flood Management
Corps’ Data presented Alternatives By Ada Squires 2003 - Pájaro Estimates in millions raise levee 9 ft 100 ft setback & raise 5 ft 100 ft setback & raise 6 ft setback costs/ft. LERRD's 33.5 22.7 24.3 2.6 Construction 193.7 130.7 131.7 1 E&D, S&A 34.1 23 23.4 0.4 Total Projected Cost 261.3 176.4 179.4 Annual Cost 18 12.2 12.4 OMRR&R 1.9 1 0.8 Total Annual Cost 19.9 13.2 13.2 Benefits 14.8 14.9 14.8 Net Benefits -5.1 1.7 1.6 Benefit: Cost 0.74 1.13 1.12 Non-Federal Cost (25%) 44.1 44.1 44.9 Squires Table Socioeconomic Context: The two areas where floodwater from the Pájaro River most affects communities are at the town of Pájaro and the city of Watsonville. Located near the mouth of the Pájaro River, these two communities are built where the Pájaro River is confined to an unnatural and unstable artificial flood channel. The upper watershed of the Pájaro River, which consists of over 90% of the watershed, is comparatively wealthy. San Benito County has a per capita income of $20,932/year with a poverty rate for families of 8.6%. Santa Clara County fares even better with a per capita income of $32,795/year with a poverty rate of 6.8%. When one compares those figures to that of Pájaro and Watsonville, one can easily see why the voices of those towns might not be heard in the politics of the watershed. The US Census Bureau reports that Pájaro has a per capita income of $9893/year, while 20.4% of its families are below the poverty level. The city of Watsonville has a per capita income of $13,205/year and a poverty level of 19.7%. It is important to note that these figures are those of the Census Bureau and do not accurately reflect the true populations in these cities due to migrant and illegal farm workers. In a survey of Monterey County and Santa Cruz County farm workers, the median family income was $11,000/year and $14,000/year respectively (Monterey County Farm Workers, 2003). In addition to low-income status, populations with a high percentage of minorities have historically borne the heavier weight of environmental problems than those with a higher percentage of Caucasians (Bullard, pg.xv). The state of California has a Caucasian population consisting of 46.7% of the total DRAFT 7/22/03 61 Pájaro Watershed Flood Management
- Page 11 and 12: Map A 1875 based on 1854 land surve
- Page 13 and 14: Upper Watershed, San Benito and San
- Page 15 and 16: Himalaya and Alaska are there possi
- Page 17 and 18: DRAFT 7/22/03 17 Pájaro Watershed
- Page 19 and 20: The current project attempts to rec
- Page 21 and 22: California State University Robert
- Page 23 and 24: where: g adj is the adjusted skew g
- Page 25 and 26: 70000 Hollister upper confidence in
- Page 27 and 28: value for the maximum possible 100-
- Page 29 and 30: Regional Analysis The trend in perc
- Page 31 and 32: Interestingly, the maximum consecut
- Page 33 and 34: California State University Robert
- Page 35 and 36: We also find that on the order of 6
- Page 37 and 38: Figure11 Cartoon showing how incisi
- Page 39 and 40: Although Hospital Road shows some a
- Page 41 and 42: clearly attenuate (reduce) flood pe
- Page 43 and 44: average 8-foot depth of water that
- Page 45 and 46: culverts and fill. Other parts of t
- Page 47 and 48: Our modeling of enhanced flood stor
- Page 49 and 50: APPENDICES & Figures APPENDIX 1: No
- Page 51 and 52: APPENDIX 5 Example of Historical Ch
- Page 53 and 54: APPENDIX 2: 1995 and 1998 Storm Com
- Page 55 and 56: http://12.45.109.6/pls/portal30/get
- Page 57 and 58: 50 Corralitos Creek Hydrograph & Co
- Page 59 and 60: Figure 16 - San Benito River channe
- Page 61: Fig 15 Stream Barb Structures DRAFT
- Page 65 and 66: California State University Robert
- Page 67 and 68: . illustrations, on an interim repo
- Page 69 and 70: APPENDIX 3 Streambank Property Owne
- Page 71: Historical Change in San Benito Riv
Corps’ Data presented Alternatives By Ada Squires 2003 - <strong>Pájaro</strong><br />
Estimates in millions<br />
raise levee 9 ft<br />
100 ft setback<br />
& raise 5 ft<br />
100 ft setback &<br />
raise 6 ft<br />
setback<br />
costs/ft.<br />
LERRD's 33.5 22.7 24.3 2.6<br />
Construction 193.7 130.7 131.7 1<br />
E&D, S&A 34.1 23 23.4 0.4<br />
Total Projected Cost 261.3 176.4 179.4<br />
Annual Cost 18 12.2 12.4<br />
OMRR&R 1.9 1 0.8<br />
Total Annual Cost 19.9 13.2 13.2<br />
Benefits 14.8 14.9 14.8<br />
Net Benefits -5.1 1.7 1.6<br />
Benefit: Cost 0.74 1.13 1.12<br />
Non-Federal Cost (25%) 44.1 44.1 44.9<br />
Squires Table<br />
Socioeconomic Context:<br />
<strong>The</strong> two areas where floodwater from the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> most affects<br />
communities are at the town of <strong>Pájaro</strong> and the city of Watsonville. Located near<br />
the mouth of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>, these two communities are built where the <strong>Pájaro</strong><br />
<strong>River</strong> is confined to an unnatural and unstable artificial flood channel.<br />
<strong>The</strong> upper watershed of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>, which consists of over 90% of<br />
the watershed, is comparatively wealthy. San Benito County has a per capita<br />
income of $20,932/year with a poverty rate for families of 8.6%. Santa Clara<br />
County fares even better with a per capita income of $32,795/year with a<br />
poverty rate of 6.8%.<br />
When one compares those figures to that of <strong>Pájaro</strong> and Watsonville, one<br />
can easily see why the voices of those towns might not be heard in the politics<br />
of the watershed. <strong>The</strong> US Census Bureau reports that <strong>Pájaro</strong> has a per capita<br />
income of $9893/year, while 20.4% of its families are below the poverty level.<br />
<strong>The</strong> city of Watsonville has a per capita income of $13,205/year and a poverty<br />
level of 19.7%. It is important to note that these figures are those of the Census<br />
Bureau and do not accurately reflect the true populations in these cities due to<br />
migrant and illegal farm workers. In a survey of Monterey County and Santa<br />
Cruz County farm workers, the median family income was $11,000/year and<br />
$14,000/year respectively (Monterey County Farm Workers, 2003).<br />
In addition to low-income status, populations with a high percentage of<br />
minorities have historically borne the heavier weight of environmental problems<br />
than those with a higher percentage of Caucasians (Bullard, pg.xv). <strong>The</strong> state<br />
of California has a Caucasian population consisting of 46.7% of the total<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
61<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Change language