Pierson District
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1155-DR-CA; PA ID 067-91053; DSR 79247.
Cross Reference: Winter storm and flooding; excess pumping costs; emergency measures.
Summary: The New Year 1997 winter storms resulted in the District having to run its pumps continually over a period of time to keep the Pierson District from flooding. The Pierson District encompassed an area whose altitude was below sea level and, therefore, flooded easily. It was necessary to perform varying amount of drainage pumping every year to keep flood waters from accumulating in the area. In the aftermath of the disaster, the applicant demonstrated that it was necessary to run the pumps to protect improved property. A portion of Russell Road was inundated for more than two weeks and the Town of Courtland was in danger of flooding had the pumps not been operated continually. The Reclamation District applied for disaster assistance showing a calculation that averaged the costs of electricity (to operate the pumps) for the years 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1996 to be $16,840, $18,383 lower than the 1997 cost of $35,223. The subgrantee excluded the cost incurred in 1995 because that was a flood year. Based on the fact that the five-year average was less than the 1997 pumping costs, the District claimed that it should be reimbursed $18,383 in excess costs.
Issue: Are excess electric power costs incurred in pumping storm water eligible as an emergency protective measure?
Findings: FEMA's policy is that in disaster situations, emergency power costs are eligible only as they exceed the most recent three-year average. For purposes of determining the average, flood years should not be excluded from the calculation. The calculated three-year average is $24,555 for the years 1994 to 1996, and the 1997 power cost was $35,223 exceeding the three-year average by $10,668. This is the amount eligible for reimbursement.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.225 and FEMA's policy derived from it provides that only excess pumping costs over the most recent three-year average of these costs are eligible for assistance.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1155-DR |
| Applicant | Reclamation District #551 |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 067-91053 |
| PW ID# | 79247 |
| Date Signed | 1999-08-03T04:00:00 |
Cross Reference: Winter storm and flooding; excess pumping costs; emergency measures.
Summary: The New Year 1997 winter storms resulted in the District having to run its pumps continually over a period of time to keep the Pierson District from flooding. The Pierson District encompassed an area whose altitude was below sea level and, therefore, flooded easily. It was necessary to perform varying amount of drainage pumping every year to keep flood waters from accumulating in the area. In the aftermath of the disaster, the applicant demonstrated that it was necessary to run the pumps to protect improved property. A portion of Russell Road was inundated for more than two weeks and the Town of Courtland was in danger of flooding had the pumps not been operated continually. The Reclamation District applied for disaster assistance showing a calculation that averaged the costs of electricity (to operate the pumps) for the years 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1996 to be $16,840, $18,383 lower than the 1997 cost of $35,223. The subgrantee excluded the cost incurred in 1995 because that was a flood year. Based on the fact that the five-year average was less than the 1997 pumping costs, the District claimed that it should be reimbursed $18,383 in excess costs.
Issue: Are excess electric power costs incurred in pumping storm water eligible as an emergency protective measure?
Findings: FEMA's policy is that in disaster situations, emergency power costs are eligible only as they exceed the most recent three-year average. For purposes of determining the average, flood years should not be excluded from the calculation. The calculated three-year average is $24,555 for the years 1994 to 1996, and the 1997 power cost was $35,223 exceeding the three-year average by $10,668. This is the amount eligible for reimbursement.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.225 and FEMA's policy derived from it provides that only excess pumping costs over the most recent three-year average of these costs are eligible for assistance.
Appeal Letter
August 3, 1999
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to the referenced December 9, 1998, second appeal submitted by Murray, Burns and Kienlen, Consulting Civil Engineers, on behalf of Reclamation District #551. The appeal was forwarded under cover of your January 28, 1999, letter. The District is appealing the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) denial of its request for reimbursement of excess electric power costs of $18,383 it claimed to have incurred in pumping storm water from the Pierson District during the early-1997 winter storms. The applicant took issue with FEMA's comment in the first appeal response that the District performed its normal practice of pumping to prevent flooding, asserting that the continual pumping was only necessary because of the disaster.
The applicant asserted that, whereas it ran four of its pumps under normal conditions, it was forced to run all five pumps during the unusual conditions to keep the "island" from flooding. The Reclamation District was established in an area that contained lands whose elevation was significantly below sea level. Because it flooded easily, the area consisted of a system of flood control levees and it was normal to operate drainage pumps in order to remove excess water. The pumping operation varied in intensity from year to year. Your letter indicated that a portion of Russell Road, a mid-district access road, was inundated for more than two weeks and that the town of Courtland was in danger of flooding had the pumps not been operated continually. Because of the improved property that was at risk, I have determined that excess pumping costs are eligible.
FEMA's policy regarding assistance for excess pumping costs in a disaster defines these costs as eligible if they exceed the three-year average of pumping costs. The District based its claim on a five-year average that included costs for the years 1991 through 1994 and 1996 but specifically excluded costs incurred in 1995 because that was a flood year. For purposes of determining the average, flood years should not be excluded from the calculation. The most recent three-year average was determined from actual figures for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 to be $24,555. The $35,223 pumping cost for the year 1997 exceeds this three-year average by $10,668. Therefore, $10,668 is the amount of eligible costs for this project.
Accordingly, I have determined that a Damage Survey Report should be written for the excess pumping costs of $10,668 because of the disaster. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Director to implement my determination.
Please inform the Subgrantee of my determination that the appeal is partially granted. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to the referenced December 9, 1998, second appeal submitted by Murray, Burns and Kienlen, Consulting Civil Engineers, on behalf of Reclamation District #551. The appeal was forwarded under cover of your January 28, 1999, letter. The District is appealing the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) denial of its request for reimbursement of excess electric power costs of $18,383 it claimed to have incurred in pumping storm water from the Pierson District during the early-1997 winter storms. The applicant took issue with FEMA's comment in the first appeal response that the District performed its normal practice of pumping to prevent flooding, asserting that the continual pumping was only necessary because of the disaster.
The applicant asserted that, whereas it ran four of its pumps under normal conditions, it was forced to run all five pumps during the unusual conditions to keep the "island" from flooding. The Reclamation District was established in an area that contained lands whose elevation was significantly below sea level. Because it flooded easily, the area consisted of a system of flood control levees and it was normal to operate drainage pumps in order to remove excess water. The pumping operation varied in intensity from year to year. Your letter indicated that a portion of Russell Road, a mid-district access road, was inundated for more than two weeks and that the town of Courtland was in danger of flooding had the pumps not been operated continually. Because of the improved property that was at risk, I have determined that excess pumping costs are eligible.
FEMA's policy regarding assistance for excess pumping costs in a disaster defines these costs as eligible if they exceed the three-year average of pumping costs. The District based its claim on a five-year average that included costs for the years 1991 through 1994 and 1996 but specifically excluded costs incurred in 1995 because that was a flood year. For purposes of determining the average, flood years should not be excluded from the calculation. The most recent three-year average was determined from actual figures for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 to be $24,555. The $35,223 pumping cost for the year 1997 exceeds this three-year average by $10,668. Therefore, $10,668 is the amount of eligible costs for this project.
Accordingly, I have determined that a Damage Survey Report should be written for the excess pumping costs of $10,668 because of the disaster. By copy of this letter, I am requesting the Regional Director to implement my determination.
Please inform the Subgrantee of my determination that the appeal is partially granted. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Last updated