Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Analysis
PA ID# 000-92114; Reclamation District No. 2044
DSR ID# N/A; King Island
FEMA-758-DR-CA, Severe Storms and Flooding, was declared on February 21, 1986. On April 28, 1987, the FEMA/State Agreement was modified by Amendment #5. Amendment #5 required reclamation districts in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta to submit an Implementation Plan, to be approved by FEMA, to upgrade their levees to the standards of the FEMA required Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP), titled the "Short-Term Levee Rehabilitation Plan of September 15, 1983." Amendment #5 outlined the required contents of the Implementation Plan and established a deadline of November 1, 1987, for the submittal of the Implementation Plans. Reclamation District 2044, King Island (subgrantee) was one of the districts directed to comply with Amendment #5.
Amendment #5 states that the Implementation Plan must include a schedule establishing a five-year time frame to upgrade levees to the HMP, and all required short-term mitigation must be completed by September 10, 1991. Further, it states that failure to comply with the schedule, without justification acceptable to FEMA, will result in a determination by FEMA of ineligibility for future disaster assistance.
At the September 21, 1991, deadline the subgrantee had 2% of its levee to upgrade in order to comply with the amendment; therefore, they requested a series of time extensions. The last time extension that was granted was to June 30, 1993. By June 30, 1993, the requirements of Amendment #5 had still not been met. The subgrantee submitted a letter dated January 9, 1995, stating that all minimum requirements of the HMP had been met. An inspection was conducted in June 1995 which showed that there was 4200 feet of levee that did not meet the requirements of the HMP.
In June 1997, a joint FEMA/OES/Department of Water Resources (DWR) team reviewed the subgrantee for its level of compliance with Amendment #5 and determined that the subgrantee did not meet the requirements of the HMP. On November 24, 1997, we submitted a letter to the State stating that the subgrantee was not in compliance with Amendment #5.
The subgrantee appealed the November 24, 1997, determination that they were not in compliance with the amendment. The appeal states that the subgrantee was in substantial compliance, and that "its rehabilitation [of the levee] was well within, and even exceeded, the spirit of cooperation under the HMP."
It is noted that this appeal was submitted under FEMA-1155-DR-CA; however, it was processed under DR-758 and our first appeal determination mistakenly characterized it as such. Because the determination at issue is that the subgrantee is not eligible for assistance under DR-1155 as a result of its noncompliance, the subgrantee's appeal should have been considered under DR-1155. This error has now been rectified.
FEMA reviewed the arguments presented by the subgrantee and found no reason to overturn its original determination. The Regional Director denied the subgrantee's first appeal by letter dated September 29, 1998.
The subgrantee submitted a second appeal stating that in 1995-1996, 3,339 feet of the 4,207 feet of deficient levee were raised. Further, they state that an additional 747 feet were raised in 1997-1998 and that the remaining 121 feet (two sites) are located at county roads and work on these sites, therefore, requires coordination with county road maintenance scheduling. The subgrantee intends on raising the levee at the two deficient sites in the spring of 1999.
Amendment #5 stated that the subgrantee must meet the levee upgrade requirements of the HMP by September 10, 1991. The subgrantee was granted a time extension to June 30, 1993, at which time the required upgrades had not been completed. The subgrantee states in its letter dated November 6, 1998, that 121 feet of deficient levee remains. The subgrantee did not, therefore, comply with requirements of the HMP in a timely manner and, thus, is not in compliance with Amendment #5 of the FEMA/State Agreement.
To date, the subgrantee has not yet fully complied with the HMP and Amendment #5. The subgrantee's appeal, therefore, is denied. Accordingly, the subgrantee is not eligible for disaster assistance under DR-1155.