Salton Sea Dikes
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1046-DR-CA; Imperial Irrigation District; DSRs 39701 and 39702
Cross-Reference: Pre-existing Conditions, Emergency Work
Summary: As a result of the winter storms of 1995, dikes were nearly over-topped at the Imperial Irrigation District's (IID) Salton Sea. IID claimed these conditions posed an immediate threat of flooding to the surrounding properties. The Sea is retained by 17.3 miles of earthen levees and the surrounding properties are mostly agricultural. Damage survey report (DSR) 39701 was prepared for $2,426,694 to cover emergency protective measures and DSR 39702 was prepared for $0 to document no eligible damage.
DSR 39701 was determined ineligible on the basis that the DSR inspection teams reported that lake levels did not change significantly over previous years and that there was uncertainty as to legal responsibility for the facilities. In the first appeal, IID contended that DSR 39701 was eligible because they have legal responsibility and an immediate threat required protective measures. Further, IID contended that FEMA inspectors overlooked some damage. The Regional Director denied the first appeal because IID did not have legal responsibility and the threat was not disaster related. In their second appeal, IID contended that the pre-disaster conditions of the dikes did not constitute a threat, and provided no new evidence of damage to their facilities.
Issues:
The Salton Sea is within the jurisdiction of and is maintained by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) in Orange County, California. The Salton Sea is located in the Imperial Valley at an elevation of approximately 220 feet below sea level. It is the largest lake in California and is retained by approximately 17.3 miles of earthen dikes with no natural outlets. The surrounding properties are used primarily for agricultural purposes, but there are also several nearby trailer home communities and geothermal power plants.
As a result of the winter storms of 1995, dikes were nearly over-topped as wind-related wave action caused the water surface elevation (WSEL) of the Salton Sea to exceed safe freeboard allowances (reportedly, freeboard was less than five feet). The subgrantee claimed that these conditions posed an immediate threat to the surrounding property and requested Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance in repairing the dikes and related facilities.
A damage survey report (DSR) inspection team visited the site on three occasions to document the reported condition of the facility. The inspections revealed that the WSEL was nearly over-topping the dikes at most locations. Based on site visits and review of documentation, the inspectors determined that the lack of freeboard was a pre-existing condition caused by rising lake levels and that legal responsibility for the dikes was unclear. Further, the inspectors reported that the freeboard of the dikes had not changed significantly as a result of the disaster or from previous years.
On August 23, 1995, DSRs 39701 and 39702 were prepared to document emergency protective measures and the lack of eligible permanent restoration work, respectively. DSR 39701 was prepared as a Category "B" for $2,426,694 for the construction of new earthen dikes, raising of existing dikes, placement of riprap and sandbags, relocating electrical services, repairing a septic system, and protecting a boat ramp. DSR 39702 was prepared for zero dollars because there was no evidence of damage to any facilities for which the subgrantee is responsible.
FEMA reviewers determined that DSR 39701 was ineligible for public assistance because the repairs were a continuation of existing plans to renovate the facility and most of the repairs were permanent repairs to private facilities. Further, the subgrantee did not maintain adequate freeboard prior to the disaster, i.e., the high-water condition was pre-existing.
First Appeal
The subgrantee submitted their first appeal in a January 25, 1996, letter to the State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES). OES forwarded this appeal along with a second letter from the subgrantee (Support Documentation for Appeal of Damage Survey Reports dated March 28, 1996) to Region IX on April 12, 1996. OES and the subgrantee contended that all of DSR 39701 is eligible for FEMA assistance because the properties are the legal responsibility of the subgrantee and that emergency protective measures were required because the disaster resulted in an immediate threat to improved property. Further, they contended that the documentation (subgrantee's Exhibit `B') submitted identified damage overlooked by the inspection team. The Regional Director denied the appeal on the basis that "the subgrantee did not have legal responsibility to perform the work described in DSRs 39701 and 39702" and the work was not required as a result of a disaster event.
Second Appeal
With a January 21, 1997, letter, OES transmitted a January 7, 1997, second appeal regarding the denial of funding for DSRs 39701 and 39702. The subgrantee claimed they had legal responsibility for the facilities and that emergency measures were taken as a result of the disaster event and not because of pre-existing, sub-standard conditions of the dikes and drainage system.
According to the second appeal, the disaster event resulted in a much higher WSEL than from annual flooding events. The subgrantee stated that emergency measures taken during the disaster incident period far exceeded emergency measures taken during annual flood events. The subgrantee also claimed that they were planning a three-year maintenance program to begin in spring 1995, but had not performed any repairs prior to the March 1995 winter storms. Finally, the subgrantee contended that the pre-disaster conditions of the dikes did not pose an immediate threat because the dikes have protected the land for nearly twenty years. They further contended that they could not refute the inspection team's claim that the pre-disaster condition of the dikes was sub-standard due to lack of explanation. No information was provided to refute that the pre-disaster freeboard was inadequate.
DISCUSSION
Two DSRs, for both emergency protective measures and permanent restoration, are being appealed. The merits of the appeal for each DSR will be discussed separately.
Permanent Restoration:
DSR 39702 was prepared for zero dollars because it was determined that there was no eligible permanent restoration work for which the subgrantee was legally responsible. The determination was based on the inspection team's observation that the dikes had not overtopped, therefore, no disaster damage occurred. The subgrantee claimed that their Exhibit `B' provided evidence of damage, however, no such evidence is found in this exhibit. Therefore, IID's request for re-inspection and preparation of a new DSR to accommodate permanent restoration measures is denied.
Emergency Protective Measures:
The fact that the work was planned prior to the disaster does not necessarily preclude emergency protective measures from public assistance. However, emergency protective measures, eligible for FEMA assistance, are generally of a temporary nature (e.g., temporary levee or sandbagging) unless permanent repairs are proven more cost-effective. Further, all emergency work must be in accordance with FEMA policy for general work eligibility and emergency work (Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Sections 206.223 and 206.225(a)).
Pre-disaster Condition:
The subgrantee correctly noted that funding of emergency protective measures should not be denied based on the pre-disaster design of their facility. However, if the immediate threat is not a result of the disaster event, the work is not eligible. It is apparent from the letter from the subgrantee's legal counsel that there was an historic increase in the WSEL of the Salton Sea prior to FEMA-1046-DR-CA. This documentation included reference to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) observation unit (station number 10254005) in Westmorland, California. Daily WSEL data is collected at this station and reveals two important trends (See Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix).
First, the WSEL of Salton Sea has increased in the past decade and reached near peak elevation for the pre-disaster condition of the dikes from 1992 to 1995. Second, the small increases in WSEL during the months of January to April of 1995 are approximately the same as those experienced in the two previous years for the same time period (0.7 feet each year). Additionally, it is important to note that the peak WSEL during the disaster was only 0.3 feet higher than that experienced for the two preceding years. Accordingly, the disaster did not have an unusually high impact on WSEL compared to previous years. Therefore, there was no immediate threat resulting from the disaster that warranted any emergency protective measures.
Legal Responsibility:
The issue of the subgrantee's legal responsibility is irrelevant because there were no eligible emergency protective measures.
In summary, the documentation s aore, USGS WSEL data indicates that the disaster was only a minor contributor to the high WSEL and that agricultural drainage and prior rain events caused the rise in WSEL.
CONCLUSION
The subgrantee may be legally responsible for maintaining the facilities in question. However, the requested repairs are not eligible for FEMA funding because they are not disaster-related. Accordingly, the appeal for funding of DSRs 39701 and 39702 is denied.
TABLE 1 - ANNUAL WSEL (ft msl - NGVD)
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1046-DR |
| Applicant | Imperial Irrigation District |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 025-91000 |
| PW ID# | 39701,39702 |
| Date Signed | 1997-09-12T04:00:00 |
Cross-Reference: Pre-existing Conditions, Emergency Work
Summary: As a result of the winter storms of 1995, dikes were nearly over-topped at the Imperial Irrigation District's (IID) Salton Sea. IID claimed these conditions posed an immediate threat of flooding to the surrounding properties. The Sea is retained by 17.3 miles of earthen levees and the surrounding properties are mostly agricultural. Damage survey report (DSR) 39701 was prepared for $2,426,694 to cover emergency protective measures and DSR 39702 was prepared for $0 to document no eligible damage.
DSR 39701 was determined ineligible on the basis that the DSR inspection teams reported that lake levels did not change significantly over previous years and that there was uncertainty as to legal responsibility for the facilities. In the first appeal, IID contended that DSR 39701 was eligible because they have legal responsibility and an immediate threat required protective measures. Further, IID contended that FEMA inspectors overlooked some damage. The Regional Director denied the first appeal because IID did not have legal responsibility and the threat was not disaster related. In their second appeal, IID contended that the pre-disaster conditions of the dikes did not constitute a threat, and provided no new evidence of damage to their facilities.
Issues:
- Was the increased level of the Salton Sea caused by the disaster?
- Were there documented disaster-related damages to eligible facilities?
- No. The disaster did not cause an appreciable increase in sea level.
- No. There were no disaster-related damages documented.
Appeal Letter
September 12, 1997
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, 3rd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your January 21, 1997, submittal of the Imperial Irrigation District's second appeal of damage survey reports (DSRs) 39701 and 39702 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA. DSRs 39701 and 39702 were prepared to cover emergency protective measures and document the lack of eligible damage, respectively. The regional staff determined that the work was ineligible because the high level of the Salton Sea was not caused by the disaster and there was no disaster-related damage to the applicant's facilities. The Regional Director sustained the determination in the first appeal.
After reviewing all submitted information, I have determined that the increased level of the Salton Sea was not caused by the disaster. Therefore, any threat resulting from the high level of the Sea is not eligible for FEMA funding. Also, I have determined that there was no disaster-related damage to the applicant's facilities. Therefore, I have denied this appeal for the reasons contained in the enclosed appeal analysis.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, 3rd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103
Dear Mr. Najera:
This letter is in response to your January 21, 1997, submittal of the Imperial Irrigation District's second appeal of damage survey reports (DSRs) 39701 and 39702 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA. DSRs 39701 and 39702 were prepared to cover emergency protective measures and document the lack of eligible damage, respectively. The regional staff determined that the work was ineligible because the high level of the Salton Sea was not caused by the disaster and there was no disaster-related damage to the applicant's facilities. The Regional Director sustained the determination in the first appeal.
After reviewing all submitted information, I have determined that the increased level of the Salton Sea was not caused by the disaster. Therefore, any threat resulting from the high level of the Sea is not eligible for FEMA funding. Also, I have determined that there was no disaster-related damage to the applicant's facilities. Therefore, I have denied this appeal for the reasons contained in the enclosed appeal analysis.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDThe Salton Sea is within the jurisdiction of and is maintained by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) in Orange County, California. The Salton Sea is located in the Imperial Valley at an elevation of approximately 220 feet below sea level. It is the largest lake in California and is retained by approximately 17.3 miles of earthen dikes with no natural outlets. The surrounding properties are used primarily for agricultural purposes, but there are also several nearby trailer home communities and geothermal power plants.
As a result of the winter storms of 1995, dikes were nearly over-topped as wind-related wave action caused the water surface elevation (WSEL) of the Salton Sea to exceed safe freeboard allowances (reportedly, freeboard was less than five feet). The subgrantee claimed that these conditions posed an immediate threat to the surrounding property and requested Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance in repairing the dikes and related facilities.
A damage survey report (DSR) inspection team visited the site on three occasions to document the reported condition of the facility. The inspections revealed that the WSEL was nearly over-topping the dikes at most locations. Based on site visits and review of documentation, the inspectors determined that the lack of freeboard was a pre-existing condition caused by rising lake levels and that legal responsibility for the dikes was unclear. Further, the inspectors reported that the freeboard of the dikes had not changed significantly as a result of the disaster or from previous years.
On August 23, 1995, DSRs 39701 and 39702 were prepared to document emergency protective measures and the lack of eligible permanent restoration work, respectively. DSR 39701 was prepared as a Category "B" for $2,426,694 for the construction of new earthen dikes, raising of existing dikes, placement of riprap and sandbags, relocating electrical services, repairing a septic system, and protecting a boat ramp. DSR 39702 was prepared for zero dollars because there was no evidence of damage to any facilities for which the subgrantee is responsible.
FEMA reviewers determined that DSR 39701 was ineligible for public assistance because the repairs were a continuation of existing plans to renovate the facility and most of the repairs were permanent repairs to private facilities. Further, the subgrantee did not maintain adequate freeboard prior to the disaster, i.e., the high-water condition was pre-existing.
First Appeal
The subgrantee submitted their first appeal in a January 25, 1996, letter to the State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES). OES forwarded this appeal along with a second letter from the subgrantee (Support Documentation for Appeal of Damage Survey Reports dated March 28, 1996) to Region IX on April 12, 1996. OES and the subgrantee contended that all of DSR 39701 is eligible for FEMA assistance because the properties are the legal responsibility of the subgrantee and that emergency protective measures were required because the disaster resulted in an immediate threat to improved property. Further, they contended that the documentation (subgrantee's Exhibit `B') submitted identified damage overlooked by the inspection team. The Regional Director denied the appeal on the basis that "the subgrantee did not have legal responsibility to perform the work described in DSRs 39701 and 39702" and the work was not required as a result of a disaster event.
Second Appeal
With a January 21, 1997, letter, OES transmitted a January 7, 1997, second appeal regarding the denial of funding for DSRs 39701 and 39702. The subgrantee claimed they had legal responsibility for the facilities and that emergency measures were taken as a result of the disaster event and not because of pre-existing, sub-standard conditions of the dikes and drainage system.
According to the second appeal, the disaster event resulted in a much higher WSEL than from annual flooding events. The subgrantee stated that emergency measures taken during the disaster incident period far exceeded emergency measures taken during annual flood events. The subgrantee also claimed that they were planning a three-year maintenance program to begin in spring 1995, but had not performed any repairs prior to the March 1995 winter storms. Finally, the subgrantee contended that the pre-disaster conditions of the dikes did not pose an immediate threat because the dikes have protected the land for nearly twenty years. They further contended that they could not refute the inspection team's claim that the pre-disaster condition of the dikes was sub-standard due to lack of explanation. No information was provided to refute that the pre-disaster freeboard was inadequate.
DISCUSSION
Two DSRs, for both emergency protective measures and permanent restoration, are being appealed. The merits of the appeal for each DSR will be discussed separately.
Permanent Restoration:
DSR 39702 was prepared for zero dollars because it was determined that there was no eligible permanent restoration work for which the subgrantee was legally responsible. The determination was based on the inspection team's observation that the dikes had not overtopped, therefore, no disaster damage occurred. The subgrantee claimed that their Exhibit `B' provided evidence of damage, however, no such evidence is found in this exhibit. Therefore, IID's request for re-inspection and preparation of a new DSR to accommodate permanent restoration measures is denied.
Emergency Protective Measures:
The fact that the work was planned prior to the disaster does not necessarily preclude emergency protective measures from public assistance. However, emergency protective measures, eligible for FEMA assistance, are generally of a temporary nature (e.g., temporary levee or sandbagging) unless permanent repairs are proven more cost-effective. Further, all emergency work must be in accordance with FEMA policy for general work eligibility and emergency work (Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Sections 206.223 and 206.225(a)).
Pre-disaster Condition:
The subgrantee correctly noted that funding of emergency protective measures should not be denied based on the pre-disaster design of their facility. However, if the immediate threat is not a result of the disaster event, the work is not eligible. It is apparent from the letter from the subgrantee's legal counsel that there was an historic increase in the WSEL of the Salton Sea prior to FEMA-1046-DR-CA. This documentation included reference to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) observation unit (station number 10254005) in Westmorland, California. Daily WSEL data is collected at this station and reveals two important trends (See Tables 1 and 2 in Appendix).
First, the WSEL of Salton Sea has increased in the past decade and reached near peak elevation for the pre-disaster condition of the dikes from 1992 to 1995. Second, the small increases in WSEL during the months of January to April of 1995 are approximately the same as those experienced in the two previous years for the same time period (0.7 feet each year). Additionally, it is important to note that the peak WSEL during the disaster was only 0.3 feet higher than that experienced for the two preceding years. Accordingly, the disaster did not have an unusually high impact on WSEL compared to previous years. Therefore, there was no immediate threat resulting from the disaster that warranted any emergency protective measures.
Legal Responsibility:
The issue of the subgrantee's legal responsibility is irrelevant because there were no eligible emergency protective measures.
In summary, the documentation s aore, USGS WSEL data indicates that the disaster was only a minor contributor to the high WSEL and that agricultural drainage and prior rain events caused the rise in WSEL.
CONCLUSION
The subgrantee may be legally responsible for maintaining the facilities in question. However, the requested repairs are not eligible for FEMA funding because they are not disaster-related. Accordingly, the appeal for funding of DSRs 39701 and 39702 is denied.
TABLE 1 - ANNUAL WSEL (ft msl - NGVD)
Date (Calendar Year) | Peak WSEL |
1988 | -227.1 |
1989 | -227.3 (-0.2) |
1990 | -227.8 (-0.5) |
1991 | -227.7 (+0.1) |
1992 | -227.3 (+0.4) |
1993 | -226.9 (+0.4) |
1994 | -226.9 (+0.0) |
1995 | -226.6 (+0.3) |
TABLE 2 - REPRESENTATIVE WSEL (ft msl - NGVD)
Date | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 |
January 30 | -227.7 | -227.7 | -227.3 |
February 15 | -227.5 (+0.2) | -227.6 (+0.1) | -227.1 (+0.2) |
March 1 | -227.2 (+0.3) | -227.5 (+0.1) | -227.0 (+0.1) |
March 15 | -227.1 (+0.1) | -227.2 (+0.3) | -226.8 (+0.2) |
March 30 | -227.0 (+0.1) | -227.1 (+0.1) | -226.7 (+0.1) |
April 13 | -227.0 | -227.0 (+0.1) | -226.6 (+0.1) |
April 19 | -227.0 | -227.0 | -226.7 (-0.1) |
Note: Data were obtained from USGS station number 10254005 in Westmorland. Data from this station were used as a WSEL indicator for the Salton Sea in documentation submitted by the applicant.
Last updated