Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Letter
PA ID# 013-91053; Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District
DSR ID# 28148,28149; N/A
November 24, 1997
Mr. D. A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 239013
Sacramento, California 95823
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your June 13, 1997, transmittal of the appeal of damage survey reports (DSRs) 28148 and 28149 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA on behalf of the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BIMID). The inspection team wrote the DSRs to repair damage at two sites on the levee at Bethel Island. The regional staff subsequently determined that the DSR was ineligible because the levee had been identified to be within the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
On first appeal, the FEMA Regional Director acknowledged that the levee is not a flood control work, but pointed out that BIMID is subject to Amendment #5 of the DR-758 FEMA/State of California agreement. Under that amendment, non-flood control levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta reclamation districts are considered eligible for future FEMA assistance only if the requirements outlined in the agreement have been met. The Director denied the appeal because the applicant had not fulfilled the hazard mitigation proposal (HMP) requirements prior to the disaster. BIMID submitted a second appeal on December 30, 1996, claiming to have made a diligent effort to comply with the HMP requirement. They note that the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) is investigating their work to date for substantial compliance with the HMP requirements.
We have reviewed all information submitted with the second appeal. On May 17, 1996, approximately one year after the disaster, FEMA and DWR reviewed the status of eleven districts (BIMID was one). Based on a review of the maintenance records of these districts, the staffs determined that BIMID's status had not changed since the last joint inspection was completed in November 1991, and BIMID was not in compliance in 1991. Regardless of whether or not DWR determines that BIMID is now in substantial compliance with the HMP requirements, they were not at the time of the disaster. Therefore, I am denying the appeal for reasons detailed in the enclosed appeal analysis.
Please inform the applicant of this determination. The applicant may appeal this determination 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.
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Cc: Ray Williams
Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IX