Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Letter
PA ID# 067-91052; Reclamation District 341
DSR ID# 73948, 73949, and 73950 ; Sherman Island
September 12, 2000
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Ranch Cordova, California 95741-9023
Re: Second Appeal - Reclamation District 341, Sherman Island, HMP Compliance, FEMA-1203-DR-CA
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to the referenced second appeal forwarded by your office on February 14, 2000. Reclamation District 341, Sherman Island (District), is asking FEMA to reconsider its determination that the District had not complied with the requirements of Amendment #5 to the April 28, 1987, FEMA/State Agreement prior to DR-1203. The District is asking for $911,361 to fund riprap slope protection, levee restoration, and levee crown repair.
Amendment #5 of the FEMA/State Agreement (FEMA-758-DR-CA) required the District to comply with the Sacramento/San Joaquin Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) prior to September 10, 1991. Amendment #5 states that if a district could not meet the deadline, it must immediately notify FEMA through the Office of Emergency Services (OES). Exceptions to the implementation schedule could have been granted if a district was restricted in placing material due to subsoil instability or other geological conditions. Amendment #5 (A)(1)(d) further states that failure to meet the approved deadline without an approved time extension would result in a determination of ineligibility for future disaster assistance.
The District did not meet the requirements of Amendment #5 prior to September 10, 1991, which prevents the District from receiving disaster funding. The District does not argue this, but claims that a letter asking for a time extension, which was written to the Department of Water Resources on June 4, 1991, satisfies the requirements of Amendment #5 with regard to exceptions to the implementation schedule. FEMA did not receive or approve a time extension request prior to the compliance deadline. Since that time, the District has not provided documentation to support approval of a time extension. For these reasons, the appeal is denied.
In your letter, you asked FEMA to define "substantial compliance." Neither Amendment #5 nor FEMA's first appeal response use this terminology. The amendment and the HMP establish DSR approval requirements for FEMA-758-DR-CA and "define eligibility criteria for reclamation districts requesting Federal disaster assistance in the event of future declarations." These criteria included meeting the September 10, 1991, compliance deadline. There is nothing in Amendment #5 or in other documentation to indicate that once a district "substantially" complies with the HMP that it may receive funding for future disasters. FEMA has consistently denied funding to Districts that did not meet the September 10, 1991, compliance deadline and did not have an approved time extension.
I recognize that the District has made significant progress toward meeting the requirements of the Sacramento/San Joaquin Hazard Mitigation Plan. However, prior to receiving future disaster assistance, the District must satisfy the requirements of the HMP. Also, FEMA and the State must revise Amendment #5 to allow disaster funding for districts that did not meet the
September 10, 1991, deadline.
Please inform the applicant of this determination. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206.
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Martha Whetstone
FEMA Region IX