alert - warning

This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.

Improved Project

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DesastreFEMA-1155DR-
ApplicantEl Dorado Irrigation District
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#017-91025
PW ID#75501, 75502, 75504, 75508, 75509 and 75514
Date Signed2003-07-07T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1155-DR-CA; El Dorado Irrigation District; Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) 75501, 75502, 75504, 75508, 75509, 75514

Cross-reference: Improved Project

Summary: Heavy rains and runoff damaged 22.3 miles of canals and flumes owned by the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) in December 1996. FEMA approved the above-noted DSRs for $941,530 to restore the area to pre-disaster condition. As part of an existing agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), responsibility for maintenance and repairs was shared equally between EID and PG&E. Accordingly, the amount eligible for reimbursement to EID was reduced to 50 percent of the total estimated restoration costs. After repeated attempts to restore the facility, EID decided that it was not cost effective to remove debris and mud from the canals and determined the best approach would be to drill a tunnel through the mountain, which would require an improved project. FEMA and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) approved EID’s request for an improved project and set the limit for eligible costs at $768,064. Subsequently, EID requested supplemental funding for $21,644,682 based on a geotechnical engineering report prepared by Carleton Engineering, Incorporated. FEMA denied the request stating that federal funding for improved projects is limited to the approved estimate of eligible costs. On July 26, 2002, EID submitted its first appeal requesting that the improved project status of the above referenced DSRs be reconsidered as hazard mitigation and also to approve supplemental funding for $21,644,682. The FEMA Region IX Regional Director denied the appeal because the project cost increases to account for prevailing wage rates, increased unit costs, alternate construction methods and codes and standards are not eligible for hazard mitigation funding. OES does not support EID’s second appeal for $21,644,682.

Issues: Can the increased costs be considered under hazard mitigation?

Findings: No. The project is an improved project and, therefore, federal funding is limited to the federal share of the estimated costs for repairing the damaged facility to its pre-disaster design.

Rationale: 44 CFR §206.203(d)(1)

Appeal Letter

July 7, 2003

Mr. Dallas Jones
Governor’s Authorized Representative
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
P.O. Box 419047
Rancho Cordova, California 95741-9047

Re: Second Appeal – El Dorado Irrigation District, PA ID 017-91025, Improved Project, FEMA-1155-DR-CA, Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) 75501, 75502, 75504, 75508, 75509, 75514

Dear Mr. Jones:

This is in response to your April 9, 2003, letter that transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID). EID is appealing the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) determination to deny supplemental funding for repairs to a system of canals and flumes from Bull Creek to Mill Creek. The total amount requested is $21,644,682, which is the estimated cost before application of a 50 percent reduction for the portion of repairs that is the responsibility of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).

Heavy rains and runoff damaged 22.3 miles of canals and flumes owned by EID in December 1996. FEMA approved the above-noted DSRs for $941,530 to restore the area to pre-disaster condition. As part of an existing agreement with PG&E, responsibility for maintenance and repairs was shared equally between EID and PG&E. Accordingly, the amount eligible for reimbursement to EID was reduced to 50 percent of the total estimated restoration costs. After repeated attempts to restore the facility, EID decided that it was not cost effective to remove debris and mud from the canals and determined the best approach would be to drill a tunnel through the mountain, which would require an improved project. FEMA and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) approved EID’s request for an improved project and set the limit for eligible costs at $768,064. Subsequently, EID requested supplemental funding for $21,644,682 based on a geotechnical engineering report prepared by Carleton Engineering, Incorporated. FEMA denied the request stating that federal funding for improved projects is limited to the approved estimate of eligible costs.

On July 26, 2002, EID submitted its first appeal requesting that the improved project status of the above referenced DSRs be reconsidered as hazard mitigation and also to approve supplemental funding for $21,644,682. The FEMA Region IX Regional Director denied the appeal because the project cost increases to account for prevailing wage rates, increased unit costs, alternate construction methods and codes and standards are not eligible for hazard mitigation funding.

EID submitted its second appeal on February 13, 2003. In its appeal letter, EID again requested that the above referenced DSRs be designated as hazard mitigation and its request for supplemental funding for $21,644,682 be approved.

I have reviewed EID’s second appeal and have determined that the Regional Director’s decision on the first appeal is consistent with program statute and regulations. Project cost increases to account for prevailing wage rates, increased unit costs, alternate construction methods and codes and standards are not eligible for hazard mitigation funding. Therefore, the appeal is denied.

Please inform EID of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.

Sincerely,
/S/
Laurence W. Zensinger
Acting Director, Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate
Department of Homeland Security

cc: Jeff Griffin
Regional Director
FEMA, Region IX