Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 071-59962; City of Redlands
DSR ID# 97832; Santa Ana River Flood Control Berm
Citation: FEMA-1044-DR-CA; City of Redlands; DSR 97832
Cross Reference: Legal Responsibility, Pre-Disaster Design, Codes and Standards
Summary: During the winter storms of 1995, a flood control berm/access road, separating the California Street Landfill (owned and operated by the applicant) from the Santa Ana River, was eroded by the floodwaters in the river. An existing wire and rail revetment system, approximately 500 ft. in length, and a portion of the adjacent embankment were significantly damaged. DSR 97832 was originally prepared as Category D in the amount of $62,881 to restore the embankment using riprap. As the damaged berm was reported to be owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, FEMA concluded that the applicant was not legally responsible for repair of the damages, and denied funding. The applicant submitted a first appeal providing documentation to support that they are legally responsible for the repairs, but during review of the appeal, the Regional Director concluded that the Santa Ana River was a flood control work, such that repair of the banks would be under the authority of the USACE. The first appeal was denied. In their second appeal, the applicant (1) provided documentation from the USACE and the NRCS to support their position that this portion of the Santa Ana River is not a flood control work, (2) restated their argument that they have legal responsibility for repair of the bank, and (3) requested that a concrete face be constructed along the full length of the bank (5000 lf), suggesting that codes and standards require such work.
- Is the restoration of damaged bank under the authority of USACE funding?
- Does the applicant have legal responsibility to repair the damaged site?
- Is the concrete face design eligible for assistance?
- No. The documentation submitted by the USACE and NRCS indicate that this section of the Santa Ana River does not meet the USACE's definition of a flood control work.
- Yes. The applicant is responsible to protect the floodplain from discharge of landfill material. A supplemental DSR should be prepared to reinstate the scope of work as presented in DSR 97832.
- No. The applicant has not provided an acceptable code or standard to demonstrate that such a scope of work is required as part of the repair effort. Also, the requested repair extends far beyond the length of the disaster damaged bank.
Rationale:Federal Levee Policy; 44 CFR 206.223(a)(3) To be eligible for disaster assistance, an applicant must be legally responsible for repair of the damages; 44 CFR 206.226(b) Only design upgrades which are required by applicable codes and standards are eligible for assistance.