Delta Flood Risk Management Assessment
District Feasibility Study
Findings and
Recommendations
October 20, 2016
Feasibility Study Context
Funding for Delta levees is in transition
Additional
funding will be needed to improve levees
Delta Plan and Economic Sustainability Plan call
for an Assessment District
CA Water Action Plan: Increase Flood Protection
Long-standing interest in applying Beneficiariespay
Study Objectives Evolved
Demonstrate why an Assessment District is not a
silver bullet for levee funding;
Proof of Concept feasibility study of financial
mechanisms that would apply the beneficiarypays principle
Explore cost allocation as intertwined with legal
requirements; and
Identify steps for developing a portfolio of
financing mechanisms
Stakeholder Outreach
Initial outreach to stakeholders (NovemberDecember 2015)
Four workshops for stakeholder working group
(March, May, June, September 2016)
Eight Project Memoranda developed and posted
for public review
Report of Findings and Observations discussed
at September workshop
Study Steps
Workshop #1 (March 9, 2016)
Workshop #2 (May 24, 2016)
Concepts for applying beneficiaries-pay principle
Workshop #3 (June 15, 2016)
Context and history
Introduce general approacharchetypes
Cost allocation principles and constraints
Financing mechanism screening guidance and examples
Workshop #4 (September 27, 2016)
Present observations and Findings
Discuss next steps and recommendations
Todays Briefing
1.
Present Findings & Observations;
2.
Describe feasible finance mechanisms; and
3.
Present recommendations and proposed next
steps.
Delta Flood Risk Management Assessment
District Feasibility Study
Results from Screening
Financing Mechanisms
Policy Framework
Uncertain future levee funding suggests that new
funding sources are needed;
Propose a transparent and consistent approach to
allocating available funding, including:
A
broader set of financing options,
Applying
beneficiary-pays where feasible,
Explicitly
acknowledging the value of public goods, and
Explicitly
acknowledging the value of private goods.
Study Objectives
Identify the range of beneficiaries
Evaluate potential financing mechanisms across
beneficiaries
Identify most feasible mechanisms
Recommend next steps to further explore
portfolio of mechanisms
What Are the Benefits of Delta Levees?
Flood protection life, property and economic
activity
Fresh water quality and conveyance
Ecosystem and habitat both aquatic and
terrestrial
The unique values of the Delta as a special place
Recreation
Cultural
& tourism
heritage
How Could We Pay for Levees Using
Beneficiaries-Pay Principle?
Source of
Funding
Current
Approach
Beneficiaries-Pay
Approach
Public
financing
(State /
Federal)
State and/or
Federal
(as much as
75%)
Public safety
Habitat
Indirect economic
Assessments,
Agriculture and
Special
Local residents
taxes, User
and businesses
fees,
(25% or more)
Regulatory
charges, etc.
Agriculture
Local
residents/businesses
Water supply
Infrastructure
Recreation
Valuing Benefits
Previous focus only on property uses
Bringing in other benefits and beneficiaries
Flood hazards
Economic exposure
Habitat:
Restoration costs
State and regional economy: Ripple effects
Water users: Avoided costs of alternative supplies of water
Users of linear infrastructure: Avoided disruption
Equates to flood risks for each
Evaluate Potential Financing Mechanisms
Asked how would the mechanism reach each
beneficiary? (i.e., property-based or usage-based)
Screened the mechanisms against the key feasibility
criteria:
Institutional:
Legal:
responsible organizations
legal restrictions or requirements to be met
Cost
Responsibility and Limits: total coverage and
sufficiency of candidate mechanisms
Stakeholder/Political
Support
Observations and Findings
Benefits and beneficiaries extend outside the Delta.
No single mechanism universally applicable to all
beneficiaries
Beneficiaries-pay will require portfolio of finance
mechanisms
No existing agency has the authority or capacity to
implement all of the finance mechanisms
Observations and Findings (Continued)
No State policy to set a transparent, consistent cost
allocation
State and federal law and guidelines combined with
constitutional constraints on local agency finance yield
contradictory and undesirable outcomes
Local RDs on average cover half of levee work costs
State funding has shifted from the General Fund to
voter-approved bonds
Bonds
appear episodically or erratically
Findings from Archetypes on Cost Allocation
Where agriculture dominates, agriculture could be
responsible for a quarter to half of costs
Public
beneficiaries generally cover the remainder
For linear infrastructure, user fees could recover onehalf to three-fourths of the costs
In the conveyance corridor, water exporters could be
responsible for greater than one-half
Based
on BDCP reliability benefits and even small flood
events
Findings from Archetypes (Continued)
For urban areas, residential and commercial properties
appear able to cover majority of costs
For other beneficiaries e.g., recreational users or
telecommunications, allocated cost shares less than 1%
Benefit-cost ratios appear to justify further investment
in flood risk reduction in most of the archetypes, but
with caveats
Prospects for a Delta-Wide Assessment
District
A Delta-wide assessment district is likely
infeasible (unless assessment means Delta
Protection Fee)
An Assessment District cannot and will not reach
all beneficiaries
Terms are very specific: Prop 218 etc.
An
Assessment would still need to reflect the
special benefit conferred to each parcel
Would
not advance the beneficiary-pays principle
Existing Mechanisms
1.
Assessments for local share
2.
Public Financing for public benefits
State
General Fund
State
GO Bonds
Federal
Funding
New, Feasible Mechanisms to Advance
1.
2.
Water Use Levy
Water
User Fee
Water
Exporter Fee or Lease Payment
Delta Flood Prevention Fee
Delta Flood Risk Management Assessment
District Feasibility Study
Recommendations
Key Questions
What are the legal restrictions and how would they be
addressed?
What agency/agencies would implement?
Would new legislation be required?
Would the improved fairness justify the political
effort?
Would the revenue justify the transaction costs?
Is there sufficient stakeholder support?
How can we muster and mobilize political will?
Next Steps Implementation Study
Collaborative effort: DPC, DWR, DSC, CVFPB as
co-conveners
Broad stakeholder representation
Deliberation based on joint fact-finding
Spell out details of each new mechanism:
How
to calculate and apportion costs to the
beneficiaries?
Define standards and principles for data gathering and
use
Define cost allocation method and outline ways to
resolve discrepancies with existing law
Final Report Contents
Complete report will include background,
methods, analysis, findings, and
recommendations:
Best-fit
financing options for each group of
beneficiaries;
Identify options that most likely wont work;
Limitations of beneficiaries-pay financing
Project Memoranda 1-8 will be included as
appendices
Proposed Study Completion: Commission
Action at November 17 Meeting
Comments
due Nov. 4
Revise
Draft/Prepare
Final Report
DPC
Subcommittee
(Nov. 14)
DPC Approval