January 2023 Flood Overview

Aerial images provide perspective on how the Ventura River responds to flood.  The wide floodplain is typical of high sediment yield watersheds, featuring braided channels that shift with each major flood event.  The flood of January 9, 2023 ripped out large areas of vegetation and "re-set" the floodplain.   These images were taken shortly after the storm and are organized downstream to upstream. 

Ventura River near Foster Park - flows overtopped the bank near the City of Ventura Nye Wells

Flooding near Foster Park - several homes were damaged 

 

Ventura River near Oak View - stream bank erosion damaged the Ventura River Trail and broke the main sewer line - combined with a similar broken line on San Antonio Creek 14 million gallons of sewage were estimated to have spilled into the river closing beaches for more than a week

Ventura River downstream of Santa Ana Bridge

Ventura River at Santa Ana Bridge - the bridge was recently replaced widening the river to accommodate high flows and future increased sediment transport with Matilija Dam removal

Live Oak levee upstream of Santa Ana Bridge - similar damage occurred in the 2005 flood - this levee is currently in final design for reconstruction as part of the Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project

Ventura River at Highway 150 bridge

Ventura River above Highway 150
the Ventura River Preserve protects open space for recreation and  natural floodplain management 

Robles Diversion - the flood filled the forebay with sediment and breached the timber cutoff wall
Casitas Municipal Water District quickly implemented emergency repairs to restore water
 diversions to Lake Casitas

 

Ventura River upstream of Robles Diversion
stream bank erosion exposed and broke the Matilija Conduit which supplies Casitas water to property owners upstream

Ventura River near Ojala - this view looking upstream includes Matilija Canyon and Matilija Dam - flood flows severely damaged the Camino Cielo crossing which provides access from Highway 33 to several properties - a new bridge is being designed as part of the Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project

Photo published in the Ojai Valley News shows the extent of debris flows on Highway 33 - the Highway was closed indefinitely for repairs 

Damage to Highway 33 along North Fork Matilija Creek - photo published by CalTrans

(all photos courtesy Rich Reid rich@richreidphoto.com except where noted)

Hindsight Analysis of the 2023 Flood

Forecasters predicted 8 inches of rain for the January 6 storm.  However, after the first 8 inches accumulated on already saturated ground another 8 inches fell in less than 8 hours on the ridges and in Matilija canyon.  The the third in a succession of atmospheric rivers, this storm ultimately delivered over 18 inches to the steep mountains of the Ventura River watershed.

The USGS flow gage at Foster Park is the primary indicator for flood flows on the Ventura River.  This hydrograph includes the upstream USGS gage below Matilija Dam.  Unfortunately neither of these gages measured the peak of the flood on January 6.

Ventura County Watershed Protection District provides a chart with flood impacts expected for specific flows at certain gages.  The chart below shows these impacts for the Foster Park gage.

Extrapolating these impacts it is reasonable to assume that with the closure of Highway 101 Foster Park probably experienced peak flows over 40,000 cfs.  According to the USBR chart below this corresponds to perhaps a 20 year event in the lower part of the watershed.

However, based upon Casitas Municipal Water District reports of over 23,000 cfs at the Robles Diversion it is likely that the upper watershed experienced a 50-year event.  This would be consistent with the damage experienced in Matilija Canyon and along Highway 33, which is likely to remain closed for a year.  (The last time the cutoff wall at Robles Diversion failed was 1969.) 

Note that Watershed Protection estimates that damage to the homes near Foster Park would not occur until the 60,000 cfs flow level.  As illustrated in the photos above this year's flooding did impact those residents suggesting that possibly vegetation and debris backed up flows under the Casitas Vista bridge below Foster park.  This neighborhood was recently removed from the FEMA 100-yr floodplain.

Also note that, as predicted, flows over 25,000 cfs resulted in damage to the Ojai Sanitation District sewer line along the bike path.  (Another sewer line also failed on San Antonio Creek along with significant property damage in that tributary.)  

The flood of January 6, 2023 was a historic event with significant impacts to infrastructure and property in the Ventura River watershed.  (The chart below was compiled before the 2005 flood)

On June 1, WPD hydrologist Scott Holder provided an overview of the flood for the Ventura River Watershed Council.  His flow estimates and other data are presented in the slides below:

And the Ventura River Water District published their June 1 water supply update showing lake and aquifer levels:

Hidden costs of Matilija Dam

A headline in the Ventura County Star states:

Aging levee along Ventura River needs upgrades to protect life, property

Thousands of residents live in homes protected by a levee that stretches 2.65 miles along the Ventura River, between the Pacific Ocean and Shell Road.

In the more than 3,500 residential, commercial and industrial structures lie an estimated $2.157 billion worth of infrastructure and property, according to studies prepared for the Ventura County government.


Experts with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers say that without rehabilitation, it’s likely the levee could in time breach or collapse entirely. 

When the initial levee was built in 1948, one thing not considered was the loss of sediment likely to result from construction of Matilija Dam, which had been installed on a major tributary only the year before, the corps noted.

“Basically, the foundation of the levee is higher than the potential bottom of the river,” said Paul Jenkin, Ventura County campaign coordinator for the Surfrider Foundation.

That means in a flood or high-rain event, the river could flow under the base of the levee, causing it to fail. The change has been notable. Initially, the levee was made with 8 feet of toedown, which means rocks extended that far below where the riverbed meets the base of the levee. Today, there is “minimal to no toedown protection,” the corps noted.

Poorly understood at the time the dam was built, these are the long-term costs of a sediment starved river.

Although the $25 million Ventura River Levee VR-1 project is not included as part of the Matilija Dam ecosystem restoration project, three other levees are.  The bulk of the planning and removal costs of dam removal involve the replacement, upgrade, or new infrastructure downstream of the dam to accommodate the restoration of the Ventura River's natural sediment transport.


more:

Ventura River Levee Project (VCWPD VR-1, FEMA ID No. 53)

Grand Jury on Dam Safety

New information has been released on dam safety in Ventura County.  A report compiled by the Ventura County Grand Jury finds that there does not appear to be any effort by the dam owners or the OES to educate the public as to the potential inundation areas, evacuation routes, or what to do in the event of a dam failure.

The report summary states:

In light of the 2017 failure of the spillway at Oroville Dam, the 2017-2018 Ventura County Grand

Jury (Grand Jury) investigated the condition of more than 20 dams in or adjoining Ventura County. The Grand Jury found that 14 of these dams could cause significant loss of life and property if they failed. Four of these dams, all under the jurisdiction of the State of California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD), are identified as having existing or potential deficiencies. The Grand Jury investigated the reasons for the deficiencies and what efforts are being made to correct them.

On Matilija Dam, the Grand Jury discovered that:

FA-07. The Ventura County Watershed Protection District (VCWPD) owns and operates the Matilija Dam [capacity 3,800 acre-feet], which received a “Poor” rating by the DSOD. The DSOD rating was based on concerns as to the ability of the dam, specifically issues related to the wing walls, to withstand a 7.5 magnitude earthquake. While the analysis did not appear to indicate complete failure, it indicated a likelihood of significant weakening. VCWPD’s subsequent analysis did not indicate the same level of damage. Even so, the VCWPD, with concurrence from DSOD, agrees that removing the upper wing walls could significantly stabilize the dam. For that reason, VCWPD has applied for a $2-million hazard mitigation grant from FEMA to remove the wing walls. The district is continuing its quarterly monitoring program of the dam and will be taking core samples later this year to ensure that it has up-to-date information as to the dam’s integrity.

FA-08. The VCWPD is working on a plan to remove Matilija Dam. The plan faces technical and environmental challenges and has yet to be finalized or approved by regulatory agencies. The VCWPD would use property tax money and is seeking additional funding to complete the demolition. Depending on the method used to dismantle the dam and dispose of the sediment, the costs could range from $111 million to $208 million. Funding has not been obtained, and the removal has not been environmentally cleared. (Ref-07, Ref-08)

FA-09. There are roughly 8 million cubic yards of debris behind Matilija Dam. There is a concern that a big storm will push huge amounts of mud and water over the top, overwhelming bridges, culverts and roads below. (Ref-09)


C-02. The Grand Jury concluded that the VCWPD has identified structural issues regarding the Matilija Dam. The district is working to remove the dam. Pending obtaining funding and final approval of required environmental clearances, the dam may continue to be a threat. (FA-07, FA-08, FA-09)

Recommendations:

R-01. The Grand Jury recommends that the OES track the progress of remedial action taken at Matilija Dam, Santa Felicia Dam, Castaic Dam, and Bouquet Canyon Dam. Reports of progress should be made to the BOS annually. (C-01, C02, C-03, C-04, C-05)

R-02. The Grand Jury recommends that the OES consider working with dam owners and cities to develop and widely distribute dam failure inundation maps and other information to assist residents in planning for responses to dam failures. (C-06, C-07, C-08)

R-03. The Grand Jury recommends that the OES consider working with dam owners and cities to pursue placement of signage and sirens within the inundation areas. (C-07, C-08, C-09)

R-04. The Grand Jury recommends that the OES work more closely with DSOD to monitor and evaluate safety for dams in or affecting Ventura County. (C-10)

R-05. The Grand Jury recommends the BOS direct the Public Works Department to provide technical assistance, as appropriate, to the OES, augmenting its expertise in dam safety and operation. (C-10)

In the news: 

Four Ventura County area dams cited as deficient in grand jury report

The Ventura County Grand Jury is calling for tightened oversight of area dams and community education on how to respond to a dam failure after investigating the safety of the critical structures.

Grand Jury report highlights failure risks of Ventura County dams, KEYT

References:

GrandJuryReport_2017-2018_Ventura_County_Dam_Safety.pdf

Select references from this report listed here for convenience:

Ref-02. Dams Within Jurisdiction of the State of California Alphabetically by County. https://www.water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web- Pages/Programs/All-Programs/Division-of-safety-of- dams/Files/Publications/Dams-Within-Jurisdiction-of-the-State-of- California-Alphabetically-by-County.pdf

Ref-03. Ventura County OES Web page on Dam Failure

http://www.readyventuracounty.org/dam-failure.

Ref-04. Flood Mitigation Plan for Ventura County, California, Ventura County Watershed Protection District. March 1, 2005. https://wcvc.ventura.org/documents/PDF/floodmitigationplan2005.pdf

Ref-05. Dam-Rating-Information-and-FAQs. https://www.water.ca.gov/- /media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/All-Programs/Division-of- safety-of-dams/Files/Publications/DSOD-Dam-Rating-Information-and- FAQs.pdf

Ref-08. Matilija Dam Removal and Ecosystem Restoration Project Funding Plan, April 2017. Matilija Dam Design Oversight Group. Matilija Dam Removal and Ecosystem Restoration Funding Plan April 2017

Ref-09. Ojai residents take stock of their blessings and vulnerability after surviving the Thomas fire. Louis Sahagun, Los Angeles Times, January 8, 2018. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ojai-thomas- fire-20180108-story.html

Thomas Fire

NASA Earth Observatory image by Joshua Stevens, using Landsat data from the U.S. Geological Survey
and ASTER GDEM data from NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS,
and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team. 

The Thomas Fire burned throughout the month of December, destroying over 1,000 structures and becoming the largest wildfire in California history.  The immediate cost escalated over $300 million, plus an undetermined loss of property.  Almost 300,000 acres of open space has been transformed, including most of the Ventura River watershed.  Although the fire overwhelmed first responders on the night of December 4th, the subsequent mobilization and coordinated response of thousands of firefighters ultimately saved the populated areas of the Ojai Valley.

WIFIRE Firemap 12-28-2017

According to the Ventura River Watershed Plan (Part 2, p75):

• Wild fires can threaten local water quality and supply. Moderate wild fires occur once every 10 years on average, and extreme wild-  fires once every 20 years.
– Fifty-four percent of the watershed burned in the 1985 Wheeler Fire.
– Wild fires threaten water supplies largely by causing damaging sedimentation and siltation of reservoirs. Equipment damage, interrupted power supply, ash deposits, and use of water for  re suppression are other potential impacts.

The Thomas Fire will undoubtably have a major impact on the Ventura River watershed for the foreseeable future.  Increased sedimentation will lead to severe flood risk, and significantly reduce the capacity of Lake Casitas and ability to divert water from the Ventura River at the Robles Diversion.

Matilija Dam looking upstream following the Thomas Fire, Dec 26, 2017

Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Sediment Studies
 for the Meiners Oaks and Live Oak Levees

Detailed analyses of sediment transport have been conducted for the Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project.  It has been estimated that approximately one half of the 7 million cubic yards of sediment trapped in Matilija reservoir was delivered during the 1969 El Nino storms which followed a fire in Matilija canyon.  Studies estimate that the reservoir will be filled with sediment by 2030, at which point coarse sediment (sand, gravel, and cobble) will begin to pass downstream.  That process has now been accelerated.  Computer modeling identified deficiencies in the downstream infrastructure's ability to withstand an increase in sediment loading with dam removal.    The sediment regime has now been altered, and future modeling under the Prop 1 grant will need to account for these changes.

Meanwhile, it is likely that the next major flood will deliver sediment loads in excess of that expected with dam removal, placing downstream communities at risk.  For example, the image here illustrates how the Santa Ana bridge and Live Oak levee in Oak View create a choke point in the river which is likely to back up and overflow with high sediment loads in the river.


The Ventura River Watershed Council will discuss the impacts of the fire:

Thursday, January 4, 2018 / 9-11:30am
Oak View Park and Resource Center Auditorium
555 Mahoney Ave. Oak View, CA 93011

Agenda can be found here.


More info and how to help: https://ovlc.org/thomas-fire-updates/


In the News:

Ojai residents take stock of their blessings — and vulnerability — after surviving the Thomas fire, LA Times Jan 8, 2018

"If substantial rain comes down, I expect sediment and debris to flow over the spillway," said Peter Sheydayi, deputy director at Ventura County Watershed District. "We're in the midst of working on risk reduction measures such as installing debris flow sensors to determine whether evacuations are needed."
"The dam itself," he added, "is safe."
Paul Jenkin, an environmental activist in Ojai and founder of the Matilija Coalition, a nonprofit group dedicated to restoring the Ventura River, is not so sure. Surveying the structure from an overlook and shaking his head in dismay days before the rain, Jenkin said, "Obsolete dams like this one are ticking time bombs."
Officials say there are roughly 8 million cubic yards of debris behind the dam now. "So the next big storm will push huge amounts of mud and water over the top, overwhelming bridges, culverts and roads below," Jenkin said.

1969 Floods and Ventura wastewater

As we prepare for 2016's predicted floods, it is interesting to look back in history.   The photos below illustrate the impact to the City of Ventura's wastewater infrastructure from the big floods of 1969.  The Santa Clara River jumped its banks and flowed around the wastewater treatment plant into the Ventura marina.  Broken pipes spilled raw sewage into the ocean for weeks.  

In many ways the wastewater treatment plant located at the mouth of the Santa Clara River continues to become increasingly vulnerable over time.  Upstream development has led to new and bigger levees, effectively channelizing the river and increasing flows near the river mouth.  Moreover, as time goes by climate change will compound the problem through increased storm intensity which will add to the threat of flood from upstream, while rising sea levels present a growing risk from the ocean.

The Olivas Park golf course was historically a productive wetland, which also provided an effective buffer to flood waters along the banks of the Santa Clara River. As illustrated below, in 1969 the river flowed right through the recently constructed golf course and into the marina.   

Solutions:  Surfrider has commented on the Santa Clara Estuary Special Studies that Ventura Water should take advantage of ongoing plans to reduce discharges into the Santa Clara Estuary through wastewater recycling, and consider developing a decentralized strategy.  This would over time reduce the volume of wastewater reaching the estuary, and increase resilience in the face of these risks.

More info:

Santa Clara River Estuary Special Studies
Ventura River Watershed - Flooding photos
...

Reference:

Ventura WaterPure, City of Ventura website

The Great Flood Ventura County 1969

Arundell Barranca - flood control or green infrastructure?

Ventura County Watershed Protection (formerly Flood Control) District is undergoing studies to address potential flooding impacts in the lower Arundell Barranca watershed.  According to hydraulic models, flood risk is higher than past FEMA models, with potential estimated 100-year flood damages of $62,170,700.  The District initially hoped to enlarge the concrete channel to accommodate the 100 year flows, and repair deterioration of Arundell Barranca Channel.

The diagram above shows the affected area - Arundell Barranca drains a large urban and agricultural area and discharges into the Ventura Harbor.

The diagram above illustrates the extent that the urban area has been channelized - compare this infrastructure with the historic condition in the 1945 aerial below.

The photo below shows the current state of the concrete in Arundell Barranca.  This channel conveys a constant flow of no less than 0.67 - 2 cfs in dry weather into the Ventura Harbor.  This amounts to up to 1400 acre feet per year of wasted water. If reused in some manner within the City of Ventura, this stormdrain discharge is sufficient volume to offset the proposed extraction at Saticoy Well #3.

During peak storm events, the channel conveys extremely high flows and tons of sediment into the harbor.  This sediment is periodically dredged and placed on nearby beaches.  Because of the direct hydrologic connection between urban, industrial, and agricultural runoff, these sediments and the water in the harbor contain high levels of toxins ranging from bacteria and metals to agricultural chemicals.

According to Watershed Protection District, the CEQA process has included:

• Initial Study/Notice of Preparation Review : 1/20 – 2/18/2011
• Scoping Meeting: 01/27/2011
• Ventura Port District Board Meeting: 03/30/2011
• Initial Study on line at: www.vcwatershed.org/projects/arundell
• EIR On Hold due to Public Comments Received
• District Contracted with NHC for a Study to Quantify Baseline Condition and Further Investigate Existing Conditions and Potential Alternatives ($310,000 Contract)

Comments received included:

• Increased Capacity = Increased Sediment & Harbor Dredging Costs
• Increased Capacity = Increased Pollutants (Trash, Debris, Bacteria, Nitrates, Pesticides, etc.)
• Project Should Provide Multiple Benefits
• Coordinate with City of Ventura on Potential Treatment Wetlands Upstream of the SCR Estuary – Increases Grant Funding Eligibility
• Redirect Channel to the Santa Clara River
• Modify Outlet to Avoid Eddy at Stub Channel Confluence
• Redirect Outlet to Avoid Damage to Boats, Docks, and Revetment
• Build a Detention Basin on Farmland Instead

Next Steps:

• Public Meeting to Present NHC Alternatives Study Results: July 19, 2012
• Consider Public Comments and Feasibility, Narrow Down the Alternatives to Carry Forward in the EIR
• Resume Preparation of the Draft EIR, to Include Additional Opportunities for Public Review and Comment
• Draft EIR Public Meeting
• Final EIR Board of Supervisors Hearing

COMMENTS:

The Surfrider Foundation has provided comments to this process, expressing concern that re-constructing the existing flood control channels to accommodate the 100-year storm flows will perpetuate a water quality problem that is in dire need of mitigation. We strongly recommend that alternatives be seriously considered in order to realize the opportunity for an integrated project that will mitigate flooding and improve water quality in the lower Santa Clara River watershed and Ventura Harbor.


The 2011 Water Quality Report provides a good overview of the water quality issues of concern. It is
noted that industrial discharges from Harris Water have ceased, but there is no indication of the volume of other industrial discharges into the barranca. Such discharges often have a negative short-term effect that is not captured in grab samples. For instance the recent spill reported in the news delivered hydrocarbon effluent to the harbor directly affecting summertime recreational uses (Spill near Ventura Harbor traced to barranca drain outlet -VCStar, Aug 1, 2012)

Industrial and agricultural discharges and spills also have a long term effect, as toxins accumulate in
sediments that are routinely dredged and discharged onto recreational beaches, as well as bioaccumulate in shellfish and other aquatic life which can negatively affect the productivity of the food chain and ultimately impact human health.  And repeated fish die-offs may be related to accumulated nutrient levels in the stagnant backwater channels in the harbor (most recently, Officials believe a lack of oxygen killed thousands of small fish Monday in the Ventura Harbor.

- vcstar.com April 18, 2011)

Therefore, although the report indicates that “a large fraction of the constituents were mostly above method reporting limits, but below regulatory objective levels,” this should not trivialize the seriousness of the discharge from Arundell Barranca.


There is a significant volume of water constantly flowing from this storm drain system, and an analysis of upstream sources should be conducted to determine opportunities for flow reduction and/or stormwater capture upstream of the project site, before flows reach Harbor Blvd. Various ‘green infrastructure’ approaches may be applicable within the urban watershed to mitigate both low and high flow volumes currently present in the concrete channel. Even modifying portions of the channel to include a soft bottom low flow channel may help reduce flows through infiltration.  We have previously presented a vision for such an 'urban retrofit' for the Sanjon Barranca in Ventura.


SOLUTIONS:

This is not a new problem, and in 1999 the City of Ventura was leading the charge on a creative approach to redirect flows away from the harbor and treat the water with a green infrastructure approach.

One proposal that has been circulated recently illustrates a vision for an Arundell Estuary Park, that would combine engineered treatment wetlands with public access and trails to beatify the area and solve the water quality problem in the harbor.

One thing is certain: a single purpose flood control project will perpetuate this problem for many decades to come.  Now is the time to develop a multi-purpose multi-agency solution to one of the most serious water quality problems on our coast.



More info:

Arundell Barranca Channel Improvements, Ventura County Watershed Protection District website, www.vcwatershed.org/projects/arundell

Arundell Barranca Environmental Monitoring Final Report

City of San Buenaventura's May 1999 "Ventura Keys and Arundell Barranca Watershed Project Alternatives Report" (7.3MB, PDF)

http://www.venturariver.org/2008/01/urban-watershed-planning-ventura-ca.html


..

Floodplain Development and Urban Sprawl

One of the greatest threats to water quality and quantity and our coastal ecosystem is unsustainable urban development. Although Ventura County has some of the most progressive land use guidelines in southern California, constant vigilance is required on the part of the citizens to ensure such guidelines are followed.



Case Studies:

I. Santa Paula, CA

In April, 2011, the Local Agency Formation Commission voted to allow the city of Santa Paula and the Limoneira Co. to move forward on a plan to build a massive master-planned community within the floodplain of Santa Paula Creek. Limoneira plans to build 1,500 homes, community fields, parks, police and fire stations, and new commercial buildings in what would essentially amount to a new 537-acre community. The vote was 6-1, with Commissioner Carol Smith, who also is a Ojai City Councilwoman, opposed because of potential flood risks near the proposed development.

This decision was based upon outdated information, and even that demonstrated that 45% of the area would be underwater. In a 2006 FEMA study completed after the project EIR, the volume of a 100-year flood was increased by 40%.

Citizen Action:

The Environmental Defense Center, Ventura County's only nonprofit law firm, represented Keep Sespe Wild in a legal challenge to the decision. Through its negotiations with Limoneira Co, an Agreement was reached for another environmental report to be done to consider the potential effects the project could have on flooding along Santa Paula Creek.




II. Ventura, CA

In 2005, the City of Ventura adopted a General Plan that called for an infill-first strategy to urban growth. This is a prudent fiscal and environmental policy that would concentrate resources on revitalizing the urban core, rather than promoting 'green field' development and urban sprawl.

In 1998, Ventura County voters passed the countywide SOAR (Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources) initiative, becoming the first (and only) county in Southern California to place urban sprawl issues to a vote of the people.

In 2010, as the Ventura City Council began planning for the Westside, a large property owner re-initiated discussion of expanding the city to annex an undeveloped canyon north of the city limits. Through a 'loophole' in the SOAR ordinance, the property could be annexed without a SOAR vote.



In response to this threat, a coalition of community groups formed to expressed their opposition including The Sierra Club, SOAR, Surfrider Foundation, Wishtoyo Foundation, VCCool, Ventura Audubon Society, Ventura Coastkeeper, Ventura Citizens for Hillside Preservation.

Citizen Action:

Following a year of public meetings, op-ed articles, outreach, and potential legal action, the City of Ventura made the right decision - to keep Westside redevelopment within city boundaries. This decision would not have been made without the high level of community involvement and commitment to protecting a quality of life unique in Southern California.

More info: http://www.venturariver.org/search/label/Canada%20Larga

..

SA Creek Bike Path

This season's rains raised river flows enough to damage the Ojai bike path where it crosses San Antonio Creek.

Although there are plans to construct a bridge to solve the problem and alleviate the ongoing impacts, County workers were out this week adding new riprap to the streambank and replacing the damaged asphalt path with new concrete.

This illustrates the 'chain reaction' effect of hardening a streambank. 'End effect' increases downstream erosion, necessitating ever more rock and concrete. Streambank hardening also results in loss of trees and shrubs which provide habitat and cooling shade important for our native species.

Tour of Ojai Meadows Preserve

The April meeting of the Ventura County Task Force of the Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project was a site tour of the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy’s restoration work at the Ojai Meadows Preserve.

The Ojai Meadows Preserve is a 58-acre site of valley and live oak, grasslands and wetlands. Over the past several years the OVLC has been working to restore the preserve as closely as possible to its native state by expanding the wetland, planting additional oaks, and reintroducing native grasses. The long-term objectives of the project include providing better habitat for wetland birds, raptors and other wildlife species and reducing flooding on the highway and adjacent property.

Derek Poultney, the OVLC’s project manager at the Preserve, led us on a tour of the Meadows and discussed the various components of the project, including restoration of the hydrology on the site, the work of consultants and volunteers, trail improvements, creation of swales and vernal pools, and restoration of native riparian, oak savannah and coastal sage scrub habitats.

Derek pointed out that this property was once slated to become a shopping mall, in which case all stormwater would have been directed into an underground storm drain system.

Listen as he describes the hydrologic and water quality benefits of this wetland restoration project:



(...hear those happy redwing blackbirds!)




Note: this is the Happy Valley Drain downstream of the preserve, that Derek describes as 'very artificial and undersized for the watershed'

FEMA levee certification

According to the Ojai Valley News:

FEMA has been in the process of certifying flood protection levees nationwide. A recent study ordered by FEMA has determined that the Live Oak Acres Levee along the Ventura River, originally constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, cannot be certified as meeting FEMA’s new standards. This means that FEMA will likely include more than 100 properties behind the levee in the mapped floodplain. Besides 106 properties expected to be redesignated into a floodplain, 127 others may be affected by the remapping.

Numerous levees nationwide cannot be certified and many local governments are attempting to lobby the federal government for money to upgrade those levees. The about $140 million Matilija Dam removal project already in progress may assist the efforts to rebuild the Live Oaks Acres Levee. “The Matilija Dam removal is already an approved project,” said Bennett. “The project is in better shape because of the Matilija Dam removal.”

Nine levees in Ventura County have been identified by FEMA as trouble spots; two in Districts 1 and 4, one in Districts 2 and 5, and three in District 3.

What does this mean?

If the levees are not 'certified' to provide 100-year protection, FEMA will remap the levee-impacted areas landward of these levee systems as high-risk areas, referred to as Special Flood Hazard Areas (hazard areas). Flood insurance will be required in hazard areas for any mortgage that is Federally backed, regulated, or insured. It is important to note that neither certification nor accreditation guarantees flood protection.

COMMENTARY: The estimated cost for Ventura County to upgrade all 9 levee systems is $26.9M. And all of the flood control structures in the county require expensive ongoing maintenance in perpetuity. This is just part of the taxpayer burden for floodplain development, not to mention the ecological cost of degraded habitat and water quality. And providing this protection, at public expense, alleviates the property owner from providing their own insurance against flood damage.

Although one might expect government to learn from the mistake of permitting floodplain development, no legal or regulatory mechanism currently exists to deter further urbanization of flood-prone areas.

For more information and to view the Ventura County Watershed Protection District FEMA Levee Certification Project map, go to vcwatershed.org/levee.

Local News: http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/apr/06/3-levees-in-ventura-county-fail-to-meet-federal/