In the recent election, a full 64 percent of California voters approved Proposition 1E, a flood-control measure that will allocate $4.1 billion in state bonds for the repair and fortification of levees and hydraulic structures. The wide margin of victory confirms that Californians value such projects to protect lives and property.

A potential pitfall involves the costs.  To repay these bonds over 30 years will cost an estimated $8 billion. That hefty amount will be paid by all California taxpayers rather than those directly receiving the benefits of the flood-control projects.

Another potential problem involves control.  Political forces, rather than engineers and hydrologists, will be in charge of the decisions on which projects get funded and why. Such projects could be based on politics rather than need or soundness. Rural communities, or those lacking political clout, may wind up disadvantaged. What’s more, the government may not be the best entity to provide this sort of protection.

 Government projects are frequently inefficient and prone to some degree of wasteful spending. That means the costs for the funded flood-control projects are likely to wind up higher than they are really worth. The agencies in charge need to be held accountable for how they administer the funds. Voters and stakeholders also need to ask tough questions about the wisdom of all this flood control in the first place.

Nowhere was this issue highlighted more than in the Mississippi delta region during the Hurricane Katrina disaster.  The Katrina disaster was certainly an example of the potential damage from levee failure. It was also a lesson that there are significant dangers in trying to constrain natural hydrologic and hydraulic systems. 

Widespread development in environmentally vulnerable areas, such as flood plains and river deltas, is inherently dangerous. These areas are not only naturally prone to flooding, but they function as a valuable part of natural flood-control systems. Destroying or developing flood-plain areas exacerbates the need for man-made structures, and comes at a great cost both in terms of the level of protection now needed and the potential for damage if and when the structures fail.  And even the best-engineered structures have the potential to fail under extreme weather.

In many places, developers and landowners have grown accustomed to government protection for any development projects, even when they are located in environmentally precarious positions. The government responds by massive construction of flood-control structures. Sometimes the best and safest answer is not more building but less.

How, then, should California move forward? The state should proceed carefully, taking advantage of the best information. That calls for sound hydrologic and engineering analysis rather than pet projects and special interests.

The state should also proceed in the knowledge that taxpayer involvement does not end once the votes are cast and counted. Because all California taxpayers bear the $8-billion cost, the public must keep a watchful eye on how these dollars are spent. With so much at stake, taxpayers need to watch that money allocated for flood control actually controls floods.