Zoning: Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley.
One of the significant changes introduced by SB639 is the requirement for the City of Sacramento and the County of Sacramento to achieve urban-level flood protection by 2030 rather than the previously established deadline. The bill empowers the Department of Water Resources to require these municipalities to contribute their fair and reasonable share towards property damages resulting from floods. This provision is particularly pertinent between January 2026 and December 2030, during which local flood management agencies must work to attain the prescribed level of flood protection. Additionally, it clarifies the existing restrictions on development within flood hazard zones to ensure safety while accommodating reasonable land use.
Senate Bill 639, introduced by Senator Ashby, amends various sections of the Government Code and the Water Code concerning land use and flood protection in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley. The bill focuses on requiring cities and counties in this region to adhere strictly to the requirements set forth in the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. This includes mandates that development agreements and permits for new construction within flood hazard zones can only be approved if local flood agencies have made significant progress toward achieving urban-level flood protection. Previously set deadlines expected this protection to be achieved by 2025, but SB639 allows for certain areas to extend this deadline to 2030.
The general sentiment surrounding SB639 appears to be one of cautious support. Proponents argue that enhancing flood protection measures is essential for community safety, especially given the susceptibility of the Sacramento region to flooding. On the contrary, some stakeholders express concern that the additional requirements could hinder local development initiatives or impose significant financial burdens on municipalities. Nonetheless, the recognition of the unique flooding challenges in the area has supported the advancement of this legislative measure, emphasizing a balance between growth and safety.
Notable points of contention arise around the timing and financial responsibilities imposed on local governments. The extended compliance timeline for flood protection in specific areas has faced scrutiny as it may delay critical infrastructure improvements. Critics argue that extending deadlines can lead to increased risks for future developments. Furthermore, the stipulation that cities must contribute to flood damages has raised questions about the equitable allocation of financial responsibility and the potential impact on public resources that could have been used for other community services.