STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
A Thesis
In Partial Fulfillment
_-:··.,---.!"0·
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master
in
Public Administration
By
Benjamen Y. Wong
Presented to the
Faculty of
The Consortium of The California
State University and Colleges
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
A Thesis
By
Benjamen Y. Wong
Presented to the
Faculty of
The Consortium of The California
State University and Colleges
Approved by:
ii
ABSTRACT
The flooding experiences in the City of Oxnard have
indicated that the effects of previous philosophies on past
practices of accommodating storm runoff and mitigating
urban flooding in the City appear to be inadequately
managed.
The cumulative effects of such inadequacies have
been a major cause of increased flooding in the City.
From a legal standpoint, it is a well-accepted fact
that each parcel of land involves storm water management in
either a major or minor way.
In order to
ins~re
good
protection from liability, the storm water management
aspects of certain properties could well be one of the
controlling factors on how to develop or whether to even
develop the site at all.
Examination of the City's philosophies in storm
water management reveals an inadequate drainage policy, the
lack of guidelines for drainage improvement planning, and
the City merely responding to crisis.
In order to mitigate
new flooding and prevent increases in the extent of existing
flooding, there is the need for revision of the existing
drainage policy, continuing the use of the existing drainage
criteria and standards, implementation of the pending
1
Drainage Master Plan, and adoption of an alternate method
of financing drainage facilities.
:(
'
6
~J
iii
J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
vi
LIST OF FIGURES •
LIST OF EXHIBITS
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
. . . viii
Chapter
1.
2.
1
INTRODUCTION
HYDROLOGIC CYCLE
1
STORM DRAIN AND FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM
5
THE PROBLEM • . •
6
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
DRAINAGE LAW
FLOOD PLAIN REGULATION
•
~
e
~
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
. . . . . . .
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
THE CITY OF OXNARD
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DRAINAGE PRACTICES AND PHILOSOPHIES
4.
AN EXAMINATION OF PAST AND
CURRENT PHILOSOPHIES
•
•
•
e
•
. ..
LACK OF GUIDELINES FOR DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENT PLANNING
...
. . .
.....
. ..
iv
~:
•
. . .. .
. . . . . . .
RESPONSE TO CRISIS
:;.
14.
20
. . .. .
. . . ..
INADEQUATE POLICY ;.
10
18
CONCLUDING COMMENTS •
3.
10
.
20
22
53
53
57
60
v
Chapter
5.
6.
Page
RECOW.illNDED IMPROVEMENTS
............
63
REVISION OF THE EXISTING
DRAINAGE POLICY •
64
CONTINUE THE USE OF THE EXISTING
DRAINAGE CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
66
IMPLEMENT THE DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN
66
ADOPT ALTERNATE STRATEGY OF FINANCING
DRAINAGE FACILITIES • • • • .
• • • •
79
SUMMARY •
BIBLIOGRAPHY
. . . . . . . .
83
87
I
I
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.
Hydrologic Cycle • . • . • • • • • • • • • . • • •
3
2.
Elements of Storm Drain and
Flood Control System • • • • . • • . • • • • . .
7
3.
City of Oxnard and
Oxnard Drainage Districts
• • • . • • • • •
23
4.
General Drainage Pattern - 1903
25
5.
General Drainage Pattern - 1953
27
6.
Current Flooding Areas - 1978
52
_.,
vi
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit
Page
A.
First Written Drainage Policy - 1963 • • • • .
B.
Drainage Criteria
(Adopted January 13, 1976)
67
Drainage Standards
(Adopted March 23, 1977) • • • • • • • • • • • •
71
Drainage Master Plan
Proposed Scope of Work
74
c.
D.
vii
• •
34
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Much of the detailed information and data used in
the preparation of this paper were obtained from the files
and records of the City of Oxnard.
Sincere appreciation
is especially extended to the City Manager's office, City
Clerk's office, Planning Department, and the Oxnard Public
Works Department for making their files and records_
·available.
Inaddition, special thanks are extended to my
staff for their valuable assistance and cooperation.
-Additional information was acquired from the
Ventura County Flood Control District.
I
am grateful for
the assistance rendered by the many helpful individuals in
this agency.
viii
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The intent of this paper is to examine the City of
Oxnard's storm water management, and subsequently recommend
necessary improvements for the purpose of mitigating
flooding in the City.
concepts of (1)
This chapter will present the
hy~rologic
cycle and (2) storm drain and
flood control system, as well as discuss (3) the problem
relative to handling storm water runoff, prior to delving
into the major aspects of this thesis.·
HYDROLOGIC CYCLE
The cyclic movement of water from the sea to the
atmosphere and thence by precipitation to the earth, where
it runs off and collects in streams and runs back to the
sea, is referred to as the "hydrologic cycle."
A brief
examination and appraisal of the cycle may help provide
a better idea of storm water runoff that will be discussed
in this paper.
The hydrologic cycle is a continuum.
1
It has no
beginning or end, as water in the ocean evaporates under
solar radiation and clouds of water vapor move over land
1
Ven Te Chow, Handbook of Applied Hydrology (New
York, New Yo·rk: McGraw-Hill, 1964), p. 1-2.
1
2
areas.
Precipitation occurs as snow, hail and rain over
the land and water begins to flow back to the sea.
Some of
it infiltrates into the soil and moves down or percolates
into the saturated ground zone beneath the water table.
The water in this zone flows slowly through aquifers to
river channels or sometimes directly into the sea.
The
water which infiltrates also feeds the surface plant life
and some is drawn up into this vegetation and transpiration
takes place from leafy plant surfaces.
The water remaining
on the surface partially evaporates back to vapor, but the
bulk of it coalesces into streamlets and runs as surface
storm runoff to the river channels.
The river and lake
surfaces also evaporate, so still more is removed here.
Finally, the remaining water which has not infiltrated or
evaporated arrives back at the sea via the river channels.
The groundwater moving much more slowly, either emerges
into the stream channels or arrives at the coastline and
seeps into the sea, and the whole cycle starts again.
Figure 1 illustrates a descriptive representation of the
hydrologic cycle.
From the inventory of earth's water, Wilson wrote
that 97.25 percent of all the water is contained in the
oceans, and the total amount of fresh water is only about
2.73 percent. 2
The estimated amount of water involved in
2 E. M. Wilson,· Eng·ineer·ing Hydrology (New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1974}, p. 3.
Atmosphere
II It
Evaporation
.,
E
0
-..
ID
tn
~
~
~\\Iii/,
~
-
--
~
~
/?lfll\~
~
0
....
0
0.
0
>
w
Fiqure I -
Hydrologic Cycle
.....__.
4
the hydrologic cycle and the proportions of the total
water on earth involved in each part of it are summarized
3
by Wilson as follows:
VOLUME
3
(lOOs of km )
LOCATION
Fresh-water lakes
Rivers
Soil moisture
Groundwater
Saline lakes and inland seas
Atmosphere
Polar ice-caps, glaciers and snow
Seas and oceans
125
1.25}
65
8,250
105
13
29,200
1 '320, 000
TOTAL
1,360,000
or 1.36 x 10
% TOTAL
WATER
0.62
0.008
0.001
2.1
97.25
100.0
18 3
m
It should be clarified, however, that these are stationary
estimates of distribution.
While the water content of the
atmosphere is relatively small at any given moment, large
quantities of water pass through it annually.
wrote that:
Ven Te Chow
..
.•. the mean annual precipitation for the entire
earth is about thirty-four inches/year .... About 70
to 75 percent of the precipitation is returned to
the atmosphere .•. , while the remaining 30 percent
becomes runoff.4
Hydrologic cycle undergoes various complicated
processes.
However, the four processes with which we are
'
.
mainly concerned in storm water management are precipitation,
evaporation and transpiration, groundwater flow, and surface
3
4
York:
Ibid.
ven Te Chow, Handbook of Applied Hydrology (New
McGraw-Hill, 1964), p. 1-4.
5
runoff or streamflow.
One needs to be able to interpret
data about these processes and to predict from his studies
the most likely quantities involved in the extreme cases of
flood and drought.
One must also be able to express an
opinion or provide judgment about the probable frequency
with which such events will occur, since it is on the
frequency of certain values of extreme events that much of
drainage or flood control engineering design is based.
STORM DRAlN AND FLOOD CONTROL SYSTEM
The terms "storm drain and flood control system"
are used frequently and will be used herein as described
below.
The storm drain system and flood control system
are referred to as "secondary drains" and "red-line"
channels, respectively.
Secondary drains are minor storm
drain systems normally under the City's jurisdiction and
provide relief from inconvenience or disruption of activity
as a result of runoff from more frequently occurring,
smaller intensity storms such as the five or ten-year
frequency storm.
A five or ten-year frequency storm is a
storm that occurs on the average of once every five or ten
years.
The secondary drains are typically comprised of
outlet structures, underground pipes, and open channels.
Red-line channels, on the other hand, serve major flood
flow needs.
Major flood routes are normally along creeks,
rivers,·or other major man-made watercourses.
Nature will
6
occupy these routes intermittently regardless of the extent
and characteristic of urban encroachment.
Red-line channels
· are major storm drain systems and are normally under the
Ventura County Flood Control District's jurisdiction.
They
prevent or minimize damage to property and physical injury
and loss of life which may occur during or after a very
infrequent or unusual storm, such as the fifty or hundredyear frequency storm.
A fifty or hundred-year frequency
storm is a storm that occurs on the average of once every
fifty or one
hundred-~-years.
Red-line channels are typically
comprised of earth or concrete lined channels, concrete
box culverts, and other large
st~uctures.
I
Elements of the storm drain and flood control system
j
- )!.
;_J
are schematically shown in Figure 2.
The secondary drains,
located in the upper portions of the drainage basins,
ultimately flow into the red-line channels.
During an
infrequent or major storm, the capacities of many of the
convenience-oriented components are exceeded and flow
capacity is provided by red-line channels designed to
provide safety and minimize damage throughout the system,
from the individual site to the discharge point of the
drainage basin or watershed.
THE PROBLEM
In an undeveloped area, the storm water management
system is provided for by nature through its hydrologic
7
TO THE
OCEAN
DRAINAGE BASIN
BOUNDARY
*
**
Under Cit- 1
J .
ys
unsdiction
Under Count I
Jurisdic1ion y s
F.iqure
2
.Elements of
and Flood C Storm Drain
ontro I Sys te m.
8
cycle.
Nature's inability to accommodate severe storms
without significant damage, even where urbanization has
not occurred, is quite apparent.
The natural drainage
systems in an undeveloped area are not static in design,
but are constantly changing.
Streams change course, banks
erode, vegetation and soil permeability change with the
seasons, lakes fill in with sediment and disappear.
The
stripping of ground and tree cover by fire may change an
entire system, forcing new natural accommodations throughout
the 'system.
Urbanization has
requir~d
new drainage systems,
because man was both unwilling to suffer inconvenience
where it could be avoided and, because he would not tolerate
the loss of life or property.
In an urbanizing area, those
concerns often have been translated into storm water
management system requirements for public convenience and
safety.
Traditionally, this has meant that an adequate
drainage system is provided to remove and convey runoff
from certain storms as quickly as possible to restore
maximum convenience in the shortest possible time.
At
the same time, fears of loss of life and damage to
l
possessions necessitate certain major systems to be
implemented for protection against larger storms that
nature might generate.
To be successful, these two objectives should be
mutually achieved with urbanization.
Where we have sought
9
maximum convenience in the uppe.r and middle reaches of a
watershed, we must provide a reasonable degree of balanced
systems to insure mitigation of hazard and risk of damage
along the lower reaches.
The need is obvious - to strike
a realistic balance between elimination of inconvenience
and protection against hazard.
always achieved such a balance.
Past practice has not
In fact, it more often
than not has encouraged the acceleration of imbalance as
areas began to urbanize.
Under such circumstances,
£looding problems are bound to occur.
"Drainage and flood control are basically matters
between private parties. Government does not have to
solve drainage problems and cannot be held liable for
not addressing a drainage problem.
[However] •..
government becomes involved in drainage and flood
control ••• when sufficient public pressures are
expressed through the political system. If government
accepts the responsibility for solving a drainage or
flood control problem, then it can be held liable and
responsible for any subsequent damages caused by
negligent actions. In urban areas, local government
should and does accept responsibility for preventing
and solving drainage and flood control problems. The
urban system is too complex for private parties to
solve drainage problems independently. Thus urban
drainage and flood control are usually part of the
urgan government's realm of responsibility."5
5 william E. Korbitz (ed.}, Urban Public Works
Administration, The ICMA Municipal Management Series
(Washington, D.C.: International City Management
Association, 1976}, p. 401.
Chapter 2
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
Storm water management practices have important
legal implications.
Most homebuilders and developers are
familiar with local zoning, subdivision regulations and
building codes.
Storm water law is another control which
many public agencieshave placed on the use and development
of land or which has arisen through liability imposed by
courts when the acts of one land owner have adversely
affected the property of another.
Storm water law, like
storm water engineering, can be divided into two areas drainage and floods - even though they obviously belong to
the same system of surface water runoff.
DRAINAGE LAW
Drainage law dates back to ancient times.
In
drainage law, we are looking at the respective rights and
duties of the "upper"landowner versus the rights and duties
of an adjoining
11
lower 11 landowner.
The "upper" land lies
at the higher elevation, and water drains down onto the
"lower" land.
This relationship is based on the lands in
their natural, unaltered state.
There are basically two doctrines which have been
adopted by various state courts:
10
the "common enemy rule"
11
and the "civil law rule."
Under the "conunon enemy rule,"
the landowner may take any measures necessary to keep
water off his land, even to the point of turning the water
back onto the upper land.
The upper owner can similarly
protect his property from the "enemy" by diverting water
around his property, causing greater quantities at higher
velocities to flow onto his neighbor's land.
Calif. Dev. Co.
(Jones v.
(1916) 173 C 565, 575, 160 P 823; Mogle v.
Moore (1940) 16 C.2d 1, 10, 104 P.2d 785; McManus v. Otis
(1943) 61 C.A.2d 432, 439, 143 P.2d 380; 29 CaT. L. Rev. 262;
10 So. Cal. L. Rev. 89: 8 Cal. L. Rev. 197; 23 A.L.R.2d 750:
50 Am.Jur.2d, Levees and Flood Control §14 et seq.) 1
The
rule has been applied in favor of governmental agency engaged
in flood control projects.
Dist.
(Week v. L.A. etc. Flood Control
(1951) 104 C.A.2d 599, 610, 232 P.2d 293; cf. Clement
v. State Reclemation Board (1950) 35 C.2d 628, 635, 220 P.2d
897, infra, §604; see criticism of this result in 3 Stanf. L.
Rev. 361)
2
The protective measures of the rule must,
however, be reasonable.
(Weinberg
co:
v. Bixby (1921) 185 C
87, 96, 196 P. 25; Tahan v. Thomas (1970) 7 C.A.3d 78, 81
86 C.R. 440.)
3
In its pure form, it would be a "might makes
right" situation.
1 B. E. Witkin, Suin!rlary of Cali'fornia Law, Eighth
Edition, Volume 3 (San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney Co.,
1973) 1 P• 2262.
2
3
Ibid.
Ibid.
12
Therefore, courts have modified the rule to require
that such acts be reasonable vis-a-vis each other.
The
"civil law rule" states that the upper landowner has an
easement over the lower land for the natural drainage off
his land.
The key word here is "natural," which means
the same quantity and velocity as was drained from the
upper land in its existing state.
The rule was first
adopted by the California Supreme Court in 1873 (Ogburn v.
Connor (1873) 46 Cal 346)
4
and has been generally
recognized as the prevailing law of surface waters in the
state since its adoption.
(McDaniel v. Cummings (1890) 83 ·
Cal. 515, 519., 23 P. 795, 8 L.R.A. 575; Los Angeles Cemeter:y
Ass'n. v. City of Los Angeles (1894) 103 Cal. 461, 466-467,
37 P. 375; Heier v. Krull (1911) 160 Cal. 441, 444, 117
P. 530; LeBrun v. Richards (1930) 210 Cal. 308, 313-314,
291 P. 825, 72 A.L.R. 336; Archer v. City of Los Angeles
(1941) 19 Cal.2d 19, 27, 119 P.2d 1; Andrew Jergens Co. v
City of Los Angeles (1951) 103 Cal. App. 2d 232, 235, 229
P.2d 475; Gonella v. City of Merced (1957) 153 Cal. App.
2d 44, 51, 314 P.2d 124; Voight v. Southern Pac. Co. (1961)
.
. 5
194 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 907, 909-910, 15 Cal. Rptr. 59)
In
its pure form, it was felt that the law would substantially
4
west's California Reporter - Cases Argued and
Determined in the Supreme Court, District Courts of Appeal,
Appellate Department, Superior Court, 241 Cal. App. 2d
Vol. 50 (West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn. 1966), p. 278.
5
Ibid.
13
restrict new development of the upper land, so again courts
have modified it to accommodate reasonable use of the upper.
Finally, both of these doctrines, which are based on the
property-law concept of dominant versus servient lands,
have been rejected by some courts.
These courts focus on
"reasonable use" alone, based on tort-oriented law.
(Keys v.
Remley (1966) 64 C. 2d 396, 50 C.R. 273, 412 P.2d 529;
Pagliotti v. Acquistapace (1966) 64 C. 2d 873, 50 C.R. 282,
412 P.2d 538 [companion case]; on Court of Appeal decisions,
see 39 So. Cal. L. Rev. 128; 17 Hastings L. J. 826; Burrows
v. California (1968) 260 C.A. 2d 29, 66 C.R. 868; Western
Salt Co. v. Newport Beach (1969) 271-C.A. 2d 397, 402, 76
C.R. 322; Sheffet v. Los Angeles (1970) 3 C.A. 3d 720, 84
C.R. 11)
6
While these modifications tend to produce the
same results, the practical questions of predictability and
proof requirements remain substantially different.
The developer (or public agency) will want to
protect himself from possible exposure to a potential
liability suit for damages, or from a time-consuming and
costly injunction action.
Under any of the doctrines
mentioned above, his best protection is to develop in such
·'
a manner as to keep the runoff as close-as possible to
runoff conditions in the natural state - in quantity,
velocity, and location.
If he has obtained the hydrologic,
6 B. E. Witkin, Summary of California Law, Eighth
Edition, Vol. 3, (Bancroft-Whitney Co., San Francisco, 1973),
pp. 2260-2261.
'
14
soils, and other data recommended for good engineering
design, and has developed his project accordingly, the same
facts will protect him from liability because he can prove
that he has not materially changed the natural drainage
conditions and has acted in a reasonable, non-negligent
manner.
FLOOD PLAIN REGULATION
Flood plain regulation is of fairly recent vintage
compared to drainage
law~
A flood plain is usually defined
as that area bordering a watercourse which would be inundated
by a flood of a certain magnitude. _ The magnitude used in
establishing the Federal flood hazard area is the "100-year
flood," that is, a flood which has a statistical one percent
chance of occurring or being exceeded in any one year.
Often this flood plain is further subdivided into a
"floodway" and a peripheral area.
7 -
Billions of dollars have been spent on flood
protection works.
In spite of this, nationwide flood
losses have continued to escalate.
The response to this
dilemma has been a change in philosophy in dealing with
flooding.
Instead of attempting to keep rivers away from
people by damming and channelizing them, the trend is
7 Federal Insurance Administration, "National Flood
Insurance," Federal Register (October 26, 1976).
15
toward keeping people away from rivers by preventing
further unwise encroachment onto the flood plains.
This
is not to say that development should not occur at all,
but rather that development must be consistent with good
flood plain management.
The greatest impetus has come·
from the federal government through its National Flood
Insurance Program, the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973 and Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and 1969,
whereby flood insurance was made available to residents of
flood-prone areas at reasonable rates through federal
subsidy, and required local agencies to enact land use and
cont-rol measures designed to guide the rational use of
flood plain to avoid or reduce future loses as a
prerequisite for the availability of federal subsidized
flood insurance.
One of the major tasks of urban policy is
" •.• to devise strategies for channeling federal funds more
directly to those areas experiencing substantial urban
hardship." 9
This program is certainly consistent with such
a policy.
Briefly, it works in the following manner.
First,
special flood hazard areas are identified and designated
on maps by the federal government.
If the community has
8 u. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
National Flood Insurance Program, (Washington, D.C.: U. S.
Government ~rinting Office, January 1974), p. 43
9 Joseph A. Pechman (ed.), Set·ting National
Priorities - The T978 Budget, (Washington, D.C. : The
Brookings Institution, 1977), p~ 19
8
16
become a "participating community" by adopting adequate
land use measures and other controls for its flood plains,
those buildings which already exist in the flood hazard
areas are eligible for heavily subsidized flood insurance.
Flood insurance for new construction, however, will not
be subsidized; instead, premiums will reflect the actual
flooding risks to the property.
The crux of the program
is that flood insurance is required before the vast
majority of lending institutions in the United States can
make, increase, extend or renew any loan secured by improved
real estate located or to be located in one of these special
flood hazard areas.
For the developer, this means he must
investigate whether or not the property he proposes to
develop is likely to be in a federally-designated special
flood hazard area.
If it is, and the community has failed
to become a "participating community" by adopting acceptable
land use controls, residential financing will probably be
unavailable.
If the land is within a "participating
community," the developer must investigate what controls
the community has placed on the land and what the flood
insurance costs would be.
applicable insurance rates.
A federal rate map identifies
Occupancy and insurance costs
can be mitigated by taking certain precautions (such as
raising the elevation of the building), but may still make
construction in such location less feasible.
Therefore,
not only how the ·building is constructed, but whether the
building should be built at that site at all, is an initial'
17
consideration affected by the National Flood Insurance
Program.
Another site, outside of the hazard area, may be
financially more advantageous for development.
Where federal government has not designated an
area, both state and local laws should be consulted.
Some
· communities have adopted flood plain regulations and maps
on their own initiative, or areas in addition to the
federally-designated areas might be locally controlled,
such as on smaller tributaries of the main drainage
channels.
Local land use controls may be in the form of
building codes, subdivision regulations, or specific flood
plain regulations.
Since the floodway is supposed to be
adequate for the safe passage of the flood waters through
the community, building restrictions within it may be
severe.
In the peripheral area, sometimes called the
low-hazard zone or flood storage area, development is
usually permitted within certain less restrictive design
parameters and precautions.
Since the federal requirements
are minimum, local flood plain controls can be more
restrictive.
are.
It behooves a developer to find out what they
Some regulations declare that a building which is not
in compliance with the flood plain regulations is a public
nuisance which can be enjoined or even abated.
In addition,
where such development is the proximate cause of hazard to
the public or one's property, and the non-compliance could
constitute negligence, the owner or developer might be
liable for damages in a tort action. ·
18
The City of Oxnard will officially be a
"participating community" upon completion of the process
of entry into the National Flood Insurance Program.
The
flood insurance study for the City was completed in 1976.
Presentation of the study for public review was made on
March 21, 1978, and, barring any unforeseen problems, it is
anticipated that the City's flood plain management ordinance
will be presented for adoption by the City Council in March
1979, giving the City the responsibility to adopt necessary
·regulations to promote
11
•••
public health, safety, and
general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses
due to flood conditions ..... 10
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
From a legal point of view, as from an engineering
point of view, the developer (or public agency) must accept
the fact that every piece of property involves storm water
runoff in either a major or minor way and as both a
contributor and recipient.
It is imperative, before
purchase or development, to get the physical facts and to
investigate the local, state and federal laws which could
•
affect the property •. The storm water aspects of the
property may be one of the controlling factors on how to
develop the site ·or whether to even develop at all.
1 °Federal Insurance Administration, 11 National Flood
Insurance Program, 11 Federal· Reg'is·ter (October 26, 19761,
Sample Ordinance, p·. c-1.
19
However, after having done his homework, and developed the
property in a responsible and reasonable manner, the
developer (or public agency) can rest assured that he has
good protection from liability.
Chapter 3
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Storm water management in the City of Oxnard is the
product of a long evolution in which different philosophies
and practices have played a part.
This chapter will be
devoted to presenting pertinent information about the City
of Oxnard and describing i;cts past and present drainage
practices and philosophies.
THE CITY OF OXNARD
The City of Oxnard lies on a gently sloping alluvial
plain called the Oxnard Plain.
The elevation of the plain
ranges from sea level to approximately eighty feet above
sea level.
The land generally slopes in a southwesterly
direction at a fall of about two feet per thousand.
This coastal plain was formed by deposits from the
Santa Clara River and Calleguas Creek.
The depth of the
alluvial fill is more than one thousand feet in places and
consi~ts
of a series of pervious deposits that serve as
underground reservoirs for water storage.
The typical
surface soils are alluvial pan deposits composed of sand,
gravel and clay.
The
u. s.
Department of Agriculture
Soil Survey classified the most extensive soil in this
20
. I
21
area as yolo loam,
1
which is a fine sandy loam of excellent
agricultural value.
The water table is high in the Oxnard area, ranging
from five to eight feet below the surface and somewhat
higher during the rainy season.
This high sub-surface
water condition is primarily caused by the underlying clay
strata, some twelve to eighteen feet below the surface,
which prevents irrigation or drainage water from percolating
down into the deeper underground basins.
It is to lower
this water table and lea~h t.he alkali from the soils for
agricultural purposes that farmers in the area have
constructed ditches and sub-surface tile lines.
Wells
for domestic use are drilled about 250 feet deep.
The climate in the Oxnard Plain, similar to that
of other Southern California coastal regions, averages
an annual temperature of 67° F.
The rainy season usually
extends from October to May, with the greatest precipitation
generally occurring during the months of December through
2
February. Local rainfall statistics are as follows:
Annual Average for 89 Years
14.46 inches
Maximum (Occurred in 1940 - 4]1 )
37.99 inches
Minimum (Occurred in 1893 - 94)
3.35 inches
Annual Average for Past 10 Years
13.42 inches
1 city of Oxnard, Public Works Department,
Report, Oxnard and Vicinity 11 (Oxnard, California:
1964) 1 P• 2.
2
Ibid, p. 3.
11
Drainage
January,
22
From its current General Land Use Plan, 3 the City
is projected to develop with 67 percent residential, 25
percent industrial, and 8 percent commercial.
DRAINAGE PRACTICES AND PHILOSOPHIES
The City of Oxnard was incorporated as a charter
City on June 30, 1903, with a total area of 1,647.08 acres, 4
and is located almost at the center of the Oxnard Plain.
The newly incorporated city was practically surrounded by
thousands of acres of agricultural land.
In order to
improve the agricultural qualities of the land in the
Oxnard area, the farmers formed Drainc;ge Districts.
Drainage Districts Numbers One, Two and Three
5
Oxnard
were the
ones that bordered the City as shown in Figure 3.
Oxnard Drainage Districts were formed pursuant to
the Drainage District Act of 1903, Act 2203 Deerings General
Law, whereby:
... the duties and obligations imposed upon [the
Oxnard Drainage Districts] by the Act of the California
Legislature under which it was created are only for the
sub~surface drainage of agricultural land within the
District's limits and not for draining and carrying off
3 city of Oxnard, Planning Department, and Victor
Gruen Associates, "City of Oxnard General Land Use Plan"
(Oxnard, California: May, 1962).
4 city of Oxnard, Public Works Department, (comp.),
:·~
'
);;.
"Annexation Record" (Oxnard, California).
5 city of Oxnard, Public Works Department, (comp.),
"Oxnard Drainage District Maps" (Oxnard, California).
23
LEGEND
U 5
ttJ\"l
1:.8.&
j
\~
1
~!.
'
~'.
.-,,
1.\
{.
..
bASl.
24
of surface, storm or flood waters, either within or
without the limits of said district.6
Consequently,
these districts constructed numerous sub-surface tile
lines to drain the soil, and drainage ditches to
collect the discharge from the sub-surface drains
and convey it to the ocean. However, storm waters
from all agricultural land adjoining the open ditches
drain into the system, and so both storm drainage and
sub-surface drainage is provided. Many of these
ditches lie in or intercept what were in the past
natural watercourses or streams.?
When Oxnard was incorporated, the surface runoff
from the City limits ultimately found its way into the
-
Oxnard Drainage District Ditch as it existed prior to
incorporation.
In general, the easterly one-third of the
City drained_-into an existing drainage ditch, parallel to
the railroad which ultimately discharged into the District's
ditch; the westerly two-thirds of the City's runoff was
conveyed by a secondary drain into a similar ditch parallel
to the railroad, which also discharged into the District's
ditch as shown in Figure 4.
During the first fifty years
of its incorporation, the City of Oxnard had practically
maintained a "status quo agreement"
8
with the Drainage
Districts whereby the drainage facilities of the Districts
6 Based on correspondence between t h
.
.d
e C1ty
o fO xnar
and Oxnard Drainage Districts, March 5, 1957.
7 city of Oxnard, Public Works Department, "Drainage
Report, Oxnard and Vicinity" (Oxnard, California: January,
1964) 1 P• 17 o
8 Based on correspondence between the City Attorney
of Oxnard and Oxnard Drainage District Number One, March 11,
1953.
25
LEGEND
OQ()-&e>~
Red Line Ch a nne I
Secondary Drain
'I
j----·-.
:
"T
,,
.
!'~
I
1
t
..
I
~~T-----+-r·~·--'~-~~~~
a
a
I
~
I
~
~~
.i
~-~
:.I
::I
~I~-·
Figure
,sTitTt•'t&
- 4
General Drainage
'P ati ern - I 9 0 3
26
were left in status quo
to the extent that surface runoff from the limits of
the City of Oxnard, through outlet facilities existing
at the time of incorporation, has found its way into
those facilities, and the City is making reasonable use
thereof, without adversely impacting these facilities.9
The storm water runoff generated within the City itself
was carried entirely on the street surface which ultimately
discharged into secondary drains or other existing ditches.
By August 29, 1952, the City had grown from 1,647.08
to 2,500.39 acres.
10
Conveyance of storm runoff on street
surfaces continued, and the general drainage pattern
remained the same as shown in Figure 5.
However, more
runoff from the City found its way into the District's
ditch.
On December 31, 1952, the Oxnard Drainage District
Board of Directors executed a formal written notice to the
City Council presenting their objections to certain alleged
activities of the City so as to relieve flooding from City
streets and development by "opening new ditches or existing
pipe for draining surface storm and flood waters"
11
into
the District's ditch.
Faced with these problems, the City's sentiment
at the time was "
9
that the most expedient method of
I
Ibid.
10city of Oxnard, Public Works Department (comp.),
"Annexation Record" (Oxnard, California).
11 city Attorney correspondence, loc. cit.
27
LEGEND
&&e-t>&~
~/
/.c..;/
/
Red Line Channel
. .,
~
, .I-.
_/
.
..
,
'
A[ II("
~
/
~r
.
.
'~
-~
..•
_j
/
;
-~
··:
1 I
'
-,~I
~j
_,I
~!.-
Figure-5
General Drainage
Pottem 1953
\
28
solving the drainage problem is through the willing
cooperation of the City, the
Drain~ge
Districts, the
U. S. Navy and the County." 12
On January 6, 1955, a meeting was held by the
various public officials from the City of Oxnard, County
·o f
v en t ura
·
·
·
13
an d ·Dra1nage
D1str1ct.
They decided to turn
over the study to engineers of the aforementioned agencies
for a possible coordinated solution.
The consensus of
this meeting was that although the problem seemed difficult,
with full cooperation among parties, a solution of value
could be reached.
Furthermore, i t was agreed that usable
results would be more easily attained if all parties
worked together rather than at odds.
With this in mind, the engineers of the various
agencies met on January 11th and February 23, 1955, and
arrived at three alternate solutions to the flooding
problem which was of vital interest to all citizens of
the area.
It became apparent from this study that the
cooperation of the Drainage Districts, and the permitted
use of their facilities in alleviating the flood problem,
would result in a reasonable and economical solution to
12 Ibid.
13 Minutes on Drainage Meeting (Colonial House,
Oxnard, California: January 6, 1955).
29
the flooding ills experienced in the area.
14
The
u. s.
Navy, through a statement made by its Public Works Office,
agreed to handle through its facilities, all flood waters
tributary to the Navy's property.
On July 21, 1955, the City Engineer, subsequent
to his review of the report, recommended to the Council
... that the City enter into an agreement with
the County of Ventura to provide 50 percent of the
funds required by the Department of Public Works of
the County of Ventura for the preparation of detail
plans, for the construction of drainage facilities
along Ventura Road ~and' Oxnara. Road as proposed by
Neal Faunce, Director of Public Works, County of
Ventura.lS
This essentially provided a red-line channel along Ventura
Road from Fifth Street to Oxnard Road (now known as Channel
Islands Boulevard), and then westerly along Oxnard Road to
the existing red-line channel along the northern boundary
of the
u.
S. Navy Base.
This facility provided for the
relief of flooding along the western portion of the City.
Shortly after the construction of this channel, "J" Street
Drain, which is a concrete lined ditch that extends from
Dempsey Road (also now known as Channel Islands Boulevard)
14N. B. Faunce, D~rector
.
o f Pu bl'~c Works, County of
Ventura, "Report on Conclusions Reached by the Engineers in
Regard to Oxnard Plain Flood Control Work" (Ventura,
California: March~ 1955).
15 E.
o. Imus, City Engineer, City of Oxnard, "Report
on Factual Basis for Cost Distribution of Drainage
Facilities along Ventura and Oxnard Roads" (Oxnard,
California: July 21, 1955).
30
south along "J" Street to the ocean, was also constructed
in 1959 to provide flooding relief for the central portion
of the City and southerly region of Oxnard Plain.
Resolution of the flooding ills in the area as
described above, substantially reflected the City's storm
. water management philosophy at this time, as expressed in
the City Engineer's report to the Council.
The report
stated that:
The water which originates above and below the
City is under County jurisdiction and the water
originating in the City is a responsibility of the
City. It is obvious that the City has no authority
or jurisdiction over the water originating outside
of its jurisdiction. The situation, therefore, is
one-which can only be controlled by--cooperative action
by both jurisdictions, the City and the County.
It
would be unreasonable to require the lower land owners
to stand the entire cost of making provisions to
accommodate surface runoff water originating in the
upland area; therefore, there is not only a moral,
but a legal obligation in establishing a fair
distribution of the costs of drainage facilities
to properly serve the combined areas. The matter
of balancing the obligations may bes-t be accomplished
by records on file showing the water runoff of each
jurisdiction or area involved. This would establish
a factual basis of distribution of costs.l6
On July 16, 1959, the California Senate Bill Number
1004, Business and Professions Code Section 11543.5 was
approved to enable enactment of local ordinances requiring
-
t
.
the payment, as a condition of approval, of a subdivision
map, of a fee to cover the prorated estimated cost of
constructing the required works for removing drainage and
16
Ibid.
31
storm waters from the subdivision and neighboring areas.
Fees imposed under such an ordinance, would be fairly
apportioned within the drainage area of which the
subdivision is a part, either on the basis of benefits
conferred on the subdivision, or on the need for the
drainage works essentially created by the construction of
the subdivision; but, in no case, would the fee exceed the
prorata share of the cost of constructing drainage works
for the whole drainage area, if the whole cost were
apportioned uniformly over the whole drainage area on a
per acre basis.
The fees would be paid into a planned
local drainage facilities fund - a separate fund for each
drainage area - to be used only for paying for the
construction of drainage works on the drainage area from
which the fees were collected.
The local government would
finance construction of the drainage works required on the
drainage area utilizing monies in the "planned local
drainage facilities fund" for the area or from the proceeds
of an indebtedness secured by that fund.
Pursuant to the passage of this bill, the City
Council passed and adopted Resolution Number 2815 on
I
November 13, 1962, 17 establishing the Oxnard East Storm
Drainage Canal District for those tracts of farm land
bounded on the east by Rice Road, on the south by East
17
.
Oxnard, California, City Council, Council
Resolution Number 2815, Passed and adopted November 13,
1962.
32
Fifth Street, on the west by Rose Avenue, and on the north
by Highway 101.
The properties were located in the northeast
and proposed for annexation to the City for development as
resideptial, commercial and industrial subdivisions.
The
total estimated costs of the required facilities was to be
assessed uniformly on property within the district on a per
acre basis, and the monies collected were to be expended
solely for the construction or reimbursement for construction
of local drainage facilites within the district.
The fee
was estimated and set" at $200.00 per acre.
Sixty years after its incorporation, a statement
by the City
0~-0xnard
December 2, 1963,
18
Public Works Department, dated
established certain requirements
concerning disposal of drainage and storm waters before
approval of new subdivisions could be obtained.
It required
subdividers to dispose of drainage water originating within
and above their subdivisions which was concentrated by the
construction of the subdivision by (1) conducting drainage
water by streets to adjoining subdivisions where the City
Engineer certifies that the streets were adequate to handle
the runoff,
(2) conducting the water to the watercourses
naturally draining the area,
(3) discharging the water at
the edge of their subdivisions and obtaining easements
18 Hugh Clark, Jr., Public Works Director, City of
Oxnard, "Information for Subdividers on Flood Control and
Drainage Requirements" (Oxnard, California: December 2,
1963).
33
from downstream owners of the land over which the water
would flow to the watercourse, and (4) other arrangements
provided for in the subdivision contract.
Subdividers
were required to construct the above works and other such
works as would protect their subdivisions from damage by
water and dedicate them to the City.
The full text of the policy is reproduced in
Exhibit A.
It set forth a method for promptly providing
purchasers of lots with the protection from storm water to
which they were entitled and,~calso, for protection of
neighboring land owners.
Enforcement of this policy would
deny City approval of proposed subdivisions located in areas
of serious drainage problems until protective measures could
be assured.
Furthermore, it was the City's belief that:
the works so constructed become elements of a plan
for controlling storm waters on the drainage area and
may become elements of an overall drainage control plan
of the City.l9
On December 30, 1963, the City had grown to 7,433.99
acres,
20
a staggering 247 percent increase from that of 1955,
the year the first major drainage facilities were installed
to help mitigate flooding in the area.
However, despite the
19 city of Oxnard, Public Works Department, "Drainage
Report, Oxnard and Vicinity" (Oxnard, California: January,
1964)' p. 28.
20 city of Oxnard, Public Works Department (comp.),
"Annexation Record" (Oxnard, California).
34
Exhibit A
First Written Drainage Policy
CITY OF OXNARD
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
December 2, 1963
Information for subdividers on flood control and drainage
requirements.
Principles used in
A.
ch~cking
subdivision drainage:
The subdivider \vill be required to dispose of drainage
water originating within his subdivision and water ·
originating above his subdivision which is concentrated
by construction of his subdivision, in one of the
following manners:
(1) Conduct drainage water by streets to the adjoining
subdivision in cases where the City Engineer
certifies that the streets are adequate to handle
the storm water in a normal surface flow without
danger to the area.
(2) Conduct drainage water to watercourse naturally
draining the area in which the subdivision lies.
(3) Discharge water at edge of subdivision and obtain
easements across all land over which the drainage
water will pass before it enters the watercourse
naturally draining the area.
B.
(4) The above requirements will prevail except where
other arrangements are provided for in the
subdivision contract.
-'
The subdivider will be required to construct such
works as are necessary to protect his subdivision
from damage by water. He will also be required to
offer for dedication, easements for such works.
Hugh Clark, Jr. (Signed)
Public Works Director
35
existence of these facilities and City's recent statement
of storm water management policy, heavy rains continued
to cause flooding in many areas of the City which brought
many residents to raise the question of what was being
done to correct the problem.
In January, 1964, a comprehensive report was
compiled by the Public Works Department, at the request
of Council members, recommending relief drainage facilities
••• to areas of major concentration of runoff where
there maybe=a danger of property damage occurring and
where the ni6vei:nent of vehicular and pedestrian traffic
is severely restricted.21
The report indicated that the cost of these proposed
projects was estimated at ~2,743,000.00.
Before the City Council had discussed or took any
action on said report, the residents experienced another
heavy winter rain.
By this time, the citizens' outcry
had become louder.
On January 12, 1965, a newspaper
article was published in the Press Courier strongly
criticizing
the Council for its inaction in bringing
about resolution to the City flooding problems.
The article
indicated that the high cost of the facilities might be the
I
•
reason why Council members were shy1ng away from the report.
It went on to say that:
21
city of Oxnard, Public Works Department, "Drainage
Report, Oxnard and Vicinity" (Oxnard, California: January,
1964). p. 1.
36
Another reason could be that the problem is not
constant. Occurrences of flooding are confined to
winter, and at that, are not frequent.
But the problem just won't go away.
It will,
sooner or later, have to be faced. The longer the
delay, the costlier the projects will be, for the
price of labor and materials has a habit of rising
every passing year.
The City Council members asked for a project on
drainage. The least they could do is discuss it.
In the meantime, the flooding problem remains.
It presents, if not exactly a hazard, at least an
inconvenience. Flood waters can render car brakes
ineffective. Pedestrians have another problem:
inconsiderate motorists who plow through the floods
spraying cold, dirty water over them.
This experience chills the bones while inflaming
the temper. The victim is transformed in a second
from a well-behave·a human being intb a cold, wet
miserable wretch as mean as a lion with a peptic
ulcer.
Add to this embarrassment and a cleaning bill,
and you have someone ready to storm City Hall.22
~ecognizing
the substantial personal inconvenience
and damage that occurred from flooding, the City Council
on June 29, 1967, authorized a professional Engineering
consultant
to prepare a comprehensive report of existing
storm drain deficiencies and to develop a program for
the construction of storm drainage facilities designed
to provide immediate relief to critical areas and also
serve as a basis for meeting anticipated future needs.23
On October 20, 1967, the report was completed and
submitted for approval to the City Counci-l with
-·
I
recommendations that (1) the proposed storm drain program
22 "Flooded Streets," Press Courier [Oxnard,
California], January 12, 1965.
23 "storm Drain Deficiency Report," EngineeringScience, Inc. (Oxnard, California: October, 1967), p. I-1.
37
be adopted;
(2) the proposed public financing of the program
be in the amount of $3.5 million; and (3) to insure the
adequacy of existing major flood control channels, the City
support the Ventura County Flood Control improvement program
. t h e area. 24
1n
In 1968, a $3.5 million general obligation
bond issue was approved by the citizens of Oxnard to finance
these facilities and alleviate the problem.
No increase in property tax is expected. It is
planned to pay all interest and principal from City
Capital Improvement funds which are not derived from
property taxes.25
Construction of these drainage facilities commenced
in 1969.
By 1974, 75 percent of the proposed facilities
were completed which expended the entire bond money.
Between 1975 and 1977, another 13 percent of the facilities
were constructed utilizing federal money and "secOndary
funds" which were made available by Ventura County Flood
Control District for use on secondary drains needed in
both the unincorporated and incorporated territories since
funds were generated from both.
26
Construction of 13
percent of the facilities totaled over $500,000.00.
The
remaining 12 percent of the facilities were scheduled for
construction in 1978, primarily utilizing federal funds.
24 Ibid, p. VII-3.
25 rbid, Appendix IV-1, p. 2.
26 Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the
Ventura County Flood Control District Establishing Policy
for Use of Secondary Funds within Ventura County. Passed
and adopted November 2, 1972.
38
The total cost was estimated at over $700, oo·o. 00.
This cost
could be higher if construction is delayed beyond July
of 1978.
While faced with the citizens' outcry for mitigating
flooded streets in 1964, the City's first subdivisions were
developed south of Gonzales Road and west of Ventura Road,
conveying their storm runoffs directly into the Drainage
District's ditches, which were built primarily for subsurface drainage of agricultural lands.
In order to
acco:innibdate urban runoff from these developments, the city"
entered into an agreement with the District on September 25,
1968,
27
for the use of these facilities, following more
than four years of negotiations.
This agreement essentially stipulated that the City
would be responsible for maintaining these ditches, and
would assume the responsibility for improving them as
acreage within the district developed from farm land into
residential, commercial or industrial uses.
estimated at the time that this would "
It was
eventually
involve more than one million dollars in drainage
improvements."
28
The funds for these improvements were
to be generated by'assessing each new development $400.00
'
;_~
.
27 Lease Agreement between Oxnard Drainage District
and City of Oxnard, September 25, 1968.
28 "Drainage Plan OK'd after 4 Years Talking,"
Press Courier, [Oxnard, California], August 7, 1968.
I
39
per acre, which could be increased to no more than $600.00
per acre if it was established that land values had
increased commensurately. 29
On this basis, it was then
further estimated that" ••• this will pay for itself,
[since]
••• it would be forty years before all the acreage
is developed." 30
The 1968-69 storm in Southern California incurred
sixty million dollars worth of property damages, including
loss of life and undue inconveniences to thousands of
motorists arid businesses.
Like many other counties, Ventura · ·
County suffered its share of property losses and damages
well in excess of several million dollars.
Ventura County
Flood Control District's experiences over the years have
indicated the need for greater control over alterations to
natural watercourses and floodways in the county.
Consequently, in March, 1970, the County Flood Control
District proposed the adoption of a County ordinance for
Flood Plain Regulation Program 31 which they anticipated
would have given them the necessary police powers to
accomplish this objective.
The proposed ordinance appointed the Flood Control
.
I
District as the enforcing agency for the County.
29
30
The areas
Lease Agreement, lac. cit.
Press Courier, lac. cit.
3 lventura County Flood Control District, "Ventura
County Flood Plain Regulation Program" (Ventura, California:
March, 1970) •
40
to be covered under County control included the overflow
areas of natural watercourses.
The Board of Supervisors
would designate by map the watercourses and overflow areas
to be regulated by the ordinance after public hearing.
The
flood plain ordinance would prohibit altering or obstructing
the normal channel flow, and would eliminate any
construction, improvements, or planting except annual crops
within the limits of designated floodways.
The exception
included emergency work by anyone and routine maintenance by
property
owners~···
· Ttc,;also
one square mile in area.
exc~uded
drainage areas less than
Any alteration or construction in
the designated floodway areas adjacent to the watercourse
would require a permit, payment of fees, and the posting of
bonds.
The ordinance also established penalties for
violation of the ordinance.
This controversial ordinance was overwhelmingly
opposed by many agencies and property owners for various
reasons.
Based on its review, it was the City of Oxnard's
feeling that:
the purpose of this proposed ordinance is to
rigidly control development in those areas subject to
flooding. Since these specific areas will be designated
at a later date by the CoUnty Board of Supervisors, the
extent to which the ordinance would change future
development cannot be determined at this time.
If the limit of Designated Floodway area is
designated so as to cover a wide area adjacent to each
watercourse, a considerable area within the City of
Oxnard could be affected. This determination is largely
a matter of judgment based on past flooding and
combinations of rainfall intensities and duration in
the tributary areas.
If it is desired to eliminate all risk of flood
damage, extension areas would· either be permanently
41
eliminated from development or would have to wait
until Flood Control District or the Corps of Engineers
constructed protection levees confining the watercourse.
However, since no development would be allowed in the
floodway and all development in the Selected Flood
Overflow Area would be protected by levees and dikes
constructed by the developers, there would be no need to
restrict the floodways by levees. Flood Control measures
would then be confined to protecting development already
in existence in flood hazardous areas.32
The City's view on the County's proposed Flood Plain
Regulation Program may have marked the five upcoming years of
open disagreement on drainage approaches and responsibilities
..
between the two agencies.
On August 31, 1970, following the
City's annexation, the County Board of Supervisors executed
a letter to the Oxnard City Council:
expressing its opinion that the development in
the Del Norte Area [northeast section of City] should
be discouraged until such time as permanent flood
control facilities are installed in the downstream
channels, as well as adequate facilities to protect the
developments themselves, and citing other local
conditions of concern, such as the flooding of septic
tanks in Nyeland Acres development and the inadequacy
of County roads to accommodate any new development_in
the area.
[In addition] •.• further land development
within the area of the Beardsley watershed will
jeopardize the construction of main drainage channels
north of Highway 101 at Federal expense.33
Although it was aware of the need for adequate flood
protection in this area, the City contended that such
32
Based on memo between Oxnard Public Works Director
and Community Development Coordinating Committee, "Ventura
County Flood Control District Flood Plain Regulation
Program, .. May 4, 1970.
·
33 Based on correspondence between the City Council
of· Oxnard and the County Board of Supervisors, "Changed
Conditions Justifying a Re-evaluation of the BeardsleyRevolon Drainage Project," August 31, 1970.
42
protection was seldom achieved until development took place,
and usually on an incremental basis.
Consequently, the
City's sentiment was that it:
... considers the
position of the Board of
Supervisors to be unworkable and inconsistent with
previous actions of County government. To limit urban
development of areas within the corporate limits of
Oxnard for the reasons stated is tantamount to stifling
growth in the Oxnard area in favor of urban development
elsewhere in County and other areas.
[The City] •••
also objects to the application of one flood philosophy
for Oxnard and an~4her for areas outside Oxnard's
corporate limits.
On March 8, 1971, the County Flood Control held a
study session for the immediate need of (1) putting federal
programs in proper prospective,
(2) working with the cities
on future flood control facilities programs,
(3) developing
an effective way of putting responsibility on developers,
and (4) enacting of a Flood Plain Ordinance giving County
police powers within the City areas.
35
At this study
session, the County indicated that:
homeowners and businessmen are paying for hundreds
of thousands of dollars of flood control construction
that should be paid for by developers because some
cities are lax about placing flood control
requirements ••• This is a very serious problem, •••
The differing policies result in a very, very unfair
situation to the Cities and to your District, •••
Oxnard is the major offender, ••• The County Flood
34
Based on proposed draft for Mayor of Oxnard's
signature, "Urban Development in the Del Norte Area,"
September 25, 1970.
35 .
Based on memo between City of Oxnard Public Works
Director and Oxnard City Manager, "Report on County Flood
Control Study Session before Board of Supervisors,"
March 12, 1971.
43
Control District cannot control developments within
city limits, .•• It can only ask City Planning
Commissions and Councils to impose flood control
requirements. If the Cities do not impose the
standards ••• the work must sooner or later be picked
up by the District as a whole from the general property
tax rate •.• 36
In June of 1970, the City received a proposal for
the development of a property to the east of Oxnard.
At
its June 27, 1971 meeting, the County Board of Supervisors
opposed any major housing or commercial development in this
area until the City agreed to participate in the drainage
study, of ;,the Point!t'Mugll Area, watershed where this
development was located.
The City had refu$ed to participate in a
proposed $35,000 study with the County and Oxnard
Drainage District Number Two, because Oxnard feels
it is not getting its tax money's worth from Flood
Zone II ••• which encompasses the same area.37
In response to the City's proposal that the Flood Control
District should assume the responsibility for a master plan
-
and bear their fair share of the cost, the County stated
that:
••• this was an urbanization problem •••• The Flood
Control District assumes no responsibility beyond the
single red-line channel known as the Mugu Drain. This
drain has not yet been constructed; therefore, the •••
District will not accept any responsibility for storm
drainage. Until the drainage facilities are constructed,
36 "Public Works Chief Attacks Control Rules;" Star
Free Press [Ventura, California], March 9, 1971.
37 "county Hits Development Plans," Press Courier
[Oxnard, California], June 30, 1971.
'
I
44
the property owners in the District must continue to
accept all runoff, even damaging floods ••• 38
As a result of these differences, it was the City's
sentiment that:
the City and the County continue to talk on different
wave lengths with regard to storm drainage problems. As
long as the Flood Control District limits its concern to
red-line channels, there are many problems that will
remain unsolved. It becomes necessary for this City and
for any responsible jurisdiction concerned with drainage
to also master plan and construct drainage facilities.
To provide funds for such planning and construction, it
may be necessary to form overlapping flood control
districts. This does not seem practical nor does it
seem practicaL._for the City to engage in parallel
activities witrr the -Flood --control District. A subzone
similar to that formed in Simi Valley or a separate
zone for Oxnard and its growth area with more liberal
policies, appear to be the better solution.39
Between 1970 and 1975, the City attempted to form a separate
zone for the Oxnard Watershed, the actual drainage basin
boundaries separated from the Santa Clara River, Beardsley,
and Revolon Slough Watersheds and located to the north,
northeast, and east of Oxnard Watershed, respectively.
Because of certain economic and political feasibilities
of this proposal, the City's attempt has never been realized
to date.
However, between 1975 and 1977, a significant
amount of Flood Control funds were expended to improve
red-line channels in the Oxnard area, and more funds had
been earmarked for similar improvements in the near future.
38 Based on memo between City of Oxnard Assistant
Public Works Director and City of Oxnard Public Works
Director, "Briefing Report - Oxnard Drainage District
No. 2," August 17, 1971.
39
Ibid.
45
Subsequent to its 1968 Lease Agreement with Oxnard
Drainage District Number One, the City had been collecting
four hundred dollars per acre from developers of land,
bounded by Ventura Road, Edison Canal, Gonzales Road and
Hemlock Street, for the purpose of providing future
improvements of the District's ditches.
By September, 1971,
a substantial amount of development had occurred in this
area which contributed $17,000.00 of such funds.
Yet, gas
tax funds of about $40,000.00 were needed to construct
certain secondary drain improvements in order to mitigate"
flooding from storm runoff generated from the development.
From this experience, the City then realized its
difficulty in meeting the drainage requirements for new
development in other parts of the City.
It was apparent
that:
quite frequently, [the City has] imposed assessments
on developers in order to construct certain drainage
facilities. These assessments are then applied to other
developments in the area so that an informal assessment
district has been created. These assessments are almost
always inadequate, and the number of districts are
increasing.
The fees being imposed range from $45.38 per
acre in one area to a maximum of $400.00'per acre in
another area. Some areas pay no assessment at all,
even though it is obvious that additional facilities
will be needed to accommoda'te development. 40
In order to avoid proliferation of districts and
arrive at the most equitable solution to the problem, a
40 Based on memo between City of Oxnard Assistant
Public Works Director and Oxnard City Manager, "Drainage
Fees," October 19, 1971.
46
proposed policy was presented on October 19, 1971 and
implemented in April, 1972, whereby a uniform charge of four
hundred dollars per acre was to be imposed on all new
developments as condition of their approval, to help pay for
all the required drainage facilities within the growth area.
The fees collected are to be accumulated in special
funds and be used to construct or improve drainage
facilities within the watershed in which the development
occurred. The construction of minor laterals or catch
basins should remain the responsibility of the
developer. 4 1
To reinforce the desire to have more needed revenues
for carrying out a responsible drainage program on an
incremental basis and avoid costly bond issues which could
·-·-
result if drainage problems were not resolved in an ongoing
program, an ordinance to establish a uniform $600.00 storm
drainage tax was presented to the City Council for adoption
.
42
on November 21, 1972.
However, since several Counci1
members
wer~
not adequately informed as to the need for the
revenue, and concern was expressed over the feeling that
this fee might be excessive in comparison to other local
agencies, no action was taken until review of detailed
report on the need and justification of the proposed
drainage fe'e.
After examining numerous alternatives,
methods of applying the proposed fee to programs for the
41
Ibid.
42 Based on memo between the City of Oxnard Public
Works Director and the City Manager, "Storm Drainage Tax,"
November 22, 1972.
47
construction of storm drains with funds to be derived from
said fee, and various comments, objections, and suggestions
from concerned parties and City Staff, Ordinance Number 1517,
an ordinance of the City Council relating to taxation and
revenue, imposing a storm drainage tax in connection with the
development of property, establishing a storm drainage fund,
providing for the disposition of revenues, and adopting a
new Article IIB to Chapter 16 of the City Code, ..... was
first read on the fifteenth day of January, 1974 and finally
adopted cFebruary 5, 19"74 to become effective thirty days
43
thereafter...
Essentially, the adopted storm drain tax
of three cents per square foot was based on the net paved
area since it was directly related to storm runoff and,
therefore, was considered the most equitable tax that could
be imposed.
Furthermore, it was felt that the developer
was offered an incentive to minimize the paved area and
increase landscaping area.
Pursuant to the City Council action on April 17,
1973, the City adopted its first administrative policy with
respect to provision of storm drainage improvements in
connection with new development.
The policy stated that:
the developer shall dedicate the necessary right-ofway for 11 red-line 11 channels and secondary drains and
their service roads, and contribute an equitable share
of their ultimate improvement. Each development shall
be required to safely convey its storm runoff to the
43 city of Oxnard, Ordinance Number 1517 (February 5,
1974), p. 5.
48
nearest watercourse with available capacity. All
drainage plans utilizing drainage channels under the
jurisdiction of the County must be approved by the
Ventura County Flood Control District as now required
by State law and County ordinance. The City, by
utilizing developer fees, may assist the developer in
providing improvements to storm drains where the
improvements benefit areas outside the development. 4 4
The 1973 administrative policy was considered a
broad policy statement.
Consequently, differences in its
interpretation and application permitted development to
continue with minimum or no drainage requirements.
In
order to eliminate some confusion concerning the City's
drainage standards, on June 9, 1975, the City of Oxnard
Public Works Department adopted and put into effect the
policy which stated that:
All new development in the City of Oxnard shall be
required to convey drainage runoff in City streets in
such a manner that a ten-year storm will be contained
between curb lines, a twenty-five-year storm between
property lines, and a fifty-year storm between house
pads.
At least one travel lane in each direction shall
be kept free of water in all major arterials.
Every development shall be required to accept
historical runoff from upstream.
In some instances
where facilities are to be installed, they may be
required to be oversized to accept runoff from a fully
developed watershed.
Every development must convey historical and newly
generated runoff downstream safely to the nearest
watercourse.45
44 "Public Improvement Policy," Administrative
Manual, Section I - J - 11, April 17, 1973.
45 Based on correspondence between Oxnard Public
Works Director and Engineering Division, "Drainage
Standards," June 9, 1975.
49
To further clarify additional questions on the
City's requirements, a more comprehensive drainage criteria
covering both the general and street drainage design criteria
was adopted for use by Public Works Department on January 13,
1976.
46
This criteria superceded the June 9, 1975 policy.
In addition to the more comprehensive criteria, the
Department also adopted certain acceptable engineering
47
design standards for drainage facilities on March 23, 1977 •.
Both the drainage criteria and design standards were applied
····· · -t6 the development design to assure co!lsistent performance ·
meeting the City's requirements.
At the end of 1977, the City had expanded
from 1,647.08 to 15,104.47 acres, over a ninefold increase
since its incorporation.
On January 10, 1978, the City
Council approved an. engineering consultation contract to
prepare its first comprehensive Drainage Master Plan for
determining the present and future drainage requirements of
accommodating storm runoff from both the existing City
boundaries, and for that area projected to develop by the
year 1990.
This Master Plan is currently in progress and
scheduled to be completed by February, 1979.
46 "Drainage Criteria," Adopted by Oxnard Public
Works Department, January 13, 1976.
47 "Drainage Standards," Adopted by Oxnard Public
Works Department, March 23, 1977.
,
.
·..,
....
'
~}
t
50
Subsequent to both the February and March, 1978
storms, a countywide emergency was declared by the Ventura
County Board of Supervisors.
Within two days, both Governor
Brown and President Carter declared Ventura County and seven
other southern California counties a disaster area clearing
the way for relief operations.
Damage from the storms in
Ventura County alone was estimated at about $23.3 million
in a report submitted to the Board of Supervisors on
48
March 7, 1978.
~·
For Oxnard, the flood damage cleanup and restoration
costs amounted to about $1.37 million.
This included
desilting and bank restoration of eleven drainage ditches,
removal and disposal of one hundred fallen trees,
reconstruction of City landfill access road and levee
washouts, replacement of a City refuse truck that fell into
the river when the access road gave way, abatement of flood
debris along the beaches, dredging of silt from the inland
waterway, and repaving of streets damaged by flooding.
In addition to the flood damage described above,
the storms also resulted in flooding of properties and
streets in many areas of the City that created hazardous
driving conditions, restricted pedestrian travel, and
resulted in numerous property damages as well as great
personal inconveniences to the Oxnard residents.
Based
48 "Flood Cost: $23.3 Million," Star Free Press
[Ventura, California], March 7, 1978.
'
51
on the City's field survey records, the general location
of these flooding areas are compiled in Figure 6 for visual
reference.
,
' .
52
LEGEND
~~()(){;~
Red Line Channel
~
Secondary Drain
Q
Flooded Areas
:1
~~
~ :I
I
:I
I
!'I
-. I
\
.. .i
I
:-J
CD
L
<
'
--: r--:--. ·:
::~:-- ~:.~ ,~
~I
'1·-··
Figure-6
Flooded Areas
1978
Chapter 4
AN EXAMINATION OF PAST AND
CURRENT PHILOSOPHIES
An examination of its past and current philosophies
and practices unveils the fact that the City's storm water
management indicates (1) an inadequate policy,
(2) the lack
of guidelines for drainage improvement planning, and {3) the
substantiate the flooding experiences in Oxnard.
INADEQUATE POLICY
During the first fifty-year period of its
incorporation, the City limits expanded from about 1,647
to 2,500 acres, an increase of just over fifty percent of
its original area.
Most development during this time
involved small parcels of land and often proceeded on a
lot-by-lot basis.
Development was easily accommodated by
conveying storm runoff from development on street surfaces
that discharged into the secondary drains. or ditches.
The
pace of urbanization was slow and the cumulative impact of
drainage decisions was difficult to assess, if i t was in
fact even considered.
Although there is no written
drainage policy to be found, i t is quite apparent that the
"unwritten policy" was that storm water runoff from
53
54
developments were permitted to be conveyed on street
surfaces to the existing facilities.
Like many other cities
during this period, Oxnard's drainage policy permitted
development to proceed with practically no drainage
requirements.
In the next ten years, the major development boom
almost tripled the City's boundaries.
Yet the City's
drainage policy did not significantly change.
To sum up
the City's first sixty-year policy, the report stated that:
Ef-fects of storm water runoff may be of a micnor -~ ·-·
nature and temporary, or of a serious nature and more
permanent. Rainfall runoff that causes streets and
intersections to carry excessive amounts of water
results in being a nuisance and an inconv~nience to the
public and to traffic. However, after a· short period
of time, the water subsides; the effect has been
temporary, and of a minor nature, and no property has
been damaged. This is the situation that prevails in
Oxnard during most storms.
Rainfall runoff that enters the homes of residents
or business establishments causing property damage is
of a serious nature and has a more lasting effect.
In Oxnard, we have no situations where storm water
enters a residence. On occasional storm, a few
business establishments have had to be sandbagged
primarily to obtain protection from wave action due
to passing traffic.
In undeveloped regions, storm water runoff finds
its way into small or secondary brooks and streams and
then into large or primary natural watercourses or
rivers and finally to the sea. Primary or major
drainage channels where large natural. watercourses are
not available may be large open channels or ditches
man-made on the surface or large pipes or culverts
below the surface. Conveyance of secondary runoff to
the primary drainage channels can be handled by smaller
ditches and on the street surfaces and by small pipes
or drains below the surfaces.
In very flat or gently sloping areas, carrying all
or a major portion of storm water underground requires
large size conduits which are costly installations.
Also, the full capacity of the installation may only
-.~~-"' ·····"~
"'" _
55
be used a small percentage of the time. It is usually
more economical to carry the storm water on the street
surface, even though the carrying capacity of_the street
is overtaxed occasionally. If no property is damaged
and the only result is in the nature of a nuisance or
inconvenience to the public and to traffic, underground
installations are generally not warranted. Historically
in Oxnard, it has been the practice to carry a large
part of the storm water on street surfaces.l
Consequently, the increase in building improvement and new
street paving activities resulted in a greater volume of
water that had to be discharged into the existing drainage
facilities with limited carrying capacities.
The inability
6f the drainage "faC'ilities····to accommodate the increased
volume resulted in backup and flooding throughout the City.
Recognizing its growing flooding problems, the City
issued its first written drainage policy in 1963, and
adopted its first administrative policy for provision of
drainage improvements in connection with new development
in 1973.
In essence, these policies required that storm
water runoff originating within and above certain
development should be disposed of safely through streets
with adequate capacity or other necessary facilities to the
nearest
wat~rcourse.
Such development should dedicate the
necessary right-of-way, and contribute an equitable share of
I
their improvements.
When facilities were sized to provide
benefit to subsequent developers, an assessment district
1 city of Oxnard, Public Works Department, "Drainage
Report, Oxnard and Vicinity" (Oxnard, California: January,
1964), pp. 10- 11.
56
would be established to reimburse the original developer, or
determine the pro-rata shares of the properties benefited.
There were many such districts established, yet this did not
help resolve any of the growing problems.
The plan whereby developers were to contribute
toward future construction of storm drain facilities may
have had advantages to the public if the City was prepared
to finance and construct the necessary facilities at once·
through the use of general funds or other borrowed funds.
Otherwise purchasersr'·bf ·10'ts wbti1a·ohave ·paid for protection
they did not receive.
The estimates of cost of these
facilities on which-the contributions per acre were based
would be made when the first tract in the drainage area
was approved.
Subsequently, the accumulated funds could
be inadequate in the future to carry out the required
construction due to escalation of costs and other
commitments of these funds.
The results of such
uncertainty and commitment could be that the City might
never collect enough money to perform the works to which
i t had earlier agreed.
This was illustrated in a report which stated that:
in April of 1972, we began imposing a uniform
drainage fee of $400 per acre throughout our entire
growth area. Part of this fee is refunded to developers
when obtained from an established assessment district.
Unfortunately, the fees collected from development
west of Ventura Road must be reserved for the red-line
channel improvements; therefore, no contribution toward
secondary drains are available from this area.
[Consequently], ••. the $400 per acre charge has proven
grossly inadequate.
57
At present time, we have approximately $76,000 in
our general drainage fund and an additional $40,000 in
our Northeast and Northwest District funds. The cost
of several past, current, and proposed drain projects,
[which totalled $308,000] ••• serves to illustrate the
inadequacy of this drain fund.
Because of the inadequacy of our present fee and
the restrictions on the use of much of our drainage
fund, the Council authorized a new storm drain fee
which is based on paved areas. This proposed fee is
more equitable than the present fee since its
application is related to the areas that create the
runoff. Furthermore, the fee would be applied
uniformly throughout the existing City and the growth
area. The only drawback on the creation of this
secondary drain fund is that fees collected in the
Oxnard Drainage District Number One must first satisfy
the. terms of the agr~einent~ -· .'!'his r_e:<).~ces -t:h~ .amount
ava1.lable for secondary dra1.ns By a suostatftl.al ··amount. 2
LACK OF GUIDELINES FOR DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENT PLANNING
Planning for [secondary drains} •.• must be considered
in terms of overall community goals and objectives. The
[secondary drains are] ••• closely related to [red-line
channels] and many other urban subsystems and [should
not] be considered and planned in isolation. General
community and regional policies and goals-should be
formulated; planning principles for guiding the planning
process should be clearly stated; and drainage criteria
[and engineering standards] should be developed to
provide a basis for consistent and uniform [drainage
improvement guidelines] ••• "3
·
Planning must take into account differences in the
secondary drains and red-line channels.
Planning for
tindeveloped areas must be approached differently from
2 Based on memo between City of Oxnard Assistant
Public Works Director and City Manager, "Proposed Storm
Drain Ordinance," November 21, 1973.
3william E. Korbitz {ed.), Urban Public Works
Administration , T=h::..:e:...·-:I:-C:..:MA::=~M-=u~h:..:l.~·c=-1.;: .·..._p-:;a-=1~·-:-M;::.a;_;;n;::.·:..:a~g;-:;e;,;,..m_e_n__t--=-=S-=e-;r_l._e_s_
(Washington, D.C.: International City Management
Association, 1976), p. 406
58
planning for developed areas.
Planning approaches for
the minor system differ from those for the major drainage
system.
Also, planning for multijurisdictional problems
is different from that where problems are contained
entirely within a single political jurisdiction.
Regardless of these differences, all planning should take
place within a framework of established community and
regional policies, principles and criteria.
Policy is a broad statement of intent that sets
the tone for activities of government"agencies. 4
The
April 17, 1973, storm drainage policy is an example of
such policy statement.
The use of principle provides
consistency and continuity for planning efforts from year
to year.
Some principles for drainage improvement planning
might be that storm drainage problems should not be
transferred from one basin to another; that secondary drains
and red-line channels should be planned and designed to be
compatible and complement each other; etc.
Finally,
drainage criteria and standards are needed for effective
planning and successful implementation of plans.
and standards provide a basis for consistent
Criteria
planni~g
and
design, help ensure that plans and designs will work, that
legal constraints are consistently considered, that
4 Thomas R. Dye, Understanding Public Policy, Second
Edition (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1975), pp. 1 - 15.
!,.~_-.'_
-;j.
, I
59
.
procedure for estimating rainfall and runoff are consistent
I
from plan to plan, that hydraulic structures are designed
properly, that maintenance is given proper consideration,
and so forth.
Policies, principles and criteria provide the
framework for drainage improvement planning, and they
should be formulated on both regional and local basis.
The City first formulated its drainage policy in 1963, and
again in 1973, respectively sixty years and seventy years
after incorporation.
However, both the drainage principles--
and criteria were never formulated until 1975, which was
seventy-two years after its incorporation, and the City
had grown almost ninefold without adequate guidelines
for drainage improvement.
The [rapid] urbanization [in] the United States
since World War II, the development of new cities and
towns, the growth of older cities surrounding many
large centers, and the proliferation of special
districts and authorities ••• have created many difficult
sets of problems for City administrators. 5
Regardless of whether the issues are categorized as
political, social, cultural, or economic, and particularly
if they affect the environment, they usually involve public
works, which includes storm water management.
Such
problems can rarely be satisfactorily solved entirely within
the boundaries of a single political jurisdiction.
They
5 william E. Korbitz (ed.), Urban Public Works
Admin is tra tion , T=h:..::e::........:I:-C=MA::=:-=~M~u:.:.::;n:=;.;~r-·c.:...·;::;;i&:.p-:;a:..::l~M,.:;.a;-;.n=a~g:-=e_m_e=-n_t~_S-:-e-;r-~_·e_s
(Washington, D.C.: International City Management
Association, 1976), p. 46
'
c __ , -
60
can and do extend beyond City, County, Regional and, in some
cases, State levels.
In regards to storm water, this dimension of
management placed the importance of planning process on
coordination, not only within the City, but also with
other agencies, such as the County Flood Control District,
Corps of Engineers, U. S. Navy and City of Port Hueneme.
Unfortunately, there had been disagreements on drainage
approaches and responsibilities between the City and the
County si11ce 1-97-<r.-"-· Consequently, the secondary drains
and red-line channels were not planned to compliment each
other as the City grew.
RESPONSE TO CRISIS
Every parcel of land 'is part of a larger watershed.
An appropriate storm water runoff management solution for
each development project should be based on, and supportive
of, a plan for its entire drainage basin.
It is important
that master planning be performed in a systematic manner
and that all concerned governmental entities and agencies
be involved. Although secondary drain planning and
'
red-line channel planning need not be performed at the
same time, one must consider the other.
Planning for new development offers many
opportunities to developers, residents and government
agencies to maximize urban benefits.
Drainage should be
61
considered early in the development process; the local
government should have policies, goals, principles, and
criteria by which to plan or evaluate facilities for new
developments.
Drainage concepts should be evaluated
before deciding on street location, block layout,
recreational sites, and open space needs.
For example,
detention facilities may reduce the required secondary
drain system capacity while providing other amenities
such as an ornamental pool or playground.
Good secondarydrains provide many benefits in
addition to providing relief from frequent storm events.
They reduce street maintenance and street construction
costs, improve the management of traffic, protect public
health, and lower the cost of open space and park access.
The benefit of early planning for secondary drains
is brought home when a developed urban area experiences
frequent drainage problems.
The provision of a minor
drainage system after development occurs is costly and
the opportunities to achieve multiple uses are minimal.
From past experiences, however, planning for
secondary drains in developed areas was usually done in
response to citizen or political pressure with the p·rimary
and often singular objective of finding a solution to the
problem at the least cost.
Consequently, planning for
these drains occurred as needed, because of new development
or an existing problem, which is problem-oriented type
planning.
62
For Oxnard, drainage was not considered early in
the development process, but rather as a response to crisis
by utilizing the most feasible solution to the problem.
This was illustrated by (1) the construction of drainage
facilities along Ventura and Oxnard Road in 1955 to
relieve flooding from City streets and development, and
(2) authorization of $3.5 million general obligation bonds
in 1968 for construction of
~dditional
secondary drains to
relieve flooding throughout the City, and (3) 1968 Lease
Agreement entered into by the City and Drainage District
Number One for the use of the District's ditches for
conveyance of storm runoff originating from new City
Developments.
Chapter 5
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Storm drain and flood control systems must fulfill
two objectives:
(1) they must prevent significant loss of
life and property due to runoff from any foreseeable
rainfall event;
(2) they must provide an acceptable degree
of convenient access to property during and following"
frequent rainfall events.
These systems are not restricted
in their design or impact to the immediate tract of land
which they serve.
Each is a part of a basin-wide drainage
system and must, at a minimum, accommodate storm water
flowing into the tract from upstream sources and mitigate
the impacts of the outflow on downstream properties so as
to provide adequate protection from liability.
From examining the City's philosophies and
practices in storm water management, it is apparent that
improvements are inevitable in mitigating new flooding and
future increase in the extent of the existing
recently experienced in Oxnard.
floodi~g
as
These imprdvements consist
of (1) revision of the present drainage policy,
(2)
continuing the use of the existing drainage criteria and
standard, (3) implementation of the drainage master plan,
and (4) adoption of an alternate strategy of financing
drainage
facilitie~.
63
64
REVISION OF THE EXISTING DRAINAGE POLICY
Thomas R. Dye wrote that
Public policy is whatever governments choose to do
or not to do, •.. [and] it may be regulative,
organizational, distributive or extractive - or [a
combination of these] .1
Drainage policy is certainly such a policy.
the policy model
2
Furthermore,
that could identify with drainage policy
may be represented by institutional, group, elite, systems,
rational decision making, or a combination of two or more
··of these models, depending on one • s perspective.
In any
case, drainage policy is a broad statement of intent to
ultimately provide for adequate storm water management.
To
be successful, however, the policy shall provide a complete
and compatible framework for more specific goals, criteria
and standards.
On this basis, it is recommended that the City's
present policy which was adopted on April 17, 1973,
3
be
revised to read as follows:
(1)
All development shall be required to provide
for proper drainage based on the runoff that can be
anticipated from ultimate development of the tributary
watershed area.
The design of the proposed development
1 Thomas R. Dye, Understanding Public Policy,
Second Edition (Prentice Hall, 1975) pp. 1 - 2.
2 Ibid., pp. 17- 39.
3 "Public Improvement Policy,: Administrative Manual,
Section 1 - J - 11, April 17,'1973.
65
shall be such as to protect the development from off-site
drainage or flood damage.
Further, the design must provide
that any concentrations or increases of surface water
resulting from the proposed development shall be safely
conveyed to the suitable watercourse.
(2)
The developer shall dedicate the necessary
on-site and off-site rights-of-way for secondary drains
and red-line channels, including their service roads.
(3)
Provision of drainage facilities shall be
substantially in conformance to the City's current
Drainage Master Plan and drainage criteria and standards.
All drainage plans utilizing drainage channels under the
jurisdiction of the County must be approved by the Ventura
County Flood Control District as now required by State law
and County ordinance ..
(4)
The developer shall be reimbursed for the
excess costs of oversizing the required drainage facilities
that benefits other properties.
shall be required to contribute
However, the developer
hi~
pro-rata share of any
downstream facilities constructed by others which benefit
his, property.
These recommended revisions essentially upgrade the
existing policy so as to be compatible with the current
drainage criteria and standards.
Furthermore, this policy
sets forth (1) the required dedication of necessary r:ightof-way within or outside of the proposed development,
66
(2) the conformance to the City's Drainage Master Plan,
as well as drainage criteria and standards, and (3) the
developer's financial obligations in implementing new
facilities or the use of existing ones.
CONTINUE THE USE OF THE EXISTING
DRAINAGE CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
Guidance for a successful planning process and
subsequent implementation of storm water management are
reflected in the
eomp:!~teness
and compatibility of both
the drainage policy and drainage criteria and standards. 4
Ever since the adoption of the comprehensive drainage
criteria and standards, the City has had favorable
experiences in its application to new des.ign development
by assuring consistent performance and by helping the City
meet its drainage requirements.
On this basis, it is
recommended that the City continue the use of the existing
drainage criteria and standards, reproduced in ·its entirety
in Exhibits B and
c, respectively.
IMPLEMENT THE DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN
A drainage master plan lets a City look into the
future so as not to be surprised by overloaded drains.
also lets the City take preventative action instead of
4William E. Korbitz (ed.), Urban Public Works
Admin·i stration, T.: . : h:. :e:. . .·-:I:-CMA::::;.:::.::...... .:::...M::.:u:::::n:=-:·~:;::.·c.:::...·-=i~p-=a::.:·l:.-;.-::-l-:"-i-1a;;::.n:.:·-=a~g:..:e:.:.m:.:.e::..;h:.:.t...:.·-:-s_e-;r,....:~;.;...·ec:;. ;.;_s
(Washington, D.C.: International City Management
Association, 1976), pp. 406 - 416.
It
67
Exhibit B
DRAINAGE CRITERIA
(Adopted January 13, 1976)
1.
GENERAL
The following general drainage design criteria are
applied to the development design to assure consistent
performance meeting the requirements of drainage
standards.
A.
All development will be required to accept the
storm runoff from the upstream tributary watershed,
and convey it, with the additional runoff,
generated from said development, to_the nearest
watercourse.
When required, new facilities within the
development will be sized to accept runoff from
a fully developed watershed. In addition, the
development will be requir'ed to upgrade or provide
adequate facilities to convey the existing Qlo from
the existing watershed together with the additional
runoff from the development, through the development
and to the nearest watercourse.
B.
Ditches, channels, drains, road improvements and
all other storm water carrying facilities shall
be designed and constructed to the standards
established by the Public Works Department,
generally at 10%-storm for roads, and a 2%-storm
for red-line channels.
C.
Ventura County Flood Control District standards
shall be observed for all facilities within its
jurisdiction, and the approval of the District
shall be obtained on all improvement plans for
such facilities.
D.
Storm water acceptance deeds must be obtained
whenever diversion or concentration of waters
is involved.
E.
Overland flow shall be intercepted at the
boundaries and conveyed through or around said
development.
F.
Manholes will generally be required (access for
inspection and maintenance) at angle points
68
Exhibit B (Continued)
greater than ten degrees, at junctions, at
intervals not exceeding 400 feet; at locations
where the conduit changes in size, and points
where an abrupt flattening or steepening of the
grade occurs.
2.
G.
Drainage calculations, signed or sealed by a
registered civii engineer in California, shall be
clearly and completely presented, and that there
be a clear determination that design standards
have been met.
H.
The Cook's Method shall be used in Hydrology
calculations on City's street and drainage
facilities.
STREET DRAINAGE CRITERIA
A.
Street cross sections are not to be designed for
use- as a substitute for storm drains in conveying
drainage water from off-site area to disposal
channels.
They may be used to convey water originating from
the street and from adjoining lots or unimproved
areas, providing that vehicle and pedestrian use
of the streets is not unreasonably restricted.
Flow from unimproved areas shall have facilities
to remove debris and/or silt from the flow before
entering the street.
B.
The storm runoff to be used in calculating the
capacity of street drainage facilities will be
010 providing the adjacent lot pads shall not
be flooded by the storm runoff from 050·
Wherever the road forms a sump, the drainage
facilities at this location shall be designed for
Qso in such a manner that the water' level will not
encroach on building pads even at times of plugging
of the facilities.
Drainage facilities in sumps may be designed for
010 only if i t is constructed with an overflow
channel(s) for excess flow approved by the City.
c.
To prevent undue hazard, restriction, and
interference with vehicular and pedestrian traffic
69
Exhibit B (Continued)
on local, collector and arterial streets, the Qlo
runoff shall be conveyed in the following manner:
LOCAL STREETS INCLUDING SERVICE ROAD AND ALLEY flow shall be contained between curb faces. To
increase the carrying capacity of roads, the curb
height may be increased to a maximum of eight
inches. Cross-gutter will be allowed only on local
streets and service roads where the traffic would
normally stop.
~
COLLECTOR STREETS - shall be designed to maintain
24 feet of pavement nearest the centerline of the
travelled way free of longitudinally flowing
~rainage water.
No cross-gutter will be allowed _
on collector streets.
LOCAL AND SECONDARY ARTERIALS - shall be designed
to maintain 14 feet of pavement in each direction
free of longitudinal flowing drainage water. No
cross-gutter will be allowed on local and secondary
arterials.
PRIMARY ARTERIALS - shall be designed to maintain
26 feet of pavement in each direction free of
longitudinal flowing drainage water. No crossgutter will be allowed on primary arterials.
D.
Where the design storm runoff exceeds the permitted
hydraulic capacity of the street section, the
design storm runoff must be removed from the street
and conveyed in an underground storm drain to a
drain outlet or natural watercourse. Minimum size
of drain shall be 18 inches in diameter.
E.
When in the opinion of the City a serious silt or
debris deposition on the streets or property will
result, the debris hazard shall be eliminated by
providing a debris basin, outlet works and/or
trash rack as directed by the City.
F.
For design plans, hydraulic grade lines shall be
below the finished grade over underground conduits
and below the top of bank for open channels.
Freeboard of 0.5' + 0.1 x flow depth for open
channels will be required.
G.
For all drainage facilities located outside of
Ventura Gounty Flood Control District's
70
Exhibit B (Continued}
jurisdiction, th~ quantity of 010 shall be based
on the Cook's Method and latest VCFCD isohyetal
and soil maps issued by the District.
H.
Capacity of all inlets shall be based on the
design runoff.
At public school sites, catch basins shall be
located at the near or far street gutter to
collect the storm flow prior to the pedestrian
walk.
Catch basins shall be located prior to pedestrian
crosswalk in the urban, commercial, or industrial
stre~t: system.
··~:c
Side opening inlets are preferable in urban areas
in order to minimize hazard to pedestrians and
bicycle riders from grate basins and debris
unsightliness.
I.
Deviations from the street drainage criteria may
be made only upon the approval of the Public Works
Director subsequent to the review and approval of
sufficient supporting data furnished by the person
requesting· the deviations, or upon approval of the
City Council.
71
Exhibit C
DRAINAGE STANDARDS
(Adopted :t-1arch 23, 1977)
The following items are some of the pertinent design
criteria for engineering design of drainage facilities
acceptable to the City.
(1) HYDROLOGY METHOD
A.
Rational Method - In accordance with the
Ventura County Flood Control District
hydrology manual.
B.
Cook's Met1ro"d - Utilizing the following "C"
factors:
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
Undeveloped • • . • . . • • •
Residential • . • • • • • • •
Commercial & Industrial .
"C" FACTOR
• 40 - 45
• • • 60
. . . 70
(2) ROUGHNESS FACTOR
A.
Graded earth ditch - N = .030
B.
Corrugated metal pipe - N = .027
C.
Reinforced concrete channel, cast in place
pipe, and street section - N = .015
D.
Reinforced concrete pipe (spun or cast) N = .013
72
corrective action via crash programs.
Such a master plan
helps keep pace with the demanding problems created by
the City's dynamic growth.
Ever since the implementation of the Environmental
Impact Report process by the Federal and State agencies,
many cities throughout the United States, including the
City 9f Oxnard, have become more aware and concerned with
the fact that
drainag~
facilities in many parts of the
City appear to be at or over capacity.
makers tended to
agree~that
The City decision
a drainage master plan was
necessary to properly correct these problems and that the
plan could be used as a.guide for its future needs, so on
January 10, 1978, the City Council approved a contract with
an engineering consultant requesting preparation of such a
plan at the earliest possible date.
It can be shown that a drainage master plan is a
valuable aid to decision makers.
In the sections to follow,
the drainage master plan will be briefly outlined and
described, and key points will be presented to show how such
a master plan can be a valuable aid to decision makers.
The "development of a drainage master plan
essentially consists of three major phases.
The first
phase is to evaluate the existing storm drainage facilities,
identify problem areas and establish priorities of
improvements for mitigating present flooding problems.
The
second phase of the master plan is to develop a plan showing
73
the new facilities required with future development.
The
third phase is to establish the required drainage fees to
adequately finance future improvements of these facilities.
The projected development area is normally based on
the adopted General Plan of the City.
This essentially
establishes the limits of the area to be master planned for
analyzing the City's present and future drainage system
needs within a specified time and provides implementation
strategy for orderly and efficient system improvements.
Exhibit D is a brief outline and description of
the proposed scope of works for developing the City's
Drainage Master Plan as prepared by Public Works Department
on October 14, 1977.
The Drainage Master Plan as described herein can
be used to define and analyze drainage problems, qevelop
alternative solutions, evaluate the practical solution,
and convert that solution into effective action.
In its
completed state, the plan is applicable to both design of the
new drainage system and/or analysis of the existing system.
It can be easily updated and is current at all times and
can be used to check the ability of the system to intercept
runoff from any planned or proposed developments.
Frequently, it is necessary to determine the capacity of
the existing system in conjunction with an incremental
modification and/or addition to the system.
In that case,
the plan is utilized to check the system's adequacy affected
74
Exhibit D
DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN
Proposed Scope of Work
I.
Objective
Prepare a comprehensive plan for the City of Oxnard
to reasonably meet the present and future drainage
requirements for that area projected to develop by
the year 1990. All watershed boundaries extending
beyond the study area will be included in the study
and should be considered in the proposal.
II.
Scope of Work
The scope of work is predicated upon certain items
of work being performed by the City and the remainder
by the consultant as outlined below:
A.
B.
Items of Work to Be Performed by the City
1.
Furnish all available information and plans
of existing streets and storm drain facilities.
2.
Provide existing and projected land use
information_within the limits of study area.
3.
Loan copies of available studies and reports
pertinent to the master drainage plan.
4.
Furnish hydrology methods, hydraulic design
criteria, and other available data.
Items of Work to Be Performed by the Consultant
1.
Review of previous studies, reports, and other
data pertinent to this project.
2.
Based on the as-built plans and City supplied
information, prepare a complete inventory of
the existing street and storm drain facilities.
Furnish supplemental field work to complete
the inventory.
75
Exhibit D (Continued}
3.
Prepare working drainage maps covering the
proposed study area showing the drainage and
sub-drainage areas tributary to each inlet
point, as well as flow direction of existing
streets and storm drain facilities.
4.
Conduct a complete hydrologic analysis of each
drainage and sub-drainage area based on existing
and projected ultimate land use.
5.
Evaluate the adequacy of all existing storm
drain facilities under the existing and
ultimate land use conditions.
6.
Evaluate the relative urgency and establish _
priorities of storm drain improvements for
mitigating present flooding problems with
preliminary estimate of costs, based on the
current cost index.
7.
Make a preliminary determination of storm
drain facilities expected to be required with
future land development with preliminary
estimates of costs, based on the current cost
index.
8.
Develop a master drainage plan showing
alteration and/or additions to the existing
storm drainage systems, as well as the new
facilities required with future developments.
9.
Make reconunendations of proposed drainage
fees to adequately finance future improvements
of secondary drains.
10.
Prepare and submit a comprehensive report
presenting the study, findings and
recommendations including the reduced copies
of detailed maps.
·
11.
Prepare the following maps:
a.
Composite drainage map showing the entire
study area on a single map and serving as
an index to the detailed drainage maps.
b.
Detailed drainage maps covering the study
area to a scale of 1" equals 1000' which
76
Exhibit D (Continued)
will provide a single permanent record
of drainage areas- and sub-areas tributary
to each inlet point on a recommended or
existing drain.
c.
~--
.,
Composite storm drain facilities· map
outlining the existing, as well as the
proposed drainage facilities throughout
the study area with flow quantities and
directions shown.
-~--~--- - -0
77
by the modifications and/or additions.·
Segments of the
existing system which are found inadequate can be resized
for upgrading the system.
On the other hand, if it is
desired to obtain an "overview" of the effect of incremental
change on the ultimate system within the projected
development area, the plan can also provide such information
at a glance.
The Drainage Master Plan also makes it
possible to feasibly consider a number of alternatives for
evaluating several possible solutions to the problem(s).
Thus, such a plan ·can~· provide -decision makers access to
reliable information as useful instruments.
To briefly illustrate this point, let us suppose
that a prominent developer approached the City of Oxnard,
indicating that he is contemplating building a factory in
a one hundred acre parcel of vacant property near the
northerly City limits.
The factory will ultimately employ
two hundred and fifty people and wili significantly
contribute to the City's tax base.
The factory development
will generate about one hundred cubic feet per second of
storm runoff that will be discharged into the City's
existing drainage system.
Preliminary indication reveals
that the downstream facilities are inadequate to convey
this discharge.
As decision makers for the City, how can
one arrive at a decision without creating possible flooding
problems and/or adverse impact to the rest of the system?
78
A "rationalist"
5
would probably seek an exhaustive
investigation and review of all possible "overall" effects
and solutions for the proposed development; an
"incrementalist,"
6
however, would focus mainly on the
capability of the existing system in conjunction with an
incremental modification and/or addition to the system to
accommodate the additional discharge.
Finally, decision
makers who utilize a "mixed-scanning strategy" 7 would
consider the elements of both the aforementioned approaches.
Whether a decision maker uses the rationali-stic,
incrementalistic, mixed-scanning approach, or any
combination of these approaches to decision making relative
to this particular drainage system problem, the Drainage
Master Plan will be a feasible and valuable aid.
On the basis of the foregoing_ discussion, it can be
reiterated that implementation of the Drainage Master Plan
will certainly assist in identifying the City's drainage
needs earlier or even before the development process,
rather than just responding to crisis!
5
Amitai Etzioni, "Mixed-Scanning: A Third Approach
to Decision Making," PAR, :XXVII {1967}, p. 265.
6 c. E. Lindblom, "The Science of Muddling Through,"
Business Strat·egy.
Igor Ansoff {Penguin Books, Ltd., 1974},
pp. 41 - 60.
7Etzioni, op. cit., pp. 265- 273.
79
ADOPT ALTERNATE STRATEGY OF FINANCING
DRAINAGE FACILITIES
This recommended improvement essentially sets
forth an alternate strategy relative to the developer's
obligations in financing new facilities or contributing
his equitable share of the existing system.
Many well-conceived drainage and flood control
plans are never implemented because of lack of funding •
••• Improvements to [secondary drains] are [often]
·
difficult to fund because, generally, few people are
directly affected. Flooding in the [secondary drains],
however, is generally aggravated by increased runoff
caused by the addi tionai developments within the ----- - · drainage basin. The upper basin [property owners] are
usually not interested in drainage problems, because
they are not directly affected.- They are, however,
partly the cause of the drainage problems and should be
required to share in the costs.8
Methods of financing storm drain and flood control
facilities should be ideritified as well as properly and
adequately provided for.
From many public agencies'
records and-past experiences, it is evident that the
beneficiaries vary with different·storrn drain facilities
and sources of funding vary accordingly.
For example, it
would be difficult to justify using general tax funds to
finance a facility of obviously localized benefit.
On the
other hand, general fund expenditures may be justified if
the intended
facilit~
will benefit a wider region.
8william E. Korbitz ·.(ed.), Urban Public Works
Adrnini str ation , · T=h:.:e=-··--:I:-CMA.: :. ;:.: : .:=-·. .;:..M:..:u~n;:-:~:r··c..::.·.::i.=.p..;;a:.:l~·;::M..-;-a=-:n:-a-:gi:e:-::m:-e=-n=·-=t=·:-:S:-:e:-:;r:-1_·e_s
{Washington, D.C.: International City Management
Association, 1976), p. 416
80
Therefore, the concept of who benefits and who pays can
provide a basis for addressing funding problems. 9
If the
relation between project costs and those who benefit can
be identified, then funding schemes can be developed on the
basis of equity.
When implemented, the City's pending
Drainage Master Plan can certainly provide the required
information to help define the funding problems.
The basic. methods of financing drainage facilities
are general ad valorem taxes and/or sales taxes, special
assessments~-·
service charges or fees, storm drain tax or··.
fees, developers, and Federal or State grants.
10
In the
past, however, few communities worried much about the
hidden costs of urbanization.
New developments and
population increases were welcomed with open arms in most
communities as a boost to the local economy.
In recent years, the tables have turned.
Urban
sprawl, with its accompanying environmental deterioration
and the associated costs of providing essential services,
have caused many cities to pull in the welcome mat.
The
immediate concern is whether the existing municipal service
infra-structure (sewer, drainage, fire, police and parks
facilities, etc.) has the capacity to serve the larger
9 Harold M. Groves and Robert L. Bish, Financing
Government, Seventh Edition (New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc., 1973), pp. 12- 21.
10 Ibid., pp. 417- 418.
81
population, and more important, whether the increase in
demand for services will add to the tax burden on existing
residents.
In many communities, hotly contested regulatory
policies such as zoning ordinances, building code
restrictions, flood plain regulations, and other special
laws, have been used to stern the tide of new development.
Another tool that communities use to meet their financial
and environmental objectives is to set realistic user
charges
11
or service pricing policy, whereby the
communTties aiTocate the costs of services to its various
segments - new residents, service users, or an entire
community - that uses the service.
In some communities,
both regulatory policy and pricing policy are used to affect
the developer's incentives so as to promote public objectives.
Presently, the City imposes a uniform drainage
fee based on net paved areas throughout the City limits
and the_ growth area.
From past and current experiences,
the collected fees have proven to be grossly inadequate.
In order to insure adequate financing of required drainage
facilities, the recommended improvement seeks to adopt an
alternate strategy whereby the developer be required to
provide the necessary storm drainage facilities concurrently
with the development conforming to the City's Drainage
11 Harold M. Groves and Ro b ert L. B1s
. h , F'1nanc1ng
.
Government, Seventh Edition (New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc., 1973), pp. 306- 316.
82
Master Plan, as well as the drainage criteria and standards.
This places the burden of paying for the facilities
directly on those benefiting.
If the required facilities
are oversized to accommodate other properties, the
developer will be reimbursed for the excess costs.
Additionally, the developer shall also be responsible for
his pro-rata share of those facilities provided by others
which benefit his property.
The proposed financing strategy is in conformance
with the State Senate· Bill Number 1004, Business and
Professions Code Section 11543.5, whereby it enables local
ordinance{s) to require payment, as a condition of approval
of a subdivision map, of an equitable fee to construct the
required drainage facilities for conveyance of storm waters
from the subdivision and tributary watershed area(s}.
With
this funding, purchasers of lots will promptly receive the
convenience and protection for which they paid, developers
will be obligated to pay their equitable shares, and the
uncertainty of available funds, due to cost escalation or
other reasons, to accomplish the required works will be
mitigated.
Chapter 6
SUMMARY
Storm water management pertains to the accommodation
of urban storm water runoff and mitigation of urban flood
hazards.
Occurrences of flooding in the City of Oxnard
suggest the need to examine the City's philosophies in
storm water management.
There is a strong indication that
the accommodation of storm water runoff for mitigating
urban flooding in the City has been inadequately managed.
The cUmulative effects of such philosophies and past
practices have been the major cause of flooding.
This paper attempts to objectively examine the
City's past and current philosophies in storm water
management in order to pinpoint their shortcomings.
Subsequently, suggestions for necessary modifications and
additions to such philosophies have been tendered for
application in the rethinking and updating of past ·
practices aimed
to
assist in alleviating new flooding, as
well as prevent the increase in the extent of existing
flooding.
The detailed information used in the preparation of
this paper consisted of past and present City ordinances
83
84
and policies on the subject matter, as well as annexation
records, correspondence, reports, newspaper articles,
federal publications and professional engineering standards.
Chapter One is an introductory presentation of the
hydrologic or water cycle, the clarification of the storm
drain and flood control system concept, and discussion of
the problem pertaining to accommodation of runoff so as to
provide a better understanding of storm water runoff
management.
Chapter Two outlines and describes the legal -· ·
implications of storm water management.
In order to insure
_protection from liability, it is imperative that physical
facts, as well as drainage and flood control laws affecting
the property, be investigated, since each parcel of land
involves storm water management in either a major or minor
way.
The storm water management aspects of certain
properties could well be the controlling factors in their
development.
Storm water management in the City of Oxnard, like
in most other governmental agencies, is the product of a
long evolution in which different philosophies and
practices have played apart.
Consequently, Chapter Three
is devoted to presenting pertinent information about the
City of Oxnard, and describing the drainage practices and
philosophies from its incorporation in June, 1903, to the
present.
85
Chapter Four examines the City's past and current
philosophies and practices described in the preceding
chapter.
This examination reveals an inadequate drainage
policy, the lack of guidelines for comprehensive planning
of drainage improvements, and the City responding to
crisis, rather than offering a planned solution to the
problem.
These findings essentially substantiate the
occurrences of flooding in the City.
In order to mitigate new flooding and prevent
future increases in the extent of existing flooding
recently experienced in the City, Chapter Five recommends
the need for (1) revision of the
exis~ing
policy,
(2)
continuing the use of existing drainage criteria and
standards,
(3) implementation of the proposed Drainage
Master Plan, and (4) adoption of an alternate method of
financing the drainage facilities.
The first recommendation
would essentially upgrade the existing policy so as to be
compatible with the existing drainage criteria and
standards, and sets forth the required right-of-way
dedication, conformance to the City's pending Drainage
Master Plan, and the developer's financial obligations in
implementing these facilities.
The second recommendation
is made on the basis of the City's favorable experiences
in the applications of these criteria and standards.
The
third recommendation would help recognize the City's
drainage needs earlier, rather than responding to crisis.·
!>'i
86
Last, but not least, the fourth recommendation would insure
that property owners would promptly receive the convenience
and protection for which they have paid, that the
developers would pay their equitable shares, and that the
uncertainty of available funds would be mitigated.
,.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
87
BOOKS
Bennis, W. G., Ke D. Bemne and K. E. Corey. The Planning
of Change. 3d ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1976.
Chow, Ven Te. Handbook of Applied Hydrology.
McGraw-Hill, 1964.
Dye, Thomas R. Understanding Public Policy.
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
New York:
2d ed.
New
Golembiewski, Robert T. Public Administration. 3d ed.
Frank Gibson and Geoffrey Y. Cornog. Chicago: Rand
McNalley College Publishing Company, 1976.
Groves, Harold M. and Robert L. Bish. Financing Government.
7th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.
Henry, Nicholas. Public Administration and Public Affairs.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1975.
Horngren, Charles T. Accounting for Management Control - An
Introduction. 3d ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Joint Cornnattee of the Water Pollution Control Federation
and the American Society of Civil Engineers. Design of
Sanitary and Storm Sewers. WPCF Manual of Pract~ce No. 9
or ASCE Manual of Practice No. 37. New York: WPCF, 1975.
Jones, D. E. Basis for Flood Plain Occupancy Decisions Urban Runoff - Quantity and Quality. New York: American
Society of Civil Engineers, 1975.
Korbitz, William E. (ed.). Urban Public Works Administration.
The ICMA Municipal Management Series. Washington, D. C. :
International City Management Association, 1976.
I
Lindblom, c. E.
"The Science of Muddling Through,"
Business Strategy, ed. Igor Ansoff. Penguin Books, 1974.
Lyden, Fremont J. and Ernest G. Miller (eds.). Planning,
Programming, Budgeting - A Systems Approach to
Management.
2d ed. Chicago: Rand McNalley College
Publishing Company, 1972.
88
\
National Association of Home Builders. Land Development
Manual. Washington, D. c. : National Association
of Home Builders, 1974.
Pechman, Joseph A. (ed.). Setting National PrioritiesThe 1978 Budget. Washington, D. C. : The Brookings
Institution, 1977.
Schaake, John C., Jr., M. Harley Brendan and Guy Leclerc.
Evaluation and Control of Urban Runoff. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers, 1973.
Seelye, Elwyn E. Data Book for Civil Engineers.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1951.
Vol. I.
Wildavsky, Aaron. The Politics of the Budgetary Process.
2d ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1974.
Wilson, E. M. EngineeringHydrology.
John Wiley and Sons, 1974.
89
2d ed.
New York:
CORRESPONDENCE
City of Oxnard.
"Urban Development in the Del Norte Area."
Proposed Draft for Mayor's Signature. September 25,
1970.
City of Oxnard to Oxnard Drainage Districts.
March 5, 1957.
Letter.
City of Oxnard Assistant Public Works Director to Oxnard
City Manager.
"Drainage Fees." Memo. October 19,
1971.
City of Oxnard Assistant Public Works Director to City
Manager.
"Proposed Storm Drain Ordinance. 11 Memo:
November 21, 1973.
City of Oxnard Assistant Public Works Director to City of
11
Oxnard Public Works Director.
Briefing Report Oxnard Drainage District Number Two. 11 Memo.
August 17, 1971.
City of Oxnard City Attorney to Oxnard Drainage District
Number One. Letter. March 11, 1953.
City of Oxpard City Manager to City of Oxnard Public Works
Director.
•• Storm Drainage Tax. 11 Memo. November 22,
1972.
City of Oxnard Public Works Director to City Manager.
11
Report on County Flood Control Study Session before
Board of Supervisors. 11 Memo. March 12, 1971.
City of Oxnard Public Works Director to Community
Coordinating Committee. "Ventura County Flood Control
District Flood Plain Regulation Program. 11 Memo·.
May 4, 1970.
City of Oxnard Public Works Director to Engineering
11
Division.
Drainage Standards. 11 Memo. June 9, 1975.
County of Ventura, Board of Supervisors to Oxnard City
Council.
"Changed Conditions Justifying a
Re-evaluation of the Beardsley-Revolon Drainage
Project. 11 Letter. August 31, 1970.
90
GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
City of Oxnard.
"Public Improvement Policy." Administrative
Manual. Section I - J - 11. April 17, 1973.
City of Oxnard, City Council, Council Resolution Number 2815.
Passed and Adopted November 13, 1962.
City of Oxnard Industrial Development Committee.
Invitation to Industry." 1964.
City of Oxnard, Ordinance Number 1517.
1974.
"An
Adopted February 5,
City of Oxnard Public Works Department (camp.).
"Annexation Record." n. d.
City of Oxnard Public Works Department.
. Adopted January 13, 1976. ·
"Drainage Criteria."
City of Oxnard Public Works Department.
"Drainage
Standards." Adopted March 23, 1977.
City of Oxnard Public Works Department (camp.).
Drainage District Maps... n.d.
County of Ventura Department of Public Works.
by Rational Formula." November, 1966.
"Oxnard
"Hydrology
County of Ventura Flood Control District, Board of
Supervisors, Resolution Establishing Policy for Use
of Secondary Drainage Funds within Ventura County.
Passed and Adopted November 2, 1972.
Federal Insurance Administration. ·"National Flood
Insurance Program," Federal Register. October 26, 1976.
Oxnard Drainage District and City of Oxnara. Lease.
Agreement. Executed on September 25, 1968.
U.
s.
Department of Agriculture.
"Urban Hydrology for
Small Watersheds." Technical Release No. 55,
Engineering Division, Soil Conservation Service.
Washington, D. c. : Government Printing Office,
January, 1975.
91
u.
s.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Flood Insurance Program." Washington, D. c.
Government Printing Office, January, 1974.
92
"National
.NEWSPAPERS
"County Hits Development Plans," Press Courier !Oxnard),
June 30, 1971.
"Drainage Plan OK'd after 4 Years Talking," Press Courier
[Oxnard], August 7, 1968.
"Flood Cost: $23.3 Million," Star Free Press !Ventura],
March 7, 1978.
"Flooded Streets," Press Courier {Oxnard], January 12,
1965.
"Public Works Chief Attacks Lax Flood Control Rules,"
Star Free Press {Ventura], March 9, 1971.
PERIODICALS
Etzioni, Amitai.
"Mixed-Scanning: A Third Approach to
Decision Making," PAR, XXVII (1967), 265- 273.
93
REPORTS
Boyle Engineering.
"Flood Control Study, Zone II, Ventura
County Flood Control District." August, 1965.
Boyle Engineering.
"Revised Hydrology Analysis, Zone II,
Ventura County Flood Control District. 11 May, 1967.
Boyle Engineering.
"Ventura County Flood Control District 10Year Program for Flood Control Improvements, Zone II
Review Draft." September, 1967.
City of Oxnard Planning Department and Victor Gruen
Associates.
"City of Oxnard General Land Use Plan."
May, 1962.
City of Oxnard Public Works Department.
"Drainage Report,
Oxnard and Vicinity." January, 1964.
Clark, Hugh, Jr., Public Works Director, City Of Oxnard.
"Information for Subdividers on Flood Control and
Drainage Requirements." December 2, 1963.
County of Ventura FloodControl District.
"Ventura County
Flood Plain Regulation Program." Ventura, California:
March, 1970.
Engineering-Science, Inc.
"Storm Drain Deficiency Report."
Oxnard, California: October, 1967.
Faunce, N. B., Director of Public Works, County of Ventura.
"Report on Conclusions Reached by the Engineers in
Regard to Oxnard Plain Flood Control Work." Ventura,
California: March, 1955.
Fitzgerald, Gerald C.
"Report on Flood Hazard and Storm
Water Drainage in the Westerly Portion of the City of
Oxnard." 1948.
Imus , E. 0. , City Engineer, City of Oxnard.
"Report on
Factual Basis for Cost Distribution of Drainage
Facilities along Ventura and Oxnard Roads." July 21,
1955.
Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc.
"A Comprehensive Plan for
Flood Control." A Report for Ventura County Flood
Control District. 1959.
94
Official Representatives from City of Oxnard, County of
Ventura, and Drainage Districts. Minutes of Drainage
Meeting. Meeting held at Colonial House, Oxnard,
California, January 6, 1955.
95