When A Flooding Disaster Strikes:
Who's in Charge?
VOLUME 17, NUMBER 10
MARCH 10,
1997 |
|
|
While much of the major weather reporting consists of warning
and advising people about dangerous storms, there can be an investigative role, too.
A large scale disaster tests everyone --- police, fire and other emergency workers, as
well as the news departments.
In Sacramento, where severe floods did widespread damage during January, 1997, KCRA-TV
news documented serious weaknesses in the emergency response system in the state. |
| Emergency officials issued conflicting
information and orders |
When massive winter floods threatened, some elected and
appointed officials failed. Agencies that were supposedly monitoring the water levels did
not properly warn the people in danger. It was a story of chaos and confusion.
"The government bureaucracy in California is huge, overwhelming and not very
organized. We discovered that during the floods," said News Director Bill Bauman.
He kept a file of all the faxes that came into the newsroom. Within the first 24 hours of
the flooding on January 1st, they had received faxes from 47 different agencies!
"I had been through earthquakes before, but not a sustained
four-day crisis like this was. What we discovered was there is no single voice that speaks
in California at the time of disaster."
|
|
|
Bill Bauman
News Director, KCRA-TV
|
The first problem is that everyone is in charge, but nobody is in charge
--- overall.
"Our coverage area is 20 counties --- approximately 70 municipalities --- and every
one has a police department, or a sheriff's department. There are boards of supervisors
and city councilmen. There is a state Office of Emergency Services and a Department of
Water Resources --- it goes on and on. Every one of them is in charge! They were all
issuing faxes and orders. When it was over, I looked at the special projects producer and
we both said, 'What a disaster!' The disaster was a disaster, because it was so
confusing," Bauman said.
He and the news staffers realized what absolute chaos and confusion existed.
They set out to answer the central questions:
--- Who was in charge?
--- Who should have been speaking?
--- Who should the news media have been listening to? |
Develop a timeline:
What really happened? |
Bauman assigned two special projects producers, investigative
reporter Sam Shane and several photographers.
They went to work on it immediately after the flooding, going through all their air checks
and all the faxes. They put together a minute-by-minute timeline.
"We did three weeks of very intense research. I was surprised how much information
came out of our own air checks. We pieced it all together, and it was dead on
accurate," he said.
"After three weeks of research about who was in charge, the answer came up:
Everybody, but nobody!" said Bauman.
For the series, they picked three areas to focus on where there were major problems:
--- A county where a levee broke, and three people were killed.
--- A small town where officials at different government levels argued about whether to
evacuate.
--- A town where officials delayed a flood warning so that they could announce it on
television.
The investigation material was presented in a four-part series and a half-hour special.
"It really worked. We promoted it heavily, and people came to it," said Bauman.
The investigation was wrapped up with a half-hour special that ran on a Sunday night at
6:30. Many viewers were interested. The show did an 11 rating/26 share. |
| Series showed clearly when everything
happened |
The powerful videotape of the floods and the evacuations
showed the danger.
The show airchecks documented the weather details and officials' actions as they were
known at the time.
Fresh interviews provided the overview of what really happened. The series examined how
flood officials failed, how California's emergency warning system is filled with chaos,
and how people died as a result. |
|
Part One: The system fails.
Reporter Sam Shane opened the series this way:
"When there is high water, those of us who live in Northern California hope and trust
the levee system will hold. When the levee system fails, we hope and trust even more that
flood officials will warn us.
"That is not what happened in Yuba County on the second day of 1997. The flooding
there was massive and deadly, and our investigation showed there were no warning signs ---
and there were plenty of failures." In a January 2nd live shot from an emergency
center, a reporter explained that evacuations were just voluntary at that point. However,
she said officials were watching the Feather River. The river, fed by record releases from
reservoirs, rose to flood stage. The existing disaster plans for the communities called
for mandatory evacuations if the river reached 77 feet.
However, even when the Feather hit 78 feet, officials decided not to call for a mandatory
evacuation. It looked like the levee was holding. What officials did not know was the
river was eating away at the earthen walls.
A volunteer who walked the levee spotted a boil and seepage. He reported it to
authorities. Another volunteer was sent out 3 hours later. There were many, many boils.
This man also warned authorities that there were big problems. On camera, these men
recalled their actions. Despite what they had seen, there was still no evacuation order
and no warning for the people of Arboga.
More boils were discovered on the Sutter County (west) side of the river. There, officials
were very concerned and ordered a mandatory evacuation. One emergency official told KCRA
on the air that night of January 2nd, "We think we have some problems out there, and
we don't want to wait until it's too late. If you think you're going to have to evacuate
this large of a number of people, you don't want to do it in a short period of time."
The footage showed people packing up their cars and fleeing.
But, in Yuba County, the elected supervisors thought there was no problem, and they voted
not to order an evacuation. "That vote would later be harshly criticized by
residents," said reporter Shane.
Allowing people to stay would turn out to be "one of the biggest and deadliest
mistakes in the Flood of '97," according to Shane.
The officials faxed a press release to the media, saying there were "no
problems" reported for their county.
Twelve minutes later, a KCRA producer heard about more boils, and called the county OES
office. He asked how the levees were holding. Again, the officials said there were no
problems.
Shortly after 8 p.m., there was a massive break in the levee.
The video was dramatic. News crews and citizens alike fled the rushing water. One man
told how the only warning he had was when he heard the levee break. He was one of the
lucky ones who made it out alive. More than a half-hour after the break --- the officials
called for a mandatory evacuation.
"But, Yuba County officials are still not alarmed," said Shane in his narration.
A county official said on KCRA's air, "These people have time. The water will be
moving south and they have time."
Wrong again.
The station's timeline reconstruction showed how wrong.
A man and woman were forced to the roof of their neighbor's home, where they were rescued
by helicopter. Their next door neighbor also ran out of time. Her car was hit by the wall
of water and washed off the road. She drowned. Two more people died, including the wife of
the reclamation district's director.
It was bad enough to misread the river as it rose. But that wasn't all. It had been
well documented that the levee needed strengthening.
The same levee broke upriver in the flood of 1986. It needed to be strengthened, according
to experts. In 1991, an engineer predicted the levee would break the next time there was
high water.
Shane summed it up this way:
"Yuba County officials ignored the warning signs. They ignored their own flood
guidelines."
"There were two big failures in Yuba County on the night of January 2nd. The levee at
Arboga failed, and the records show Yuba County officials failed as well." |
|
Part Two: A confusing night in
Oroville --- To evacuate or not?
During the height of the emergency, residents were wondering if they should stay or they
should go.
There were officials telling people to do both at the same time! The
"communication meltdown" had played out on live television:
"Residents of Oroville begin their new year packing up and moving out. Officials fear
the water could spill over the Oroville Dam or the banks of the Feather River and flood
the town. As time passes, that fear is replaced by a turf war fought among local
authorities."
At 11 p.m. January 1st, KCRA lead the newscast with the news that county officials had
lifted a mandatory evacuation order for Oroville. That made the town's leaders irate.
At 11:12 p.m., the reporter on the scene returned to the air saying the mandatory order
had not been lifted.
The city manager said live during the newscast, "The county officials can do what
they want to do in the unincorporated areas. The city (of Oroville) will do what it wants
to do in its jurisdiction."
Bauman points to the Oroville bickering between governments, and the confusion it
created, as a prime example of the official chaos.
The city of Oroville had sent the station a fax that said an immediate evacuation was
ordered.
"So, we broadcast it. Then, we get a call from the Butte County Board of Supervisors
saying they were not evacuating Oroville. We told them that Oroville was evacuating
Oroville!" said Bauman.
The response from the supervisors was the Oroville is in Butte County and they were not
evacuating Butte County.
"We went back and forth on whether or not Oroville was being evacuated. The county
was saying, 'no.' And, the city was saying, 'yes.' That's just one example of how
intensely confusing it was," said Bauman. |
|
Part Three: The evacuation of Wilton is delayed.
In Sacramento County, emergency officials knew ahead of time the Consumnes River would
likely flood Wilton.
But, the people were not told about it, until it was too late.
While the water was rising, county officials waited for more than half an hour for TV
cameras to show up before announcing the evacuation. Here's part of Shane's report:
"At 10:30 a.m., a county spokesperson calls the KCRA newsroom and said they will hold
a press conference at 11:15.
"He fails to mention the news conference is being called to announce a mandatory
evacuation in Wilton. So the officials know, but the media and the people of Wilton do not
know that experts fear it could soon flood in Wilton."
Less than 10 minutes later, the same spokesperson was doing a live phoner with the KCRA
anchors, and was asked point blank if the people of Wilton or anywhere else in the county
should evacuate.
His answer: "Not at this time, but there is a potential for an evacuation in south
Sacramento County." The spokesperson said the Wilton area was an area of concern,
and, "information will be forthcoming probably within the hour." Twenty
minutes later, at 11 a.m., a fax arrived notifying the news media the Wilton residents
should leave by noon. But, many Wilton residents never got the warning.
Seven minutes later, the Consumnes was spilling over its bank and flooding Wilton.
At 11:15 a.m. --- eight minutes after flood waters washed into Wilton --- the officials
who waited for the cameras held their news conference.
The Director of the State Office of Emergency Services subsequently told Shane that as
soon as a decision is made to evacuate, people should be notified as quickly as possible.
Although there was no loss of life in Wilton, people were trapped, and many lost
belongings because they had no warning. |
|
Part Four: Who is in charge when
disaster strikes?
During the floods, too many people were giving orders.
After the floods, "California's leaders have been virtually silent," reported
Shane.
During a five-day period, the station received 425 news releases from dozens of agencies
on a variety of topics --- ranging from evacuations to road closings to shelter locations.
"The sources of information and the number of messages are too many to count. There
is no one clear voice." The director of the National Hurricane Center was
interviewed by satellite, and asked about how evacuation decisions are made during a
hurricane, and how much teamwork is needed.
On the East Coast, when there is a hurricane, there is a clear, loud, distinct voice that
comes from the National Hurricane Center. Everybody turns to it for information.
"There is no such thing here. It's called Home Rule. California is the state of Home
Rule," said Bauman.
Butte County, for example, is a large, but thinly populated agricultural county.
Its OES office had one person in it.
"We interviewed him. He said they still have a six-gun mentality, and they wouldn't
like having the state of California telling them what to do. That may have been quaint in
the 1800's, but today with modern communications, it created absolute chaos," said
Bauman. |
| Some officials are angry about series |
"On the one hand, we have offended a large number of
public elected officials, as well as police, fire, and emergency officials. There may be
some ramifications from that. On the other hand, people who were in those areas have
uniformly praised the series of reports, because they lived through it and they know we
are right," Bauman said.
"Nobody has challenged the accuracy of our reports," he stresses. The news
executive said the news team was thorough, documenting the disaster.
"There are 6,000 miles of levees in California. We actually interviewed levee workers
who walked the levee the night before the levee broke, and went to their bosses and told
them there were boils and bubbles in the levees and the levees were in trouble," he
said.
"We went back and interviewed people who were lifted off their roofs by
helicopters," said Bauman.
"People say that only three people died, and that's not bad for a disaster. But, they
don't know how many were plucked out of their cars, out of trees and off of roofs. It was
very dramatic footage. We went back and interviewed some of those people, and they never
knew to evacuate," said Bauman.
Bauman points to a woman who lost 80 head of cattle and 10 horses, but whose dog was
plucked off the roof by a helicopter. The rescue of the dog made a great story, but the
real story was how close the woman came to death, he said.
"We interviewed her family and that woman was within seconds of being killed. Her
next door neighbor was killed, because she waited. They were trying to round up their
animals, and the water was 20-feet high and coming at them," he said.
"Those people were swept away and drowned!" he said.
Bauman said the local officials are "squealing like stuck pigs" over the series,
but he knows it's accurate. |
|
Return to RUNDOWN Database Search Return to TV RUNDOWN on The Web home page |
|
Copyright 1999, Standish Publishing Company. This
material is for your personal use as a subscriber, and may not be reproduced or
transmitted to other parties of any kind. |