At their December 16 meeting, the Gila County Board of Supervisors heard a lengthy presentation about flood recovery efforts and funding, with costs expected to reach the double-digit millions.
Public Works Director Christine Smith opened a lengthy work session on the September and October storm events, telling the Board of Supervisors that county staff are still working through impacts from the flooding and will be dealing with related repairs and recovery efforts “for the foreseeable future.”
First, County Emergency Manager Carl Melford presented a detailed description of the storm events, including the County’s role in the emergency response. He showed photos of the severe damage across Globe and Miami, including impacts to bridges and other infrastructure, and noted that some major damage was not immediately visible, including harm to water and sewer systems and to privately owned wells and water systems.
“In this line of work, it’s hard to say out loud that chaos or just devastation went well. But as far as utilizing what capabilities we could provide to the public, I think between us, the city of Globe, and the town of Miami, there was a good overall response.” Gila County Emergency Manager Carl Melford
Melford said the County has formed three task forces focused on:
Next, Homero Vela gave a long, detailed presentation explaining the County’s strategy for managing flood-related sediment and debris, restoring damaged infrastructure, and pursuing reimbursement through state and federal programs. He noted that DEMA representatives were present specifically to review the County’s plans and provide feedback.
Vela said the County’s near-term priorities include, first, removing and disposing of large volumes of storm-related sediment and debris, and second, repairing weakened or damaged infrastructure in and around washes, low-water crossings, and bridges.
Large debris and sediment piles resulting from the storms are located on County property. These include approximately 14,000 cubic yards of sediment and about 600 tons of household debris, staged separately. In total, the County has at least 43,000 cubic yards — roughly 60,200 tons — of sediment to dispose of.
Vela said the County’s sediment management problem is partly logistical and partly financial. Early ideas included hauling sediment to a third-party landfill outside the county, such as Apache Junction, which Public Works has used before when local landfill capacity was limited. But Vela said that the option has become prohibitively expensive.
At an older benchmark cost of $100 per ton, disposing of the 43,000 cubic yards of sediment would cost over $6 million, and that doesn’t include increases in tipping fees, transportation costs, and potential contamination-related handling requirements.
“It is very complex and it’s a domino effect. If we don’t clear out the areas, and we get another storm, our infrastructure is in more danger. And so it’s a challenging situation.” Christine Smith
Because of those costs, Vela said the County is prioritizing alternatives that keep material closer to home and limit hauling distances. The top strategy now centers on expanding partnerships with the U.S. Forest Service to place sediment in approved disposal areas, which might include Kellner Pit and Castle Dome. The 600 tons of household debris will be hauled to Apache Junction, as this material can’t be placed on Forest Service land.
The County is looking for vendors to help manage the complex testing, documentation, and chain-of-custody requirements for sediment and debris removal.
Alongside the debris removal work, the County is pursuing a much larger infrastructure restoration package under the NRCS Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program. This package is planned to cover approximately $19 million in projects, including:
The County is currently working with the engineering firm JE Fuller on this package.
The County hopes to be reimbursed for up to 90% of its flood damage recovery costs, but the reimbursement process is complex and burdensome and will likely take years. For example, DEMA and FEMA require the County to keep sediment and debris piles from the September and October storms separate, and the associated testing, tracking, and recordkeeping must also be kept separate.
Also, a federal disaster declaration has not yet been approved for one of the storms, which affects what categories of work may ultimately be reimbursable.
Vela described the County’s approach to repairs as largely constrained by eligibility rules and timelines. FEMA- and DEMA-backed work, as well as NRCS emergency watershed projects, generally focuses only on restoring damaged infrastructure rather than redesigning systems to withstand future extreme floods.
Vela walked the Board through a high-level funding picture. He explained that there are two components to consider: (1) the County’s ultimate share of costs after reimbursements, and (2) the County’s cash outflow required up front while waiting to be repaid.
For the NRCS slate of projects, a 25% County share would come to roughly $4.7 million. The balance would be reimbursed by NRCS “as you go.”
For the debris and emergency-related work, Vela noted different match outcomes depending on whether the County receives a federal FEMA declaration or must proceed under DEMA-only support. Under a FEMA declaration, he said the County might be responsible for about 10% of a roughly $5.5 million group of items (about $550,000), while under a DEMA-only model, the County's share would be closer to 25%, or about $1 million.
Vela pointed out that if the County moves forward broadly while awaiting FEMA-style reimbursement, it could face about $10.2 million in cash outflow during project delivery. The total County share after reimbursements is about $5.3 million.
DEMA is a state agency, and Melford pointed out that, unfortunately, the Governor’s emergency fund is limited. He said reimbursements have been backlogged for about 10 years, meaning the County might wait many years to be reimbursed for millions of dollars in flood recovery costs.
Supervisor Cline cautioned that even major spending might only put a “band-aid on a big problem” if new storms quickly refill channels and undo work. He argued that the County should convene broader intergovernmental discussions — bringing in Globe, Miami, and other partners — to discuss long-term, larger-scale drainage and flood mitigation.
“We don’t know when the next flood’s going to be. We don’t know how big the next flood’s going to be. But there will be a next flood.” Supervisor Cline
Supervisor Cline also linked flood impacts to earlier large wildfires, arguing that watershed damage and sediment movement are part of a longer chain of cause and effect, and that federal bureaucracy has historically made mitigation difficult. He urged that the County and communities think past the immediate emergency repair window toward regional drainage solutions that will reduce sediment before it reaches towns.
To obtain reimbursement, the County has to complete work within strict time windows. Thus, tight deadlines, and not just cost, are forcing decisions. Key dates include:
To view this meeting online, click here.
To view documents related to this meeting, click here.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here