Butte County completes Five Mile Basin emergency work, directs feasibility study and funding path for long‑term solution

Butte County officials confirmed completion this month of short‑term SAFE emergency work in the Five Mile Basin and directed staff to pursue a multi‑year plan to monitor, maintain and study long‑term flood control options.

"From tip to tail, the work took about one week to complete," Joshua Packer, director of public works, told the Board of Supervisors, describing targeted vegetation removal, channel shaping and levee repairs completed under the county’s job order contracting program.

The county said the short‑term project cost far less than earlier estimates — currently projected at about $135,000 to $150,000 — and that early hydrologic modeling indicates the work increased the basin’s level of protection, from roughly a 44‑year event to protection modeled at approximately a 130‑year event.

Why it matters: The Five Mile Basin diverts and distributes flow near Big Chico Creek, and stakeholders warned the accumulation of sediment and post‑fire watershed changes make the system more prone to overtopping. County staff said continuing maintenance and a long‑term plan are needed to prevent recurrence.

What the board asked staff to do: Directors were explicit that the county should complete near‑term work to protect the public and then pursue a structured, multi‑year effort to define and fund a long‑term solution. That direction included: - Commissioning an alternatives analysis and feasibility study to compare options, including restoring the basin to historical configuration or other approaches better suited to current environmental and regulatory constraints; - Placing a multi‑year monitoring and maintenance contract to provide seasonal recommendations and to streamline permit interactions; - Exploring a funding mechanism through County Service Area 24 and a Prop 218 election to provide long‑term revenue; and - Negotiating a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the City of Chico that clarifies partnership expectations and a goal to transition maintenance responsibility to the city once a finished, turnkey system is in place.

Board members and public speakers stressed speed: several supervisors and community representatives noted the urgency given post‑fire sediment loads and the risk of a large winter storm. Chico City Council member Tom Van Overbeck (speaking as a private citizen) and downstream landowners described recent near‑overtopping events and urged the county not to delay. Leslie Harringer, who manages levees on private property downstream, told the board that large trees, exposed roots and new storm‑related sediment create immediate downstream risk.

Costs and next steps: County staff said they have funds to advance preliminary design and a feasibility study and that the short‑term construction came in markedly under earlier budget estimates. The board directed staff to proceed with the alternatives analysis and to return with a plan for a Prop 218 election and any required environmental or permitting steps.

What remains unresolved: The City of Chico must agree to a role and contribution; staff said the city may resist direct costs but has provided permits and support during the emergency work. The board’s direction emphasizes a county‑led near‑term delivery with explicit efforts to secure city participation and eventual transfer of operations.

Evidence: Presentation and on‑the‑record briefings by Joshua Packer, Director of Public Works (00:40:58–02:34:25).