The County Flood Protection District hosted a meeting Thursday with residents of areas within its watershed, namely the Switchback Trail and East Heppel Drive areas. The area has been heavily impacted by post-fire flooding following the 2022 pipeline fire, with burn scars draining the most water.

However, Thursday’s meeting was controversial at times. Some residents have expressed frustration with the county over how the area has dealt with flooding so far.

One resident, Shannon Gottshammer, told the Arizona Daily Sun that the county feels obliged to protect most of its residents on its own. Gottshammer has lived in Switchback since 2016, but last year her property and many of her neighbors were hit by major floods.

“It was literally the craziest thing I’ve ever seen,” she said of the flood.

Floods crossed her driveway on a daily basis, cutting her off from the road and depositing a thick layer of sediment and debris across her property.

The county has put up a series of fences around Gottshammer’s home, but other than that, she said she feels the county isn’t doing much.

County flood district administrator Lucinda Andreani said one of the limiting aspects of what the county has been doing in the area has actually been conflict with residents.

Central to that conflict is the issue of contracts that allow counties to access residents’ private land and install mitigation infrastructure.

So far, few local residents have entered into cooperative agreements with the county to allow the work. Andreani said it was unusual after years of flood mitigation efforts in the county.

Katie Buchanan and her husband are among the few who have chosen not to sign these agreements yet.

Buchanan and his family live in a seven-year-old house on the south side of Switchback. Wastewater from government tanks naturally flows behind their property.

He said he sympathizes with the efforts the county wants to make, but that the terms of the agreement’s commitments and upkeep are holding it back.

Buchanan said they were approached earlier this year to install additional infrastructure on their site, specifically a barrier to control erosion and sedimentation in the drainage canal. They initially supported the county doing the effort, but their thoughts began to change as they scrutinized the cooperator agreements they planned to sign.

“At first we were like, ‘Okay, sure, let’s see what happens with that,’ but then the contract they asked us to sign actually put us 100% responsible for what they did,” Buchanan said.

The cooperator agreement stipulates that the owner will be responsible for the infrastructure, including maintenance, for five years. And if it leads to downstream impacts, you could be held accountable.

Buchanan said it felt too risky for them.

“I don’t know the science. I don’t know what’s going to happen. I don’t know the power and quantity of the water that’s coming, but considering the physics, [structures are going] You either have to be pushed down by your neighbors or somehow get more neighbors to divert the water flow,” Buchanan said. “Or worse, kill a child. I can’t take responsibility for that, and neighbor against neighbor will fight. I understand the county doesn’t want to take responsibility, but there are too many question marks.”

Buchanan added that he’s confident the improvements the county will make will help, but he’d be much more willing to sign something if he didn’t feel like he took most of the risk themselves.

Andreani said he understands the sentiment and ultimately the flood zone does not force residents to act. If a resident or community does not want flood mitigation infrastructure installed on their property, it is entirely their prerogative.

Andreani said the problem arises because Arizona law can hold residents liable at any time if they alter the flow of water on their property and affect their homes downstream. Arizona law states that residents are responsible for their property, whether the county installs the infrastructure or the residents install the berms themselves.

When the county installs such infrastructure, it conducts studies to ensure there are no downstream impacts. But that legal risk still exists.

“I think one of the things people have to understand is that regardless of whether they signed a cooperator agreement or not, if they did anything that manipulated their property to respond to the floods, they would still have some liability under Arizona law,” Andreani said. “It shouldn’t change the nature of how water enters and exits your property.

Additionally, Andreani said the responsibilities are set in place to make the efforts the county is making financially viable. She said the flood district bears all responsibility for large-scale, long-term flood infrastructure. The cooperator agreements that school districts have property owners sign do not eliminate all risks to the county.

Andreani said even short-term mitigation measures put in place on private land by the county through cooperator agreements pose legal risks to flooded areas.

“We do engineering and construction, so we still carry a fair share of that responsibility,” she said.

In fact, Andreani said liability within the contract is often more important than whether the infrastructure will affect residents downstream once it is installed. Instead, it is important to encourage residents to maintain that infrastructure.

In the past, she said, property owners themselves have removed flood mitigation infrastructure that the county has installed on their property, causing neighboring homes to be flooded.

Andreani said liability arises more often in such cases.