The official motto of the California Legislature majority is “do as I say and not as I do.”

And by majority it isn’t the Democrats per se.

Rather, it is the elected legislators that represent the coastal urban areas where most of California’s population resides and constitute more than two-thirds of the votes in Sacramento.

There is no dispute that climate change is the big driver of initiatives coming out of the State Capitol.

Yet, there is no looming mandate banning new construction of any type — from the foundation up or adding on to homes, retail concerns, employment centers and such — hanging over Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland when it comes to flooding predicted from climate change.

There is on large swaths of the San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento Valley.

If physical work hasn’t at least started to protect 200-year floodplains by 2030, the state has mandated that no new construction — or adding square footage to existing structures — can take place.

The mandate impacts 24 cities, including six in the San Joaquin Valley: Manteca, Lathrop, Stockton, Tracy. Dos Palos, and Firebaugh. The largest city impacted is Sacramento.

It is a mandate put in place in 2007 via Senate Bill 7.

Flooding is flooding.

But the impetus behind SB7 clearly was climate change.

That is what the authors alluded to. And it’s why it garnered 100 percent support from coastal politicians.

It didn’t from those representing other area in California including those in the 200-years floodplain because, like most state mandates, Sacramento offered no funding mechanism.

It wasn’t spurred by rising sea levels per se.

Instead, it was Hurricane Katrina in August 2005.

The severity of the heavy rains that it brought that collapsed the levees protecting New Orleans has been officially attributed by the federal government and every organization monitoring climate change as being the direct result of climate change.

Hurricane Katrina killed 1,392 people and caused $190 billion in inflation adjusted 2022 dollars.

Federal authorities, shortly thereafter, identified the San Joaquin-Sacramento Delta region as being at the highest risk for a similar disaster.

That said, when it comes to the state drawing the line regarding rising sea levels, the silence in Sacramento is stunning.

Keep in mind, the state has indicated it is a given climate change along the California coast will raise sea levels between 5 and 18 inches by 2050.

 A minimum 3-foot raise by 2100 is believed to be easily within the realm of possibility.

That means parts of the LA Basin, San Diego, and places like Santa Barbara will be taken over by the sea unless steps are taken to prevent a flood from happening.

Keep in mind the projected numbers will be worse in places.

That’s because scientists indicate some California coastal land is susceptible to vertical land motion shifting — uplift or subsidence.

The impacts will be significant in the South San Francisco Bay, the San Pablo Bay, and the San Francisco waterfront that includes parts of downtown and the Financial District.

In terms of sheer size, the largest area threatened is the Delta.

There is not a mandate to address climate change flooding in the Bay Area or the Southern California coastal urban areas, but there is for more than half of the cities in San Joaquin County.

Yet the exposure housing and other development is bigger in the coastal regions and SF Bay Area.

The cities of Manteca, Lathrop, and Stockton, along with San Joaquin County are inching closer to breaking ground before 2030 on a $270 million project to upgrade level protection to defense against 200-year flood events.

New development in the impacted area are already on the hook to help pay for the work.

And while there are federal and state grants that are expected a large share of the endeavor, an anticipated sizable shortfall in funding will require those in the impacted area to also tax themselves.

A mechanism is already in place that will divert a set percentage of future property tax receipts from assessed value growth from city coffers to pay off bonds.

As such, San Joaquin County is being proactive with a real physical solution when it comes to climate change while the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Santa Clara, San Francisco, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties aren’t.

Understand what is going on.

A 200-year flood is a measure of probability of a certain severity level of flooding happening not every 200 years but instead has a 1 in 200 change of occuring in a given year.

Likewise, 100-year flood protection — the former California gold standard — references flood  events that have a 1 in 100 chance of happening in a year.

Keep in mind since the measurement system was devised, California has been adding more and more square miles of impervious surfaces — rooftops, sidewalks, streets, parking lots, and such — on an annual basis.

That reduces seepage into the ground and increases runoff.

Take those 1 in 200 odds and compare it to the state’s certainty that sea levels in California will rise between 5 and 18 inches in just 26 years from now and possibly by as much as 3 feet by 2100.

On one hand, the probability of Central Valley flooding from storms and snow runoff that the state has mandated local jurisdictions build protection for or else cease all development has a 1 in 200 change of happening in any given year.

Yet, by the time the local 200-year flood protection River Islands has already put in place is also done for the rest of Lathrop, as well as parts of Manteca and Stockton likely by 2032, the state has indicated it is a sure thing sea levels will be higher than they are today.

It is clearly a double standard.

But then again, the big losers will be the coastal cities with the clout to dictate expensive flood control on local jurisdictions in the Central Valley that its state representatives fought because the mandate was imposed with no funding attached.

That’s because Lathrop, as well as parts of Manteca and Stockton, will be protected from the impact of rising sea levels by 2033 and none of the cities surrounding San Francisco Bay or along the Southern California will be.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com