Protection Without Devastation
Balance flood control with preserving the parkway
By Cathryn Rakich
March 2026
Now is the time to walk the dirt trails between the lower American River and the paved bike path.
The air is fresh. The river runs high. Wildflowers bloom. Oaks, cottonwoods and willows canopy the trails. The water is alive with geese, ducks, herons and egrets. Pond turtles sun on logs.
To know the magnificence of the parkway is to understand why so many people, now and in the past, devote their lives to protecting it.
If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ latest erosion-control project comes to fruition, as many as 700 trees, including 300-year-old heritage oaks, acres of riparian forest and established woodlands will be destroyed.
Contract 3B stretches several miles along the American River from the Howe Avenue bridge to east of Watt Avenue. The project is the Army Corps’ solution to protect Sacramento from floods.
For a perspective of the planned destruction, drive across the H Street bridge. Once lush and verdant, the banks at Campus Commons Golf Course and Sacramento State are now barren with scatterings of replanted vegetation. The destruction extends to Paradise Beach in River Park.
Citizens group American River Trees reports similar erosion-control methods are planned under Contract 3B. The project will bulldoze hundreds of trees and remove tons of dirt along the riverbanks to install riprap (large angular rocks) to prevent erosion.
More trees and vegetation will be demolished to make room for equipment, staging areas and access ramps.
Is that what visionaries who worked decades to protect the nationally recognized “wild and scenic” parkway would have wanted?
One of those visionaries was Frank Cirill, a River Park resident for 52 years. Cirill devoted his life to preserving the American River Parkway against threats to its ecosystem, wildlife habitat and recreational resources. He died in 2017 at 94.
Cirill, an engineer, joined Save the American River Association in 1968, serving as president from 1978 to 1994.
Save the American River Association is one of many organizations opposing the Army Corps’ destructive approach to erosion control via Contract 3B.
For two years, community advocates, including environmental experts, have called for alternatives, such as “engineering with nature,” which provide erosion protection while reducing habitat demolition.
When their efforts failed, Save the American River Association was one of three groups that filed a lawsuit to pause the project and request consideration of science-based bioengineering alternatives.
Cirill was a longstanding member of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the American River Parkway Plan, a guide for land-use decisions affecting the parkway.
Adopted in 1976 and updated in 2008, the plan was “written to ensure preservation of the naturalistic environment while providing limited developments to facilitate human enjoyment of the Parkway.”
The parkway plan calls for balancing flood control with preserving and enhancing native vegetation, supporting wildlife habitat and providing recreational opportunities.
Instead of full-blown destruction, why not a more targeted approach using nature-based solutions to preserve the ecosystem?
Why is the Army Corps taking such drastic measures in an area where erosion is minimal, seepage is not a problem and recreational use is significant?
When every river is different based on flow velocity, slope, gradient and vegetation, why is the Corps using a one-size-fits-all approach?
The channel in River Park has two sharp bends that are more susceptible to erosion. The portion affected by Contract 3B is relatively straight with lower velocities at the banks. River Park’s Paradise Beach has more sand and silt. The Contract 3B area has packed clay.
Frank Cirill was known for his ability to recruit community leaders to help preserve the parkway. He rallied experts in wildlife, environmental issues, water law and community organizing.
Would Cirill have appreciated, even applauded, efforts by engineers, biologists, scientists, geologists, professors, environmentalists and community activists who want the Corps to rethink the devastation in favor of up-to-date models, data and techniques?
Most likely, Cirill would have encouraged that conversation. Something the Army Corps has refused to do.
Last year, a U.S. district court granted a temporary injunction to stop the Corps from removing trees and vegetation until the lawsuit is resolved.
If the Army Corps worked with the community two years ago, the threat of a 200-year flood would not be looming while the lawsuit is pending. But the Corps missed those opportunities.
Protection without devastation. It can be done.
For more information, visit sarariverwatch.org/safca_levee and americanrivertrees.com.
Cathryn Rakich can be reached at cathrynrakich@gmail.com. Follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram: @insidesacramento.
