U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27-015 PDF 2006

PROTECTING SACRAMENTO/SAN

JOAQUIN BAY - DELTA WATER

SUPPLIES AND RESPONDING

TO CATASTROPHIC FAILURES

IN CALIFORNIA WATER DELIVERIES

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

Thursday, April 6, 2006

Serial No. 109-47

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

Vice Chair

George P. Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Greg Walden, Oregon

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Rick Renzi, Arizona

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico

Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina

Thelma Drake, Virginia

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico

Cathy McMorris, Washington

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana

Louie Gohmert, Texas

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado

Vacancy

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam

Jim Costa, California

Charlie Melancon, Louisiana

Dan Boren, Oklahoma

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Jay Inslee, Washington

Mark Udall, Colorado

Dennis Cardoza, California

Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Ranking Democrat Member

Ken Calvert, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

Greg Walden, Oregon

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico

Cathy McMorris, Washington

Vice Chair

Louie Gohmert, Texas

Vacancy

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona

Jim Costa, California

George Miller, California

Mark Udall, Colorado

Dennis A. Cardoza, California

Vacancy

Vacancy

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on Thursday, April 6, 2006 .............................................................. 1

Statement of Members:

Cardoza, Hon. Dennis, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 4

Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 4

Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Statement of Witnesses:

Giovanetti, Hon. Gary S., Vice Mayor, City of Stockton, Stockton,

California ....................................................................................................... 14

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15

Jacks, Paul, Deputy Director, Response and Recovery Division, California

Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Mather, California, Prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 74

Lokey, William, Operations Branch Chief, Response Division, Federal

Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. ................................. 38

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40

Minton, Jonas, Water Policy Advisor, Planning and Conservation League,

Sacramento, California ................................................................................. 17

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19

Rodgers, Kirk, Mid-Pacific Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation,

Sacramento, California ................................................................................. 43

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 44

Schroedel, Brigadier General Joseph, Commander and Division Engineer,

South Pacific Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco,

California ....................................................................................................... 35

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36

Sieglock, Hon. Jack, Supervisor, San Joaquin County, Lodi, California ..... 8

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10

Snow, Lester A., Director, California Department of Water Resources,

Sacramento, California ................................................................................. 46

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 50

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘PROTECTING

SACRAMENTO / SAN JOAQUIN BAY - DELTA

WATER SUPPLIES AND RESPONDING TO

CATASTROPHIC FAILURES IN CALIFORNIA

WATER DELIVERIES’’

Thursday, April 6, 2006

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Committee on Resources

Washington, D.C.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in Room

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George Radanovich

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Radanovich, Pombo, Napolitano,

Calvert, Costa, and Cardoza.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. RADANOVICH. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will

come to order.

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on pro- tecting Sacramento/San Joaquin Bay-Delta water supplies and responding to catastrophic failures in the California water deliveries. I want to welcome everybody to today’s hearing. And I would especially like to welcome the many who are here with the San

Joaquin County Council of Governments. As we learned from the Jones Tract levee failure, all of California’s water supplies are very vulnerable to disruption. Hurricane

Katrina was a stark reminder of what could happen in the Delta

and to the 22 million Californians who depend on it. In fact, my

district depends on water pumped from the north, so it is safe to

say that what happens in the Delta doesn’t always stay in the

Delta.

This Subcommittee held a hearing on ways to protect our state’s water supplies from catastrophic disasters in October of last year.

We determined our vulnerabilities and the state of our infrastructure. We also learned that we should leave everything on the table

as it relates to controlling floodwaters.

We have a host of potential solutions to pursue, including a new

or added water storage, levee improvements, streamlined work

2

when health and human safety is compromised, and others. And as

a result, we have a draft roadmap that the Corps of Engineers has

put together to help rebuild levees and the Bureau of Reclamation

continue to update its studies on new storage. But we still have

much to do, and that is what this hearing is all about.

You will hear today from a host of Federal, state, and local agencies who are charged with protecting our regions from floods and

their destructive effects. They are also on the front lines of responding to a levee break.

The goal this morning is to be proactive in understanding the

chain of responsibility in the event of a natural disaster. We want

to learn from Katrina and ensure that California is well-prepared

to address a flood situation or other disruption. We owe the people

of California answers and results, especially when it comes to protecting their livelihoods and property.

Today’s hearing is an important part of meeting that goal. And

with that, I look forward to hearing from today’s very qualified witnesses, and also from my colleagues.

I now defer to Full Committee Chairman, Richard Pombo, for his

opening statement. Richard.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]

Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Welcome to today’s hearing. I would especially like to welcome the many who are

here with the San Joaquin County Council of Governments.

As we learned from the Jones Tract levee failure, all of California’s water supplies

are very vulnerable to disruption. Hurricane Katrina was a stark reminder of what

could happen in the Delta and to the 22 million Californians who depend on it. In

fact, my district depends on water pumped from the north, so it’s safe to say that

what happens in the Delta doesn’t stay in the Delta.

This Subcommittee held a hearing on ways to protect our State’s water supplies

from catastrophic disasters in October of last year. We determined our

vulnerabilities and the state of our infrastructure. We also learned that we should

leave everything on the table as it relates to controlling floodwaters. We have a host

of potential solutions to pursue, including new or added water storage, levee improvements, streamlined work when health and human safety is compromised and

others. As a result, we have a draft roadmap that the Corps of Engineers put together to help rebuild levees and the Bureau of Reclamation continue to updates

its studies on new storage. But, we still have much to do and that’s what this hearing is about.

We will hear today from a host of federal, state and local agencies who are

charged with protecting our regions from floods and their destructive effects. They

are also on the front lines of responding to a levee break.

The goal this morning is to be pro-active in understanding the chain of responsibility in the event of a natural disaster. We want to learn from Katrina and ensure

that California is well-prepared to address a flood situation or other disruption. We

owe the people of California answers and results, especially when it comes to protecting their livelihoods and property. Today’s hearing is an important part of meeting that goal. With that, I look forward to hearing from today’s very qualified witnesses and from my colleagues.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief, and enter

my entire statement into the record.

I want to thank you for holding this hearing today. And I would

especially like to welcome the many folks from San Joaquin County

who joined us here today. I look forward to hearing from San

3

Joaquin County Supervisors Jack Sieglock and Victor Mow, and

Stockton Vice Mayor Gary Giovanetti on what is a very important

issue.

I think most of us know that in the last several days we have

had heavy rain in California. It has caused several small levee

breaks, but more rain is expected. So far we have been able to

avoid any major levee breaks or failures in the Delta. But with

seven days of this projected rain coming, it is going to be a long

week for us.

This is, I believe, the fourth hearing that we have held on the

levee system in California on the San Joaquin Delta, and it is a

problem that is getting more attention from other Members of Congress. But it is time that we did something about it. So I appreciate

you holding this hearing today. And I yield back my time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pombo follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Richard Pombo, Chairman,

Committee on Resources

I commend Subcommittee Chairman Radanovich for holding this important hearing. Today’s proceeding is yet another hearing on the Bay-Delta. It’s the third in

the last month alone.

I would especially like to welcome the many folks here from San Joaquin County

who have taken time out of their busy schedules to attend this hearing. We are also

fortunate to have San Joaquin’s Supervisors Jack Sieglock and Victor Mow and

Stockton’s Vice Mayor Gary Giovanetti who will provide their expertise to the Subcommittee today. I commend you and the other San Joaquin COG folks who have

traveled across our great Nation to be part of this process.

The Delta is something special for all of us. It serves as a recreational and environmental treasure, a vital part of our shipping and transportation links and drinking and irrigation water source to millions of Californians. Most importantly, it

serves as our home, our backyards where generations of us continue to live and

work.

The Delta is also one of the most flood-prone areas in the world. In recent days,

heavy rains in California have caused several small levee breaks. More rain is expected in the coming days, adding to an already strained system. Fortunately there

have not been any serious breaks so far this year. However, under current conditions, it is not a question of ‘‘if’’ there will be a serious failure but ‘‘when.’’ This is

unacceptable.

Since this Subcommittee’s hearing on levees last October, we have made progress

on turning this situation around. We secured appropriations and we now have a

Corps of Engineers draft plan in place to begin the long process on repairing our

levees. This is the first of many steps that we will have to take to secure our levees.

I would also like to commend Chairman Jerry Lewis for committing to work for

more critical funding in this year’s Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I appreciate his willingness to put this year’s bill on an accelerated schedule, so that we

can begin work as soon as possible.

While we take those steps, governments at all levels must be prepared to respond

to an unthinkable, but very possible massive levee failure. As we witnessed during

the Jones Tract levee failure in 2004, there was some confusion in terms of what

agencies should respond and how. The appropriate agencies adapted, overcame and

performed well, but that initial confusion was an eye opener for many of us. And

we all know about the chaos surrounding Hurricane Katrina.

We have an opportunity—and a serious responsibility—to be fully prepared if the

Delta levees fail. That’s why Senator Feinstein—who has been with me on this issue

from the beginning—and I recently sent a letter to the Department of Homeland

Security, FEMA and the State of California’s Office of Emergency Services to ask

for a comprehensive and coordinated emergency preparedness plan specific to the

Delta. Human life, property, the environment and the future of California depend

on such a plan.

Ways to maintain and rebuild our levees, provide more flood control through storage and emergency preparedness will be our focus for this hearing. We will not solve

everything today, but this hearing represents another step towards protecting our

region its people and its way of life. I commend you, Chairman Radanovich, for

4

holding this important hearing and look forward to hearing from our distinguished

panels of witnesses.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will now recognize

the distinguished Ranking Minority Member, Grace Napolitano, for

any statements that she may have.

Grace.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as you and

Chairman Pombo have so rightly put it, the rains are making us

very nervous, not a little nervous, but very nervous, because of

course, in Southern California, we rely on the levees.

We really have not paid as much attention to the Delta as we

should have, and Katrina has forced all of us to really understand

what can happen, reality, and that the Delta levees play a significant role in the water delivery for all of California. Of course, we

all know Southern California relies upon about a third of that

water to come through those areas.

And I do know that the local governments are the ones on the

front lines, and I believe that they are here as witnesses this morning. And I certainly want to let them know that I have been a helpful government official, and I know from experience how we must

try to be accountable to the citizens we represent.

But at the same time, it is hard to get the attention of state and

Federal agencies as to the urgency of the matter. And I welcome

you to the hearing, and hope that this will convince our agencies

to act more sufficiently.

Mr. Chair, I thank you, and I look forward to the testimony.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Grace.

Before we get on with the other opening statements, as we all

know, it is raining very heavily in California, and it looks like it

is going to continue. It is going to be an interesting spring. And I

think because of that, it has made this hearing a little more timely.

And because of that, we have got more people in the room than

would probably normally be here.

I want to invite some of the folks that are standing, if you want

to use this lower dais to sit down and listen to the hearing, you

are more than welcome to use it. Just don’t think that you can ask

questions of the panel when we get to questions. But just to provide some seating, if you would like to take advantage of that,

please feel free to do so.

I now recognize the honorable past Chairman of this Subcommittee, Mr. Ken Calvert. Ken.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I would love to hear from the

witnesses.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, thank you. Mr. Costa.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think it is

appropriate and timely that the Subcommittee is holding this

5

hearing this morning, given the recent six weeks of rain. It is either feast or famine in California.

In January, we thought we might be looking at a dry year, or

below average. And now in the last six weeks, we are not only

above average, but we have had the potential threat of floods, and

we have had some minor levee breaks.

And, therefore, I was pleased to find that the Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, along with the Department of Water Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers, has reconstituted their

triage team to provide sort of an instant response if they can, coordinating the different water projects to protect against potential

flooding.

The title of this Subcommittee hearing today is protecting the

Bay Delta Water Supplies and Responding to Catastrophic Failures

in California Water Deliveries.

I am not only interested in the current situation that we are

dealing with, as all of the Members have noted, but I am also interested in the long-term investments. I know we have an infrastructure bond measure that the legislature and the Governor are contemplating and a number of us have signed to ensure that we work

together to develop a bipartisan influence to respond to not just

needs of the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley areas but the entire

State of California.

Congresswoman Napolitano noted that there have been significant flooding issues in Southern California, but there is also a significant importance to that Northern California water coming down

to Southern California as part of the blend of water supplies in

Southern California. Therefore, the Delta is the linchpin of our

plumbing system.

You know, when we look at levee restoration efforts, and I have

been a part of an effort for 20-some years to provide state funding

for Delta levee restoration, I think what I am going to be very interested to hear from the witnesses is whether or not there has

been a cost benefit analysis done as it relates to a number of the

levees. They are not all Federal responsibilities; some are state responsibilities, some are local responsibilities.

Jones Tract, I believe in the Tennessee area, broke last year. It

is about 8,000 acres of land, it cost $100 million to repair that. It

just seems to me that when we are looking at investing for protection, that we need to look at whether or not, in fact, some of the

areas might be a better investment to pay fair market value and

purchase the land, as opposed to investing in levees that ultimately

will degrade.

The University of California, Davis produced a study earlier this

year that demonstrated that if there was a 6.5 earthquake in that

area, that most of the Delta area would, as a result of liquefaction,

turn to Jell-O. And therefore, all of that investment would be for

naught.

And so it seems to me we ought to be as wise in terms of how

we do the restoration effort, and we ought to have good input and

cooperation with our state counterparts as we look at a major infrastructure bond that involves not just flood control protection.

But I was speaking to Congressman Cardoza yesterday on the

Floor, and I said it would be nice if we could visualize, as the

6

debate is taking place, to recreate what that part of California

would look like today if there were no dams, reservoirs to protect

it, not only for flood control, but also provided water supplies. And

this notion that it is either yes or no makes absolutely no sense.

They would be in a rowboat going to the State Capitol if it weren’t

for the infrastructure that exists there now, and we need to be

mindful of that fact.

So I look forward to the testimony, and I look forward to asking

questions of the witnesses. Thank you very much.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Costa. Mr. Cardoza.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DENNIS CARDOZA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this

hearing for items that have purpose and meaning.

Both Chairman Pombo and I represent portions of the Delta that

have become increasingly concerned over the years about the state

of our levees and the lack of response should an emergency occur

within the Delta itself or the Bay area.

When the next earthquake occurs, the Valley will be the Baton

Rouge of California. And therefore, it is critical that we continue

to meet regularly with local, state, and Federal agencies to work

toward repairing the levees and developing an emergency response

plan.

That need has been made even more clear in the recent rains,

which have further weakened the levees and caused severe flooding

in parts of the Valley this week. In fact, it has been brought to my

home, where 150,000 people were evacuated.

Whether a major breach will occur is no longer even a question;

the question is when it will occur, and will we be prepared to handle it. The entire levee system in the San Joaquin Valley has never

been upgraded, even after the floods of 1979, which caused millions

of dollars in damage.

After those storms, numerous breaches along the San Joaquin

River were repaired, but never upgraded. Instead, the California

and Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin Comprehensive

Study was initiated, but never even completed. As a result, the system remains an unmanageable combination of private, state, and

Federal levees, with no single agency taking responsibility for addressing the problem.

In order to convey the magnitude of this problem, I would like

to mention a few statistics. Two-thirds of the state population,

many in Southern California, receive a portion of their drinking

water from the Delta. Fifty percent of California agriculture, seven

million acres, receive water from the Bay Delta system. The

Central Valley is the number one ag-producing region in the world.

Clearly a major breach would be catastrophic, not just for the

Valley, but for the rest of California, and especially Southern

California as well.

We would have a real problem on our hands. And while the focus

of Federal funds has primarily been in the Sacramento region,

fresh drinking water into agriculture and the nationwide economic

impact of a disaster response would clearly indicate that the time

7

has been significantly upon us to upgrade the levees and formulate

a plan to deal with emergencies.

I would also like to note that it begs the question why aren’t we

focusing more heavily on the increasing surface storage capacity of

the Valley? We need more surface storage capacity.

This week is a perfect example of what we could have done if we

had had availability. We should have filled that reservoir up, and

we could have had several years worth. We could have had availability. As we see the snow-pack is here and it has gone well beyond 100 percent, 150 percent of average, we must be able to preserve that water.

Mr. Chairman, thanks again for holding this hearing.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cardoza follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Dennis Cardoza, a Representative in Congress

from the State of California

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing on an issue that urgently

needs attention.

Both of us represent portions of the Delta and have become increasingly concerned over the years about the state of the levees and the lack of a response should

an emergency occur within the Delta itself, or in the Bay Area.

When the next earthquake occurs, the Valley will be the ‘‘Baton Rouge’’ of California. Therefore, it’s critical that we continue meeting regularly—with local, state

and federal agencies—to work toward repairing the levees AND developing an emergency response plan.

That need has been made even more clear by the recent rains which have further

weakened the levees and have caused severe flooding in parts of the Valley this

week.

Whether a major breach will occur is no longer even a question. The questions

is when will it occur and will we be prepared to handle it.

The entire levee system in the San Joaquin Valley has never been upgraded, even

after the floods of 1997, which caused millions of dollars in damage. After those

storms, the numerous breaches along the San Joaquin River were repaired, but

never upgraded.

Instead, The California Sacramento & San Joaquin River Basin Comprehensive

Study was initiated but never completed.

As a result, the system remains an unmanageable combination of private, state

and federal levees, with no single agency taking responsibility for addressing the

problems.

In order to convey the magnitude of this problem, I’d like to mention a few statistics:

• 2/3 of the state’s population (many in southern California) receives a portion of

their drinking water from the Delta

• 50% of California agriculture—7 million acres—receives water from the BayDelta system.

• The Central Valley is the number 1 ag producing region in the world.

Clearly, a major breach would be catastrophic not just for the Valley, but for the

rest of California—and especially southern California—as well.

We have a real problem on our hands.

And while the focus of federal funds has primarily been in the Sacramento region,

the threat to drinking water and agriculture—and the nationwide and economic impacts a disaster would cause—clearly indicate that it is time to spend significant

resources to upgrade the levees and formulate a plan to deal with an emergency.

I would also like to note that this begs the question—why aren’t we focusing more

heavily on increasing surface storage capacity in the Valley?

As we speak, the snowpack in the Sierra has gone beyond 150% of average. Not

only should this water be preserved, surface storage projects would go a long way

toward alleviating flooding.

For too long irrational and unworkable environmental regulations have prevented

storage projects from being built and levees from being repaired.

It is time to take a serious look at these policies that have strangled our ability

to address these issues.

I look forward to hearing from our constituents as well as the state and federal

agencies on where we stand and their plans to proceed.

8

Thank you

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Cardoza. I appreciate your

opening statement.

There being nobody else to give an opening statement, we will

refer to our first panel. I want to welcome The Honorable Jack

Sieglock, San Joaquin County Supervisor from Lodi, California;

The Honorable Victor Mow, Supervisor of San Joaquin County in

Stockton, California; The Honorable Gary Giovanetti, Vice Mayor of

the City of Stockton; and Mr. Jonas Minton, Senior Project Manager of the Planning and Conservation League.

Gentlemen, welcome to the hearing. What we will do is hear

from each of you, and then open up the panel for questions from

the dais up here.

We do have a five-minute clock. Now, your written testimony is

submitted for the record, so that will be included in its entirety.

And you are free to be extemporaneous in your remarks, if you

would like to. If you would abide by the five-minute clock, that

would be appreciated.

Mr. Sieglock, welcome to the Committee, and you may begin.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JACK SIEGLOCK, SUPERVISOR, SAN

JOAQUIN COUNTY, LODI, CALIFORNIA; ACCOMPANIED BY

THE HON. VICTOR MOW, SUPERVISOR, SAN JOAQUIN

COUNTY, STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

Mr. SIEGLOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to acknowledge my three staff members who have

been instrumental during this whole process.

I would like to point out that we very much appreciate their

leadership and the leadership that they have already provided with

regard to Delta issues.

In particular, we appreciate the efforts of this Committee and the

efforts of Mr. Pombo with regard to Jones Tract, which probably

signalled once again the need to begin working on the Delta. We

appreciate his efforts with regard to offstream storage, a little

project called the M.O.R.E. Water Project, which would divert

water, which would be in complementary standing to the Temperance Flat Project, which would complement the Shasta Dam enlargement. We think that is all part of the solution to helping relieve pressure off the Delta, which would also then help with the

Delta levee situation.

Not all of you are from the Delta area. Geographically it is Sacramento, Stockton, Tracy, Pittsburgh, Antioch. Under that area

1,000 miles of waterways. It was built in the early 1900s, a lot by

Chinese laborers, and not a lot has been done since then.

Some dollars have been invested by the Federal government, by

the state government, but it is in much need of repair, expansion,

and fortifying.

A lot of times I think we think of the Delta as agriculture, wildlife, recreation, and again, delivering water. It is obviously a great

switching yard for the State of California, so there are at least 22

million reasons why we should be concerned about the Delta, because of all the water that goes from north to south.

9

But in addition to that, the water quality standards are very important because there are a number of agencies that pull directly

out of the Delta into the East Bay and Bay area.

In addition to the water aspect, we have two deepwater ports.

We have transcontinental railroads, which you may not think

about as much. Sixty percent of the natural gas in Northern California comes from the Delta. Again, we have the roadway system.

And we have a number of power transmission facilities.

So the Delta is very important for a number of reasons that expand beyond the local interests, that expand beyond state interests,

and they go to Federal economic interests. They go to world trade.

So there is obviously and definitely a need for greater Federal involvement.

The management of the Delta is very complicated. As you may

know, some of the levees are Corps-related, some of the levees are

managed by cities because of their jurisdiction or boundaries, meeting FEMA requirements. And again, we appreciate Congressman

Pombo’s leadership and your support for funding through here to

beef up those levees, so that we would be well-protected in the

Stockton area.

And in that regard as well, the other manager is the reclamation

district. In our county alone, we have 51 reclamation districts, and

so these are locally elected bodies. And they tax themselves. They

raise money.

But the process to work on the levees is very complicated. It

takes a long time. It can be very cumbersome and expensive.

So I think part of the solution to discuss today are not just the

Federal dollars that may go on four levees and those kinds of

things, but also looking at streamlining the process. We would like

to see, the Corps used to be very involved in the Delta in terms

of dredging, and using that dredged material to beef up the levees.

We have seen that effort become virtually non-existent any more.

These rivers and the trees would fall down, they would keep them

clear, they would chop them out. That just doesn’t occur any more.

We would like to see that effort restored by the Corps.

In 1997, after that flooding took place, we saw the beginnings of

a study and partnership between the state and Federal government

to look at the problem, study the problem, try to identify what

ought to be done, how the Federal government, state government,

and local government work together. We would like to see that effort continue.

An interim report came out called the Sacramento-San Joaquin

River Basin California Comprehensive Study. We would like to see

that effort completed. It didn’t go far enough. It wasn’t done. The

rains this week certainly highlight that.

It was mentioned here about a 6.5 earthquake. Well, we could

have a pineapple express come through this year, which could do

as much damage I suppose as an earthquake, if it caused all the

snow to melt at once.

So the threat this year is imminent. Not just rain next week, but

again, a pineapple express, if you don’t know, it is a warm spring.

And so I believe we had one of those in 1986 and 1997. So that

is obviously a very imminent threat.

10

Anyway, let me close by saying again we very much appreciate

your holding these hearings. Federal involvement is important. You

do have a very important role to play. Obviously we need your assistance. Flood control has been a role played by the Federal government for many years. We see that role continuing.

We see the Delta in the whole, and in that regard, too, I hope

we don’t go to something like that to solve the problem. I don’t see

that solving the issue. I would like to make that statement as one

representing the San Joaquin County. I think we need to look at

the Delta as a whole. I don’t see that as the solution. It may solve

a small problem, but not the problem.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you allowing

me to start.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sieglock follows:]

Statement of Jack Sieglock, County Supervisor, Fourth District, and

Thomas R. Flinn, Director of Public Works, San Joaquin County,

California, on behalf of San Joaquin County, California

Background

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta lies at the confluence of the Sacramento and

San Joaquin Rivers in the heart of the Central Valley of California. The overall system consisting of some upstream levees and levees in the heart of the Delta contains

over 1,600 miles of federal participation levees, and an additional 730 miles of

levees which are non-federal. This system of channels, weirs and bypasses protect

more than a half million people and in excess of $50 billion of property improvements. The Delta itself stretches across six counties and contains mostly agricultural land uses; however, the cities of Brentwood, Tracy, Lathrop, Manteca, Stockton, Lodi and Sacramento all lie within the influence of the Delta. Today we are

speaking to you as San Joaquin County on behalf of the Delta. Approximately a

third of the Delta lies within our county, but the Delta itself is not only important

to us and the surrounding counties, but also the entire state and country. Construction of the levees started back in the 1860s in order to protect agricultural operations. Since that time many of the islands created by these levees have subsided

due to several physical phenomenon. It is not uncommon in some areas to find the

elevation of the islands to be as much as 20 feet below sea level. The California San

Joaquin Central Valley levee system that protects invaluable infrastructure has received limited maintenance funding for decades.

Activities Within the Delta

On first review it would appear that the Delta is primarily an agricultural concern. Closer examination shows that there are various elements of both transportation and utilities infrastructure that are supported by the Delta and would be severely impacted by a levee failure. As shown on the attached map there are numerous state and interstate highways that traverse the Delta, as well as several transcontinental railroads and two deepwater ports, significant statewide power transmission and natural gas storage and transmission facilities, to say nothing of the

water transmission facilities which provide a significant portion of the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as, the California Aqueduct and Delta Mendota Canal which

serve the southern central valley and the majority of southern California.

Impacts of Delta Levee Failure

Most of the levees in the Delta are quite fragile. They are constructed on weak

and unstable soils and the levees themselves have often been constructed with excavated non-engineered soil. These levees are all subject to various forms of potential

failure including over-topping, earthquakes, base failures, seepage, wind and water

erosion, extended high water saturation, dam failure inundation, to say nothing of

rodent damage. In June of 2004, a levee break occurred on Lower Jones Island

which appears to have been due to burrowing rodents. This failure resulted in the

flooding of approximately 12,000 acres, displacement of agricultural workers, took

nearly a year to restore the island, and cost to the State and Federal governments

for restoration exceeded $100 million. In 1997 floods resulting from high flows in

the San Joaquin River forced more than 120,000 people from their homes, and damaged or destroyed 30,000 homes and 2,000 businesses. This is just a small example

of what could occur. The State of California Department of Water Resources has

11

conducted a risk analysis to determine what could happen in the event of an approximate magnitude 6.5 earthquake on the west side of the Delta. That forecast predicts 30 levee failures inundating 16 islands, causing major disruption to transportation and utility systems, and, most important the disruption of water supply to

over 22 million citizens, industry and agriculture for several years. The economic,

to say nothing of the personal impact of such a failure, would be a catastrophe of

a similar magnitude that has been suffered by the City of New Orleans. The State’s

analysis also indicated that the probability of an earthquake of 6.5 at this location

is quite similar to that of a Katrina event. It estimates economic damages exceeding

$30 billion over five years.

Management of the Delta

The management of the Delta is a very complicated issue with numerous state

and federal regulatory agencies being involved as well as numerous counties, cities

and utilities having very strong interests. It is important to note that at in San

Joaquin County, most of these islands were created and are being maintained by

individual separate small Reclamation Districts that are managed by the farmers

on those respective islands. Within San Joaquin County alone there are 51 such

Reclamation Districts. Involved federal agencies in the Delta include the Federal

Bureau of Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey,

the Bureau of Land Management, EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Agriculture, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, NOAA Fisheries,

as well as the federal participation in the CalFed Bay-Delta Program. Although the

County of San Joaquin maintains no levees directly within the Delta, we do maintain levees upstream of the Delta that are instrumental to the entire system. We

also participate during emergency evacuation and relief activities. The County is not

resourced to fight major floods and looks to the State and Federal government for

assistance in such cases. It should be noted that the County in cooperation with the

City of Stockton and the San Joaquin Flood Control District developed a project to

upgrade levees in the Stockton area. This was done proactively to meet FEMA requirements with subsequent federal approval for reimbursement. This project serves

as a model of rapid project development which should be further considered in order

to expedite improvements at a reduced cost. It should also be noted that the County

is also advocating the More Water Project for off-stream flood storage from the

Mokelumne River which also feeds into the Delta. If the County is successful in this

project, storm water diversion during peak periods of high flow would decrease the

potential problems in the Delta.

Problem Identification

In summary, the Delta is a facility of importance to not just San Joaquin County

but the entire State of California and Nation. The infrastructure upon which we depend is very old. We have seen declining participation on behalf of state and federal

agencies in helping to maintain and improve these facilities. There is increased development in these areas. There are ongoing disputes as far as responsibility for

failures. And finally, there is not a clear direction for the future of the Delta. At

this time in San Joaquin County we feel the need to evaluate the Delta and determine how to assure its sustainability. We need a comprehensive plan. We need

funding and somehow or another, we need stronger, focused leadership.

Local Actions

In order to address these matters the San Joaquin County Flood Control and

Water Conservation District, which is only a planning agency with limited resources, has begun to take steps to work with the entities within our County and

surrounding areas to develop some strategies and plans to address these issues. The

Federal Government could be of assistance in helping us to address the following

issues:

Short Term:

• Streamline environmental processes for permitting of levee maintenance work

• Consider restoration of historic U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) dredging activities

• Complete the California Sacramento & San Joaquin River Basin Comprehensive

Study started by the USACE and the California State Reclamation Board in response to concerns raised by the 1997 flood. A draft interim report, which fell

far short of the original project scope, was released in July 2002

• Authorize participation of the USACE in emergency response and emergency

evacuation planning

12

Mid Term:

• Provide leadership and/or funding to become a part of the team to design the

future of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

• Direct the USACE to assume a leadership role in assuring preservation of the

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

• Fund USACE research into development of new, cost-effective strategies for design, construction and maintenance of levees

Long Term:

• Increase federal participation for maintenance of Delta levees

• Support local implementation of projects with Federal review and cost-share reimbursement

Thank you very much for your consideration.

13

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Sieglock. We usually refer to

the peripheral canal as Joe or Dan. You know, it comes with much

less baggage than does peripheral canal. But thank you for your

testimony. It was very valuable.

14

Next is Mr. Gary Giovanetti, the Mayor of the City of Stockton.

Welcome, Mr. Mayor.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GARY GIOVANETTI, VICE MAYOR,

CITY OF STOCKTON, STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

Mr. GIOVANETTI. Chairman Radanovich, members of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, thank you for this opportunity to

present our issues on water supply in response to catastrophic

levee failures in the Sacramento/ San Joaquin Bay-Delta Region,

Central California.

My name is Gary Giovanetti. I proudly serve as the Vice Mayor

for the City of Stockton, Board member of the San Joaquin Area

Flood Control Agency. With me today, sitting behind me is J. Gordon Palmer, Jr., a City Manager if you have questions for him.

Stockton is located 40 miles south of Sacramento and 80 miles

east of San Francisco at the heart of the Bay Delta Estuary, the

largest on the West Coast. We are the 13th-largest city in California and the 65th-largest city in America.

The Delta is a tidal area where the Sacramento River, flowing

from the north, and the San Joaquin River, flowing from the south,

and their tributaries come together. This estuary is 738,000 acres,

spanning across six counties. The Delta is 1100 miles of waterways

surrounding 60 levee-protected tracts and islands used primarily

for agriculture. The lowest islands are in the central and western

Delta, where much of the land is 15 to 25 feet below sea level due

to oxidation of the peat soil from continuous farming.

The Water Education Foundation reports an estimated 25 percent of all warm water and sport fishing species as well as 80 percent of the state’s commercial and fishery species live in or migrate

through these waters.

The State Water Project and the Federal Central Valley Project

transformed this saltwater estuary and marsh into a freshwater

conveyance for two-thirds of the population of California for 22 million people, and the multi-billion-dollar agricultural economy supplying irrigation to seven million acres of farmland.

The western portion of Stockton borders the Delta. These levees

are well maintained, and provide 100-year flood protection per

FEMA criteria. It should be noted that our taxpayers assessed

themselves and completed this 100-year protection under budget,

and in less time than expected.

The freshwater conveyance that now exists in the Delta is in serious jeopardy. Its 1100 miles of waterways benefit from only 275

miles Federal project of protected levees maintained by the Army

Corps of Engineers. The balance is privately owned by agricultural

communities, and is not built to FEMA standards.

As has been mentioned, you may recall a single failure in the

weakest part of the levee at Jones Tract cost $100 million to repair

and dewater the tract. Property owners are not capable of writing

that check. Just think if we could have used that money strictly for

repair and maintenance.

We must also look to the Endangered Species Act for commonsense interpretation. We know now that the Jones Tract failure

was due primarily to beaver caves and dams. My mother has

always told me an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

15

She was never an elected official, but she knows exactly why we

are here.

In recent years, the state has provided some assistance to the

Levee Subventions Program, a matching of 75 percent for repair

and maintenance costs. This program will end this year. It is estimated that $1 billion still is needed to repair and reinforce the

worst 500 miles of Delta levees.

Flooding of one of the Delta islands can have a domino effect by

putting more pressure on the adjacent levees, causing these levees

to fail. If many islands flood simultaneously, saltwater from the

San Francisco Bay will be sucked into the freshwater areas, contaminating drinking water and agricultural irrigation.

Beyond the water conveyance protection, at risk are the inland

ports of Stockton and Sacramento, commercial and recreational

navigation, highways, railroads, electrical transmission lines, natural gas storage, utility pipeline, fish, migratory waterfowl, and

hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Federal assistance cannot be limited to disaster relief. The fifthlargest economy in the world demands your attention now. Prevention is hugely cost-effective.

In summary, the Federal government should take immediate

first steps to channel Federal dollars to supplement the State

Levee Maintenance Subventions Program. The Federal government

should also move to develop an action plan to close levee breaks,

and dewater flooded areas, to minimize interruption and loss of

water supply.

We are requesting, we are begging, we are imploring you to act.

A levee break, as witnessed with Hurricane Katrina, will affect 10

times the population, 10 times the loss to the California economy,

and 10 times the cost to repair. We don’t have time to debate, conjecture, and policy discussion.

Thank you for your consideration.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Giovanetti follows:]

Statement of Gary S. Giovanetti, Vice Mayor,

City of Stockton, California

The Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta is the tidal area where the Sacramento and

San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries meet the Delta Estuary, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the United States. The Delta comprises more than 738,000

acres in six counties. The Delta’s 700 miles of waterways surround more than 60

levee protected tracts and islands. The lowest islands are in the agricultural portions of the western Delta where much of the land is 15 to 25 feet below sea level

and continuing to sink due to oxidation of the peat soil. Most of the 1,100 miles of

levees surrounding these islands are privately owned and maintained. The Delta

serves as the hub of fresh water deliveries from northern to southern California.

The State Water Project and Federal Central Valley Project transformed the Delta

from a salt water estuary into a fresh water conveyance for a multi-billion dollar

urban and agricultural economy. The Central Valley Project relies on Delta fresh

water conveyance capabilities to supply 7 million acres of highly productive farmland south of the Delta.

A massive Delta levee failure, likely caused by an earthquake with a similar occurrence probability as Hurricane Katrina, would bring immense economic impact

by ceasing water deliveries to much of the state not to mention displacing hundreds

of thousands of people from their homes. If a catastrophe of this magnitude were

to occur, the fresh water conveyance for 2/3rds of the state’s drinking water supplies

would be lost for many years. Losing the Delta would be devastating to the 5th largest economy in the world. Existing storage, conservation and alternative sources of

fresh water would simply not sustain the water demands throughout the state. A

16

likely scenario would be the tremendous loss of agricultural lands as irrigation

water would be transferred to urban uses.

Approximately 400,000 people live in and around the Delta. The portion of the City of Stockton located within the Delta is protected from flooding by levees. These

levees are well maintained and provide 100-year flood protection per FEMA criteria.

Immediately to the west of the City are the numerous tracts and islands which are

protected by levee systems and comprise the heart of the Delta. These levee systems

are critical to the efficient control of salinity intrusion from the San Francisco Bay,

allowing the Delta to be the fresh water supply for 23 million Californians. Although

not currently drawing drinking water supplies from the Delta, Stockton will have

its Delta Water Supply Project on line in 2010 to supply the metropolitan area with

35 percent of its current municipal and industrial needs.

Except for 275 miles of federal project levees along the navigable channels, the Corps of Engineers has not inspected or rehabilitated the private Delta levees because they are not part of the federal levee system. In recent years the State has

provided assistance through the Levee Subventions Program, matching 75% of repair and maintenance costs. That highly successful program ended in 2005.

Assemblymember Lois Wolk (D-Davis) has introduced a bill to extend the Levee

Subventions Program an additional two years and seeks greater funding for Delta

levee maintenance. It is estimated that $1 billion dollars would be needed to repair

and reinforce the worst 500 miles of Delta levees to minimum FEMA standards.

Federal dollars are needed to supplement the Levee Subventions Program to maintain the Delta’s viability to convey fresh water to pumps that serve 2/3rds of the

State’s population. Although the risk of levee failure will be reduced through ongoing levee maintenance efforts, it will never be eliminated.

Need For Immediate Funding For Upgrading Delta Levees

Although the State and Federal interest and need for action to upgrade Delta levees has been clear for many years, significant State and Federal assistance has

been basically limited to disaster assistance until 1984 when the State committed

roughly ten million dollars per year to the State Delta Levee Maintenance Subvention Program. Federal interest in agriculture, commercial and recreational navigation, transpor- tation, fish, migratory waterfowl, and fresh water supplies as related to the Delta

is and has been clear, however, the non-disaster federal contribution to maintenance

and rehabilitation of the non-project levees in the Delta has been directed primarily

to studies.

There Is A Real Need To Secure Funds That Will Result in Immediate

Placement of Dirt and Rock On Existing Levees To Reduce The Risk of

Levee Failure

The most effective way to accomplish this result is to contribute funding to the already ongoing State Delta Levee Maintenance Subvention Program which is administered by the State Reclamation Board through the California Department of

Water Resources and California Department of Fish and Game.

Disaster Response

Local agencies can help fight flooding but do not have the financial ability to repair a levee break, dewater the flooded areas or otherwise undertake major restoration work. Once a levee break occurs, the assessable base of the local agencies is

of little value. This was the case in June 2004, when an unexpected levee break of

Lower Jones Tract overwhelmed the local ability to respond. This single break cost

nearly $100 million for emergency response, damage to private property, lost crops,

levee repair, and pumping costs. The opportunity for possible reimbursement

through currently structured disaster assistance or similar types of programs does

not provide the cash necessary to accomplish the work. Given today’s costs, only a

state or federal agency has the financial capability to adequately respond to a Delta

levee break. A plan for immediate response by a state or federal agency once a levee

break occurs is essential to containment of the damages including the protection of

the water supply. The plan should provide for immediate restoration of the levee

and drainage facilities to the point that the local agencies can financially and effectively resume operation and maintenance. Emergency response regardless of the

type of emergency should not involve a debate on policy. Immediate no holds barred

response to arrest the threat should be the goal.

Federal Responsibility

Due to the critical importance of the Delta levee system to the State’s economy,

the federal government should to take immediate action to channel federal dollars

to supplement the Levee Subventions Program and the Corps of Engineers should

17

be directed to take action to evaluate the future of the Delta, invest in levee repair

and maintenance and develop an action plan to close levee breaks and dewater

flooded areas in the Delta to minimize interruption and loss of water supplies for

the federal Central Valley Project and other projects dependent upon the Delta.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate your testimony. Next is Mr. Jonas Minton, Senior Project Manager for the Plan- ning and Conservation League. Mr. Minton, welcome to the Subcommittee. You may begin your

testimony.

STATEMENT OF JONAS MINTON, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER, THE PLANNING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE,

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

Mr. MINTON. Good morning. Thank you all very much. I am Jonas Minton, Water Policy Advisor for the Planning and Conservation League. Now, you know that is an environmental organization. But my comments truthfully are also influenced by 30 years in the water

supply and flood management business. I was a water agency manager. I was the executive director of a regional water forum. From

2000 to 2004 I was Deputy Director of the California Department

of Water Resources.

Flooding is also a personal issue with us. In 1997 our home on

the American River flooded. Last New Year’s Eve at 5 in the morning the sheriff pounded on our door telling us that we had another

voluntary evacuation, and so that changed our New Year’s plan.

As you think about the Delta today, there are five points I am

going to quickly go over for your consideration. We are talking

about planning for a potential collapse catastrophe in the Delta.

There is already a catastrophe in the Delta. As Vice Mayor

Giovanetti pointed out, that estuary is the largest estuary on the

West Coast of the United States. It is the largest estuary on the

West Coast of the hemisphere.

Now you heard at your earlier hearings that the pelagic fisheries,

the open-water fisheries, have already collapsed. And that has relevance to water supply how?

Here is the second point for your consideration. I like to think

Mother Nature is a kindly, benevolent spirit. But we have also

heard that there are real-world consequences when we ignore the

physical laws of nature.

Let us think back to Klamath in 2002. The decision was made

to provide cold water deliveries for water uses in that basin. Now,

four years later, we know that we are facing a crippling of these

fisheries on the whole West Coast.

Katrina, what happened there? They paved over the wetlands,

that part of the ecosystem that buffers the natural resources. What

happened? Storm surge came in. The lack of that buffer helped

allow the leveling of New Orleans. Klamath River, we see what is

happening there.

The third point is that catastrophe planning is essential, but it

cannot be done by nameless, faceless bureaucrats in our cubicles.

Now, I am commending the California Department of Water Resources—and you will hear from Lester Snow—as part of their

18

Delta visioning process, they are looking at how to openly,

transparently involve the public, many users of the Delta, in catastrophe planning. So it is a real plan, a workable plan.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which

receives a portion of its water supply from the Delta, has already

embarked on that process. They have a plan in place to deal with

up to a six-month interruption in their water supply from the Colorado River or the State Water Project. And now with the information that this Committee and other forums have provided, they are

extending their time period.

We are unaware, and we look forward to hearing the testimony

later in this hearing, what the Federal government is doing. The

Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps of Engineers, the resource agencies, and FEMA. Are they undertaking a similar sort of inclusive,

open process, where everyone knows what the plan is? We are unaware of that. We encourage you to ask them to conduct such planning.

The fourth point, the peripheral canal. Not Joe, not John, but we

will call it the peripheral canal. There is a natural feeling that perhaps this is the silver bullet answer. If the Delta is going to have

problems, what do we do? Instead of getting water through the

Delta, let us think about routing it around the Delta.

Now, here are some things for your consideration. There are

huge unknowns about a peripheral canal. How big would it be?

How much would it cost? Who would pay for it? What would be its

environmental impact?

Now let me give you one more factoid, as reported in last month’s

Science Magazine. The proposed intake for the peripheral canal is

at Hood, California. And certainly Mr. Pombo knows exactly where

that is. That is at elevation 19 feet above current sea level.

Science Magazine says with the temperatures that are predicted

to occur from a variety of models, sea level rise could be as much

as 20 feet. Any rise, even a fraction of that, severely compromises

Hood as an intake point for the peripheral canal.

Why don’t you just move the intake up further? Well, that is

going to get you right to the back side of the Sacramento Regional

Wastewater Treatment Plant outpost, and I don’t think we are suggesting that.

The last point is where this goes. California needs a very reliable

supply for both its ecosystem and our commerce, our people. The

best way to ensure that reliability for our state prosperity is to increase investments in conservation, recycling, and groundwater

cleanup.

Attached to my testimony are excerpts from Governor

Schwarzenegger’s recently released updates to the California State

Water Plan. It showed that to the year 2030, if we keep doing the

conservation programs we are doing, even with an additional 12

million residents, California’s water use would be slightly less than

it is now. If we do conservation, it will be less.

On top of that, the Governor’s recently released water plan identifies about five million acre-feet of water conservation recycling

and groundwater cleanup potential.

19

1Presented to the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Water and Power, April 6, 2006

by Jonas Minton j. For forty years PCL has been a leading environmental advocacy group in

California. Over the past two decades PCL has sponsored and supported $16 billion in water

and other resource bonds approved by California voters.

In conclusion, we think the water supply reliability is very important. We think that there are some common-sense, cost-effective

ways to achieve that.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Minton follows:]

Statement of Jonas Minton, Water Policy Advisor,

Planning and Conservation League 1

I am Jonas Minton, Water Policy Advisor for the Planning and Conservation

League. My comments today are also built upon my 30 years of experience in the

water industry including serving as a water agency manager, executive director of

a regional water forum and, from 2000 to 2004, Deputy Director of the California

Department of Water Resources. I have done a lot bricks and mortar projects in my

career.

Today I will quickly go through five key points you need to know as you think

about the Delta.

The first is that the Delta is already in a catastrophe. This Delta is the largest

estuary on the west coast of not just the United States but the entire Western

Hemisphere. And its ecosystem is collapsing. As scientists reported to you in your

earlier hearing, the pelagic fish are at record lows and some are teetering on the

brink of extinction.

We would like to think of Mother Nature as a kindly, benevolent spirit. However

the second thing we need to remember is that there are real world consequences

when we ignore physical laws. Let’s look at what happened in Louisiana. When they

paved over the wetlands, they removed that natural buffer to storm surges. That

helped let in the force that wiped out New Orleans.

The Klamath River is an even closer analogy. In 2002 the decision was made to

override the physical needs of the fish to allow large deliveries to agricultural customers. Now four years later the collapse of that fishery may very well shut down

California’s entire commercial salmon fishery and result in the loss of thousands of

jobs. To compound the tragedy, it is now known that those levels of deliveries to

water users in the Klamath Basin are not sustainable.

Just as in the Klamath Basin, attempting to ignore the ecosystem collapse in the

Delta will actually force reductions in water deliveries.

The third point is that effective catastrophe planning is essential but it cannot

be done by faceless bureaucrats in their cubicles. The Department of Water Resources is beginning to prepare a State contingency plan in conjunction with the

public process for developing a Delta Vision. The Metropolitan Water District of

Southern California already has a plan in place to manage a 6 month interruption

in supply from the Colorado River Aqueduct or the State Water Project. They are

now extending their plan to cover a longer outage.

We are unaware if the federal agencies—the Bureau of Reclamation, the Corps

of Engineers, FEMA and the fishery agencies—are cooperating on a federal contingency plan.

Congress should direct those agencies to use an open and transparent process to

develop the federal plan for reversing the existing ecological catastrophe and reducing the risk of reductions in water supply reliability.

The fourth point is that the peripheral canal is not the silver bullet answer to

the problems in the Delta. There is a natural inclination to think about a way to

move water around, instead of through, the Delta. However the costs and environmental impacts of a peripheral canal are huge unknowns.

Even the engineering feasibility of a peripheral canal is questionable. The suggested intake location at Hood, California is only 19 feet above current sea level.

Last month the journal Science published a study estimating that sea levels could

rise by as much as 20 feet. Any rise close to that level would leave the peripheral

canal as a multi billion dollar stranded asset.

All of this leads to the last, and most important point. California residents and

our economy are dependent on a healthy ecosystem and reliable water supplies.

The best way to ensure reliable water supplies and to relieve the existing environmental catastrophe is to reduce diversions from the Delta and increase conservation,

recycling, and groundwater cleanup.

20

I strongly recommend that you carefully review the new information in the Update to the California State Water Plan just released by Governor Schwarzenegger’s

Department of Water Resources. Attached are key excerpts.

The State Water Plan shows that even with an additional 12 million residents by

the year 2030, under current conditions continued total water use will actually be

slightly less than current water use. And under a resources conserving scenario

total use would be even less.

On top of all that the Governor’s Updated State Water Plan also identifies an additional 5 million acre feet of urban water conservation, water recycling and groundwater cleanup potential. These include a lot of bricks and mortar projects.

In conclusion, the best way for dealing with highly likely risks to central and

southern California water supplies and the current ecosystem catastrophe is to reduce Delta diversions and steer investments to the kinds of regional integrated

projects that are much more reliable.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Minton. I appreciate your testimony. And I agree with you; I don’t think the peripheral canal

is the answer. Not only the flood threat, but I do believe that another project is the Auburn Dam, which was mentioned a little bit

earlier from my friend, Mr. Costa, that if it weren’t for dams on

the rivers that feed the Valley and the Delta, we would be doing

a rowboat from Bakersfield to Sacramento. And the only major

river left in the area that doesn’t have a dam on it is the American

River.

And what astounds me is that we can sit here and talk and

whine and cry about the fact that we need to solve this problem,

yet nobody really wants to go to the most cost-effective answer, the

most potentially contributing solution for Bay-Delta health, and the

most cost-efficient means for preventing flooding in that area—the

Auburn Dam.

But let us all talk around it, and let us all talk about how we

can’t do it, and talk more about all these solutions that aren’t really solutions, that don’t give us the kind of benefit that we are looking for in a 500-year flood protection for the area. Let us just talk

about other stuff.

Thank you. I just had to vent that. That really just drives me

nuts.

But Mr. Sieglock, given that, doesn’t the need, for example, in

the floods we had in 1997, the fact that we have got a potential

1997 lurking in the Sierras, and with this warm rain season that

we have got right now, this spring; doesn’t it cry for the need for

more water storage reservoirs?

Mr. SIEGLOCK. Absolutely. I would agree, Mr. Chairman, with

your comment with regard to Auburn Dam and its need, enlarging

the Shasta, Temperance Flats, the Water Project. I think all those

are very much needed. I think they are very wise projects. I think

they are good for the environment, not bad for the environment,

and certainly would relieve substantial pressure off the Delta.

So therefore, obviously it would be very helpful. And I think they

are cost-effective, too.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Well, it is. I think when you are looking at the

numbers now, with the cost of repairing levees and the cost of

razing Folsom Dam, you know, the Auburn Dam alternative is still

the most cost-efficient. As well as all the other benefits it brings

to solving this looming problem in California, it still is the most

cost-efficient solution.

21

This would be to all witnesses. We are facing a very tight financial situation here in Washington, but there should be some Federal intervention in helping prevent a levee disaster.

What is the most cost-effective way, in your mind, to avoid a

Katrina-like disaster in the Delta? All of you are able to answer,

if you would like.

Mr. SIEGLOCK. Well, I think the most cost-effective way is to invest money today, and not wait for the disaster to occur. Let us not

wait for a 6.5 or greater earthquake.

And actually, I think your leadership today in having these hearings and highlighting this need to get Federal involvement, to get

the Corps of Engineers involved.

In addition to that, we have a Governor in California who is

showing a willingness, through the bond process, to spend money

and invest money in the Delta. So there appears to me to be a partnership that could develop between the Federal government and

the state government, in investing money to pay, and not waiting

10 years, 20 years, waiting for the weather to get nice, until we forget about it.

I think we need to be proactive, which we certainly are. And that

we need to act now, and invest the money today. As my friend said,

as Ben Franklin said and his mother said, an ounce of prevention

is worth a pound of cure.

Mr. MINTON. If I might add, one concept that is achieving greater

traction in the flood management community is the concept of

stoutly defending areas. Urbanized areas need to be stoutly defended. Those levees need to be just about as strong as dams.

However, we also note that in California, with our growing population, there is a need to house folks. Currently there are at least

100,000 homes in the pipeline to be placed in areas with inadequate flood protection, areas that have flooded repeatedly over the

past several decades.

There is not enough money to provide protection throughout the

Central Valley, all those areas that are not yet developed. Funds

should be focused on those areas that are currently urbanized. We

have to ensure that our agricultural operations are protected to a

reasonable level, that our large-priced facilities are there. But those

areas that are currently urbanized—Sacramento, parts of San

Joaquin County, Yuba City, Marysville, West Sacramento—they

deserve that attention. That is where the largest losses would be.

Mr. RADANOVICH. What kind of flood protection do you all want?

Do you want 100-year flood protection, 200-year flood protection?

Do you want 500-year flood protection for that area? People in flood

control areas, what do they shoot for?

Mr. SIEGLOCK. Well, the standard now is 100-year flood protection, as dictated by FEMA. But I know in many parts of the country we are going to 200-year flood protection. And perhaps that is

a question that needs to be debated. Is 100-year enough, or do we

need to go to a 200-year level?

Mr. RADANOVICH. To my knowledge, it has been 500-year flood

protection is what most parts of the area are shooting for.

Mr. SIEGLOCK. OK.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Most of the other major cities are going 500-

year flood protection. I mean, how much flood protection can you

22

get from having the strongest levees in the world right there in

that valley doing nothing else?

Mr. MINTON. One of the misconceptions that came out of FEMA

was that 100-year flood protection. My wife, who is in the audience,

thought 100-year flood protection meant it wasn’t going to flood for

100 years.

Now what we really know is that when you have so-called 100-

year protection, it means every year you have one chance in 100

that you are going to flood. And that means that you take on a 30-

year mortgage——

Mr. RADANOVICH. But you are not answering my question. I am

saying if you reinforce the levees and do nothing else, you are only

going to get, maybe you are only going to get 100-year flood protection or maybe a little bit more.

Mr. MINTON. At the most, two to maybe three hundred. The only

solution to get 500-year flood protection in that part of the State

of California is the Auburn Dam.

While there has certainly been a lot of discussion in the past

about Auburn Dam, even if you have Auburn Dam, you still have

to do all those other actions.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And you cannot get 500-year flood protection

without the Auburn Dam

Mr. MINTON. You probably cannot.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK, thanks. Grace.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And along the same line

of questioning, it is unbelievable to me that the new housing developments are allowed behind the levees, and you can actually see

things going by in the river. And you think that levees that were

built with peat moss by Coolie labor or whatever other kind of

labor there was would have been protected to the degree that you

would not endanger those people living in those homes.

I am not sure where this would lie in, whether it is the local government or the state government that have allowed these housing

to continue to blossom. Yes, you need housing, no question. But

does it have to be right by the levees that potentially will not last

if you have a 6.5 earthquake?

And I would like to direct this to Mr. Sieglock.

Mr. SIEGLOCK. OK. Well, I think again we are meeting Federal

standards with regards to our levee protection in the City of

Stockton. And certainly if that standard rises, we will meet that

challenge. And because of Mr. Pombo’s leadership, we actually invested through the local government and some state and Federal

government to keep up with those upgrades that you are discussing.

I think it was said earlier that the whole valley right now would

be flooded potentially if we didn’t have offstream storage. So I

think answers like Auburn Dam, the Moore River would all help

in reducing that further up the Delta in providing greater flood

protection to those areas.

But we are meeting those Federal standards. We think that is

important.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Well, that still didn’t answer my question, sir,

I am sorry. But to me it is an area that you have already experienced levee breaks up and on through the years. You know they

23

may continue, and the reports in the past have indicated that

earthquakes could even make that even worse. I think my

colleague stated that, Mr. Costa. It liquefies those levees, and you

are going to have catastrophe. And yet you still are allowing housing in this area.

I will move on, because that is just a point of contention with me.

I lived in Sacramento for six years, and I saw a lot of the building

going on at the time that I lived in Sacramento.

Has FEMA ever offered training to San Joaquin County personnel? Anybody?

Mr. MOW. Congresswoman, on your previous question, as we all

know, the State of California has grown by 600,000 people.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I can’t hear you, sir, I am sorry.

Mr. MOW. I am sorry. As we all know, the State of California has

grown by 600,000 people. Much of that growth has to be accommodated somehow in the State of California.

For San Joaquin County, 40 percent of the folks living in San

Joaquin County will be behind some levees——

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I am talking about the training, sir. Has FEMA

offered training to San Joaquin County personnel?

Mr. MOW. I would say no.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Addressing some of your potential levee breaks.

Mr. MOW. At the state level.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. But not with the cities or counties?

Mr. MOW. We have an Office of Emergency Services that works

with FEMA, a representative to address any disaster.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. OK. But I guess what I am saying is, and we

saw this in Louisiana with Katrina, is that the agencies were not

speaking to each other. They were not able to take effective measures, because nobody knew who was doing what, or when, or

where.

Mr. SIEGLOCK. Actually, we have very good coordination between

our law enforcement officials, our emergency management departments. We probably have one of the better plans that we are aware

of in the state. And I know that Mr. Baldwin works with FEMA

on a regular basis.

Since Katrina we have had a hearing on San Joaquin County’s

plight——

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Back to the question. Are they providing training to the personnel? That would be something that if someone

could answer, but I think you should reply to the Committee on

whether or not FEMA is working to ensure that everybody is on

the same page should you have a levee break or a catastrophe of

that magnitude.

Mr. MOW. Right. They are wanting us to move to an operable

analog system for communications in that regard, to have a better

communication system in those areas that we don’t want that to

happen.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. OK. And very quickly, have you done any

drills, along the same line of questioning? Any drills with FEMA

or with the state agencies to address something of this nature?

Mr. SIEGLOCK. We are drilling regularly from what I am told.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Ms. Napolitano.

24

Mr. SIEGLOCK. Ms. Napolitano, if I might mention, for the City

of Stockton, our fire department is the first responder, and we do

have regular drills.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Ms. Napolitano. Chairman Pombo.

Mr. Calvert?

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, gentlemen. First I would like to respond to the gentlelady’s question that FEMA is not the responsible agency to provide training for the local first responders. It is

up to the first responders to provide for their own training.

It is up to FEMA to coordinate Federal assistance if in fact a catastrophe does occur. They would have to change the their policy

to provide training to the first responders. That is not their job.

But getting back to the Delta, Mr. Costa mentioned the land acquisition in the Delta, and I remember and I shared with this Committee that was somewhat of a controversial subject at the time.

And we were involved in a couple of the major islands within the

Delta, and some of the local folks I would say were reluctant to

move toward that as part of the solution within the Delta.

Is that changing? I just wondered if in the last few years if that

has changed, because as we were looking at a through-Delta facility, in concert with moving the CALFED bill, land acquisitions was

something we set aside. Is there any comment about that from anyone? Is there any less reluctance today than there was in the past?

Mr. GIOVANETTI. I would say that the attitude is about the same.

Mr. CALVERT. The other issue on the peripheral canal, has that

changed? Again, when I was chairing this Committee, there

seemed to be such a level of opposition that we just didn’t go for

it. That is why we went with CALFED and we developed the

through-Delta facility. Did that change?

Mr. GIOVANETTI. The opposition is still there.

Mr. CALVERT. So those facts haven’t changed. OK. So assuming

then that the land acquisition is not going to take place and that

the peripheral canal is not going to be built, then we are moving

forward with a through-Delta facility under the CALFED scenario.

Then obviously there is levee problems within the Delta, and there

are certain levees—somebody mentioned 500 miles of levees—that

are prioritized for reconstruction.

There is $90 million within the CALFED bill, $90 million of Federal funds that were meant to be matched with state and local

funds, to be leveraged approximately three to one. If, in fact, the

Federal government was able to appropriate those types of funds,

are the state and locals willing and able to match those funds?

Mr. SIEGLOCK. I can’t speak from experience, but again, Governor Schwarzenegger appears to want to address the issue

through bonds. So it appears as if matching funds would be there

from the State of California.

Mr. CALVERT. If, in fact, those funds were appropriated, say in

the next couple of years, are state and local ready, in effect, to the

point of planning to spend those dollars for levee reconstruction?

In other words, if we went in and built the types of levees that

are necessary to withstand a potential earthquake or catastrophe

within the Delta, are you able to take the money today, even today,

to spend the money to reconstruct some of those 500 miles of

25

levees? Has the design work been done? Has the environmental

documentation been completed?

Mr. SIEGLOCK. Actually, it takes a year to two years to get a permit to do levee repairs. And that is just from our side, on levees

that we work on as a county.

Mr. CALVERT. So this 500 miles of potential levee reconstruction,

how much has been done to get us to the point where we can start

construction on those levees?

Mr. SIEGLOCK. Much work needs to be done.

Mr. CALVERT. Does anybody have a timeline as to when we can

get the planning documentation done so we can actually, so I can

go out there to Richard’s district, and we can actually walk, get on

a little tractor and go on across, and see pilings being put in and

the rest? Anybody have any idea?

Mr. SIEGLOCK. Actually, we need that study.

Mr. CALVERT. Where are we at on that study

Mr. MINTON. It just started.

Mr. CALVERT. So now with the CALFED legislation, everybody is

getting together in a room, the Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife, Fish and Game, all the players. They are all working right

now to do it.

Mr. SIEGLOCK. I can’t say that. I haven’t seen a kumbaya conference.

Mr. MINTON. If I may, one of your other witnesses, Lester Snow,

I think will be a good respondent on that issue.

Mr. CALVERT. I understand that. But I wanted to hear from you,

the locals, what you are hearing. Sometimes you guys hear things

that are really going on sometimes that we don’t know about. That

is why I am asking the question.

Mr. MINTON. There are a couple things at the state level that Mr.

Costa alluded to. We in the environmental community, along with

cities, counties, and water flood managers, are very supportive of

the state flood bonds, those elements that were providing free flood

protection.

Mr. CALVERT. Are you in favor of the levee reconstruction?

Mr. MINTON. By and large, yes.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. Mr. Costa.

Mr. COSTA. Two questions, and not probably more appropriately

than the Chairman did. But it was alluded to I think with Mr. Calvert in his discussion of the levees it doesn’t seem to me that there

is as yet clearly a delineation as to the status quo of the private

levees, versus responsibility of levees by local districts, versus those

responsibility of the state, versus those of the Federal government.

For the somewhat 20 years I have worked on this, the state has

put literally hundreds of millions of dollars, through a series of

bond measures. So it is not like people have just been idle, sitting

by. And I think Congresswoman Napolitano makes a good point

when she talks about the responsibility of local government.

There has been a moratorium in building in Sacramento as a result of trying to make sections of the levee in need of repair free

from construction.

And so it seems to me, before we talk about additional Federal

dollars, which we, I think should do, and the state undertakes a

26

bond measure, we need to get a clear idea of which levees are

whose responsibility. And I don’t know that that has clearly been

vetted yet at this point in time.

Do any of you want to comment on that?

Mr. SIEGLOCK. I agree with your comment that there are a lot

of different interests that have different responsibility. And that is

perhaps one of the issues, one of the problems, in terms of taking

responsibility.

Obviously a reclamation district would basically be composed of

the farmers who own the land in the district. Maybe they can tax

themselves $50 or $100 an acre.

But with the kind of jobs you are talking about doing, you are

not going to be able to tax them, they are not going to be able to

raise enough money at $500 an acre, $1,000 an acre, because they

wouldn’t make any money.

Mr. COSTA. No, I understand that. Going with that I think is a

cost benefit analysis that needs to be done.

Mr. SIEGLOCK. Right.

Mr. COSTA. You indicated that hasn’t been done as it relates to

which of these are not only whose responsibility but most in need

of being rehabilitated.

Mr. SIEGLOCK. So that has not been defined yet. It needs to be.

Mr. COSTA. Right.

Mr. SIEGLOCK. And so getting to your question, though, while

they may be reclamation districts, they are certainly a public interest relative to the Delta for all the reasons listed, which would suggest that perhaps that state and Federal partnership needs to be

exercised.

Mr. COSTA. There is certainly a state importance to the Delta, for

all the reasons that have been stated.

Mr. SIEGLOCK. Correct. Right.

Mr. COSTA. But it is, I think, inaccurate or, in my view, to put

every island and every levee at the same level of importance, and

that is why I still believe that there needs to be an evaluation.

And I am not saying that we ought to buy up all the islands. I

know that is the controversy for both Congressman Pombo and for

Congressman Cardoza. But some of the islands I think where you

have two or three landowners, if you were to offer them fair market

value, they may be interested in selling.

I mean, $100 million that we spent on Jones Tract, 8,000 acres,

I mean, you look at the tradeoffs. Even the Federal government

doesn’t have unlimited funds.

Mr. MINTON. If I might observe, I think your question even goes

to a deeper problem, which is that in many areas of the Delta that

are urbanizing, they may be protected by a reclamation district

originally established to protect lands to agricultural standards.

As that land converts to urban, they do not have the funding

base to maintain even levees they have. They would not have the

funding base to maintain new levees.

Mr. COSTA. Before my time is up, the California Association of

Water Agencies headquarters has put up a proposal that I think

has merit. I would like to get your thoughts on it. And that is to

create kind of a like a blue-ribbon draft-like commission that would

look at the various solutions that we have talked about: the

27

through-Delta facility versus some other means of conveyance for

the linchpin of our plumbing system.

And then it would recommend it to whatever the best cost-feasible alternative would be. And then the Legislature would have

the option at that point to vote it up or down. Any thoughts on

that?

I mean, we have all dealt with these issues for years. The controversy will never, never, in my opinion, go away.

Mr. MINTON. The California State Legislature last year enacted

Assembly Bill 1200, which calls upon DWR, Department of Water

Resources, Fish and Game, to work with others to develop what

you are in essence suggesting: a vision recommendation to the Legislature. We are very supportive of that process and hope that it

succeeds.

Mr. COSTA. Well, my time is up, Mr. Chairman. But let me just

summarize that that is good, but that is not new. We have been

doing that for 40-some years. So how do we get off this paradigm

is continuing to be—we are living on borrowed time.

Mr. SIEGLOCK. Again, we think the Corps study needs to be completed, identifying cost and identifying needs of the Delta, and talk

about the environment. In some places, things have begun, but

then they were not finished. Some of those things need to be completed so you can identify should it all be saved, is there one that

shouldn’t be.

I mean, we have Franks Tract that was not saved for various

reasons. But should all the islands be saved? And is there some

higher and better use? Is there a less expensive way of going about

dealing with those levees? Are there restrictions we should put on

boating? I don’t know all those answers, but some of those studies

that were begun, I think we have some good information, they need

to be completed.

One thing we do know and one of my observations is when disaster does strike, the cost does become much greater, and it typically rests with the Federal government. You know, I thank you

again. I compliment you for these hearings, and based on that, we

need to get ahead of this problem.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Costa. Mr. Pombo.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you. In response to some of the questions that

have been asked, I think where we are right now is we have about

$45 million worth of improvement work that has already gone

through all of the process, the studies and all the permitting and

everything else that can be done right now.

The Army Corps is in the middle of doing their study on

prioritizing which levees should receive attention first, based on

what our greatest priorities are. And on those, as far as making a

decision about which levees should be saved and which areas

should be protected, I think it is easy for people to say that particular levee, let it go, and let that island flood, if they don’t happen to own it and live out there. And that is where we get into a

little bit of a different set of priorities, where we get into this, listening to my supervisors and the Vice Mayor from Stockton talk

about what all of their problems are.

Obviously these are issues that this Committee and other committees here are dealing with right now. But I think it is important

28

for my colleagues to hear just what you are up to, and what some

of the problems are.

Obviously, if we had it to do all over again, we probably wouldn’t

have built in some of the places we did. But the reality is those

houses are there, and we have to figure out a way to protect them.

The Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Radanovich, brought up

the Auburn Dam. I don’t think anybody can come to an answer

that gives us the 500-year flood protection for the City of

Sacramento without the Auburn Dam. That is just the pull-apart

reality that is in front of us right now.

The City of Sacramento, the City of Stockton have lower flood

protection than any other major city in this country. There is no

other major city in the country that is even close to what we have.

In New Orleans they were talking about 500-year flood protection.

Most major metropolitan areas have a minimum of 500-year flood

protection. And we are fighting to get 100 years in our area.

The Federal government does have liability. Jones Tract has

been brought up on a number of occasions. It cost us $100 million

in recovery and repair, in trying to bring back Jones Tract, and

that was a sparsely populated area. Most of that was farmland.

There were very few people left who lived out there.

The cost of repair and recovery for a major metropolitan area like

Stockton or the City of Sacramento would be in the billions of dollars. We are talking about getting a few hundred million dollars to

begin the levee reconstruction work that needs to be done to protect those areas. A few hundred million dollars versus spending billions of dollars. That is the real choice that we are faced with here.

Obviously, in 1997 we had flooding that was caused by heavy

rain that melted snow. We are in the middle of heavy rain that is

melting snow right now, and could have very similar results, if this

continues to go the way it is. We no longer have the option of sitting back and not doing something about it.

And I think Senator Feinstein, when she was out in the district

talking about this a few weeks ago, had a very good point. And

that was we know what our liability is, we know what the risk is

that we face. We no longer have the choice to sit back and do nothing. And that is the choice that Congress has right now. And it is

not if and when, but how fast can we get this done.

I appreciate you being here and sharing your stories with the

Committee. Obviously there are some different points of view, but

when it comes right down to it, we have to do everything we can

to protect those areas, to protect the citizens of this country. They

happen to be my constituents, they happen to be Mr. Cardoza’s

constituents in this case. But it is our responsibility to do something about it.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for doing this. I yield back my time.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Pombo. Mr. Cardoza

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of Mr. Pombo’s

comments that I totally agree with, I want to make mention of

something that Mr. Minton said.

You know, I don’t support a peripheral canal. However, the concept you put forward of putting this trough near the exit or the effluent from the City of Sacramento into the river was an idea that

I think deserves some consideration, because I think in these urban

29

areas that receive this water, it is often easy to sit on high, and

when you aren’t threatened with the flooding, you aren’t threatened with the challenges of raising the levees in the environment

where the Endangered Species Act oftentimes doesn’t let you do the

work that you think you need to do to protect the population, I

think maybe we should consider making the inflow for the California water projects near the effluent, because only then would

they understand that water quality is truly something that we

have to deal with. It may be a concept that we need to look at.

I want to go to Mr. Giovanetti’s testimony and look at how did

you arrive at the $1 billion cost estimate for repair and maintenance of the Delta levees?

Mr. GIOVANETTI. There was a recent Army Corps of Engineers

study that estimated the $1 billion amount.

Mr. CARDOZA. What is Stockton doing with regard to levee repair

and maintenance and construction in the flood plain?

Mr. GIOVANETTI. We are no longer allowing construction in the

flood plain. We are also doing our best to assist reclamation districts by recently we loaned $400,000. TEJAFCA, as I mentioned

in my testimony, was a project where the citizens assessed themselves for $70 million to get us to at least the 100-year protection.

And we are still working on reimbursement for those funds.

One of the developers is voluntarily looking at a 300-year flood

protection.

Mr. CARDOZA. I am familiar with that, Mr. Giovanetti. And it

makes, you know, as I look at what has been happening, and there

certainly is incredible growth happening in our part of the central

Valley. But as I look at some of the new developments, it is actually the new developments that are putting in the most responsible

levee systems, and the vast majority of the property that is vulnerable were built many years ago and before you and I or either an

officer had any responsibility and I might mention was during a period of time when it was assumed that the Auburn Dam would be

built.

And so it was based on changes of decisions that happened here

in the Federal government and the state government or were ramifications to actions that are now being criticized here that actually

may have precipitated some of the problems.

Mr. GIOVANETTI. I agree.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Sieglock or Mr. Mow, would you like to comment along these lines as well? To what San Joaquin County is

doing with regard to building in flood plains and what you are

doing along levy restoration work.

Mr. SIEGLOCK. Again, with the county technically in the unincorporated area, we are not seeing building in that regard, and if we

do, then they have to meet standards so they are not in the flood

zone, that we are in a flood plain. From our perspective on LAFCO,

we make sure that those standards are being met if new annexations occur again so they are not being built in a flood zone or in

a flood plain.

A number of the developments that are being required to meet

a much higher standard are voluntarily meeting that standard because the public demands that as well, so I think we have been

very proactive.

30

Again, the SOJAFCA effort was a model effort for improving

flood protection in all of Stockton to bring those levies up, so that

was local participation along with the state and Federal government. So it is certainly something we like to see, and it is perhaps

time to evaluate a higher standard. We are a smaller community

than Sacramento or some other areas, but maybe you are talking

about adding a foot to get the additional protection. I don’t know.

Mr. MOW. Just on the growth in San Joaquin County would involve some danger from flooding, and that is a fact. And our county

continues to grow. We are looking at holding developers responsible

for levee construction to bring them up to a higher standard. And

I think that is something that most communities in our county.

Mr. CARDOZA. I know my time is up. I know we have to go take

a vote on the Floor in just a moment, but I wanted to make one

more point in response to a question that Ms. Napolitano made

earlier.

And that is that there is a request that is being coordinated between our counties, Stanislaus County and San Joaquin County, to

try and put together an inoperability plan for communications. And

it would really be very important for this Committee and the Members who sit on it to help us work on that, because frankly, the

quicker we can respond to dangers or breaks, the quicker that we

can make sure that Southern California’s water does not become

vulnerable.

If we can fix these levee breaches, we see that the quicker we

can respond, the less damage. They tend to widen with time, and

the quicker we can get on this and respond to these damages, the

better we would all be in trying to make sure that the Delta remains as safe as possible and the water supply remains as continuous as possible.

So with that, I would just make that point.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Cardoza. We appreciate your

questions. Ms. Napolitano and I have a couple of more.

But can I get a sense from the panel? When we are talking about

either a through-Delta facility or a peripheral canal, we are not

really talking about so much flood control as we are the ability to

convey water out of the Delta and Bay Delta health. It is really

more of an issue of water conveyance and Delta health. It is not

so much an issue of flooding when it comes to a peripheral canal

or a through-Delta facility. Is that right?

Mr. CARDOZA. I would say that is a fair statement.

Mr. MOW. I would say it is a combination of all of that. It is flood

protection for 600,000 folks that will be living in our county.

Mr. RADANOVICH. How would that be flood protection? I am not

sure I get that. I do not see the flood protection aspect that much

from something like a peripheral canal.

Mr. MOW. The levee obviously has protective value for the citizens that reside in our county. As a result of that, the integrity of

the levee is important.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right. No, I understand the importance of

levees. But as far as a peripheral canal or a through-Delta pumping, that you are really talking about ease of conveyance and Delta

health, right? I mean, there is pretty much agreement on that,

right?

31

Mr. MINTON. But it also backs into the question of flooding in

this way. And you would be familiar with this. Just colloquially

speaking, if there is a peripheral canal, there is a lot of concern

that the Delta levees will be abandoned, that there won’t be the interest in Southern California.

Mr. RADANOVICH. That is OK. I don’t want to get there. I just

want a common understanding that a peripheral canal or throughDelta pumping speaks mostly to conveyance and Bay and Delta

health.

When you are talking about flood control, you are talking about

levees, and you are talking about either raising Folsom Dam or

building Auburn Dam, right?

Mr. SIEGLOCK. For the Sacramento region. But then also that is

a great point. It reduces pressure on the Delta. So instead of having the water 15 feet high, maybe it is 12 feet high, taking the

pressure off. So with an Auburn Dam, with an expansion of Folsom, with an expansion of Shasta, with the Moore River Water

project, et cetera, you are taking pressure off the Delta, which

takes pressure off the levees, which helps reduce flooding.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Thank you very much. Mrs. Napolitano.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Well, that brings up an interesting point and

an interesting point of view in regard to the possibility of the peripheral canal being able to be not only a conveyance but also assist in lowering that levee pressure. Am I correct?

Mr. SIEGLOCK. I don’t believe so.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. No?

Mr. SIEGLOCK. The peripheral canal is simply a——

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Conveyance.

Mr. SIEGLOCK.—conveyance facility. I don’t necessarily see it reducing pressure on the Delta.

Mr. MINTON. The flows in the Delta peak at about six, 700,000

cubic feet per second. A peripheral canal might be 10 or 20 thousand, so it is not going to take a lot of that water pressure off those

levees unfortunately.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I see. OK.

Mr. SIEGLOCK. It is not a water storage facility, it is a conveyance facility.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Conveyance, right.

Mr. SIEGLOCK. That would be the difference between taking pressure off or just kind of adding to the switching station.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. OK. Well, my colleague over here is asking for

the help of the Committee on looking at how we can support the

issue of the working together of the counties. And also before that,

you mentioned sending the water just near the Sanitation—I call

it Sanitation.

Mr. CARDOZA. It was a facetious comment.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. So don’t mix them. And I must remind you that

we do have the voters in Southern California. At least half the population resides in Southern California, where we have the wherewithal to vote bonds in or out. And if you mention that you are

going to have that kind of facility close to that kind of a plant, I

think you are defeating the purpose of being able to inform and

educate our people.

Mr. CARDOZA Will the gentlelady yield?

32

Ms. NAPOLITANO. No. I just want to continue moving along because I do have a couple of questions for Mr. Giovanetti, the Vice

Mayor of the City of Stockton. And that has to do with your statement on page 2, whether you are indicating there is a real need

to secure funds that will result in immediate placement of dirt and

rock on existing levees to reduce the risk of levee failure.

Will this repair address the structural problem of the levees?

And will more dirt and rock be of much help if we do have a 6.5

earthquake in the Delta?

Mr. GIOVANETTI. I don’t believe that we can protect for a 6.5

earthquake. What we are looking for is the rock as a barrier to prevent the seepage of water through these earthen levees. If we don’t

add the protection, they are only as strong as their weakest link.

To be honest, I could not say that we could protect for a major

earthquake.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I see. And again, we go back to the issue, and

I am sorry Mr. Pombo isn’t here, because my asking whether

FEMA has involved the City of Stockton in planning for the possible catastrophe is more of working together to address the agencies being on the same page of what can be done to prepare and

to protect.

Mr. GIOVANETTI. Yes. As I stated earlier, our first responders are

the fire department, and they do communicate with FEMA.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. To Mr. Minton, is it too late to restore some of the natural ecosystems in the Delta that once helped

buffer the floods?

Mr. MINTON. No. There are going to be changes in the Delta inevitably. It is not the same as it was 100 years ago or even 10

years ago.

The real challenge is how do we adapt to these changes, including sea level rise. Things are going to happen. What is our process

for seeing what is going on, making sure the people are protected,

that water supplies or substitutes are developed, and that the ecosystem is restored as well as it can be. I think those will be the

factors in the solution.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. We have read in the testimony that MWD is

already addressing a six-month possible dependency on the water

should a catastrophe happen. Can the water supply agencies do

more to decrease their dependence?

Mr. MINTON. According to Metropolitan Water District’s recently

released Urban Water Management Plan, there are a host of actions that they can take to increase their local self-sufficiency. They

are called integrated resources planning and management where

instead of getting rid of floodwater locally as fast as you can, dealing with it as a problem, you say wait a minute, that first 12, 24,

36, 48 hours of rain, let us find ways to let it soak into the Southern California aquifers to recharge those as sources of supply. So

there are a variety of things that they are looking at.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that will do for

this round.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Cardoza, any

other further questions?

Mr. CARDOZA. Yes. Actually, just to clarify, Mr. Chair, my statement earlier since I wasn’t able to get a yield earlier. The point

33

was that the absurdity of the statement of trying to put a water

system or a drinking water system next to a treatment plant was

the point.

It is equal to the absurdity that we sometimes face of having others put regulations on us when we sit in the Valley and the Delta

area and are subject to flooding or dangers because of external concepts that folks on high don’t have those dangers are exposed to.

That was the point of drawing those conclusions.

And one of the things that I also wanted to make a statement

about, and I will let the panelists discuss if they would like, is that

we talk about the challenges of doing these improvements because

we in fact want to help our residents, and it is our obligation to

help those who live in danger in our communities, and we want to

make the necessary repairs.

And when we feel constrained by different factors, including regulatory factors that are engaged the Endangered Species Act or

other challenges that we face in communities, those are real dangers to the same kind of citizens that we represent as would be endangered through polluted water.

So those are the points I was making, and I will leave it to the

panel to extrapolate any further on any of those statements.

Mr. GIOVANETTI. I would like to make a couple of statements. I

would like to start by underscoring Chairman Radanovich’s comment.

Of 100 percent of the watersheds in the State of California, 2

percent is used by residential/commercial, 7 percent is used by agriculture. A third of the watershed evaporates. We don’t have a

water supply problem in California, we have a water storage problem.

To the comments by Congressman Cardoza, the City of Stockton

discharges their sewer treatment plant into the San Joaquin River.

The quality of that water is good enough to swim in.

We have just recently received our permit. We have perfected

water rights such that we can actually pull water downstream from

our discharge. We will then pipe it to a water treatment plant and

serve it back to our community. So the concept is not as absurd as

it may sound because the City of Stockton is in the middle of satisfying our growth for the future with our securing of the water

rights.

Mr. MINTON. Mr. Cardoza, I am very sensitive to your concerns.

At 30 years in the bricks-and-mortar water business, trying to do

projects to benefit the public and the environment, it is very hard.

At the same time, there are successes out there. Sacramento,

which has 14 dams above it on the American River already, there

are 14 dams, through the able assistance of Members of Congress,

we supported the raise of Folsom Dam, improvements to the levee,

reoperation of the facilities.

At the same time, they have been able to incorporate environmental improvements into it such that everybody is getting together, and the local residents have, through a Proposition 213

election, said that we will put our money up for those multi-purpose projects, and I think that is the way to go.

Mr. CARDOZA. I think you are right, Mr. Minton.

34

Mr. MOW. We have spoken considerably on water conveyance and

flood protection for folks, but there is an agricultural economy

there as well that is a big part of the levee system in San Joaquin

County. And the values of the crop, our food for our nation is of

importance as well. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I appreciate your comments with the local community wanting to see the Delta preserved and protected and the

levees to remain in place. And actually, we haven’t talked about it

a lot, but if you let the islands go, then the wave action can cause

then an impact to those levees that are protecting Stockton, so we

look at it as all being related together.

And so there is great importance to the public safety for maintaining those islands, regardless of the fact that they are not filled

with residences, that there is an indirect impact that can become

a direct impact.

But if you have never been on the Delta to any extent, I would

invite you on a tour. I am sure Congressman Pombo and Congressman Cardoza would love to take you on a tour if you have not have

that chance. It is something you can see by a car, but until you get

on a boat and tool around, there is nothing like it. I used to go

water skiing for three or four years, and I was 50 pounds lighter

at that time.

Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chair, if I may, I would just like to thank the

panel and those folks that are in the audience that have come from

Stockton for this very important issue.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Cardoza. And I just don’t want

this session of the panel to go without reiterating that we can’t

really address flooding in this part of California by solely addressing the levees; we have to talk about storage as well, and that

needs to be a part of the solution.

Thank you very much for your valuable testimony. And with

that, I will call up the second panel. And it consists of Brigadier

General Joseph Schroedel, the Commander and Division Engineer

with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Mr. William Lokey, Operations Branch Chief with FEMA; Mr. Kirk Rodgers of the MidPacific Region of the Bureau of Reclamation; and Mr. Lester Snow,

the Director of the California Department of Water Resources.

[Pause.]

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK, thank you for seating yourselves. I do

want to state that we expect two votes on the Floor at any time.

I think what I would like to do is go ahead with the testimonies

of each of your witnesses, and at some point in time we may have

to break and go and vote and come back and resume the hearing.

But we may have that break, depending on when the vote bells go

off. So if you hear the bells, you will know what it is all about.

Again, welcome to the Subcommittee. Each witness has five minutes to expend your knowledge. And thank you for making yourselves available for questions after that.

So Brigadier General, welcome to the Subcommittee. And you

may begin. We will go right on down the line.

35

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL JOSEPH SCHROEDEL,

COMMANDER AND DIVISION ENGINEER, SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SAN FRANCISCO,

CALIFORNIA

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Mr. Chairman, Committee, and

other folks here, I would like to start by thanking you, as a soldier,

for the support that you or anyone else in earshot has given to men

and women in uniform, and civilians, for serving our great nation

and at least 120 countries around the world today, fighting other

fights on behalf of our nation. I also want to thank you for the opportunity at the same time to be a part of this team effort to solve the problems in the great

State of California as a Federal partner on this team, as we fight

the fights there, and find a way to bring Mother Nature on our

team.

What I would like to do is recognize a couple of folks I have with me. So folks in this room, you will see them again, they are important people.

Mr. Mark Charlton, who has extensive experience in the Sacramento District, is now serving on my staff in San Francisco. He

will continue to help pull together the efforts and the link with

other agencies in the state, local, and Federal family. I would also like to recognize Ms. Lynn O’Leary, who is our Project Manager on the Delta Project, and has 17 years’ experience.

I can’t even begin to match her knowledge and her experience in

the Delta.

And then also Ms. Chris Altendorf. Chris, who was just recently selected to be the Deputy for Program Management in the Sacramento District. So she will be intimately involved with the entire

family here to help solve the problems.

With that, I would just like to make a couple of points. I appreciate your accepting my statement for the record, but I would like

to emphasize a couple of points up front, if I can.

First of all, the Corps continues to be engaged very heavily on

two fronts in the state. The first front is solving the immediate

problems in trying to correct the erosion problems, trying to correct

other issues that we know will help on the protection side.

Likewise, we are engaged intimately in the planning process,

which we can talk about a little bit more later, a long-term plan.

If there is any message that I would like to leave, it is this. We

have talked about, we have studied about, we have done a lot of

that kind of thing on these problems. It is time for action. It is time

to stop talking. It is time to stop studying. It is time now, not 10

years from now, to have a long-term strategy that is a decision that

leads to action, not 10 years from now, but now.

The second point, and again, we are engaged in supporting, as

a member of this team, in every way that we are authorized and

appropriated to do so, and even beyond. We are offering technical

assistance as we speak today on our own nickel to help with the

current flood situation.

Second, there are three phases, in my view, to these operations.

First there is preparation. Second is response. Third is recovery.

As FEMA’s Federal Engineer, if I can cast our roll that way, on

the response side, as a part of the national response plan, yes, we

36

focus heavily on response and recovery. We focus on how do we respond to a catastrophe. That gets back to my first point.

We have got to do the first part first, which is the preparation

piece, which can only be solved by deciding the long-term plan now.

And I would tell you, I have talked to owners of the islands, I have

talked to many, many people out there. Some people say that people in California are ready for that discussion.

My view is now is the time, in the wake of Katrina, to have that

discussion, because the people will listen. We have got to engage

the people now to get them on the team. It is one thing for those

of us here at the table here to be on the team, but it is quite another to make sure that we have got the people of the state engaged, as well. So we are here to support all of those efforts. We

can build Auburn, we can do whatever needs to be done. We just

need to be authorized and appropriated, and by God, we will do our

part for the team.

The last point I would make is, as you know, the CALFED 180-

day report draft is on the street. I am proud to report to this Committee, and to other Members of Congress, that we will meet our

18 May deadline and provide that report.

I want to make sure that everybody understands what that report is. Basically, we were allowed to go out and ask for input. And

I am not convinced that we got all the input we need. So that is

another one of those short-term-fix, not-quite-all-there kind of solutions, if I can kind of cast it that way.

And then second, we will talk, and I encourage your further discussion on the Delta islands and feasibility study and the DRMS,

because I think that is the key to solving the long-term problem

now.

So again, we are here. We believe we are responsive. We believe

we are well integrated with this team, and we are proud to be a

part of this team.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Brigadier General Schroedel follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Brigadier General Joseph Schroedel,

Commander, South Pacific Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Introduction

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am Brigadier

General Joseph Schroedel, Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers South

Pacific Division. I am honored to be testifying before your committee oversight hearing today on ‘‘Protecting Sacramento/San Joaquin Bay-Delta Water Supplies and

Responding to Catastrophic Failures in California Water Deliveries.’’ This is an important topic. If you take away one message from my testimony, I hope it will be

this: Both short-term actions and long-term solutions are essential to confront this

issue. We need to take action now to address critical needs and reduce the threat

of catastrophic failure or we risk allowing a failure to determine our actions. At the

same time, we need to work with our federal, state and local partners to develop

the system-wide, long-term strategy.

Background

Since I last testified before you in October 2005 regarding the Corps’ efforts to

reduce the risk of flood damage to the Sacramento/San Joaquin River system, the

Corps has undertaken a full-court press to prepare the ‘‘CALFED Levee Stability

Program Report to Congress.’’ The Corps is required to submit the report on May

18, 2006 in accordance with the Congressionally mandated 180-day requirement. I

am happy to report to the Committee that we are on schedule to deliver the report

on time.

37

Before I discuss the details of the report, let me characterize the Corps’ assessment of the situation in the Delta.

As the hub of California’s two largest water distribution systems, the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta supplies drinking water to more than 22 million people and irrigation water to millions of acres of highly productive agricultural land. It is a haven

for 750 plant and animal species and home to hundreds of thousands of people.

Yet this valuable resource is inadequately protected by an extremely fragile levee system that threatens to fail at any time, even under fair weather conditions. Unlike other levee systems that protect against high water events, the Delta’s maze

of mostly non-federal levees must work all day, every day to keep water from inundating people living below sea level. In fact, these islands are often referred to as

‘‘bowls.’’ The levees that make up the rims of these bowls are part of the State-wide

water conveyance system, yet have suffered as local reclamation districts have not

been able to properly maintain them due to a lack of local resources. During the last century, there have been 162 levee failures in the Delta that led to major inundation of islands, regardless of the weather conditions. These have

been costly, as illustrated by the recent Jones Tract levee failure in June 2004,

which occurred without warning during fair weather, inundating 12,000 acres of

property and causing an estimated $100 million in damages. Congress recognized the threat and cost of these serious levee failures and di- rected the Corps to deliver a report that prioritizes potential levee stability projects

in the Delta. The CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act (Public Law 108-361) authorized using up to $90 million dollars in Corps funds through 2010 to implement

these projects. The Corps invited Delta stakeholders to submit proposals addressing

critical levee improvement needs.

In response, Delta area reclamation districts and flood management agencies submitted more than 54 project proposals totaling more than $1 billion in estimated

costs.

We evaluated the proposals based on the extent to which they would reduce the

risk to life, health and safety, urban and agricultural properties, and strategic infrastructure for transportation, utilities and water supply. The report currently being

prepared has identified a preliminary list of potential projects, consistent with Section 205 authority, that could be considered in future Administration budget requests to further CALFED goals. It is important to note that any selected projects

would require site-specific design and environmental compliance work before construction.

While the Corps’ Delta Report to Congress provides a prioritized list of projects

that can be accomplished in the near-term with the help of federal funding, state,

local and federal stakeholders in the State of California will need a long-term vision

for the Delta before we can truly tackle the monumental task of providing comprehensive and systematic flood management to this region.

The Corps’ long-term strategy will be developed in the Sacramento-San Joaquin

Delta Islands and Levees Feasibility Study. This comprehensive study will address

all CALFED objectives and assess existing and future flood risks in the Delta as

well as water supply needs, ecosystem restoration and recreation. Scheduled to

begin this year, the study will provide a comprehensive vision and roadmap for future federal participation in the Delta. The study will incorporate the California Department of Water Resources’ Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS), which will

quantify risks and potential impacts and develop a risk reduction strategy. The feasibility study will build upon the DRMS to address remaining levee stability work

beyond the $90 million federal effort authorized in the CALFED Act.

This report is the first step in a multi-year effort to address levee stability concerns in the Delta region; however, both short-term actions and a long-term strategy

are essential.

Emergency Preparedness

Mr. Chairman, the Committee also raises the question of whether local, state and

federal authorities are prepared to respond to a Catastrophic Failures in California

Water Deliveries. The Corps and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

are working with the state to remedy the fact that right now most northern California communities do not have an updated assessment of their flood risk. Flood

plain maps are often out of date by 10, 15, and even 20-years. They rely on old

geotechnical data, and understanding of flood risk, under seepage, and levee performance, which has changed in recent years. In 2004, the Corps developed new procedures for how we need to assess levees for the deep under seepage in the Central

Valley. That knowledge will help us evaluate levees with these updated technologies. We will work with FEMA and the State to help ensure that local communities have updated, accurate assessments of their flood risk.

38

The Corps also needs to update its emergency response plans and practices to op- timize effectiveness and efficiencies given what we now know about California

levees and the potential for multiple failures during a major earthquake event.

While the State and local agencies are responsible for the first line of defense and

responsiveness in emergency actions, the Corps is ready to assist in flood fighting,

provision of emergency water supply and other activities in cooperation with nonfederal entities when called upon. We need to update and clarify roles and responsibilities, and enhance communications and public education.

The innovative Silver Jackets program, which relies on funding from our Flood- plain Management Services (FPMS) and Planning Assistance to the States (PAS)

programs, combines the knowledge and programs of FEMA and the Corps, and this

year has started building that relationship in California. This program is the meshing together of Federal, state, and local hazard planning and mitigation activities

along with improved processes for emergency response and recovery. This concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate this opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM LOKEY, OPERATIONS BRANCH

CHIEF, RESPONSE DIVISION, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. LOKEY. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is William Lokey. I am the

Chief of the Operations Branch of the Response Division of FEMA.

Also with me today is Ms. Nancy Ward, who is the Response and Recovery Division Director from FEMA Region IX in California,

who had a lot of hands-on with the participants here today, and

can address particular needs and specifics.

I plan to cover three topics. The first one, very briefly, FEMA’s general authority to mitigate, prepare, respond to and recovery

from disaster; our role and activities in emergency planning in

California, and the specific response we have done to the Governor’s request for a Presidential Declaration for a potential levee

break in six Central Valley Counties. FEMA derives its authority from the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, the Stafford Act, as amended. Simply put, this provides the authority for mitigating the effects of disaster, the authority for preparedness planning, including

training, with our Federal, state, local, and private-sector partners,

the authority for the Federal response, the authority for our recovery programs, and the authority for the Federal coordinating officer.

Under our mitigation grant programs, we have three disaster

mitigation, flood mitigation assistance, and our post-disaster effort

mitigation grant program provides funds and technical assistance

to develop state and local plans for mitigation that identify cost-effective projects.

The role of FEMA and other Federal agencies, state and local

and private-sector partners is further outlined in the National Response Plan, the nation’s all-hazards plan for establishing a comprehensive system, including training, exercise, and planning, as

well as response and recovery, for our nation.

FEMA Region IX continually supports all hazards emergency

planning, and has a close relationship with California state officials

and local officials in conducting both general and incident-specific

planning.

As an example, they have been working with the Federal, state,

and local officials in Los Angeles to develop a proactive approach

39

to a Federal response in case of a major incident. Many of the concepts here have broader applications statewide to planning efforts

in response to a levee break.

This particular effort also has contributed to the national effort

in catastrophic planning. Specifically after our experiences from

Hurricane Katrina, concepts of pushing resources forward instead

of waiting for them to be requested are being strengthened and updated.

Every other month they meet with the Regional Inter-Agency

Steering Committee, which are Federal partners in working on

planning issues. And also included in that are state officials as appropriate.

Under the Stafford Act, we are authorized to supplement the efforts and make available resources to state and local governments

and disaster relief organizations for an emergency or disaster declared by the President.

We can lean forward and move Federal assets, commodities, and

equipment and teams to Federal facilities to increase our preparedness. But we can’t actually provide assistance under the law until

the Governor has asked, certifying it is beyond the state’s capability, and the President has approved the declaration.

The response to any emergency in California, including a massive levee failure, would be under the auspices and authority of the

State of California. They have a very capable and professional Office of Emergency Services and State Emergency Management Network, and it is a tried-and-true program of mutual aid that they

have developed over the years. They are quite good at what they

do.

I also need to point out that FEMA has no direct role in the

maintenance of levees, although we certainly are a partner in the

planning for the eventuality of problems.

Levee maintenance and flood fighting are primarily handled at

the local level through local maintenance agencies and through the

Corps of Engineers providing technical assistance and flood-fighting and assistance like that under their own authority, which can

be done without FEMA and without the authority of the Stafford

Act.

The California Office of Emergency Services is responsible for the

overall management of emergencies and coordinating resources in

the state with other partners like the Department of Water Resources, who I believe is talking today. They are the ones mainly

responding to what is going on now due to the flooding in some of

the California areas.

In the event of a major failure of a levee, the Stafford Act, if it

were implemented on request of the Governor, we would provide

supplemental assistance to the State of California and their local

governments under the National Response Plan.

And a lot of the planning we have done to get ready for this

year’s hurricane season will apply with respect to the moving of resources, evacuation, search and rescue, and things like that that

we might get asked to do.

As part of the planning effort and consistent with the other

plans, we are working to improve Federal support to emergency

management, streamlining contracting procedures, and establish

40

regular and ongoing activities and communication among the partners.

Current contingency planning is underway as a result of the re- quest of the Governor for an emergency declaration in six Central

California counties and Region IX. And California OES staff have

been engaged with a number of Federal, state, and local partners

doing contingency planning for this eventuality. They are conducting assessments, identifying capabilities and shortfalls, and developing a regional plan to provide a proactive response for the 24 sites of interest identified by the Corps of Engineers. This plan is still in development, the coordination stage, and

has not been completed. But a number of preliminary steps have

been achieved and are in place should something happen sooner.

For example, initial transportation and logistical requirements

have been identified, mobilization centers and staging areas evaluated, a preliminary execution schedule and resources has been developed.

We may also need, and plans are being done, to support transportation, fueling, and emergency medical services along transportation and evacuation corridors.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lokey follows:]

Statement of William Lokey, Operations Branch Chief,

Response Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is William Lokey. I am Chief of the Operations Branch of the Response Division of the

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Also with me today is Ms. Nancy Ward,

the Response and Recovery Division Chief from FEMA Region IX in California. On

behalf of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of

Homeland Security, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to brief you today.

I plan to cover three topics. FEMA’s general authority to mitigate, prepare for, respond to and recover from disaster; FEMA’s role and activities in emergency planning in California and FEMA’s specific response to Governor of California’s State

of Emergency; and the request for a Presidential Emergency Declaration for a potential levee break in one of the six Central Valley Counties of Colusa, Sacramento,

Solano, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba.

FEMA derives its authority from the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 93-288 (Stafford Act), as amended. Simply put, this provides the authority for mitigating the effects of disasters through pre-disaster grants

to states, the authority for preparedness planning with our Federal, State, Local

and private sector partners, the authority for the Federal response, the authority

for our recovery programs, and the authority for the Federal Coordinating Officer.

Also, under FEMA’s mitigation grant programs—Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM),

Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) and the post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant

Program (HMGP), FEMA provides funds and technical assistance to develop State

and Local Mitigation Plans (LMP), which assess the communities’ risks and

vulnerabilities and propose mitigation solutions to reduce those risks. Mitigation

planning should be included as part of a communities overall planning effort. By

having an LMP, communities have a better understanding of their risks and an

awareness of the infrastructure and properties vulnerable to those risks, and can

apply for mitigation funding when it is made available under the mitigation grant

programs mentioned. Mitigation grant programs are 75% Federal 25% State or local

cost share program.

The role of FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security and other Federal,

State, Local and Private Sector Partners is further outlined in the National Response Plan (NRP), the nation’s all discipline, all-hazard plan for establishing a single, comprehensive framework for the management of domestic incidents.

FEMA and the new Preparedness Division in the Department of Homeland Security coordinate initiatives that include planning and technical assistance for state

and local governments, and provide support to National Incident Management

System (NIMS) implementation and the National Emergency Management Baseline

41

Capability Assessment Program. Further, FEMA operates the National Emergency

Training Center and the Emergency Management Institute (EMI), a national training center for emergency planning, exercise design, and incident command operations for Federal, State, local and private sector individuals.

FEMA’s Region IX continually supports all hazards emergency response planning. With the ever present potential for an earthquake impacting millions of people in

California, FEMA Region IX staff is acutely aware of the importance of catastrophic

emergency response planning in particular. As a result, Region IX has a close working relationship with both California State and local officials and conducts proactive

regional and incident specific planning. As an example, Regional staff has been working with Federal, State and local offi- cials in the Los Angeles area to develop a proactive approach of notification and deployment of Federal resources in anticipation of or in response to a catastrophic incident where federal assistance is immediately needed. Many of the concepts developed during this initiative have a broader application to the planning efforts in response to any levee failure. Publication of the NRP-Catastrophic Incident Supplement (NRP-CIS) also contributes to the Los Angeles planning effort. The NRP-CIS established a coordinated

strategy for accelerating the delivery and application of Federal resources and capabilities in support of a response to a no-notice catastrophic event. After the experiences from Hurricane Katrina, this concept of pushing resources toward an event

instead of waiting to be asked is being updated and strengthened. Additionally, FEMA Region IX continues to chair the Regional Interagency Steer- ing Committee composed of National Response Plan (NRP) Emergency Support

Function (ESF) agency representatives. Meetings are conducted every other month,

often with the participation of State emergency officials, addressing issues such as

an incident and hazard specific response and multi-agency coordination. FEMA Region IX has also identified federal operational support facilities, including California

State specific Mobilization Centers and Staging Areas, and continues to provide National Incident Management System/Incident Command System (NIMS/ICS) compliant training and exercise opportunities, with a specific focus on joint, unified State/

Federal operations.

Under the Stafford Act, FEMA is authorized to supplement the efforts and available resources of State, local governments and disaster relief organizations for an

emergency or major disaster declared by the President. We can lean forward and

move Federal teams, commodities and equipment to Federal facilities to increase

our preparedness, but we cannot actually provide pre-disaster assistance under the

law, unless the Governor asks, certifying that it is beyond the State’s capability and

the President approves a declaration.

The State of California has a very capable and professional Office of Emergency Services (OES). Specifically with regard to response to a California levee emergency

or disaster, it is important to distinguish between the Sacramento-San Joaquin

Delta levees and the levees referenced in the Governor Schwarzenegger February

27, 2006, request for a Presidential Emergency Declaration.

The response to any emergency in the State of California including a widespread,

massive levee failure would be under the authority of the State of California governed by California’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), which

incorporates the State’s mutual aid system and principles of the ICS, and provides

the structure through which State and local government agencies coordinate their

emergency response and request resources from one another.

While FEMA has no direct role in the maintenance of levees, California levee

maintenance and flood fighting operations are primarily handled at a local level

through Local Maintenance Agencies (LMAs). The USACE provides technical assistance, flood fighting assistance, and support for emergency repairs in situations

where a levee meets the criteria for participation under COE authority. The state

may request support from the USACE directly through this program without a Presidential disaster declaration under the Stafford Act.

The Local Maintenance Agencies also play a key role in planning for levee emergencies. If the event is severe enough to threaten life and property, the LMA coordinates with the local Emergency Operations Center (EOC), which may request resources from other jurisdictions or OES through SEMS.

California’s OES will be responsible for the overall management of the emergency

and for requesting support and resources from other State agencies, including the

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). DWR is the lead state agency for

flood response operations, and coordinates requests for flood fighting assistance with

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

If the emergency is such that support beyond these authorities is required, a Stafford Act declaration would be necessary to authorize Federal assistance. In the

42

event of levee failure and a Stafford Act Presidential Emergency or Major Disaster

Declaration, the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (DHS-FEMA) will provide supplemental assistance to the State of

California and local jurisdiction Operational Area via the National Response Plan

(NRP). The planning we are doing to be ready for the 2006 Hurricane season and

the ongoing planning with the State of California will ensure that we are ready to

respond quickly. We have strengthened our evacuation and search and rescue capabilities, our emergency medical response and the movement and tracking of commodities.

Existing protocols call for the activation of the Regional Response Coordination Center and the deployment of FEMA Liaison and Emergency Response Team (ERT)

personnel to tie in with State emergency management officials to address life saving

and live threatening response requirements. According to the USACE, the exact risks from catastrophic levee failure are un- known and studies are being conducted in support of the larger California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS). According to the USACE, the DRMS will provide the basis for further feasibility studies

in support of a comprehensive San Francisco Bay-Delta Plan. As part of this planning effort and consistent with the States plans and priorities, FEMA will continue to work with the Corps, the State and other stakeholders to: • Improve Federal support to the emergency management response capability of

local, State and Federal agencies to rapidly respond to levee emergencies and

other Incidents of National Significance • Streamline emergency contracting procedures and plan to ensure an adequate

inventory of flood flight assets are strategically pre-positioned. • Establish regular communication and planning activities among all emergency

responders and affected communities and landowners.

Currently contingency planning is underway as a result of the Governor of Cali- fornia’s State of Emergency for a potential levee break in one of the six Central Valley Counties of Colusa, Sacramento, Solano, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba included in the

proclamation. FEMA Region IX and California OES are engaged in the Sacramento

Valley Levee Response Plan Project (SVLRPP), including stakeholder participation

from the USACE, California Department of Social Services (CDSS), California Department of Water Resources (DWR), six Central Valley counties’ Emergency Management Agencies (Colusa, Sacramento, Solano, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba), and the

City of Sacramento. The purpose of this Project is to conduct an assessment of vulnerabilities, identify capabilities and shortfalls, and develop a regional plan to provide proactive response

to create a comprehensive, venue-specific mass evacuation and mass care plan for

the population at risk from a breach of 24 critical erosion sites in the Central Valley

Counties of Colusa, Sacramento, Solano, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba. Besides assisting

local government planning efforts, this project is intended to enable FEMA to identify specific resources needed immediately, mid-term, and long-term for response

and recovery operations. The greatest need is to develop regional mass evacuation

and shelter plans for the City of Sacramento and the greater Sacramento area. Though this plan is still in the development/coordination stage and has not yet been completed, a number of preliminary steps have been achieved and are in place

should something happen before publication. For example, transportation and

logistical requirements have been identified, potential mobilization centers and staging areas have been evaluated, and a preliminary execution schedule has been developed.

FEMA may also need to provide support to transportation, fueling, and emergency medical assistance efforts along major transportation and evacuation corridors. With

up to 220,000 people potentially displaced, including 36,000 people in an area

known as the Pocket, a natural depression surrounded on three sides by levees, Sacramento City has far and away the greatest threat due to a levee failure along the

Sacramento River.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you again for the opportunity

to be before you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Lokey. Unfortunately, I have

to go do what the people of the 19th Congressional District elected

me to do. It is two votes.

Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Snow, if you will be patient, we will recess

for a few minutes, and probably resume within 15 minutes.

Thank you very much. We are in recess.

43

[Recess.]

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mrs. Napolitano will be joining us shortly, but

we are going to go ahead and resume the hearing. Take our next

witness, Mr. Rodgers.

Welcome to the Subcommittee, and you may begin your testimony. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF KIRK RODGERS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MIDPACIFIC REGION, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, SACRAMENTO,

CALIFORNIA

Mr. RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you

today and talk about the current water-related infrastructure of

the Delta, and the challenges we face in protecting the future

water supplies.

My testimony today addresses reclamations, physical and operational response to a levee failure, based on past experience and

potential request for assistance that may arise. I defer to the Corps

of Engineers and the State Department of Water Resources to discuss the conditions and primary response, since they have that delegated responsibility.

It is noteworthy that many of the Delta islands lie below sea

level, and thus are protected by levees. These levees also form

channels by which the water moves through the Delta. And water

from upstream reservoirs is released to rivers which flow to the

Delta, where these levee-bounded channels convey the water to the

Central Valley Project and the State Water Project facilities.

It has been pointed out that two-thirds of the state’s population

benefit from drinking water that derives from the Delta, and similarly a large portion of the state’s agriculture depends on these

mechanisms to bring water to their crops. I should add that the

stability of the Delta also is important to aquatic species that either pass through or do reside there.

It is for these reasons that the importance of the Delta to California’s complicated water delivery system cannot be overstated. Both

reclamation and the California DWR have a long history of working

together to ensure reliable water supply for the people of the State

of California.

There does continue to be a lot of discussion today comparing

Sacramento and San Joaquin Bay Delta to New Orleans in relation

to its importance and its vulnerability, and rightfully so. A catastrophic event could result in levee failures that would make it

very difficult, if not impossible, to deliver water to customers south

of the Delta.

It is important to note that a significant Delta levee failure could

also impact operations of storage facilities as far north as Shasta

Lake in ways that I will further explain in just a moment.

I want to point out that there is no cookbook recipe for levee failure in the Delta because its precise responses depend upon several

factors. One, some of those might be the number of levees that do

fail. Their location or the season and time of year. Each

circumstance introduces a variable that may greatly alter the

response.

44

Regardless of the variable circumstance associated with the fail- ure, Reclamation is willing to assist, if asked, by those state and

Federal agencies whose responsibilities it is to manage the levee

system. Examples of assignments that Reclamation could be responsive to are as follows.

We have design and engineering services, construction inspection surveys, construction contracting and management, and other related services. Also if needed, we do have some heavy equipment

and operators that could be made available.

Our objective would be to assist in returning the system to serv- ice as quickly as efficiently as possible. A second or equally important consideration to a physical re- sponse is taking water management actions that may assist in restoring service efficiently. Central to Reclamation’s mission is to

deliver water, and we will do what is necessary to maintain that

capability. A couple of examples of actions we could take to assist in the

event of a failure is as follows. One is that we could adjust or curtail pumping at our plant in the Delta. This would minimize saltwater intrusion, which rapidly degrades the water quality, as salty

water rushes in from the bay to fill the islands where the levee failures occurred. And it was one of the first actions we took in response to the Jones Tract levee failure in 2004.

Another thing we could do is adjust upstream reservoir releases to assist in flushing salty water out of the Delta that may have

been pulled in as a result of the failure. Again, this was an action

that we took during the Jones Tract failure. I hasten to point out, though, that these examples fit as effective responses in the Jones Tract incident, it was a one-levee, one-island occurrence. It cost Reclamation 30,000 acre-feet of unscheduled release from storage to flush the saltwater out of the Delta. Different decisions may be appropriate if the failure were more severe, such as one would expect from an event caused by earthquake or massive flooding, where multiple levee failures may be

the result.

And I would just conclude by saying three things. The Delta is important, and we are willing to help, either in a physical response

way or operational management way, if asked. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodgers follows:]

Statement of Kirk Rodgers, Mid-Pacific Regional Director,

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior

Introduction

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I am Kirk Rodgers, Mid-Pacific Regional Director for the Bureau of Reclamation. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the current water related infrastructure conditions

in California’s Central Valley and the challenges we face in protecting future water

supply deliveries. My remarks are focused on the work and activities in the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) and on the risk faced in the context of

levee failures.

Importance of the Delta

The Delta includes nearly 60 islands and tracts lying below sea level that are protected by levees. These mostly privately owned and maintained levees were built to

protect crops from flooding. We will defer to the Corps of Engineers and the State

of California to more fully address the condition of the levees in the Sacramento/

San Joaquin River system.

45

The importance of the Delta to California’s complicated water supply delivery system cannot be overstated. Water pumped out of the Delta provides drinking water

for two-thirds of the state’s population, and supports one of the most productive agricultural regions in the nation. The Delta’s channels convey water from upstream

reservoirs to the south Delta, where the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State

Water Project (SWP) facilities can move water into the CVP’s Delta-Mendota Canal

and the SWP’s California Aqueduct. The stability of the Delta levees that contain

the water in these channels is paramount to protecting the Delta infrastructure ensuring a reliable supply of fresh water to the Federal and State facilities.

The failure of key levees has the potential to impact the CVP water supply that

is managed by Reclamation. My testimony today will focus on Reclamation’s response to levee failures as opposed to dam safety or canal failures. Additionally, I

will describe a generalized response to scenarios ranging from a small levee failure,

such as Jones Tract levee failure, to a disaster that could have a prolonged and indefinite impact on significant portions of the CVP water supply.

Response to Levee Failure

In June 2004, a levee failure occurred in dry weather and without warning on

Upper Jones Tract in the South Delta. Following the break, Delta pumping was curtailed for several days to prevent seawater intrusion into the Delta. The State and

Federal pumping plants were limited for a time and water shipments to Southern

California were continued only through unscheduled releases from San Luis Reservoir, a large off-stream reservoir where water is held after it is pumped from the

Delta. Releases were also increased at Folsom, Shasta, and Oroville reservoirs,

sending more fresh water to the Delta for salinity control. The costs related to this

levee break were estimated to be nearly $100 million according the California Department of Water Resources report entitled Flood Warnings: Responding to California’s Flood Crisis, January 2005. The levee is privately owned. The cause of the

break is still unknown.

Reclamation’s response to any levee failure would be based on the nature and extent of the failure. The response would depend on a number of factors, including:

(a) risk of flood or earthquake,

(b) the number of failed levees,

(c) the time of the year (winter or summer), and

(d) the location of the levee failures.

Reclamation’s CVP water service contracts have a shortage provision which recognizes that short-term or long-term water shortages may occur as a result of unforeseen events, such as a significant levee failure. This contract provision would allow

Reclamation to respond to health and safety concerns that might arise as a result

of such an event.

In general, Reclamation would respond to a levee failure in the following way:

(a) Work with the Division of California Water Resources to stabilize the situation in accordance with the State’s Disaster Preparedness Plan.

(b) If necessary, modify upstream reservoir releases and re-operation of associated

canals to manage potential salt water intrusion.

(c) Employ the use of temporary features, such as barriers, pumps, or canals to

ensure an adequate supply of quality water is accessible.

During any emergency situation, Reclamation closely coordinates with the California Department of Water Resources, the California Office of Emergency Services,

the Corps of Engineers, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Levee

breaks in particular also involve coordination with the State Water Resources Control Board and various other local agencies.

Conclusion

Reclamation is committed and prepared to use all tools at our discretion to manage an emergency of any size regarding levee failure in the Delta. In a worst case

scenario where the only available usable water supply is contained in reservoirs upstream of the Delta, the State of California has the authority under the state water

code to determine the best usage of the available water supply in the interest of

public health and safety. Reclamation will continue to cooperate with other agencies

and the public to protect the CVP water supply in the event of a levee failure in

the Delta.

That concludes my testimony. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate my appreciation to the sub-committee and others for continuing to work with the Administration to address these significant water issues facing California. I would be happy

to answer any questions at the appropriate time.

46

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Rodgers. I appreciate your testimony.

Next is Mr. Lester Snow of the Department of Water Resources.

Lester, welcome to the Subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF LESTER SNOW, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, SACRAMENTO,

CALIFORNIA

Mr. SNOW. Chairman Radanovich, good to see you.

We have provided to you and members of the Committee an information packet just today. It includes a flood warnings document

that we issued to the Legislature, California Legislature, in January of 2005, that highlights a lot of the issues that unfortunately

have come to bear in terms of deterioration of the flood system, as

well as a deferred maintenance.

It also includes a DVD that highlights some of the actual problems that we have encountered: the Jones Tract failure, and also

some of the flood fights from January of 2006. Unfortunately, we

will update it soon to include the flood fights that are going on as

we speak.

It also includes some of the issues that Congressman Costa made

reference to. We have animations of the 6.5 earthquake, and what

results in the Delta, and how it impacts the water system, as well

as an animation of the erosion of critical erosion sites that you may

know have been declared an emergency by Governor

Schwarzenegger.

What I would like to do is cover four basic elements. A very

quick status report, an update on the flooding conditions in California, updated about midnight last night. Then highlight the Governor’s flood initiative, which is divided into two parts, the Central

Valley Federal Flood Control System, which is about 1600 miles of

levee, the Delta, which is about 700 miles of local levee, Emergency

Response, and then finally our request and expectation of Federal

assistance.

I would like to point out, in terms of the Governor’s flood initiative, that he has laid out a bond proposal that maps a 10-year investment strategy of approximately $6 billion to improve the flood

system. Separate from that $6 billion in the Governor’s bond initiative is $1 billion exclusively for surface storage.

As you may know, that has not been without controversy within

the State Legislature. We are committed to seeing funding of appropriate surface storage in the State of California, as well as funding of other sources of storage.

In terms of the current situation, to date we have an update, I

think it was provided to you and Members of the Committee. As

of this week, we are currently about 167 percent of normal rainfall

in the state, with very healthy snow pack. Unfortunately, some of

the recent storms have been warm, and are starting to melt the

snow pack.

In terms of dividing the Central Valley up into three parts, the

Sacramento Valley has probably already peaked and starting to

recede. Within the Delta, we are already seeing some receding from

the flows coming in from the Sacramento side. We have not

47

experienced the high winds that we did earlier this year, nor the

double-high tides that caused us great problems New Year’s Day.

So the Sacramento Valley and the Delta are kind of in a watch

condition. We are not overly alarmed at this point.

However, the story is very different in the San Joaquin Valley.

The San Joaquin River is above capacity as we speak. And that

would not be so bad except we expect it to be sustained above capacity for at least a week or more, and could be as long as two

weeks. So we have a very high level of concern.

Now, there is some drying today. We expect to be some drying

tomorrow. But unfortunately, late Friday on through the weekend

we expect a series of storms. So the San Joaquin River will continue to flow at and above capacity.

We have activated flood fight teams throughout the Valley, so

that they are there, employees to respond. We have pre-positioned

materials, and we are increasing surveillance so we can respond

quickly.

Now, what I would like to do, if I could, is make reference to an

information piece that is in the information packet that contains a

series of slides and pictures that I think would be helpful in terms

of explaining how we are approaching the problems that we have.

On the second page in terms of California’s flood crisis, again, we

divide it into two parts: the Federal project levees, which provide

inadequate levels of flood protection because of their origin and because they used to protect farmland and now protect major urban

areas, and the vulnerability of the Delta system.

Again, to highlight, on page 3, we have 1600 miles of Federal

project levees, 700 miles of local Delta levees. That is an aging system, continued deterioration, and a major problem not only for protecting housing, commercial activities, but the water supply for

much of the State of California.

Fourth page is simply a reminder of how this system developed

100 years ago, piling up dirt along the river to protect agricultural

land. It was done specifically to encourage erosion to move the sediment from Placer mining activities out of the system. Unfortunately, that erosion continues today.

On page 5, this is a lot of the strategy that we are employing in

the Central Valley to deal with inadequate levees from a height

standpoint, and also a seepage standpoint. So when you hear the

Corps of Engineers or the Department of Water Resources refer to

getting the 200-year protection, it means strengthening the levees.

It also means slurry walls to cutoff seepage.

The next page, the Chairman has already pointed out that Sacramento has some of the lowest protection of any major urban area,

below 100-year protection. The Governor’s bond package that I

have made reference to would support the Corps activities and

achieve a 200-year level of protection for Sacramento.

On page 7, unfortunately we can show you an inundation map

for the Sacramento region. Two areas with just two levee breaches,

we would see water over 20 feet deep in what is called the

Natomas Basin, as well as in the pocket area. By our estimates,

working with the city, we would expect $28 billion of damage from

just two levee breaches in those areas during flood stage, a 200-

year event.

48

The next page, page 8, highlights actual pictures of existing erosion sites. The map shows the 24 erosion sites that the Governor

has declared as an emergency, and we are proceeding in concert

with the Corps of Engineers to repair those sites in this calendar

year.

The following page simply shows why this is an emergency.

There has been some concern that an erosionsite can be fixed at

any time. The problem is that these are deemed critical because

they have undermined the slope of the levee, and can fail in the

next flood event.

If we could skip to page 11. The Governor, recognizing the vulnerability of the system, recognizing the length of time it was taking both the state and the Federal government to respond to these

critical sites, declared an emergency on February 24. It provides

additional resources to the Department of Water Resources, and allows us to streamline the permitting process in California.

We have requested supporting Federal action, in terms of contract amendments, to accept advance monies from the state. We

need Federal resource agencies to expedite the permitting process

so we can do any mitigation that is required after the fact, not

prior to the action.

We need to revise the process so that the state can obtain Federal credits for the money that we front in this process.

And finally, we need to expand and reauthorize the sack bank

program so we can continue into phase three.

On to the Delta. On page 13, and this has been covered, but 700

acres, 60 islands, 1100 miles of levees, over 700 miles of those are

private levees, or local levees. What can we lose? What is dependent on the Delta? Twenty-two million Californians, over four million acres of ag land receive their total water supply from the

Delta.

The water supply out of the Delta supports directly $400 billion

of the state economy, and indirectly probably double that. It is actually home for 400,000 people, 500 species of habitat in the Delta

region. And an issue that we have begun focusing on is the major

highway, the transportation corridor, petroleum pipelines, power

distribution, and deepwater port.

Page 15 simply shows that in the Delta, these are no longer

levees. These are dams. They are constantly holding back water.

Because of the subsidence and oxidation of the peat soils, we actually are farming below sea level and below flood stage in almost all

of the islands. And that is why I make reference to these are dams

that would not meet any standard for a dam in the State of

California.

On page 16 is the traditional way we have looked at risks to

Delta levees. Overtopping, high winds, under-seepage in boils or a

surprise break, as we had on Jones Tract.

The new aspect, on page 17, Congressman Costa has already

mentioned. And that is the realization of earthquake-induced failure in the Delta, meaning many simultaneous breaks. We have

been aware of earthquake threats. Recent modeling has been done

by the Department, by UC, Davis, that gives us a much better understanding of what could happen to these levees that are basically

located on peat soils.

49

The next page shows the 6.5 earthquake. Our estimate from this

analysis is 30 levee breaches. Sixteen islands would be flooded. Our

assessment is this would have a probability equivalent to Katrina,

so somewhere in the neighborhood of a one in 300 chance. Sounds

remote, but could be very devastating, obviously.

One of the key issues and the topic of this hearing on the next

page is that failure of those 16 islands would suck in approximately

one million acre-feet, 300 billion gallons of saltwater, into the

Delta. It would immediately shut down exports out of the south

Delta, but probably also would affect the east Bay and contra-costa

water supplies.

On page 20, we would expect that after a year we have only been

able to repair seven of the islands, keeping in mind over that year

we would have flood events, we would have wind damage that

would be occurring to other areas, and we would be making interim

actions in the south Delta, so that we could resume maybe a third

of the normal pumping.

At the bottom of that bullet list, we have estimated very conservatively $40 billion of economic impact to the State of California.

In terms of emergency preparedness and response, I won’t go

into detail on this. We do pre-position material. The Department

does operate and conduct local training. That came up in the earlier panel. There are at least two training sessions a year. We train

probably two to three hundred local emergency response and flood

fight managers every year.

We have hydrologic models so that we can predict impact of

flooding events, impact of major storm events. And we operate

within what is called the Standard Emergency Management System, or SEMS.

I will mention this shows a CCC crew. We have activated both

CDF crews and CCC crews to be on standby in the San Joaquin

Valley.

In terms of emergency response in the flooding of Delta islands,

historically, over a long period of time, the Corps has been the

agency that has responded with a local district. In the mid-eighties,

the Corps declared that they would not be involved in reclamation

of flooded islands. In 2004 with Jones Tract, that is the first time

that the state has stepped in and taken responsibility for repair.

The current emergency response system that we have and that

we support is able to deal with several simultaneous island

floodings, but nothing of the magnitude that I highlighted in the

earthquake disaster scenario.

On the next page, I will just mention a few things. The

Schwarzenegger Administration is very focused on flood management. It has its origins in the report we submitted to the Legislature on our response to the Jones Tract failure. We have introduced legislation that did not move very effectively last year. We

have a whole new level of interest in the State Legislature this

year in terms of responding.

The Governor, as I already mentioned, proposed an infrastructure package that included initially $2.5 billion. He has increased

that to $6 billion to be on the table. The Legislature has various

versions in play, all of them at least $4 billion for investment in

flood.

50

Declaration of emergency, as I already mentioned in February,

we are proceeding and working very closely with the Corps to expedite repair of those sites.

Two other points that I will mention on page 25. We described

the disaster scenario and presented it to the Legislature. We have

undertaken what is called the Delta Risk Management Strategy,

which is to look on a very technical basis at all the levees in the

Delta, and start setting up a priority structure for investments.

And the last bullet on that page is developing a long-term hundred-year vision for the Delta; what will the Delta look like 100

years from now, how do we start investing to make sure that we

can maintain the Delta was a viable resource for all the purposes.

Implicit in that Delta vision is that our current approach to managing the Delta is not sustainable. We have to do something different in the Delta. What we are doing now does not work.

Finally, our request in terms of Federal flood management assistance, specifically in the 24 erosion sites, I have already mentioned the need for a contract amendment, the need for expedited

emergency permitting under ESA, the need for a process for the

state to get credits for our advance money, and the need to authorize the third phase of the Sacramento River Bank Protection Program.

In terms of Delta emergency response, I believe we need to develop a better understanding of exactly what the Federal role will

be in responding to emergencies in the Delta. I think that has become murky over the years, and we need to clarify that.

On a statewide basis, we simply need to continue Federal involvement and cost-sharing as we move forward with flood control

all across the state, in terms of the subventions program, the Delta,

as well as the project levees.

That concludes my comments.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Snow follows:]

Statement of Lester A. Snow, Director,

California Department of Water Resources

Introduction

Committee Chairman Pombo, Subcommittee Chairman Radanovich, and members

of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss flood issues in the Bay-Delta watershed of California. Governor Arnold

Schwarzenegger and his administration have warned that California faces a multifaceted flood crisis. Tragically, it took the lethal and destructive force of Hurricane

Katrina to draw attention to flood threats in California, where the potential for catastrophic flooding is even greater than it was in New Orleans.

In January 2005 Governor Schwarzenegger released Flood Warnings: Responding

to California’s Flood Crisis. This white paper identified the challenges associated

with flood management in California: California’s flood protection system is comprised of aging infrastructure with major design deficiencies. Many of our levees

were built as part of the federal flood control system more than a century ago using

primitive designs and construction techniques. These levees have been further

weakened by deferred maintenance. Funding for maintenance and repair of levees

has dwindled over time as governments at the federal, state, and local level struggle

to meet all their financial commitments.

Meanwhile, escalating development in floodplains increases the potential for flood

damage to homes, businesses, and communities. In the Sacramento-San Joaquin

Delta there is another threat: levee failure can jeopardize reliable water supplies for

farms and cities across two-thirds of the state. This is because a levee failure in this

Delta region would draw salt water into Delta channels, rendering this water too

salty to deliver to farms and cities served by the Central Valley project, the State

Water Project, and local projects that draw water from the Delta.

51

Our flood management responsibilities include both prevention and emergency re- sponse. I will describe activities related to both, but will focus on prevention.

In this regard I would like to focus on two particular aspects of the Schwarzenegger administration flood efforts, and our view of the federal role in

these efforts. These two aspects include the Governor’s declaration of a flood emergency to expedite repair of critical erosion sites identified by the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers, and the increasing vulnerability of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

including the State and federal interests that are put at risk by this vulnerability.

Levee System State of Emergency

On February 22, 2006 Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Dianne Feinstein led a Congressional delegation on an aerial tour of Central Valley levees. They

viewed some of the 24 critical erosion sites in the Sacramento Valley and the Delta

identified in December 2005 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Many of these

sites have deteriorated further since their identification by the Corps in December,

due to flood flows that occurred in California river systems on or about New Year’s

Day 2006. In response, Governor Schwarzenegger on February 24, 2006 declared a state of emergency for the state’s levee system. He directed the California Department of

Water Resources to repair these 24 sites during this calendar year, and he made

available approximately $100 million in State reserves to fund this emergency work. Erosion can take its toll on any levee system, but it should not come as a surprise

that most of these critical sites are along the Sacramento River. The levees of the

Sacramento River were intentionally designed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

to erode. During California’s Gold Rush, placer mining in the Sierra Nevada washed

entire mountainsides into local streams and rivers. This silt deposited in riverbeds

of the central valley, increasing flood risk at the very time that farms were being

established throughout the valley. In response, levees were built to contain the

floodwaters. These levees were intentionally built very close to the channel in order

to keep water velocity high and scour this sediment out of the river systems.

Today, these narrow channels have been too successful. The gold rush silt has

long since been washed out of the system, but the erosive force of the river continues to eat away at the levee system. Today, the levees protect not only farms,

but also hundreds of thousands of people who live and work in central valley cities

and towns. All together, more than $47 billion in infrastructure is protected by central valley levees.

At the existing levels of funding and capacity to plan and carry out levee repairs,

correction of these 24 sites by State and federal agencies could take up to four years.

By then, the river will have eroded additional sites that will further threaten lives

and property. The ‘‘business as usual’’ approach will eventually result in a catastrophic flood that will destroy businesses and take lives.

To avoid catastrophe, we must eliminate this backlog of repairs. Governor

Schwarzenegger has taken several proactive steps to improve our flood protection.

He has augmented the State’s budget for flood management efforts, and he has proposed a very large investment in flood management as part of his Strategic Growth

Plan. But these efforts, while very beneficial to our efforts to protect Californians

from flooding, are not sufficient. That is why the Department of Water Resources

has been tasked with carrying out a monumental erosion repair program this year.

We have enlisted the support and cooperation of other State agencies to ensure that

we can plan, design, permit, and construct repairs this year.

We are also working closely with our federal partners at several agencies as we

prepare for this massive repair program. I would like to brief you today on the status of two areas of interaction: responsible streamlining of environmental permitting

under federal emergency procedures, and crediting to obtain eventual federal costshare funding for the work that California will carry out this year.

Environmental Permitting. Levee maintenance and repair projects ordinarily

require several environmental permits before they can proceed, and environmental

permitting has sometimes been blamed—accurately or not—for delaying levee

projects. In California we have been proactively addressing this situation. Last year

I convened a committee of policy-level managers from State and federal agencies to

consider how we might appropriately avoid, minimize, or mitigate for the environmental impacts of levee work in ways that would allow the projects to be implemented quickly. One tool we are investigating is the use of mitigation banks so that

project mitigation is taken care of in advance of the levee work itself.

In consideration of this levee emergency, we propose to formalize and expand this

committee as a Levee Repair Executive Oversight Committee. The purpose of this

committee is to ensure that the federal and state agencies responsible for permitting

and environmental compliance work together in an expeditious and cooperative

52

manner to perform the critical levee repair work this year. We will depend on this

interagency committee to help us meet the challenge of addressing State and federal

permitting in ways that allow us to protect the environment and stay on schedule. The Governor’s emergency declaration allows him to waive certain State require- ments such as those related to the California Environmental Quality Act. However,

we have been able to proceed in an environmentally sensitive manner by relying on

emergency procedures available to State regulatory agencies. In this way we can

comply with environmental protections while we are improving our flood protection.

California encourages federal permitting agencies to take the same protective, yet

flexible, approach. We have already been engaged in discussions with the Department of the Interior and received Interior commitment to use emergency permitting

procedures available to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Federal Cost-Share Crediting. The federal government has traditionally been a partner to States and communities in providing funding for flood control repairs

and improvements. Using available funding, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was

prepared to repair five of the 24 erosion sites this year. The horrifying images of

Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath have reinforced the fact that the failure of flood control facilities can have devastating consequences. California cannot wait years to

complete the repair of erosion sites that the Corps has already designated as critical.

Therefore, Governor Schwarzenegger has pledged funds from State reserves so

that emergency repairs can be made this year without waiting for traditional costsharing. We will, in effect, provide credit to the federal government for its share of

the funding to complete repairs at ten erosion sites. The Governor has asked the

Corps to arrange for California to be reimbursed by the federal government under

appropriate cost-share formulas without the need for prior approval of credit agreements

The Increasing Vulnerability of the Delta

No region of California faces a greater long-term threat of catastrophic failure

than the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This area is not a river delta in the classic

sense. It is a 700,000 acre region within the Central Valley of California where the

Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers come together in a maze of channels and

sloughs and flow to San Francisco Bay. The lands surrounded by these channels

have come to be called islands but, again, they are not islands in the classic sense.

They are in fact more like New Orleans—lands with elevations below sea level that

are protected by fragile levees.

Of course, there are differences between our Delta islands and New Orleans. The

levees built to protect the homes, businesses, and citizens of New Orleans provided

250 year flood protection. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a mostly agricultural region. Only a small fraction of the 1100 miles of levees that protect the Delta

islands are Project levees. Most are privately built levees, first constructed over a

century ago. Very few of them offer even 100 year flood protection.

This level of protection was sufficient for the agricultural region of a century ago,

but many changes have taken place in the Delta. The peat soils of the Delta have

subsided, gradually lowering the elevations of Delta islands. Some of these parcels

are now more than 20 feet below sea level. As California grew during the 20th Century, two great water projects were built to meet the demands of central valley

farms and coastal cities. Today both the federal Central Valley Project and the State

Water Project are vitally dependent on fragile Delta levees to protect water supply

and water quality. Other infrastructure now crosses the Delta, and is dependent on

the continued stability of Delta levees, including state highways, railroad lines,

water supply pipelines that serve much of the San Francisco Bay area population,

energy transmission lines, and petroleum pipelines to name a few.

As our dependence on the Delta has grown, so has the threat of catastrophic failure of Delta levees. Traditionally we have viewed the flood threat of winter storms

as the greatest vulnerability of the Delta. We recognize that this threat has grown

over time as the Delta islands have subsided, requiring taller levees to protect them.

Today we recognize that global climate change poses additional threats. The careful

hydrologic records we have kept since the 1940’s have already documented the

changes that are taking place. Over the next century we expect sea level in the

Delta channels to rise by a foot or more. At the same time, we expect warmer

storms to produce higher peak flood flows.

Today there is a growing realization that the Delta also faces threats from seismic

events. An earthquake could liquify the foundations of Delta levees and cause catastrophic flooding that would devastate the economy of California and the nation. We

have considered the effects that a 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Delta region

would have. This magnitude earthquake may have about the same occurrence

53

probability as a hurricane like Katrina. Such a temblor could cause 30 levee

breaches, flooding 16 islands in the Delta. 300 billion gallons of salt water would

be drawn into these subsided islands from San Francisco Bay. The salt in the Delta

would render it useless as a water supply source, shutting down the Central Valley

Project and State Water Project for several months. When water deliveries could resume, they would be smaller in quantity and much lower in quality than Californians have come to expect.

California’s economy would be severely affected. Economic losses would easily reach $30-40 billion in the five years after the earthquake. Thirty thousand jobs

would be lost. Agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley would be greatly impacted.

And all these economic effects would ripple throughout the nation and the global

economy. Both the State and federal governments have taken proactive steps to address catastrophic failure of Delta levees. Congress authorized $90 million in the CALFED

authorization bill in 2004 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assess Delta

risks and undertake reconstruction and enhancement of Delta levees. Two weeks

ago the Corps released a draft Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Report, identifying

and prioritizing potential levee stability projects in the Delta. We urge Congress to

support an active role for the Corps in the Delta by appropriating the full authorization so that the Corps can participate as a partner in our efforts to protect the

Delta.

Together with the Corps, California is working to develop the Delta Risk Management Strategy that Congress called for in the CALFED authorizing legislation. By

2008 this effort will help us to better understand all the risks to Delta levee stability, quantify what is at stake when catastrophic failure occurs, and provide longterm options for Delta protection.

At the same time that we develop long-term options for Delta protection, we must

be prepared to respond to failures in the Delta and throughout the system when

they occur. We have organized our institutions to be as responsive as possible. For

example, the operations centers for the State Water Project and the Central Valley

Project are located at the same facility that houses our Flood Operations Center and

the regional office of the National Weather Service. In this way, communication and

coordination among the project operators, the forecasters, and the flood fighters can

be rapid and seamless. When a flood emergency is declared, our flood management

staff can function 24/7 alongside those who are forecasting flood events and those

who are managing dams and reservoirs.

A good illustration of our coordinated response came in June 2004 when a Delta

levee at Jones Tract failed. Working with the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, we activated our Standardized Emergency Management System, or SEMS.

DWR and OES coordinated a response that included establishment of an incident

command center in the field and the involvement of the local levee district, the

county, several state agencies, Reclamation, and the Corps.

Recognizing that the Delta must be protected in both the short term and the long

term, Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed substantial funding to protect what

we have in the Delta, respond to emergencies, and implement the long-term plans

we will develop in the coming months. The Governor’s Strategic Growth Plan initially included over $900 million in proposed funding to protect Delta levees and he

subsequently proposed increasing this amount to $1.5 billion.

Conclusion

California faces unprecedented threats from catastrophic flooding. Some of the

risk is attributable to our own action or inaction: we depend on century-old levees

to protect our growing population and economy, we have not always maintained

these levees as well or as promptly as we should, and we have pursued land uses

in the Delta and elsewhere that have caused subsidence or increased the risk to

lives and property. We are also improving our understanding of the risk we face:

our engineers are learning more about the faults that may lie hidden within levees,

we have the knowledge to update flood zone maps, and we are gaining an understanding of the increased risk posed by climate change. Tragically, it has taken the

misfortune of Hurricane Katrina victims to focus attention on similar risks in California.

We are ready to make the investments and do the work necessary to improve our

flood security. The Schwarzenegger administration issued a white paper in January

2005 calling attention to California’s crisis, sponsored flood management reform legislation at the State level, increased the State budget for flood management, proposed general obligation bond investments for flood protection, is leading the development of a Delta Risk Management Strategy, described a Delta disaster scenario

that highlighted the profound threat and spurred action, and declared an emergency

54

due to critical erosion in our levee system. We are successfully partnering with federal agencies to better understand the risks, to repair and improve the system, and

to expedite the permitting processes associated with levee construction.

We hope that the Congress will recognize the severity of flood risk in California,

appropriate funding for traditional cost-shares and new authorizations to fund the

work of the Corps in the Delta, and help California improve our level of protection

against catastrophic flooding.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee. I would be

happy to answer any questions that the members may have.

Attachments:

Governor’s Emergency Proclamation of February 24, 2006

Governor’s Letter of February 27, 2006 to President Bush

Governor’s Executive Order of March 6, 2006

Governor’s Letter of March 6, 2006 to General Strock

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Snow, for your testimony. A lot

of questions.

Mr. Schroedel, I want to get a sense of, and appreciate your

statement on the need to act now, and how the Corps is ready to

go forward. And it was very well outlined in your 180-day report

that was received recently.

Can you give me an idea if funding were not an issue, how long

would it take to implement the items, the to-do list that was generated in that report that you submitted? And what are the things,

aside from funding, that might be getting in the way of your ability

to implement that?

64

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Sir, just to summarize our findings so far, again, we asked for input from all comers to identify

for us critical sites that needed work. We were also given some parameters with which to consider the input.

Specifically, we were asked to consider for potential execution

those critical sites that met our section 205 limitations, which

mean essentially about an $11 million project, funded 65 percent

Federal, 35 percent non-Federal.

So here is what we found. We found about 54 sites that were

submitted to us, 29 of which met the 205 limitations of about an

$11 million project. The total for the 54 sites amounts to about $1.2

billion. And then the value——

Mr. RADANOVICH. Just for the record, those 54 sites, were those

levee repair sites?

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir, levee repair sites. And

one point that I would make just to underscore a comment that I

made earlier regarding the fact that this is just information we

asked, and it is input we received; and it is hard to judge what else

is out there that we are not aware of.

As an example, Sherman Island, which is a very critical island

on the western edge of the Delta, we had no submissions for any

requirements. That is a little strange to us.

So I just want to make sure that that is very clear, when we get

that 180-day report, it is not a conclusive this is what needs to be

done. That is an important point I think we need to make first.

Second, $1.2 billion worth of work, 54 sites. The 29 sites that are

within the 205 limitations, the smaller projects amount to probably

$100 million is all out of that $1.2 billion.

Now, how long would it take, I wouldn’t hazard to guess right

now. But it would take probably quite a while just to do that work.

And again, the last point I would make, if I may. Even if we did

all of that work, that still does not guarantee the integrity of the

system. And then I would second Lester’s comments about the status of the Delta and the infrastructure of the levees rather. And

those Band-Aid fixes, if I can call it that, wouldn’t necessarily

mean we would ever, or could ever, certify the system. It just

means that those sites, in accordance with the evaluation criteria

that we selected, would be fixed.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Basically saying that reinforcing the levees

alone will not provide the level of protection that that area needs,

correct?

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. Mr. Snow, thanks for your report,

too, that you brought here. And I want to hold this part up. And

what is really interesting to me is Sacramento’s level of flood protection compared to some of the other river cities throughout the

United States.

It is embarrassing, but there is Sacramento and its level of protection. New Orleans was even up here, and we are worse than

New Orleans, but nowhere near compared to some of the other

major river cities in the United States.

In the discussion that we are having with regard to the protection of levees, levee reinforcement, those being done still have not

65

raised this bar, I mean, that is what will bring this bar to this level

right now, right?

Mr. SNOW. Well, the project that is actually the Corps’s project

working with local agencies that includes levee improvements on

the American River and the Sacramento River, combined with the

Folsom Dam improvements, gets you up to 200-year. So some levee

improvements, but also changing the outlet works at Folsom, as

well as a Folsom Dam raise.

Mr. RADANOVICH. The Folsom Dam raise. When you are talking

about improvements at Folsom, it is mainly the raise of the dam,

is that right?

Mr. SNOW. I believe it is the outlet works, also, so you can evacuate more quickly.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And the gate?

Mr. SNOW. Yes.

Mr. RADANOVICH. If even that were done, it would bring that

level up here still below the level of what was current in New Orleans, right?

Mr. SNOW. Correct.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Can anybody care to tell me what we need in

addition to what we are doing in order to get that level up to, say,

the equivalent of, say, Dallas or Tacoma or St. Louis or Kansas

City? Someone has got to respond.

Mr. SNOW. What did you have in mind?

Mr. RADANOVICH. It can be broad, you know. It is more than fixing the levees, isn’t it? It is more than reinforcing that. And if you

can tell me broadly, what needs to happen in addition to it.

Mr. SNOW. Well, I will make a comment, and perhaps the General also has some thoughts about the next phases. And I know

SAFCA, the local——

Mr. RADANOVICH. I am sorry?

Mr. SNOW. SAFCA is the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency

that is very active, and one of the better, more responsible flood

agencies in the State of California—are looking at other solutions

and other parts of it.

Obviously the historic discussion on flood protection in Sacramento has been upstream storage, Auburn Dam. The problem

has been that debate in the past has actually delayed investment

in flood improvements in the region. And our focus right now with

the state is, we need to make sure we get these improvements, and

not get distracted by the next debate over Auburn Dam.

Should that study move forward, I believe the Bureau is proceeding with updating some of the numbers, at the direction of

Congress. We will evaluate those and make assessments. But we

don’t want anything to interfere with making these improvements

that are on the table now.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And I agree. But you know, I don’t like having

a discussion that keeps us at this level of protection and while we

continue and avoid what will really give us the protection that we

should want and deserve compared to all the other cities in this

country.

Lester, I wanted to ask you one other question. In CALFED,

there are water storage projects in CALFED, Sykes Reservoir, Los

Vaqueros, and one other one. If we need more than levee reinforceVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:50 Jul 17, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\27015.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
66

ment, we need storage in order to sufficiently protect the Delta

against floods, will any of those reservoirs provide any adequate

level of storage capacity, and thereby relieve the flooding problem

in that area? Will it contribute?

Mr. SNOW. The two projects that became the most discussed during our bond deliberations with the Legislature was Sites Reservoir

and Upper San Joaquin storage, or Temperance Flat is a classic

one. Both of those reservoirs can be operated as part of an improved flood control package. Neither one would be a silver bullet.

But Sites, for example, can be used in conjunction with Oroville,

and potentially Shasta, to provide some additional flood space

there, so that you can pull water out, move it into offstream

storage, and provide additional flood capacity, so it can tie into a

strategy.

When you combine that with levee improvements and setback

levees—and the reason I mention that is setback levees are also a

form of storage. As you widen the channel significantly, then you

have additional capacity in the river, and in some areas—obviously

the best example is a bypass, where we move significant amounts

of water out of the river system into a bypass that is effective as

storage, basically.

And so when you combine all those elements, that is how we see

getting the protection we need for the future. Storage is a piece of

it, levees is a piece of it, and how you construct the levees of course

is a piece of it.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right. Mr. Rodgers, I know that the Bureau

was asked to kind of relook at the Auburn Dam. Can you give me

an idea of the progress of that effort?

Mr. RODGERS. I believe we were on schedule to have that report

done by this fall.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Very good, thank you. Mrs. Napolitano.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Mr. Snow, just

looking at the coordination, and it has apparently been identified

that there are, of course, first responders in the areas that are

going to be needed, or at least in some areas. Apparently there is

what, 24 breachable levee areas, am I correct? Or at least that is

what I am hearing. There are 54 the Army Corps is identifying.

And whatever many, are the first responders in those areas

working in tandem with the agencies to be able to be responding

to the needs of the community? Whether it is agriculture, local

communities, bedroom communities, whatever.

Mr. SNOW. Yes, there is a couple of issues in play in your question. One, let me mention what is going on as we speak on the San

Joaquin River, where we are very concerned.

The San Joaquin River is flowing above capacity, will continue

for some time because of the storms that we have had.

The structure we have in California, which is called the Standard

Emergency Management System, or SEMS, the first responders are

usually the county. It is the county OES offices. And we support

them. And then there is the Federal support of us.

And so as we speak, we have our flood investigators out working

with the counties, increasing surveillance of the levees, and identifying areas of greatest concern so that we can respond quickly.

67

We have also pre-positioned flood fight materials and flood fight

crews from California Conservation Corps and the California Department of Forestry, which has prison crews that they put together for firefighting, as well as flood fighting. So those are out

there so that we can support, as soon as we hear there is an issue

we can mobilize sometimes within minutes, certainly within hours,

to flood fight.

You made reference to the 24 sites. That is something that is a

little bit different. That is a Corps of Engineers report that was

made available in December, December 29 of last year, that identified 24 critical erosion sites on the project levees. And those are

sites where there has been concern expressed that there is so much

erosion that potentially in the next flood, you could have levee failure.

We have mobilized and evaluated each of those sites. The Corps

is proceeding. I believe they are going to deal with 10 of those this

year, and the state will deal with 14 of those, so that by the next

flood season we have repaired all of those sites.

Does that answer your question?

Ms. NAPOLITANO. It addresses most of my question. But given

the fact that we have had a lot of rain in Northern California, and

we expect, in my understanding, another seven days of rain, how

is this going to affect the ability to be able to defend those areas?

Mr. SNOW. Well, the 24 erosion sites, we will keep an eye on

them. That is not where we are seeing the problems right now.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. OK, they are different.

Mr. SNOW. Yes.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Page 25 of your report, you indicate

your partners are the Corps, the Department of Fish and Game,

developing the Delta Risk Management Strategy, local, county,

other entities?

Mr. SNOW. We have formed an advisory group on the Delta Risk

Management Strategy. It is kind of a technical advisory group. The

Delta Risk Management Strategy is a fairly technical assessment

of the integrity of the levees. And the Corps is our partner on that.

Fish and Game is involved because of the implication to environmental consequences as we start working on Delta levees. And we

have a Delta Risk Management Strategy Advisory Group that includes representatives from the local reclamation districts and the

counties in the region.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. So you are saying that only in certain areas are

you involving the locals.

Mr. SNOW. Well, I am saying on this investigation, which is a

study of kind of the engineering integrity of the levees, we have a

technical advisory group that includes local representatives.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. OK. That still kind of leaves them out of the

whole picture.

Mr. SNOW. Well, that is not our intent. That is why we formed

the group, that they can work with us on this.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Is there a local here that might want to address that, whether or not there is that necessity of being involved

in the whole planning and—I guess not.

Mr. Chair, if I may, how will the Water Resources coordinate

with FEMA in the event of a serious emergency in a formal

68

disaster declaration? And who will be in charge? And with that, the

statement that, according to Mr. Lokey’s testimony from FEMA,

Federal assistance from FEMA and other agencies will not be

available until an emergency or disaster has been declared under

the Stafford Act. And how long does that take?

So I would like to have an answer, if you can clarify that.

Mr. LOKEY. Well, I will take the first one. For some declarations,

mainly recovery, the process, you know, it could take in terms of

weeks.

An emergency response declaration, that can be done verbally,

and we can lean forward on that kind of thing. No doubt there will

be one.

We have done a lot of planning. From the hard lessons learned

in Katrina, we are knowledgeable now, and have developed plans

for search and rescue aimed at hurricane season, but which would

be applicable here. We know where the resources are now that we

didn’t know last year.

Like for example, with the National Park Service and the boats

that the Geological Survey has, and the military. Those are all

rolled in now to our national strategy that we are planning to

apply to hurricanes, but we can certainly apply it there. And we

have commodities stored around the country as part of the national

strategy, much of that stored at Moffett Field in California. And we

can move things in that direction should a cataclysmic event occur.

But the Governor is in charge. And through the state, we are

supportive to that. If we see something coming, like we see a hurricane coming, we are authorized to move Federal assets to Federal

facilities until a declaration. But as of right now, just the planning

we are doing with the Federal family and the various agencies, the

specific planning the region is doing with the Federal partners in

the region, that would form the nucleus of the relationships and

the plans to respond to the state.

We would partner up with the state emergency management

agency at the state, emergency operations center in Sacramento.

The Governor would be setting, through the emergency management organization and the input from state agencies, would be setting the priorities. And we would be the Federal representation

there, and be responding to those priorities as quickly as possible.

But we have to keep in mind, the Federal government is not a

911 emergency response agency, nor designed to be that. We are

doing a lot better. We can be ready to move things in quicker. And

with the planning that has been done—I used to work for California Office of Emergency Services several years ago, and am

aware of their system and the SEMS system.

The relationships they need, the systems they have, the mutual

aid systems they have, and things like that are much more robust,

much more exercised, and much more sophisticated, as well as the

relationships with the Federal family, than existed in Louisiana

when Hurricane Katrina hit.

They have had enough of these big events that they are quite

good at it. And so you would feel a much more proactive response.

But would it be a 911 call, where the Federal boats would be there

in one hour? No, ma’am, that is not possible.

69

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Understood. But what else can be done, sir, in

your estimation?

Mr. LOKEY. Well, we just said, the resources we have to keep the

planning going. We have got for the specific area of the Governor’s

emergency proclamation request, ongoing planning is taking place

where groups have been formed and where an ongoing process with

the Federal agencies, and that gets stronger and better every day,

as per my testimony, and the various things they are identifying.

They are pre-identifying staging areas, pre-identifying resources in

the state that might be needed to speed up the delivery of them.

And other than keeping that process going and responding to the

needs of the state in the other areas of the state, because the Delta

area that we are talking about here is different than the area the

Governor has declared the emergency on.

And so, again, all this planning has value for that, too. But just

continuing that planning process.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much. Thank you for your

indulgence.

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. And if I could add something to

that. Another piece that is sometimes overlooked, FEMA has their

role, and then we, the Corps, are FEMA’s engineers.

However, let me speak, if I could just for a second, on the Defense Department in my capacity as a soldier.

During Hurricane Rita I was the Task Force Engineer for Hurricane Rita, Task Force Rita. What has happened is happening right

now. The Federal government is establishing a permanent defense

coordinating officer at Camp Parks. That is new.

And that individual’s responsibility will be to do planning right

now for how the Defense Department might also be brought to

bear, just as the Defense Department was, the Coast Guard and

whoever in Katrina, Rita, and whatever.

So that is a new twist. A permanent defense coordinating officer

at Camp Parks, coordinating with FEMA, coordinating with us to

also do some planning for Defense Department response. So that

is something new, too.

Mr. LOKEY. And if I could add to that. I came back early from

the meeting we were having with the Defense Department and the

Nationwide Defense Coordinating Officers in San Antonio, Texas

this week.

One of the things we have done this year to expedite the delivery

of military assets, because in all authority, the mission assigned

the military takes the approval of the Secretary of Defense. And

sometimes that does not move very quickly.

So we are working on pre-scripting capabilities, pre-scripting

what we will call mission assignments. So we have already done

the homework and already run it through the system, about aviation assets, medical assets, transportation assets, and things like

that, to shorten that timeframe from when the state identifies the

need, or we can anticipate what is needed, and we can actually legally get it moving.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Gentlemen, that is great news. Where is Camp

Parks?

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Just not too far from San Francisco, ma’am. It is pretty close to the area we are talking about.

70

Mr. LOKEY. And the defense coordinating officers will be housed

within our 10 regional offices around the country to give ongoing

military planning, coordination, and liaison, instead of as it did before where one was identified and you worked with them on a periodic basis.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Are they also part of a planning group with the

rest of the locals and the state and Federal? I know you are Federal, but——

Mr. LOKEY. Yes, they are.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. They are. Thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr. Chair.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Costa.

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have got numerous questions, and some I will have to submit for the record because of time.

I am wondering, if it doesn’t take away from my time, Mr. Chairman, because I understand—and correct me if I am wrong—that

Mr. Rodgers has to leave for a plane back to Sacramento?

Mr. RODGERS. I would say we have to leave after the presentation probably.

Mr. COSTA. OK. Because we were going to get a briefing on the

current efforts on the potential flooding in the affected areas that

are in all of our districts. And so they were going to brief us. And

that is separate from my line of questioning obviously. I don’t know

if you want to entertain a three-minute summary on where we are

right now or await that following my questions.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Snow, Lester, didn’t you kind of update on

the three sections and where we were currently with that?

Mr. SNOW. Yes. And you should have in front of you an update

from midnight last night. And to summarize very quickly, Congressman Costa, I mean, the concern that we have in your region

actually is that we have these high flows; we have not had major

breaks. But we are going to——

Mr. COSTA. Where is that? I am not sure we have it up here.

Mr. SNOW. They are in this room somewhere.

[Laughter.]

Mr. SNOW. I think you have a map in front of you now, is that

right?

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, do you have it there? We can share.

Mr. SNOW. It highlights the various incidents. I think the real

issue, the real concern is with the storm patterns and the snow

melt, we are going to keep the Sacramento River flowing at or

above capacity. What did I say, Sacramento? Sorry. I meant San

Joaquin.

Mr. COSTA. And you define capacity as 8,000 cubic feet per second?

Mr. SNOW. It varies by location, including bypass.

Mr. COSTA. Right.

Mr. SNOW. So everything is full. So our concern is that system

that doesn’t get used as frequently as the Sacramento system probably has its greatest difficulty with sustained high flows. And that

is what we are experiencing.

71

So we have mobilized more surveillance of the sites, mobilized

flood fight crews to be prepared, and are starting to pre-position

some material in different locations so we can respond.

Mr. COSTA. You would define the critical time period as the next

three, four weeks, depending upon the storms and the temperatures?

Mr. SNOW. Perhaps Mr. Rodgers can kind of respond. I am not

aware of what their plans are, but my understanding is that entire

watershed we expect to be running high for at least the next two

weeks. Do you want to comment?

Mr. COSTA. And all the three agencies are meeting daily on this,

and with surveillance and the other efforts to keep us apprised? I

mean, I know how you have done it before, with the Bureau, with

the Department of Water Resources, and the Army Corps, and your

center there in Sacramento. Is that what is taking place now?

Mr. RODGERS. If I could respond to that. We have activated what

we call the flood operation centers in 24 hours. That is where we

have—both project operation facilities are located there, the Central Valley Project, the State Water Project. That is also where the

National Weather Service is located.

So we coordinate the weather forecasts with our release strategies from the reservoirs with our flood strategies.

Let me just add to that that yesterday we met with some of the

Congressional staff and gave a briefing. What we plan to do daily

is make available our operational data and what our projections

are, available to Congressional staffers. And that will start in the

morning. So that will be one response that we have.

The second one I would mention is that we recognize that on the

San Joaquin River, that Vernalis is an important measuring point

for flows. And we are projecting about 30,000 cubic feet per second

to be flowing past Vernalis at a peak, and probably sustained levels

of about 20,000 cubic feet per second for the next couple of weeks,

tailing off depending on the storms.

So, as Mr. Snow has mentioned, those are flows that are mostly

not experienced, or intermittently experienced. And so the system

is not as equipped to handle it, and the damage to levees that are

existing can be pretty significant. So that is where the monitoring

is taking place now that he mentioned.

Mr. COSTA. Well, even further upstream, I mean, on the

Chowchilla Bypass. That is seldom used except for events like this,

and therefore its state of ability to handle the capacity is of question, I would guess. I mean, we had the levee failure in 1997 right

above the pass there on the San Joaquin River.

Can you refresh my memory? And I know that was over a 100-

year event, the flows that we had for that 24-hour period?

Mr. RODGERS. I believe we released about 60,000 cubic feet per

second from Friant Dam, for about a 12-hour period, and then

tailed off from there. It was pretty significant.

Let me just add that on Friant, our operations there we are coordinating very carefully with the upstream reservoir operators

concerning their planned operations and releases. In addition to

that, we are working with our own on project users to arrange to

disperse outflows to the maximum extent that we can, so that we

are putting that to every available distribution point.

72

For example, the Friant Kern Canal can handle about 2,000

cubic feet per second. And we are putting that right up to its fullest

capacity, all that it can handle. Madera Canal at 400 cubic feet per

second. I took a drive on Sunday, and everything was flowing.

And the other thing we have done is taken away any administrative barriers as incentives to keep those systems flowing, and coordinated with the State Water Resources Control Board, so that

there is no disincentive to continue that sort of an operation.

And then the third thing would be certainly notification coordination with downstream interests that could be impacted.

Mr. COSTA. All right. I think it was important for us to hear

what is taking place here, because obviously I think we are at the

stage that is, needs to marshal all the resources together, as we

have done in the past, in advance, and hope that we will have a

more traditional spring, and we will not get the type of event that

occurred recurring that occurred in 1997. But it appears that you

are all working together, and you have got a plan.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back to the other, if it is OK

with you, there were a couple questions I did want to get in here.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes. And we will wrap up, and if you could

move those along, it will be great.

Mr. COSTA. All right. Mr. Snow, I really appreciated your presentation. I thought it was on point and very informative.

Back on page 24 you talk about the proposed general obligation

bond, and you look at what was originally proposed over four years,

and then now the increased proposal.

Do you have an estimate of what we have spent on the state

level over the last 15-plus years, with the boatwright levee program and some of the other additional Federal funds that have

come together?

Mr. SNOW. I do not. I probably could get that very quickly for

you, but I don’t have that on the top of my head.

Mr. COSTA. I think it is important, as we are looking toward our

continued partnering, to get an idea of the fact that the state has

not been sitting by idly, and in fact has made a significant investment over the last 15 years. And that number would be helpful.

It was alluded to, and I think it has been discussed here, but

how far do you think we are—maybe the Army Corps might want

to weigh in here—as to really trying to determine whose responsibility it is for which levees, understanding that some are owned locally, privately, some are state responsibilities, and some are the

Federal government’s responsibilities. How far along are we in

really tying that down?

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Sir, I think we have got a good

idea. We know which levees are project levees, which ones are nonproject levees. I think that is pretty clear. We have got maps. We

know which levees are which.

We also know that standard practice, once we complete a project,

we also, as a part of the project, complete an operations and maintenance manual. And then, standard practice, a responsibility for

long-term maintenance, according to the operations manual, is

handed off to the local water district.

Mr. COSTA. I understand we know whose responsibility each

levee is. But my point is, have we actually triaged or prioritized

73

based upon where you think the greatest need is, in what order?

Because we don’t have enough money to do it obviously all at once,

and because the funding sources are going to come from different

areas, how we coordinate that on a need basis.

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Sir, I think within the Delta, our

180-day report, given the other limitations I mentioned earlier,

starts to get at some of those priorities, based on their criteria, the

CALFED objectives, based on the other objectives.

But I think in general the answer to your question is there is

work to be done. And I believe in terms of my opening statement,

the need that we see to get to the vision and the work that the

state is spearheading, which we support fully, on the Delta vision

and on the long-term strategy, I think the sooner we can get to

what does the end state look like, I think then we will be able to

sort out the priorities that will contribute to that to make wiser use

of investments that we want to make today.

Mr. COSTA. I think that priority listing is going to be important

as we try to figure out how we come together.

Mr. Snow, as I look on page 20, and there is other references toward that on your handout, you give a diagram of the Delta. And

I want to go back to the point or the reference I made earlier on

in terms of whether or not an evaluation is done as to whether or

not there is a more cost-effective way of dealing with some of these

levees than simply rehabilitating them.

And I don’t think it is one size fits all. But it seems to me whether you are talking about $6 billion or something less, you would

offer the opportunity for those who are in an area that they understand what the handwriting on the wall is in terms of the long

term, but they might to, in fact, take advantage of simply selling

their island, where you are two or three property owners. Has that

been evaluated? On a voluntary basis.

Mr. SNOW. I think that is precisely one of the potential outcomes

of both the Delta Risk Management Strategy, as well as the Delta

vision. There clearly are islands on the peat soils where, if you try

to bring them up to a specific standard—Public Law 8499, for

example—it only stays there for a short period of time. Because the

extra material that you put on there to armor it actually weighs

it down, and it squeezes out that peat material.

Some of our thought is very consistent with what you just said;

that you lay out a plan where you recognize certain islands that

it is just not cost-effective to continue to keep investing.

Now, in those cases, though, you can’t just abandon those island.

Because an abandoned island means wave-fetch that takes out the

next island.

Mr. COSTA. Right. Would they be a potential for water supply?

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Potentially. Also a potential for

habitat conversion of some sort.

Mr. COSTA. If they are water supply, they are habitat, as well.

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Good point. I think the key,

though, is making sure that landowners know exactly what is going

on, and that they are not simply being abandoned, and that there

is a broader plan for the Delta.

74

Any time you talk about buying an island or abandoning levee

repair, you pick up sides. And we can’t do that. We have to have

a master plan for the Delta.

Mr. COSTA. Well, thank you very much. And thank you, Mr.

Chairman, for the time. This is something obviously we are going

to have to continue to work together on, on a state and Federal

basis. And I will submit my questions, my other questions, later on.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Costa. I appreciate your interest on the current situation out there, which makes this hearing

very timely.

One last question to Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Snow. In the event

that a massive levee failure disrupts water supplies for many

months or even years, do the agencies have contracts in place to

get water from underground banks or other sources throughout the

state to begin to think about augmenting this water supply if we

lose it?

Mr. RODGERS. We don’t have contracts presently in place, but we

recognize that those resources are available. And we have had

transactions with many of those water bank entities in the past.

So being able to tap into those in the event of a problem like you

describe we think would be a fairly reasonable response on our

part, and we could probably do that in short order.

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right, thank you very much. Gentlemen,

thank you so much for your testimony here today. It is very valuable, and again, very timely.

Before I adjourn the hearing, I want to ask unanimous consent

that the testimony of Mr. Paul Jacks be admitted into the hearing

records. Mr. Jacks works for the California Office of Emergency

Services, and was not able to be here today because of the pending

flooding in California. And there being no objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jacks follows:]

Statement of Paul Jacks, Deputy Director,

California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services

Introduction

Good morning Chairman Pombo, Subcommittee Chairman Radanovich, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today

on ‘‘Protecting Sacramento/San Joaquin Bay-Delta Water Supplies and Responding

to Catastrophic Failures in California Water Deliveries.’’ As you are well aware,

California faces many threats. Since 1989, California has experienced 61 disasters

resulting in a Governor’s state of emergency, and, of these, 33 were significant

enough to be declared federal emergencies or major disasters. The recent storms last

December and January caused an estimated $400 million in damages in a 29 county

area and affected more than 50 reclamation districts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin

Delta. As Director Snow clearly articulated, California’s aging levees pose a significant threat to the public safety, in addition to threatening California’s critical water

supply system that supports farms and communities across the state.

You have requested that I address the role of the Governor’s Office of Emergency

Services (OES) as it relates to the coordination and response to massive levee failures and resulting flooding, as well as water delivery interruptions and other consequences associated with levee disasters. Today, along with Director Snow, I will

speak from the state perspective, as you will hear also from our federal partners,

including the Bureau of Reclamation, United States Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE), and the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), among others.

First, a few key principles about disasters in general:

1. We cannot predict what the next disaster will bring. Each disaster has its own

unique set of issues, so our emergency response system must be flexible—the

answer to ten different disaster scenarios is not ten individual plans.

75

2. All disasters require common capabilities that must always be addressed by public safety agencies. 3. Finally, to be truly prepared for any disaster we must focus on developing and strengthening organizational systems, training our personnel, communications,

and resource acquisition. These areas are critical to all disasters, regardless of

cause.

Systems

OES serves as the lead agency for emergency management in California. To en- sure the most effective use of all resources for dealing with any emergency, OES

makes every effort to include government at all levels, businesses, community-based

organizations, and volunteers. The fundamental mission of OES is to ensure that the state is ready and able to mitigate against, prepare for, respond to, and recover from the effects of emergencies that threaten lives, property, and the environment. To accomplish this mission, OES coordinates the activities of state agencies under the authority of the

State Emergency Services Act and the California State Emergency Plan. OES also

coordinates the response efforts of state and local agencies to ensure maximum effect with minimum overlap and confusion. Additionally, OES, in accordance with the

National Response Plan (NRP), coordinates the integration of federal resources into

state and local response and recovery operations, when needed. OES accomplishes its mission through programs and outreach efforts that assist

and support local and other state agency emergency management programs.

California has learned that the best way to ensure our disaster readiness is to

develop sound and flexible systems that can be applied throughout the disaster

spectrum. As stated previously, OES coordinates the state response to major emergencies in support of local government. The primary responsibility for emergency

management, and in particular emergency response, rests with local government. In

California, the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) serves as the

mechanism by which local government requests and receives assistance.

Created by legislative mandate in response to the devastating Oakland-East Bay

Hills Fire in 1991, SEMS is critical to California’s emergency management organization. Since December 1, 1996, SEMS is required by law for managing responses to

multi-agency and multi-jurisdiction emergencies in California. SEMS facilitates coordination among all responding agencies and expedites the flow of resources and

communication within all organizational levels.

SEMS incorporates the Incident Command System (ICS), mutual aid, multi and

inter-agency coordination, and operational area concepts. Mutual aid in California

is executed through a ‘‘bottom-up’’ approach. Resource requests originate at the lowest level of government and are progressively forwarded to the next level until filled.

For example, if an Operational Area (county) is unable to provide the necessary requested assistance to an affected jurisdiction, it may contact the OES Regional

Emergency Operations Center (REOC) and forward the request. Requests for resources that cannot be filled at this level may then be forwarded to the State Operations Center (SOC). When necessary, the state also can coordinate federal resources on behalf of affected local governments, or even seek assistance from other

states though the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), which is

administered by the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA). All government levels in California understand this system, and we all plan, train, and exercise within it to prevent delays and provide immediate access to assistance.

Deployed for the first time during the January 1997 floods, an incident that affected more than 30 counties and caused an estimated $2 billion in damages and

disaster-related losses, SEMS showed its strength and some weaknesses. Since that

time, the system has been steadily improved and fully utilized by state and local

agencies for emergency response activities. Its success has been unquestioned and

the system has worked so well that certain of its features have been incorporated

in the new National Incident Management System (NIMS).

As a result of having a standardized system, our planning at the state level has

focused on assisting local governments to be well prepared for the hazards in their

jurisdiction. Particular attention has been concentrated on cities and counties, as

they primarily attend to human needs during and immediately after disasters. We

have found that a common, all-hazards planning approach is the most effective

means to address the many types of disasters for which we are at risk. In most

cases, the consequences of disasters will be similar; for example, an evacuation and

sheltering plan addressing special needs populations will apply whether there is

flood, earthquake, or a massive levee failure.

As stated previously, SEMS provides the basic framework for response operations

in the State of California. The California State Emergency Plan, however, provides

76

the policies, concepts, and general protocols for the implementation of SEMS. Additionally, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) has an administrative order

that outlines its emergency response functions as established in the California State

Emergency Plan and which further guides OES and DWR in coordinating priority

tasks and programs that the two departments will perform with respect to emergency preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation.

Current Levee Efforts

Since the Governor’s proclamation of a state of emergency on February 24, 2006,

and his subsequent request to the President for an emergency declaration, the state

has been working on a levee failure contingency plan in coordination with other

state, local, and federal government agencies. All six counties (Colusa, Sacramento,

Solano, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba) potentially affected by a failure at one of the 24 critical sites have been asked by OES and FEMA to review their emergency operations

plans in relation to the current levee proclamation and to provide information as

to their specific preparations for mass evacuation, shelter, and notification/warning.

As part of the process, each county has identified special needs/vulnerable populations in the potential inundation zones and identified resource shortfalls. The City

of Sacramento and Sacramento County, which have the most population at risk

from a failure of one or more of these critical levee sites, have established robust

flood awareness public education campaigns, including holding community meetings

to discuss flooding threats, evacuation, and household preparedness.

We are also reviewing existing state and region-level plans and procedures, and

identifying immediate actions that could be taken to improve these plans and procedures, in anticipation of a response to requests for local assistance resulting from

an imminent or actual failure. The draft plans and procedures currently being updated or revised include Guidance for Sheltering During Large Scale Evacuations,

Guidance for Evacuee Reception and Processing Center Operations, Mass Evacuation Guide Checklist, and the OES Inland Region Mass Evacuation System Operations Manual. OES is also finalizing the Inland Region Mass Evacuation System

Operations Manual, which specifically addresses the handling of evacuations that

cross Operational Area boundaries. Documents developed as part of the Flood Emergency Action Team (FEAT) project, subsequent to the 1997 floods, are also being revisited.

Additionally, OES recently coordinated the formation of a Levee Failure Contingency Planning Group to identify response resources that the State may request

from the Federal government to assist with a mass evacuation or sheltering effort.

This planning group consists of a number of State agencies, including Department

of Social Services, California Highway Patrol, Department of Transportation, Department of Health Services, Emergency Medical Services Authority, Department of

Rehabilitation, Department of Food and Agriculture, DWR, California National

Guard, and the American Red Cross. As we modify state plans and procedures we

will meet with the counties to discuss potential joint operations and identify potential mutual aid requests. FEMA will also participate in those discussions with local

governments.

To support the contingency planning effort, OES, through the Levee Failure Contingency Planning Group, is identifying resources that may be requested from the

Federal government to support mass evacuation or sheltering operations should a

levee failure occur. Currently, these resource needs are primarily related to planning and evacuation/sheltering support. To support planning efforts, the state could

benefit from federal assistance in modeling failure at critical levee failure locations

throughout the Central Valley and Delta. Examples of operational support include

air operations management support (including staffing the tower at the former

McClellan Air force Base), aircraft capable of moving swift water rescue teams and

equipment from southern to northern California, helicopters and flat-bottomed boats

to augment similar State and local assets in performing rescue missions, and mobilization center support. We will continue to refine our lists as our planning efforts

expand. If conditions develop that could put further pressure on the weak levee

sites, such as warm spring rains leading to rapid melt of the Sierra snow pack, the

State and local agencies may request federal assistance with aerial reconnaissance

of the levee system and with flood-fight operations.

OES is also working with FEMA to develop a concept of operations for catastrophic flood response that will serve in the interim until more formalized catastrophic planning initiatives are finalized.

Summary

There is no doubt that the devastating effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita

have been a wake up call to all, and Governor Schwarzenegger’s aggressive response

77

to the critical threat facing California’s levees has focused much needed attention

to this real and ever-present hazard. Although California has a strong emergency

management system, we know that large-scale disasters, such as those associated

with a catastrophic levee failure or earthquake in California, will affect hundreds

of thousands of people, and gravely stress our ability to preserve life and safety and

recover our economy. Our State and nation are rich in resources to assist during

a disaster—from local government up to federal military assets. We will fail our citizens, however, if there is not a system, organization, and infrastructure in place to

get this support to where it is needed in an expedient and organized manner.

The strength and experience within California’s system is unequivocal. Repeatedly, our state has had emergencies that span the entire spectrum of the challenges

faced in Hurricane Katrina—severe economic impact, major transportation disruptions, infrastructure destruction, mass evacuations, loss of life and many others.

From each of these emergencies system improvements were born. Unfortunately, we

have had many opportunities to learn and improve and we have not been idle. We

will continue to learn from our successes and opportunities for improvement to create an even stronger emergency management system

Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Gentlemen, thank you so much for your valuable input. And this hearing is closed.

[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ