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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–571 PDF 2012

CALIFORNIA’S SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN 

DELTA: PLANNING AND PREPARING FOR 

HAZARDS AND DISASTERS 

(112–99) 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

AUGUST 16, 2012 (Stockton, California) 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas, 

Vice Chair 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BOB FILNER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL 1 

Hon. John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ..................................................................................................................... 5 

PANEL 2 

Robert J. Fenton, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Response, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency ..................... 7 

Brendan A. Murphy, Assistant Secretary, California Emergency Management 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 7 

Ronald E. Baldwin, Former Director of Emergency Operations, San Joaquin 

County ................................................................................................................... 7 

Timothy Alan Simon, Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission ... 7 

Alexander R. Coate, General Manager, East Bay Municipal Utility District .... 7 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. John Garamendi ............................................................................................. 36 

Robert J. Fenton, Jr. ............................................................................................... 39 

Brendan A. Murphy ................................................................................................. 44 

Ronald E. Baldwin ................................................................................................... 48 

Timothy Alan Simon ................................................................................................ 50 

Alexander R. Coate .................................................................................................. 55 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Timothy Alan Simon, Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission, 

response to request from Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, for 

information on utility emergency preparedness and response plans for the 

Delta and the Delta levees .................................................................................. 24 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, written statement ......................................... 64 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 75571.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 75571.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 75571.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 75571.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 75571.005
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 75571.006
x 


Insert offset folio 7 here 75571.007
xi 


Insert offset folio 8 here 75571.008
xii 


Insert offset folio 9 here 75571.009
xiii 


Insert offset folio 10 here 75571.010
xiv 


Insert offset folio 11 here 75571.011
xv 


Insert offset folio 12 here 75571.012
xvi 


Insert offset folio 13 here 75571.013
xvii 


Insert offset folio 14 here 75571.014
(1) 

CALIFORNIA’S SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN 

DELTA: PLANNING AND PREPARING FOR 

HAZARDS AND DISASTERS 

THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:36 a.m., in the San 

Joaquin Council of Governments Building, 555 East Weber Avenue, 

Stockton, California, Hon. Jeff Denham (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Denham and Shuster. 

Also Present: Representative McNerney. 

Mr. DENHAM. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to 

order. 

I want to first start by welcoming Chairman Shuster of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, and 

former chairman of this subcommittee, here today. One of the 

things that we are talking about today are the pipelines that run 

through the Delta, so I am glad you were able to join us. 

I ask at this time unanimous consent that Representative Shuster be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at today’s hearing 

to offer testimony and ask questions. Without objection, so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that Representative McNerney be 

permitted to sit with the committee at today’s hearing to offer testimony and ask questions. Without objection, so ordered. 

This is Mr. McNerney’s district, and we appreciate you playing 

host to us today. 

As a representative from California, my constituents and I know 

very well how important it is to plan and prepare for disasters. 

From earthquakes to floods to wildfires, good planning and preparedness saves lives and mitigates against damages. 

That is why, as chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction 

over FEMA and emergency management, I have held a number of 

hearings focusing on improving our emergency management capability. This Congress, I authored H.R. 2903, the FEMA Reauthorization Act, which was voted out of the committee in March. That 

bill would not only reauthorize FEMA and key emergency management programs such as the Urban Search and Rescue System, but 

would help streamline and reduce costs to disaster assistance proVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:52 Nov 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\8-16-1~1\75571.TXT JEAN
2 

grams, ensuring communities can recover more quickly following a 

disaster. 

Today, we are here in Stockton, California, to specifically examine planning and preparedness in Sacramento and the San Joaquin 

Delta region. It is important to ensure that all levels of Government are working together to plan for and prepare for any hazards 

and disasters. 

The California Delta has more than 1,000 miles of waterways, 

more than 1,100 miles of levees, barrier water supply lines, petroleum pipelines, and two inland seaports. The Delta is the main hub 

for delivering fresh water to millions of California residents in the 

San Francisco Bay area and southern coastal communities of the 

State, along with millions of acres of farmland of the San Joaquin 

Valley. 

To plan for a disaster in this region, in 2008 the California Legislature passed legislation that created the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta Multi-Hazard Coordination Task Force to make recommendations on improving, planning, and preparedness. The task force, led 

by CalEMA, issued its report January of this year. The report included recommendations related to establishing an interagency unified command system framework, developing an emergency preparedness and response strategy, and ensuring all hazards training 

and exercises. Many of these recommendations require close coordination with FEMA, the State and local communities, as well as 

those in charge of our infrastructure and utilities. 

That is why I am pleased to have such a diverse panel of witnesses with us here today. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on how they are able to plan, prepare for hazards and disasters here in the Delta. 

Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. 

At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. McNerney for an opening statement. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today we will discuss a critical issue to the Delta communities, 

the ability to best prevent and respond to natural disasters, particularly floods. As we know, the Delta is a unique and invaluable 

resource for the region’s farmers, families and small businesses. 

Furthermore, much of California relies on the Delta sustainability. 

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Multi-Hazard Coordination 

Task Force’s report on emergency preparedness highlighted the ongoing need to prepare for natural disasters. Achieving this goal requires coordination between local, State and Federal agencies, as 

well as first responders and the community at large. I want to 

thank the task force for its work on this important issue. 

As the task force’s report indicated, there are many components 

that lead to successful emergency response plans. Today we are focusing on preparation and prevention for the Delta. Maintaining 

levee safety, sustainability and improvements is at the core of preventing floods. Multiple reports and studies have reinforced not 

only the cost-benefit of levee improvements, a top priority for nearly every Delta county, but also that this investment enhances the 

long-term stability of water quality and water delivery for people 

throughout the State. 

3 

Additionally, agriculture is a multibillion-dollar industry that depends on the stability of the Delta. A lack of long-term Delta levee 

management will result in higher flood insurance costs for the people we represent. Disaster preparedness and mitigation not only 

protects the livelihood of our region and its residents but also benefits the State’s economy. 

I recognize that levee improvements are only one portion of the 

issue we are discussing today. The task force also reports on one 

obstacle that we all know very well, and that is the funding. All 

levels of Government are battling deficits and a lack of resources. 

Whether it is to develop a multiagency coordination system, implement communication plans, or continue existing efforts, counties 

are struggling to find the necessary resources to execute these policies. We must be united in our goal to ensure that the Delta region 

is able to quickly respond to and prepare for any natural disasters. 

At a time when our budgets are already stretched thin, we must 

prioritize. Preventing a disaster that may devastate our families, 

homes, and economic livelihood should be at the very top of our 

list. 

We must focus our investment on strengthening our levees and 

shoring up our safety, not spending money on poorly planned new 

projects. 

There is still much work to be done on this issue, and the task 

force’s report is an important step in the right direction. I look forward to everyone’s testimony today, and I am ready to find commonsense ways for all of us to protect the Delta and its residents. 

With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having me here today. 

Thanks, Mr. McNerney, for hosting us here in your district. 

I see my colleague from the Armed Services Committee, Mr. 

Garamendi, here today. 

This is my first trip to Stockton. On the trip—ride over here, I 

was surprised, actually shocked to see the size of the port you have 

here in Stockton. When they said there was a port, I expected to 

see some little boats floating around, but it is a significant port and 

a significant asset for a community 60 or 70 or 80 miles inland 

from the coast. That is something that, again, surprised you had 

it, but as Jerry and I spoke here a little bit, what a great asset. 

You look all over this country—I am off track here a little bit, 

but I am so taken with it that I just want to say this. You have 

a port inland, and in this country in California, Pennsylvania, the 

south and southern coast, all those ports right on the coastline are 

very congested, very difficult to get shipping products in and out 

of there, to get them on the boat to the truck, to the train. So you 

really have a great asset, and I would urge you to continue to develop it and keep it open, keep that channel deep enough to bring 

those big boats in here. It helps the economy of this area, but it 

helps the economy of the United States. 

Again, I want to thank my colleague, Chairman Denham, for 

holding this important hearing, and also his great work that he has 

done as the subcommittee chairman. He is leading the fight—I 

think everybody by now has seen what is going on at the GSA, and 

4 

it is Jeff Denham who is the guy leading the charge, trying to push 

back on that waste and abuse that is occurring at the GSA. So he 

has done a great job. 

If you haven’t seen it on the news, you have probably seen Chairman Denham on the news railing about it. But he is doing absolutely the right thing. 

But it is important that we have this hearing today because of 

the nature of hazards that come to California—earthquakes, floods, 

wildfires. You name it, California has to prepare for it. The Chairman has assured me that none of that is going to occur today while 

I am here, and I am going to hold you to that. 

But as a Californian, he knows the importance to plan and prepare for disasters, and he has held a number of these hearings focusing on improving emergency preparedness. As a former chairman of this subcommittee, and I was a member also of the special 

panel that we investigated the preparation and response to Hurricane Katrina, so I am very familiar with the critical importance of 

preparedness, effective emergency management, and the consequences of when they do not work as they should. 

Our work at the time resulted in the Post-Katrina Emergency 

Management Reform Act, which authorized a national preparedness system, and among many things, it authorized FEMA for the 

first time in the legislation. 

One of the things, as I studied the area here, there is a lot of 

similarities between the Delta and the New Orleans region, the 

main thing being that you have a lot of areas that are below sea 

level, which can cause terrible, terrible problems, as we saw in 

New Orleans. 

So I am proud to be working with Mr. Denham, who is the author of H.R. 2903, which is the FEMA Reauthorization Act. It is 

out of committee. We hope to get it on the Floor in September and 

pass it out of suspension, because I think it is one of those pieces 

of legislation that people from the Delta, people from New Orleans, 

people from all over the country can get behind to make sure that 

we have a robust authorization in place, especially as we are now 

in the hurricane season on the east coast. 

As Mr. Denham has pointed out here in Stockton today, specifically we are examining planning preparedness for the SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta region. So I look forward to hearing from all of 

our witnesses—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I just wanted to thank you for your comments 

on the Delta. The Delta is well known to this district as being an 

economic driver, and it is important that someone from out of State 

can come here and see what a resource that is for our community, 

and we can work together to make sure that the Delta continues 

to receive resources and gets dredged once in a while, creates jobs 

for our region. So thank you for that comment. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Absolutely, and I think it is important that I realize it, coming from Pennsylvania. I know the Central Valley is the 

bread basket of probably the world. I was in a factory a couple of 

years ago that produced tomato sauce, and I said where do you get 

5 

your tomatoes? And they said, well, everybody gets their tomatoes 

from the Central Valley. 

So this is important not only to California but to the United 

States and to the world. So again, I appreciate it, and I yield back, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Again, I would like to welcome our witnesses here 

today. Our first witness this morning is the Honorable John 

Garamendi. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witness’ full statement be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Since your written testimony has been made a part of the record, 

the subcommittee would request that you limit your oral testimony 

to 5 minutes. 

Mr. Garamendi, you may proceed. Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Chairman Denham. 

Mr. Shuster, thank you for coming to California. You are quite 

correct about the deep water, about the port here. I will also remind you that we have requests for money to deepen the channel. 

I am sure that since you are on both the House Armed Services 

and the Transportation Committee, you will take that into consideration and provide the opportunity for even more ships to come 

not only to Stockton but to Sacramento. And some day, we will 

take you on a tour of the Delta, perhaps before you leave. You will 

enjoy it. It is an extraordinary place. 

I have had the pleasure since 1974 of representing the Delta in 

one or another forms, as a member of the California Legislature, 

later as an insurance commissioner dealing with emergencies here 

in the Delta, and then at the Department of the Interior, where I 

had specific responsibility for the water and the Delta here in California. More recently, I do represent the Delta in the 10th Congressional District. 

We have seen it over the years. We have seen the emergencies. 

We have seen the Delta levee breaks beginning back in, for me, 

1975–1976, and it is ongoing. The importance of this hearing cannot be underestimated. It is critical that you carry out the recommendations, that the Federal Government carry out its part of 

the recommendations that have been put forth by the task force. 

They are good recommendations. They call for coordination. They 

call for enhanced training and preparation. All of that is critically 

important. 

It also calls for money. We cannot ignore it. We are going to pay 

earlier, or we are going to pay late. Paying late, you are going to 

pay a lot more, which brings me to the point that I would like to 

bring to the attention of this committee, since you are the infrastructure and transportation committee. 

It is critically important that we pay attention to the infrastructure needs of the Delta. The levees in the Delta are old. They were 

basically agricultural levees built over the last century or so. They 

were never designed to deal with the current pressure that is put 

on the levees both because of the subsidence of the interior islands, 

as well as the increased water flows. 

6 

So we need to deal with that. Otherwise, the entire Delta could 

be at risk from a levee break at one of the key islands. The State 

spent time, and the Federal Government through the Bureau of 

Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, have spent a lot of time 

studying the Delta. They have spent precious little time spending 

money on repairing the levees of the Delta, except when a levee 

breaks, and then a lot of money is spent. 

You mentioned lessons learned from New Orleans. Well, the lesson, at least one of the lessons from New Orleans is prevent the 

levee failure. That is, take early action, build the levee properly, 

and prevent the levee failure. That same lesson needs to be applied 

here in California. 

We also are dealing with a very significant change in the very 

nature of the Delta. This is a proposal that has been ongoing for 

some time, or at least a study that has been ongoing for some time 

called the Bay Delta Conservation Planning Process, what to do 

with the water system in the Delta, the dual goals of water delivery to those folks south of the Delta pumps at Tracy, and the environment and the economy and agriculture of the Delta itself. 

A proposal hit the street a month-and-a-half ago by the Governor 

and by the Department of the Interior that will have profound effect on the Delta. It is a dual conveyance proposal, one that calls 

for the creation of two tunnels, 15,000 cubic feet per second capacity, that would take water out of the Sacramento River north of the 

Delta and deliver it to the pumps. 

It is a dual system, one that would also take water from the 

Delta as it presently occurs. That pumping from the Delta has gone 

on for some 60 years by the Federal Government, and a little less 

by the State government, using the Delta levees as a plumbing system to deliver water from the Sacramento to the pumps at Tracy. 

That plumbing system has not been maintained. Essentially, it 

has been a plumbing system that has occurred for more than half 

a century with precious little maintenance of the levees, which are 

the essential elements of that plumbing system. We need to address that. It is essential that in going forward, that the Federal 

Government and the State government address the Delta levee 

maintenance issue. Otherwise, we are going to spend forever dealing with emergencies. 

The cost of repairing the Delta levees is thought to be somewhere 

between $2 and $4 billion. The cost of an emergency is somewhere 

between $8 and $16 billion. That is a catastrophic failure. It would 

make sense to spend money on prevention rather than in dealing 

with the emergency, another lesson from New Orleans. 

If I might take another minute, Mr. Chairman, with your permission. 

So as we move forward here with this hearing, you are dealing 

essentially with how to deal with an emergency. I want to draw 

your attention to how to prevent the emergency from happening in 

the first place. 

It is incumbent upon those who use the Delta—that is, the farmers and communities in the Delta—to maintain their levees, and 

they have. It is also incumbent upon the Federal and the State governments who also use the Delta levees to do its share in maintainVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:52 Nov 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\8-16-1~1\75571.TXT JEAN
7 

ing those levees. It is cost effective. It is wise. Its importance on 

human life and economic life cannot be understated. 

So I want you to leave this hearing today with at least an understanding, if not a commitment, to preventing an emergency, to 

spend the money in prevention that is upgrading the levees to a 

standard that can withstand both the pressure of a flood, as well 

as the potential of an earthquake. It is the cheapest possible investment, prevention, upgrading those levees. 

It is also essential in any water system that the State might 

comprehend in the future, whether it is a dual tunnel or a continuing pumping through the Delta, that the levees must be maintained, and it is the responsibility of those who use the Delta levees as a plumbing system to maintain those levees. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the forbearance and the 

extra minute. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you for your testimony this morning. 

At this time, we will call up our second panel. 

On the panel is Mr. Robert Fenton, Jr., assistant administrator 

for response, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA; Mr. 

Brendan Murphy, assistant secretary, California Emergency Management Agency, CalEMA; Ron Baldwin, former director of emergency operations for San Joaquin County; Timothy Alan Simon, 

commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission; and Mr. Alexander Coate, general manager, East Bay Municipal Utility District. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Since your testimony has been made a part of the record, we 

would ask you to keep your oral testimony to 5 minutes. 

Mr. Fenton, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONIES OF ROBERT J. FENTON, JR., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESPONSE, OFFICE OF RESPONSE AND RECOVERY, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; 

BRENDAN A. MURPHY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, CALIFORNIA 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; RONALD E. BALDWIN, 

FORMER DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY OPERATIONS, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY; TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON, COMMISSIONER, 

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION; ALEXANDER 

R. COATE, GENERAL MANAGER, EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 

Mr. FENTON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. My name is Robert Fenton. I am the assistant administrator for response. As a fifth generation San Franciscan, I have 

spent a lot of time in the California Delta region. I came to my current role in 2009 after 13 years of service with FEMA’s Region IX 

in our Oakland office, which serves not only California but the 

States of Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, and 

other U.S. interests. 

During that time, I supported the response to major floods in the 

California Delta in both 1997 and 1998, and I appreciate the opportunity to return home to discuss FEMA’s support of current planning and preparedness efforts in this region. 

8 

As you know, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a region 

where two of California’s largest rivers meet. Over 1,100 miles of 

levees created 57 leveed island tracts, some of whose surface can 

be 20 feet or more below the outside water level. Two-thirds of all 

Californians, about 23 million people, and millions of acres of irrigated farmland rely on the Delta for water. Disruption of this 

water flow due to a disaster would have a devastating impact on 

California and would create widely felt impacts across the Nation. 

Through our FEMA Region IX Office, FEMA and our partners 

are deeply engaged in addressing the long-term water-related 

issues in California through a whole-community approach. This approach to emergency management engages not only the Federal, 

State, local, tribal and territorial governments, but also the private 

sector, nongovernmental organizations, and the public to collectively understand and address the community needs. FEMA has 

joined with partners across this whole community to implement cooperative policies that support adequate, safe, and dependable 

water supplies for the people, businesses, and institutions of not 

just California, but also Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Guam, and other 

U.S. interests. This engagement is achieved primarily through 

water-focused joint planning efforts and exercises with our partners. 

Most recently, FEMA and our partners have conducted these 

planning efforts in support of Presidential Policy Directive 8, which 

directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a national 

preparedness system that defines the core capabilities necessary 

for the Nation to prepare for incidents of greatest risk. This system 

will include a series of integrated national planning frameworks 

covering prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery, 

and will inform planning in support of these frameworks at every 

level of Government through a national planning system. 

As we work to implement PPD–8, our planning assumptions for 

catastrophic disasters continue to be based on worst-case scenarios. 

They are designed to challenge preparedness at all levels and force 

innovative, nontraditional solutions as part of the response and recovery strategy to such events. FEMA and our partners seek to 

identify the highest priority tasks necessary to save and sustain 

lives and stabilize a catastrophic incident during the critical first 

72 hours, and we work across all segments of the society to identify 

how we can collectively achieve these outcomes. 

FEMA also conducts regional catastrophic planning to address 

area-specific disaster scenarios which present greater likelihoods of 

occurrence based on location. Much of this work is coordinated 

through our Regional Interagency Steering Committees, which are 

senior-level entities that address issues related to response and recovery in all of FEMA’s 10 regions. 

In California, the San Francisco Bay Area Earthquake Response 

Plan, published in 2008, and the Southern California Catastrophic 

Earthquake Response Plan, published in December 2010, are based 

on input from thousands of emergency management professionals 

and describe the joint State and Federal response to catastrophic 

earthquakes. These plans address the potential damage to water 

infrastructure systems, including distribution, treatment, and sewage systems. 

9 

In addition, the Cascadia Subduction Zone Planning Project represents a whole-community partnership to develop a disaster response plan based on a magnitude 9.0 earthquake along the 

Cascadia Subduction Zone. This disaster response plan describes 

activities, including collaborative efforts, to be implemented in the 

immediate aftermath of an earthquake along the subduction zone. 

In conjunction with broad-based planning efforts like our catastrophic and hazard-specific planning, FEMA also continues to support the State of California in preparing for catastrophic disasters 

in the densely populated Los Angeles and San Francisco metropolitan areas. Essential to these efforts is a shared and coherent analysis of threats to potable water production and distribution in communities at risk for severe ground-shaking. 

In addition to our planning efforts, FEMA brings together emergency management professionals across the whole community to 

improve preparedness by exercising plans. As part of the 2008 California statewide Golden Guardian Exercise, FEMA and the California Emergency Management Agency joined other State, local, 

tribal, governmental, and nongovernmental stakeholders exercising 

the San Francisco Bay Area Earthquake Plan. This year’s Golden 

Guardian Exercise includes a test of the Southern California Catastrophic Earthquake Response Plan, including the establishment of 

a water conveyance task force to assist in the restoration of potable 

water deliveries following a magnitude 7.8 earthquake. 

Finally, to further promote awareness and preparedness, FEMA 

and CalEMA have established a Memorandum of Understanding 

related to disaster assistance in the Delta area. The MOU establishes eligibility for FEMA’s Public Assistance program in the special reclamation districts for the Delta area. The MOU also identifies responsibilities of FEMA, CalEMA, and the reclamation districts during and after an event. 

FEMA’s preparedness efforts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta area are exemplified by the water-focused joint planning and 

exercises that occur there regularly. By engaging the whole community in catastrophic, all-hazards, and hazard-specific planning, 

and in the exercises that test and evaluate these plans, we continue to address the long-term water-related issues in California. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Shuster 

and Congressman McNerney. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to once again testify before this committee and provide testimony today regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. 

The California Emergency Management Agency is responsible for 

coordinating the State’s overall preparedness efforts and enhancing 

our capabilities for both intentional and natural disasters. CalEMA 

coordinates homeland security and emergency response under the 

mission of saving lives and reducing property loss during times of 

disaster and works to expedite recovery from the effects of disasters. 

In coordination with the National Preparedness Goal, California’s 

overall preparedness system is comprised of five mission areas: prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery. One of the 

10 

significant lessons we have learned is that we must focus our investments on disaster preparedness efforts so that we can mitigate 

the devastation of human suffering and financial loss for future 

generations. We have learned that we must invest financial resources on the front end to ensure that our infrastructure is secure, 

that early warning systems are in place, and that the public is 

well-informed about potential risks and have the tools they need to 

prepare themselves and their families for when disaster strikes. 

As you are all aware, California is faced with a daunting list of 

disaster risks. Much like the likelihood of a catastrophic earthquake, the daunting threat and risk of a catastrophic flood incident 

within the California Delta is not just real, but it will happen. As 

our scientists warn, it is not a matter of if it will occur, it’s just 

a matter of when. 

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Emergency Preparedness Act 

of 2008 required CalEMA to establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta Multi-Hazard Coordination Task Force. The Task Force was 

comprised of CalEMA, the Delta Protection Commission, the California Department of Water Resources, and the five counties within 

the Delta region: Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, 

and Yolo. 

The mission of the task force was to develop recommendations to 

improve the quality and effectiveness of an all-hazard emergency 

response in the Delta region, while maintaining a level of readiness 

consistent with identified threats and our current capabilities. As 

a result of the recommendations and efforts of this task force, we 

have worked with our partner agencies to make significant strides 

towards these efforts. 

We adopted and implemented a Delta Multiagency Coordination 

System which was successfully exercised during the 2011 Golden 

Guardian Full-Scale Exercise to test the State’s ability to allocate 

scarce resources throughout the Delta region during a catastrophic 

flood scenario. The exercise focused on preparing for, responding to, 

and recovering from a catastrophic flood in the northern region and 

included more than 5,000 local, regional, State and Federal responders, as well as State agencies and nonprofit emergency response and private industry partners who participated in various 

events throughout the 3-day exercise. 

The Delta MACS document is in the process of being integrated 

into statewide procedures to ensure maximum efficiency and standardization for emergency response with our key partners, including 

local stakeholders, the California National Guard, and the California Department of Water Resources. 

CalEMA held a regional mass evacuation tabletop exercise on 

January 11, 2012, to provide participants an opportunity to evaluate their current response concepts, plans, policies, procedures, and 

capabilities for notification, evacuation, and mass care and sheltering in response to a flood-based scenario. This exercise was a regional collaboration between CalEMA and its local and State partners and will serve towards the development of a regional mass 

evacuation plan in relation to the Delta flood scenario. 

The California Delta region also has an Interoperable Communications Plan that was updated in February of 2011, and these 

documents for interoperable communications resources are availVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:52 Nov 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\8-16-1~1\75571.TXT JEAN
11 

able within the designated area. The plan also includes specifics 

such as who controls each resource, along with the rules of use 

and/or operational procedures for the activation and deactivation of 

those resources. 

For flood and evacuation contingency mapping, CalEMA, in direct partnership with the California Department of Water Resources and other State and local stakeholders, participated in a 

project led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which identified 

resources and facilities in the Delta, or those that could be easily 

deployed to the Delta, for any emergency response operation during 

a flood event. As part of this effort, existing shelter and evacuation 

plans were reviewed to recognize resources and opportunities available for response and identify weaknesses and needs. A series of 

flood contingency maps were prepared to highlight the identified 

resources and outline general emergency response procedures. 

We all know the work we do is faced with uncertainties and we 

must continue to work together to ensure our resources are put to 

the best use possible. California continues to be recognized as a national leader in homeland security and emergency preparedness, 

and with your support we will continue to work tirelessly to advance the efforts which we believe will provide the greatest benefit 

to our State and Nation. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. Baldwin. 

Mr. BALDWIN. I’ll get this turned on. Is it on now? 

Mr. DENHAM. There we go. 

Mr. BALDWIN. I’m Ron Baldwin, former director of emergency operations for San Joaquin County for nearly 30 years. I sat on the 

task force and participated in all the discussions leading to the 

issuance of the report. I’ll just make two brief comments to supplement my written testimony. 

I believe that if the committee wants to delve into the specific 

recommendations of the report, I again encourage you to distinguish between the two key separate components of emergency flood 

response. There are those activities that most people equate with 

the words ‘‘emergency response’’: evacuation, rescue, shelter, and 

there is the ‘‘flood fight.’’ The flood fight is those actions to prevent 

levee failure during a flood, and if a levee fails it is those engineering actions to limit the extent, the depth, and/or the duration of the 

flood. 

It is important to make that distinction for two reasons. The 

practical reason is that there are different players and different 

issues in each. The second is because if I learned anything in 30 

years and seven floods, it is that if we want to improve flood response, our prime focus has to be on the flood fight. If we are as 

efficient and effective as possible in preventing levee failure once 

the flood comes, and if we are as efficient and effective in limiting 

the physical extent, depth and duration of the flood if a levee 

breaks, then we prevent or physically limit the tragedy and the 

damage. If we do the other functions well, that is important, but 

we only ameliorate the tragedy. 

I would include in the idea—I mentioned three specific recommendations of the report that bear on that: Delta MACS, or the 

idea of regional planning; flood contingency mapping or defense inVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:52 Nov 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\8-16-1~1\75571.TXT JEAN
12 

depth; and the flood fight emergency funding mechanism. I would 

also include the idea of secondary defenses behind some of our critical infrastructure that is protected by levees in this country. 

I will make a rather bold statement. In my experience—I can do 

that; I am retired. In my experience in this country, we are not as 

well prepared for the flood fight as we could be. 

The second point I will make is we now have a strategy. This is 

very unique, and I think the legislature recognized the importance 

of the Delta. It isn’t done for everything everywhere. I mean, we 

have a strategy that was developed for improving response in the 

Delta, and I am assuming that all agencies and levels of Government accept that strategy and want to move forward. I just mentioned two good public administration steps that need to be taken 

now. 

The first question is funding. I was brought up, how do we fund 

the implementation of the strategy? Normally that is a killer, 

right? In this case, there are actually quite a bit of funds that are 

flowing down from quite a bit of different sources that are going 

into flood or could go into flood preparedness. 

So the question is how is the funding going to tie in with the 

strategy, and at some point we would want to see how that is going 

to happen. I mean, if the Corps has money, what are you going to 

do about the strategy? So we don’t end up 2 or 3 years down the 

road with duplication of effort or, oops, we forgot to implement 

something in the strategy, or whatever. So we need to work out the 

implementation fiscally, and it is an historic moment. We have the 

funds to do it and we have the strategy to move ahead. 

The second issue really is also good public administration. It is 

a combination of standards. How do we know we got there? The 

task force did its job. We have a strategy. It is very general. It is 

very vague. You could interpret it 50 million different ways while 

saying, well, we got there. 

There needs to be a process of multiple agency review as we 

move through the strategy with the State and Federal Governments, and local governments move through the strategy, to say, 

yes, we finished this, and it meets the standards that we want, so 

we have something we can report back in 3 or 4 years and say, yes, 

we set some standards for what it means to have a flood contingency map, we met some standards for what it means to have a 

MACS, and through a multiagency process we confirmed that that 

actually happened and meets the standards that are either out 

there or that we developed. 

So I think those are important as we move, and this is a critical 

point to establish that, and I will actually finish about a minute 

early on my statement. 

Mr. DENHAM. You set an example for everybody else. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Baldwin. 

Mr. Simon. 

Mr. SIMON. Thank you. Is my mic on? OK. 

Good morning, Chairman Denham and distinguished members of 

the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. 

The California Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC, is responsible for the safety and security of critical utility infrastructure for 

13 

water, natural gas, electricity, communications, and rail within the 

Delta and throughout the State. 

The CPUC’s authority over investor-owned utility infrastructure 

in the Delta includes pipelines carrying natural gas for residential, 

commercial, and industrial use, as well as electric generation. As 

chair of the Committee on Gas for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and a member of the Pipeline Safety 

Task Force for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, I have a particular concern with pipeline safety. 

The Delta levees protect natural gas production and pipeline facilities throughout the Delta. Many gas and oil production wells are 

located here, and the region’s electric utility, Pacific Gas and Electric, or PG&E, has transmission and distribution pipelines running 

throughout the Delta to transport gas from northern California and 

from out of State. PG&E also has pipelines that interconnect its 

own system, diverting gas to and from underground storage facilities located on islands in the Delta such as the McDonald Island 

gas storage field. 

Although some facilities are designed to withstand various levels 

of irrigation and flooding for local agricultural needs, the gas production and transportation infrastructure could be damaged if it is 

not designed for floodwater levels from levee breaks. Generally, 

high-pressure pipelines are not affected by the presence of some 

water near the line, but unanticipated flooding that would otherwise be averted by the levees could cause soil erosion under the 

pipelines. Excess water around pipelines could also increase the 

buoyancy of some of these pipelines. These conditions, along with 

significant increases in water levels above the pipeline, could create 

stresses which may not have been factored into the pipeline’s original designs. 

In response to the horrific pipeline rupture and explosion in San 

Bruno, California, in fall 2010, the CPUC opened a rulemaking 

proceeding to establish a new model of natural gas pipeline safety 

regulation, including expanding our emergency and disaster planning coordination with local officials. The CPUC also increased the 

scope of PG&E’s gas transmission and storage rate case to include 

a safety phase on PG&E’s disaster and emergency plans, shut-off 

valve testing and monitoring, changes to capital project priorities, 

safety procedures, and relationships with first responders. I was 

the assigned commissioner for that proceeding. 

The gas storage proceeding was the first to establish protocols requiring utilities to coordinate with first responders during emergencies. In addition to addressing pipeline safety, the CPUC has 

moved to ensure the safety factors of electrical and telephone poles 

so that they are strong enough to withstand high winds, flooding, 

and other disasters. 

In the Joint Pole Safety rulemaking, the commission has adopted 

pole loading rules and will address pole structural strength in the 

next phase, that being Phase III, of this rulemaking. 

The CPUC also has an essential role in ensuring the reliability 

of emergency communications during disasters. Inspired in large 

part by Hurricane Katrina and the WARN Act, in 2006 the California Legislature adopted AB 2393, which required the CPUC to 

14 

address communication systems’ backup power needs. Unlike copper telephone wires, fiber optic cable, coaxial cable, and other facilities do not provide warm-line power to customer telephones. In the 

Backup Power proceeding, the CPUC adopted customer education 

guidelines on the backup power needs and limitations of facilitiesbased residential telephone services, as well as service provider responsibilities in power outages. 

CPUC jurisdiction has been an issue in the Joint Pole Safety proceeding and others. One of the pillars of the CPUC’s fundamental 

regulatory responsibility is to enforce core safety guidelines. This 

commission needs the ability to protect and insure the functioning 

of communication infrastructure during emergencies. This role is 

clearly within the authority of the CPUC and rooted in the historic 

police powers of the State. Some may believe that the transition 

from the traditional telephone system to Internet Protocol communications systems may jeopardize the authority of State utility commissions in this area. I urge Congress to take a close look at this 

issue. 

States retain jurisdiction over the health, safety, and welfare of 

their citizens, and it is the position of my office that the CPUC has 

now and will continue to have jurisdiction over the communications 

infrastructure for public safety purposes. 

With that said, I thank you for this time. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Simon. 

Mr. Coate. 

Mr. COATE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I 

appreciate very much the opportunity to provide testimony this 

morning on the importance of emergency preparedness and response. My name is Alexander Coate. I am the general manager for 

the East Bay Municipal Utility District, and I appreciate very 

much the opportunity to provide testimony on the vital role that 

Government plays in emergency preparedness and response in the 

Delta. 

This morning I would like to focus on the real impacts of levee 

failure and the actions we recommend be considered by this committee. 

Through direct experience we have learned some important lessons on emergency preparedness that we believe can help inform 

future discussions. Levees that protect the lifeline of our water system, the Mokelumne aqueducts, have failed three times since 1980. 

The most recent failure occurred on June 3rd, 2004. It was a clear 

day, and with no warning, the Upper Jones Tract levee along Middle River failed. There was no precipitating event such as an earthquake or a storm. The levee simply gave way to the water that it 

held back. 

Ultimately, both the Upper and Lower Jones Tract islands were 

inundated with flood waters, partially submerging our aqueducts. 

I have a photograph over here that shows you what that looked 

like after the flood had occurred. 

This was a true emergency for East Bay MUD. Over 90 percent 

of the drinking water we supply to 1.3 million people is transported 

through these aqueducts. They are also connected to the San Francisco, Contra Costa and Dublin San Ramon Services District water 

systems. 

15 

A failure of the aqueducts would interrupt the East Bay’s water 

supply and leave the region with, at most, 6 months’ worth of 

water under severe rationing conditions. 

First responders like East Bay MUD quickly depleted their available resources, and we were forced to stand by until additional resources were made available. 

Response times were delayed because field staff were not empowered to act and had to wait for authorization. Aqueducts were 

threatened by massive debris, and authorizations were received 

only in the nick of time to prevent that debris from hitting the 

aqueducts and rupturing them. 

You can see after draining, there is a bus there. That bus almost 

hit the aqueducts. 

Once the flood waters were pumped out, the aqueducts were found to be intact, but re-coating was necessary at a cost of $10 

million. 

The key lesson that we learned from the failure of the Jones 

Tract levee is the importance of having a well-coordinated emergency action plan that includes a commitment by State and Federal 

agencies to provide resources and funding to repair the levees. Because the consequences of delaying action after a levee break can 

be catastrophic, the extent of the Federal and State commitment 

should be known and communicated in advance so that local agency staff are empowered to respond. 

I highlight this event because it provides a case history of the 

real consequences that can result from indecision and inadequate 

policy and collaboration among all levels of Government. 

The 51 miles of levees that protect East Bay MUD’s aqueducts 

in the Delta also protect other critical infrastructure, some that we 

have discussed here today. That includes the State and Federal export pumps, the Contra Costa Water District intakes, State Highway 4, Kinder Morgan Petroleum Pipeline, PG&E pipelines, and 

the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail lines. An immediate response to future levee failures will be critical to minimize costs and 

prevent significant interruptions of major services. 

We know from experience that the threat of future failures in the 

Delta is real, and EBMUD has taken multiple actions to protect its 

facilities, including significant investments in levee improvements, 

seismic retrofit of our aqueducts, constructing interconnections between our three aqueducts to improve resiliency, providing 

interties with other water systems in our service area, implementing aggressive water conservation and recycling to reduce our 

dependence on supplies rolling through the Delta. 

Despite the tremendous amount of work that we and others have 

done to prepare for emergencies, much more could be done if additional resources were available. 

First, we believe a coordinated State and Federal response plan 

is vital to ensure a rapid emergency response. 

Second, we hope that when your committee renews the Water 

Resource Development Act, you will give consideration to the approaches that we implemented. We recommend that a Federal program to assist such efforts be authorized. We urge you to view 

emergency preparedness in the broadest sense, not only to include 

levee repair and material stockpiling, but also efforts to diversify 

16 

and increase the reliability of water supplies, and to bolster infrastructure. 

WRDA funding has been very important to us in developing alternative water supplies through recycling, and we view WRDA as 

a key vehicle to develop effective Federal policy to support local 

emergency preparedness efforts. 

Finally, we recommend that you consider funding of levee improvements to meet the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Public Law 

84–99 Standard, and in so doing reduce the risk of failures, and 

also funding for stockpiling of emergency response materials. 

And with that, Chairman and members of the committee, I very 

much appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

I thank all of our witnesses for your opening statements. 

We are going to have several rounds of questioning this morning. 

This is one of those topics that we could have a whole series of 

hearings on, everything from the threats to the task force process, 

the planning and preparedness, what the actual role of FEMA is, 

the mass evacuation if there was a catastrophic disaster, and then 

the flood and evacuation contingency planning. 

Here in the Delta, we have some old pipelines, oil and gas, that 

could devastate our water supply. We certainly have a water supply that not only supports our agriculture industry but supports 

the water supply for the larger metropolitan areas as well. 

But the biggest issue here is you have a couple of very large communities that are below sea level, and a break in the levees could 

see something worse than what we saw with Katrina. 

And so as chair of this committee, I want to make sure that not 

only are we prepared and doing some of the important repair work 

that needs to be done, but as we develop a new FEMA plan, that 

we are actually taking into consideration the flood-type situations 

that we saw in Katrina and learn from past experiences in making 

sure that we are not seeing the same challenges right here in our 

home State. 

So I will start off this morning. Mr. Baldwin, you mentioned the 

importance of immediate funding for flood fighting. Do you think 

the agreement with FEMA will allow a rapid response if such a catastrophe does arise? 

Mr. BALDWIN. I think there needs to be a very—the problem is 

that nobody budgets for these floods. As far as the flood fight, we 

have some very expensive responses. I mean, it is not a matter of 

getting a few more fire engines or something. You might have to 

cut a contract with an engineering firm for $1 million to buttress 

the levee or something. 

What we end up doing is we get out there and the reclamation 

district, which is naturally the one that should respond, doesn’t 

have the cash flow. So the agencies that do have the funds or potentially could get the funds are farther up the chain, State or Federal, and so it takes more time for them to get going. Sometimes 

we end up out there, and Jones Tract was great. I was the one sitting out there within an hour of that break, and we are sort of arguing over who can fund it, who can act. We know what we need 

to do, but who can actually take the action? 

17 

There are some issues with FEMA, jurisdictional issues about reimbursement. I could go into a lot. 

So what we need to do is FEMA comes in after the disaster and 

helps reimburse costs, and that is great, under the Stafford Act. 

But what we need is we need to get cash flow going at the time 

of the emergency for the flood fight so that the agency’s best placed 

act, when we know, we all jointly agree, here is a problem and we 

need to deal with it, can actually get it going. 

So we have recommended, and the task force recommended, we 

said we have to have that mechanism. It is not an agreement. It 

is not money coming later. When that flood starts, we have to have 

funds. Now, there has been talk about an emergency response fund 

for the flood operation center at DWR. There is talk about using 

the California Disaster Assistance Act to push money out. It could 

be an independent fund, and all that could be worked out. 

But the issue is it is not money coming after in 48 hours. It has 

got to be funds that can break that deadlock and we can actually 

respond to the problem and get it done by the agency best placed 

to do it. It could be the Corps. It could be DWR. It could be the 

reclamation district. 

Mr. DENHAM. If there was a catastrophe today, would you anticipate delays in funding? 

Mr. BALDWIN. I would anticipate that I have not seen a clear-cut, 

unambiguous solution that would guarantee in my mind that we 

could not run into that problem again. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but I think it is—I mentioned in my testimony, I 

think it is absolutely critical. We have got to have—we can’t have 

24-hour delays waiting to respond to a levee problem for bureaucratic reasons. We have got to have the cash flow, and it has got 

to go to the agency. 

It is in the task force recommendation. I haven’t seen the solution that tells me that when the flood comes tomorrow, we will respond as promptly as possible, we will get the levee fixed, which 

will save FEMA and everyone else millions of dollars, and we will 

respond to that. 

Can I add one last point? FEMA has a little regulation in their 

reimbursement which makes sense, but it doesn’t make sense. 

They only reimburse you the costs for expenses incurred within 

your jurisdiction. So if the county goes on a levee, the levee is in 

the jurisdiction of the reclamation district. We are endangering our 

ability to reclaim any reimbursement from FEMA due to that regulation. San Joaquin County has had a legislative platform for years 

saying we ought to adjust that. If an agency goes on another jurisdiction and saves a levee and there is $100 million in private assistance payouts, then they shouldn’t have any question in their 

mind that they are going to get whatever legitimate reimbursement 

they should get, because otherwise you create a disincentive for action, and that is what we need. 

Jones Tract—I’m sorry. Last thought. Jones Tract, we know what 

has to be done. So we go through this 24-hour thing, and the Corps 

says, OK, we are going to do this much. We will put the levee up, 

but we know we have to rock it, and we are not going to do that. 

So then we have another argument. OK, who is going to put the 

rock on it? We need to put rock on, or this thing will wash away. 

18 

The next thing you know, CalTrans raises their hand and says we 

will do it, $2 million or something like that. Subsequently, they 

had a heck of a time getting assistance because of that regulation. 

I think, again, it is a regulation that makes sense on the face of 

it, but it probably should be looked at to see if we can’t speed up 

those kinds of decisive actions and then make sure that the funds 

are there so that we respond and get it done. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Baldwin. 

Mr. Murphy, thanks again for testifying in front of this committee once again. Is CalEMA, is it ready for a flood or an earthquake in this area? 

Mr. MURPHY. I think the easy answer is—it is great for me to 

sit up here and say absolutely, we are absolutely ready. But the reality is we have done a lot of planning, and there is still more work 

to be done in working out the intricacies of response, especially the 

point that Mr. Baldwin just made, which is when you are looking 

at a natural levee failure in this State, you have a multilayered response. Most of those levees are owned by reclamation districts 

that are located inside of counties and/or cities. 

So your buildup is across many layers of Government up to the 

top. We do have some regulations and some other things that probably could be better worked out in the scenarios that we have seen 

in the past. 

The easy answer is yes. As far as response goes, we have always 

been able to respond. But the first and foremost part is saving 

lives. The second piece is saving property. And I think, to the point 

of Mr. Baldwin, we could be better at saving property if we 

tweaked a few criteria and moved ourselves ahead, and I think inside the State of California we have been working at that, and that 

is what you see in the task force recommendations. Those are some 

of the thought processes that we have had to move ourselves forward and to be an action-oriented response that does save property. 

Saving lives is clearly the first priority. But that second, especially when you are talking levees and how quickly you lose property, that has got to be and is a much higher priority in our moving 

forward, in our planning going forward. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Fenton, same question. Is FEMA ready for a catastrophic response in this area—earthquake, flooding? 

Mr. FENTON. Sure. 

Mr. DENHAM. Destroying the pipelines that go through the 

Delta? 

Mr. FENTON. Well, I think we are as ready as we can be. It is 

a complex issue as far as the Delta and exactly what we need. 

What we have done is built plans that I have spoken about. In fact, 

today we are down in southern California exercising some of those 

plans, and we have joined with Federal, State, local government 

and the private sector to look at capabilities across the area. 

I think as we start to understand the risks to the communities 

better—understand what the impacts may be—we have been focused on looking at where the capability is required to respond to 

an event like this, where those capabilities exist at the local, State 

19 

and Federal level. It is a dynamic effort, meaning the capabilities 

change at every level of Government every year based on budget. 

So we continue to do that to ensure that we will have the capabilities there. We continue to look at improving our policies to increase the speed of our assistance to communities, and also to 

make sure that communities understand the risks within their environments. So we continue to work in those areas. 

But I think the authorities that we gained after Katrina significantly helped FEMA to build the capability and capacity to help 

the State of California. In saying that, I think there is always more 

we can do. But the authorities we have now, and the resources we 

have, we feel pretty comfortable in being able to respond to this 

event. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Garamendi, in his testimony, referred to the Governor’s conveyance plan for the BDCP. One significant concern is that the preferred plan, if implemented, levee maintenance will lapse, placing 

our community at significant risk. On the other hand, investing in 

levee repair would be an excellent solution to the BDCP dual requirements. 

So with that as a background, I am going to address the next 

question to Mr. Murphy, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Simon. How might 

the Governor’s preferred conveyance affect preparation and response to a flood and/or earthquake? 

Mr. MURPHY. Congressman, I will be the guinea pig for the response here. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Sure. 

Mr. MURPHY. In all honesty, I think until the plan has a bit more 

of a process to it as far as outside of just a conveyance water aspect, which is really involved with the California Department of 

Water Resources, I am not in a position to answer until we get further down the road with this initial agreement plan that was 

talked about a few weeks ago. So I apologize. In the future, I would 

be happy to address that question as we move forward with the 

broader plan. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, the concern is that a significant amount 

of resources are going to be going into the tunnel system, and there 

won’t be any more resources left to improve and maintain the levees. So that is basically one of the aspects that I am interested in, 

but you don’t seem to be in a position to answer that, so let’s move 

on to Mr. Baldwin. 

Mr. BALDWIN. That is a tough one for me, too. I mean, if you 

build the tunnel, then you obviously have the issues that have been 

looked at closely of the security and of the integrity of maintaining 

that tunnel to deal with that issue, that transport of the water. To 

me, the Delta is a lot of things besides the water. That is one issue. 

It is also the people out there, and it is also the infrastructure that 

we just talked about, the East Bay MUD aqueduct and everything 

else. 

So it doesn’t change it much except that, again, if you are going 

to cut off the resources to protect the Delta, then you are going to 

get what you pay for. We need to have a levee—I don’t get into 100 

20 

year, 200 year, 1,000 year. I say, as an emergency manager, give 

us a fighting chance. Give us levees that basically will hold it, and 

we will flood fight it. We will keep any damage to a point that is 

acceptable. I mean, we are not going to save all the bridges in L.A. 

if we have an earthquake, either. 

So if you are going to do that, it brings up the issue of protecting 

that infrastructure. At the same time, it doesn’t change anything 

except that you have taken one equation out and put it into a different context. Now we have to protect this tunnel. We still have 

to protect the Delta for a lot of reasons, and we need the resources 

to give us that fighting chance. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Simon, you look at this from a little bit different perspective, 

so I am interested in what you might have to say. 

Mr. SIMON. Thank you, Congressman. Our water utilities are 

somewhat dependent upon the transport of water from northern 

California, particularly our southern California investor-owned 

water utilities, and how that allocation occurs is somewhat dependent upon our infrastructure. 

I will say prior to coming to the commission, I was appointments 

secretary in Governor Schwarzenegger’s administration, and I 

know this issue of levee repair and reinforcement is not something 

new to this administration, and I would simply say that it is necessary for our infrastructure safety to have safe levees. The investor-owned utilities that we regulate are somewhat reliant upon 

that levee strength in order to maintain the adequate infrastructure in the region. 

So I would hope that to whatever extent the tunneling that is 

being proposed by the administration occurs at that factor of the 

levees and the importance that the levees play on a multitude of 

infrastructure that is webbed throughout the Delta region is taken 

into consideration, and I would expect that it is. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Simon. 

Mr. Baldwin, how effective is investing in levee maintenance and 

improvements in mitigating potential flood risks? 

Mr. BALDWIN. That is what I am saying. It is the ongoing debate, 

what is adequate. I mean, this is what this country has argued for 

50 years, what is adequate protection as far as that primary levee 

for our community. There is always an element of risk. I mean, a 

100-year levee, do you maintain that? Obviously, whatever standard you set—FEMA set the 100-year standard 40 years ago. If you 

want to set 200-year or 500-year, then we have to maintain it. I 

mean, that is only sensible. 

Once you make that decision, then you get into the flood fight 

to take care of that procedural risk, and you get into what I consider defense indepth. We don’t suddenly think that just because 

we have whatever standard of levee, that we are done. We need to 

then be able to limit that flood. The levee still might breach. We 

want to make sure it doesn’t. And you need to have more of a defense indepth so that we can use elevated freeways, we can use 

other techniques to try to limit the damage afterwards. 

So we come in. The country establishes the standard for the 

depth protection, although I don’t think in any case, even in earthquakes in L.A., that there is a 100-percent guarantee that any 

21 

standard is perfect. So we have to be prepared with those additional lines of defense. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Baldwin, again, how would you feel the 

completion of the Lower San Joaquin feasibility study would help 

with our preparedness? 

Mr. BALDWIN. I think it is very important because, although in 

some sections of that river, the lower part is in pretty good shape, 

other parts we haven’t got a fighting chance. So from an emergency 

management point of view, I consider it the policymaker’s duty to 

set the standard and get the levees in place and give us a fighting 

chance to protect the people that are behind them, and the infrastructure and the property. Then give us a good flood fight response, and we will take care of the rest, and I think we will not 

have perfection. 

Like I said, we will not lose any bridges when L.A. has an earthquake, but we will limit it to a level of damage that I think is sustainable over a long period of time. That is what we look for in our 

disaster response and our protective equipment, is it sustainable 

over a long period of time, not perfection. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I guess I have another minute or so. I will use 

it. Thank you. 

Mr. Simon, I was kind of intrigued on one of your points, that 

I think, as I understood it, you felt, or the commission feels that 

it is the commission’s jurisdiction to have jurisdiction over the communications for natural disaster in the levees. Did I understand 

you correctly? 

Mr. SIMON. Specifically backup power. As we are moving into a 

more IP-enabled communication infrastructure, and this gets into 

the issue of information versus voice, there are concerns as to 

whether or not there is jurisdiction over equipment that attaches 

to regulated assets. It is my position that it is, quite frankly. 

But I think a larger issue—the backup power decision, AB 2393, 

gave clear education guidelines to educate consumers on what are 

the limitations of having technology that is not connected to copper 

that provides warm-line services. 

Going further, in listening to my distinguished panelists here, I 

do believe that we need to address safety, evacuation, saving lives, 

in an IP-enabled communication system. The technologies are 

changing rapidly, and I have concerns as to how in touch are we, 

particularly the various telecommunications or Internet service 

providers, how in touch are we with how consumers receive their 

information, how effective are we in the interoperability between 

the agencies that are here, as well as first responders. 

This is changing rapidly, and because of the need to have a robust market and to minimize regulation of broadband and the 

Internet because of the importance that it brings to the economy, 

health care, so many other areas, I do have concerns about whether 

we have sufficient oversight to ensure that we can evacuate and 

save lives in the case of disasters. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Murphy, would you like to comment on the 

jurisdiction of interoperability in the case of natural disaster? You 

have 1 minute. 

Mr. MURPHY. The most important part, I believe, of interoperability, and I think Mr. Baldwin would agree, is the actual ability 

22 

to communicate, period. What Mr. Simon was referring to was enacted a few years ago, which was really telling the public, hey, 

these are some of the limitations of your BlackBerry and your 

iPhone, and a lot of it has to do with backup power after a disaster 

in relation to those cell sites that we use, limited resources, limited 

time, limited ability. 

When it comes to interoperable communications, it is the role of 

the primary responding jurisdiction to be able to communicate with 

other jurisdictions around them where they may need to draw resources from. Particularly in California, we use a system of systems approach, interoperable communications. But number-one priority is communicate with those you are going to need to help you 

respond. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Shuster? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of our 

witnesses for being here today. I appreciate you taking your time 

to do this today. It is really important for us to be able to, myself, 

learn what we can do in Washington to make your jobs easier out 

here when you are fighting these floods and these fires and earthquakes, whatever the problem is. 

Mr. Baldwin, I especially appreciate you being here, coming out 

of retirement to be back with us. But you bring really two things 

that I really appreciate. One is a real grassroots, up close and personal dealing with a catastrophe and dealing with the Federal Government and what we do, in many cases, to make your life more 

difficult. The second thing is, you being in retirement, it gives you 

the freedom to be able to call it like you see it. I know that people, 

when they retire from public service, they get out there and they 

are able to say things that otherwise they sometimes wouldn’t. So 

I appreciate that. 

You brought up two points that I would like to ask Mr. Fenton 

about, but first the plans. I know that you locally here in the Delta 

have worked with the State to—you have a task force, but you 

don’t have the plan in place. Mr. Fenton, how important is that 

plan? Because we are talking about having a plan in place so that 

money flows out to these States and these local governments to be 

able to respond. 

So can you talk a little bit about the importance of the plan and 

what we can do to help? 

Mr. FENTON. Sure. I think that plans are important to have in 

place, and I think California—just from being here for a long time 

and working with them through floods—they have great systems in 

place. Their State Emergency Management System, their ability to 

share resources and those kinds of things, are in place and shared 

and utilized throughout the area. You see that during wildfires, 

and they are probably better than just about any other State in 

moving resources around the State. They have a great communication system. 

So then what we start to look at is do we have specific plans that 

address specific threats, and I think that is one of the areas where 

it is reassuring to hear there is more work being done so that we 

know exactly how we are specifically going to evacuate a community, what roads will be operable, what roads will not, and what 

23 

specific resources or assets we need to affect that. And what that 

allows us to do is look at where those capabilities are prior to an 

event so we know how to use them during an event. 

Planning is much bigger than just the response part or the systems part. It goes across recovery, prevention, protection, and mitigation. It includes looking at plans as far as what we can mitigate 

prior to an event, and I know the State of California does a good 

job of this. We have heard discussion here today about infrastructure and those things, to include exercising, to build capacity. 

So we need to continue to make efforts in those areas to be able 

to respond. Going back to Congressman Denham’s first question, 

are we prepared to respond to an earthquake, it takes the whole 

community to be able to respond. It is like a sports team. One person could be doing good, but if the other players on the team aren’t 

working together and it is not coming together, we are not going 

to be effective. 

Our plans help synchronize and integrate our collective resources 

and are critical to the success of our ability to respond to an event 

like this. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Don’t we have the authority at FEMA to approve 

the prepositioning of assets they need? Because in a flood, a flood 

typically, we know a flood is potentially coming. So you can tell the 

State or a locale to get your assets in place. 

Mr. FENTON. You are correct, sir. The authority that you provided to us through the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act and the Homeland Security Act gives us a lot of that authority prior to events to go ahead and preposition resources. We 

do have resources prepositioned in California. We have a warehouse in the barrio, and we have the ability to task other Federal 

agencies to start prepositioning resources in anticipation of an 

event. 

In California, I think their system does much the same as far as 

moving resources prior to an event to be prepared. In terms of 

prepositioning, the flood or the hurricane in the southeast is a lot 

easier than the earthquake. In California, I always say it is earthquake season. But for no-notice events, it is a little bit more difficult to preposition. The key then is to have plans in place and understand where resources and capabilities are ahead of time, because a no-notice event is more difficult to respond to. 

Last week, Administrator Fugate did a Thunderbolt exercise, 

which is a no-notice exercise for FEMA, that included FEMA Region IX and simulated an earthquake here to make sure we are 

ready. Doing those types of exercises with no notice really tests 

your agency’s ability. Are you really ready for an earthquake? I 

know you don’t want it to happen today, but if it happens right 

now, do we know what everyone is doing, and do we know where 

everyone is moving? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if I could have 30 more seconds to 

ask one followup question of Mr. Fenton? 

Can FEMA use mitigation funds or preparedness funds for folks 

in the Delta region here to stockpile to fight floods? Is that something you can utilize? 

Mr. FENTON. There are different parts of the mitigation program. 

There is the mitigation program that comes immediately following 

24 

disasters, and usually the State sets priorities on how to use those 

projects and how that funding can be used. 

There is also funding available for mitigation that we use for 

helping to develop evacuation routes and those kinds of things. 

So I would have to look into it to specifically to answer your 

question about whether we can stockpile resources ahead of time 

and pay with those mitigation funds. I can do that and submit it 

for the record, if you would like. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I would appreciate that. Thank you. 

We are going to have another round? 

Mr. DENHAM. Yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. Great. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Simon, I understand, as directed by the PUC, California’s 

natural gas transmission operators, they developed and filed a comprehensive pipeline safety improvement plan last year. Do the 

plans submitted by the gas operators establish an effective and reliable emergency response plan, especially as it pertains to the 

Delta and some of these older pipelines with oil and gas? 

Mr. SIMON. Yes, Chairman Denham. That has actually been required by a series of State and I believe actual Federal legislation 

as well, that there is adequate emergency response, including shutoff valves, exercises with first responders to ensure the ability to 

have state-of-the-art response. 

Specific to the Delta, that would be regional decisions. It would 

be something I would strongly recommend to the utilities, and I 

will look at both the rulemaking and the pipeline enhancement 

plans on a forward-looking basis to ensure that safety plans are 

specific to each geographical region. I have not been briefed specifically by our Consumer Protection and Safety Division, but I would 

be willing to wager that they understand the safety risk that exists 

in the Delta region, particularly in view of the levees and soil erosion and other things I presented. 

But I will make it a point, and I can also report back to the committee for the record to ensure that the pipeline safety enhancement plans, including testing, are specifically designed to deal with 

Delta issues, as well as the urban and rural areas. 

[The information follows:] 

The utility serving the Delta, PG&E, reports that it has in 

development a flood-contingency plan for the McDonald Island gas storage facility located in the Delta, which will include a detailed plan for potential levee failure. This plan 

will address specific measures that will be taken for employee and equipment safety, and that will provide additional operational details for facility operators. This document is in draft form and is not available for review at 

this time. 

PG&E’s Company Emergency Plan does not specifically address levee breaks, but speaks to the functional activities 

PG&E will undertake in any natural or manmade disaster 

throughout the service territory, including levee breaks or 

other issues affecting the Sacramento Delta. This plan, 

and the related emergency response plans (gas, electric, 

25 

etc.) would be operational in the event of a levee break or 

other emergency in the Sacramento Delta. 

PG&E reports that gas facilities situated in the Sacramento Delta are designed to be operated even under 

flood conditions. Information about this design basis is not 

included in emergency plans, but can be found in the engineering documents associated with their construction. 

Similarly the footings of electric transmission towers in 

the Delta are designed in such a way as to keep the towers 

operational in flood conditions. 

In addition, as part of PG&E’s emergency exercise program, levee breaks are occasionally introduced in scenarios 

to test PG&E’s ability to respond. The 2008 Company Exercise, which was a Hayward Fault earthquake scenario, 

included notional breaches to 15 levees, resulting in simulated flooding in the Delta and operational issues at 

McDonald Island. Exercise participants addressed these 

notional problems successfully. Materials from this exercise were not published, and the brief exercise summary 

that was submitted to the CPUC did not include specifics 

about levees, which were a minor part of the exercise. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And as far as the statewide pipeline 

safety plan, when do you expect the PUC to issue a final decision? 

Mr. SIMON. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I hate to give 

dates when due process is involved, but we are expecting, I believe, 

a decision on the investigation and the rulemaking at least—well, 

there are two aspects of it. There is the PG&E explosion and the 

proceedings that involve that, both the investigation and the rulemaking, and that is assigned to my fellow commissioner Mike 

Florio. I do expect decisions on that going forward within 2012. 

The actual pipeline enhancement and safety, which is approximately $17 billion between SoCal Gas and PG&E over a 10-year 

period, I will expect as those decisions are published that there will 

be a lot of comments and other actions taken by consumer advocates, first responders, even some of the agencies that are represented here today. 

So it would be very difficult for me to give a final date, but I 

would expect in 2013. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Coate, with East Bay MUD, obviously water is a huge issue, 

supplying water to the entire Bay area. In 2004 when the Jones 

Tract levee broke, that wasn’t weather, it wasn’t an earthquake, it 

was just the failure of a levee. What would happen if we had an 

earthquake? What would be not only the damage to the water supply but the Bay area receiving the majority, if not all of its water 

in this area, what would be the impacts of East Bay MUD? 

Mr. COATE. Mr. Chairman, you are speaking of an earthquake in 

the Delta? 

Mr. DENHAM. In the Delta, yes. 

Mr. COATE. There is a high probability if there is an earthquake 

in the Delta that we would revisit inundation like we saw at Jones 

Tract, and also potential to actually compromise the aqueducts 

26 

themselves. East Bay MUD has been working to anticipate such an 

event, and I described in my oral testimony a number of the things 

that we put into place. 

But essentially we would embark, once the aqueducts were accessible and the tract dried, in a repair effort, and we have allowed 

ourselves 6 months of supply which we store west of the Delta in 

order to be able to continue to provide water to our customers. 

That is under severe rationing conditions. So I can speak briefly on 

the economic impacts, not only the cost associated with repairing 

the aqueducts, which would be to be determined but relatively 

small when compared with the economic costs to the Bay area. 

In recent years we have done some long-term water supply planning in the context of trying to understand the value of supplies 

west of the Delta, such as recycling supplies that we have actually 

received some funding through the Water Resource Development 

Act to construct. In the context of looking at the value of those supplies, we have done an economic study, and if we had to ration, severe rationing for a year, it would have an economic impact of 

about $1 billion, actually more than $1 billion, to the East Bay 

economy. 

So you are looking at compromising water supply, but you are 

also looking at compromising the way of life in the Bay area. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My next two questions are going to be addressed to Mr. Coate. 

Do you believe that investing in levee protection would benefit both 

water flows and mitigate flood protection? 

Mr. COATE. Yes. We, in fact, have been working with five other 

water agencies, several of which are very focused on the Bay Delta 

Conservation Plan. Those include East Bay MUD, San Francisco 

Public Utilities Commission, Contra Costa Water District, Santa 

Clara Valley Water District, Alameda County, and the Metropolitan Water District, and together we have identified that it is very 

important to protect a number of levees. We have submitted a letter to the State, to John Laird, and helped him appreciate where 

we think resources should be expended to protect levees, and in so 

doing protecting the water supply that flows through the Delta to 

the export pumps, but also the water supply that flows to the East 

Bay and San Francisco South Bay communities. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. You mentioned the need for clearly 

defined roles within a disaster response plan. Can you elaborate 

where we are with the current system? Is it adequate? Are there 

well-defined roles, or is there still a little bit of ambiguity that 

would cause problems in a disaster? 

Mr. COATE. Well, there has been a lot of improvement over the 

years and a lot of improvement since 2004. There has been discussion here about the recent report that was prepared which included 

a number of recommendations going forward. Those recommendations are consistent with what we would like to see happen, clearer 

coordination and responsibility. But as Mr. Baldwin explained, it 

would be good to see some clear commitments to providing authorization for financial resources that would allow an immediate reVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:52 Nov 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\8-16-1~1\75571.TXT JEAN
27 

sponse when a levee failure is being observed so that we could control the damage and protect the infrastructure. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. That is a good answer. 

Mr. Murphy, what do you think the biggest obstacles are in implementing the task force’s recommendations? 

Mr. MURPHY. I think the biggest obstacle is exactly what Mr. 

Baldwin said and what has already been brought up. The biggest 

obstacle to some of this is just pure financial. You have the maintenance side of the levees, and this goes all the way from very small 

reclamation districts all the way through East Bay municipal district, one of the biggest utility providers in the State. You have a 

clear need to maintain all these levees at a standard—I also shy 

away from the 100-year scenario, but you have to maintain whatever level you set, and that is just a reality. It is a very difficult 

thing to do in this environment. That is the biggest obstacle. 

On the response side, the actual first responders on the levee 

after something has happened, our biggest obstacle is probably exactly what Mr. Baldwin said, and we are working through it, how 

to figure out the best way to make sure that everybody is on the 

same page, that you are going to get reimbursed for what you are 

spending in that initial hour after the event happens, and I think 

we are significantly further ahead 8 years later after Jones Tract 

than we were in 2004. 

That doesn’t mean it is going to be perfect, but I think we all, 

especially in the State, understand this is what we are going to do, 

we are going to make these movements, and then we are all going 

to stand on the same platform and say we have done it all in good 

faith, and now we should be reimbursed for that as well. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, the first part of your answer, lack of 

funds, is interesting because in Mr. Baldwin’s testimony he said, 

well, there are sufficient funds, they are just not coordinated in a 

way that would benefit emergency preparedness. Could you address that, Mr. Baldwin? 

Mr. BALDWIN. Well, I am just saying that it is a fact. I mean, 

the Department of Water Resources has bond funds that they are 

spending internally, and that is good. They just announced the imminent release of grants to local governments for flood preparedness projects. The last figure I heard, and I am not an authority, 

is $14 million. The Corps of Engineers has ongoing funds that they 

are spending on a Delta emergency response plan. The Central Valley Flood Protection Plan program has announced funds going 

down to the regional basis that could be used for flood preparedness. 

We have this historic opportunity because of the bonds. Thanks 

to the people of California in 2006, there are some funds. And 

thanks to the Federal Government, the Corps money I believe is 

coming through CalFed, or whatever. There is quite a bit of money. 

We haven’t had the two components come together. Now we have 

the strategy. That was released by the Governor this year. Now we 

have the funds. All I am saying is I think some kind of high-level 

coordination should say, OK, these funds will cover this aspect, 

these funds will cover this aspect. We will just ensure that 3 years 

down the road these different funding streams will make sure that 

the strategy was addressed and that we got it done, because in a 

28 

few years those bond funds are going to be gone and then we will 

be back to where—we will just stop right at, well, where are the 

funds? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Shuster? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Back to another topic to deal with 

funding that Mr. Baldwin brought up, directed to Mr. Fenton. Mr. 

Baldwin mentioned that, in these different jurisdictions, the county 

may be able to help one of these local reclamation districts, but 

they can’t do it because they are concerned they are not going to 

get paid for it. 

Is there a mechanism in place, or is there a process, or do you 

have the authority to look at a situation and use common sense to 

say, hey, they are going to fix this, we need to do it, let’s move forward with it and make sure they get their money? 

Mr. FENTON. Sure. Well, there have been a couple of changes 

since the 2004 Jones Tract. One is that we signed a Delta Memorandum of Understanding for the public assistance program that 

clarifies some eligibility that existed in previous documents, as far 

as requirements for maintenance of the levees, and also how we 

would reimburse them. 

But specifically to the question of how do you do things immediately, essentially our program allows us to reimburse the eligible 

applicant, the person who owns or is legally responsible for that infrastructure. Typically what happens is, through MOUs or agreements, other entities come over and support them. As long as those 

agreements are in place, it allows us to make sure that the reimbursement mechanism can follow and we are able to support it. 

Essentially, what we are not going to do is penalize someone for 

responding. We just want to make sure that we are following the 

law and are able to reimburse those who are the actual owners of 

the facility, the eligible applicant. We understand that in some 

cases, through mutual aid agreements, that other resources come 

over and support, and we have the means to reimburse when that 

happens. 

We have the means to reimburse something within minutes of a 

declared disaster. So it is not that they should be waiting—money 

shouldn’t be a factor. The decisionmaking a lot of times, even on 

fires, is able to provide immediate funding right upfront. 

Mr. SHUSTER. So if one of these districts has an MOU with the 

county, then—— 

Mr. FENTON. Yes, there are systems in place in the State, and 

Brendan can probably speak to it better than I can. But within the 

State of California, there is the State Emergency Management System, the SEMSYS, in which they move resources around. So as 

long as a request goes through that system and it falls in that mutual aid system, then we reimburse upon that. For circumstances 

where we would not do it, I would have to have a specific issue and 

look back and see why we did not reimburse. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Murphy, it looks like you want to say something. 

Mr. MURPHY. Absolutely. Where we went between 2004 and 

2010, when we signed our Memorandum of Agreement with FEMA, 

was exactly on that. In 2004, there was a little bit more—even 

29 

though entities were directed inside of our system to do specific 

things in relation to the response, we had that kind of initial problem of who—the reclamation district owns it; now you have other 

people doing the response work because the reclamation district 

couldn’t do it itself. How do we go from there? 

What our Memorandum of Agreement says is that if we are inside the system, and the State, as well as our local agencies, have 

requested the help, and we have sent the resources, that FEMA 

recognizes that it is all part of the master mutual aid agreement 

which was signed in 1953 in the State, thereby allowing that work 

to occur. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And one more question that has to do with WRDA. 

Mr. Coate, you brought up Congress doing a WRDA bill, which we 

need to do that. We were thinking we were going to get it done, 

at least attempt this year. I doubt it. We don’t have enough time, 

but it is something we need to go after next year. 

So you mentioned about WRDA. Did you have very specific ideas, 

or are they sort of general, that you laid out there? I looked 

through your testimony. I couldn’t see that you had any real specific ones. 

Mr. COATE. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about that. 

Currently, what we see in—specifically, WRDA has provided funding for primarily recycling projects that increases our reliability 

west of the Delta. We have a lot more opportunities in that arena 

we would love to explore. 

What we have seen in WRDA is that there are resources for flood 

control, but they are focused primarily on long-term planning, and 

it would be good if WRDA could acknowledge that there is plenty 

of levee repair work that could be done on the immediate, and if 

funding could be made for improvements today, that would be valuable. It would also be helpful if WRDA looked and acknowledged 

that, very broadly, reliability, interconnection between water systems, which are expensive to construct, help mitigate the impact if 

there is an earthquake, as I described earlier. 

So those sorts of program authorizations would be very helpful 

for the water community. 

Mr. SHUSTER. If you have any other ideas, if you could put them 

in writing to us because, as I said, next year it will be something 

I am sure we are going to try to tackle, and hearing from folks in 

the community, sending them through Mr. Denham’s office or however you could get them, would be very helpful to us as we move 

forward. 

Mr. COATE. Thank you for the opportunity. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. This will be our final round of questioning, but this committee, as well as other committee members 

that aren’t here today, will be offering questions to all of our witnesses, and we would ask you to respond to those in an expeditious 

manner. 

In the final round I have quite a few things I want to cover in 

just wrapping up. 

Mr. Murphy, this is a basic question I would like to ask each of 

you. Who is responsible for paying for the maintenance and upkeep 

of these levees, in your opinion? 

30 

Mr. MURPHY. Each and every reclamation district that owns 

them. That is the primary. Maintenance and upkeep, that is what 

they are doing. They are there to control that levee and move water 

through there. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Baldwin, maintenance and upkeep? 

Mr. BALDWIN. Right. Basically, whoever—I mean, if the Corps or 

a private entity comes in and builds a levee, then there is some 

agreement. If it is a Corps levee, who is going to maintain it? In 

some cases it is the State, for the most part. In the Delta, it is 

going to be reclamation districts. 

I would only point out one thing. They get the money to do the 

maintenance. They get the money to do the emergency response 

from property assessments, so the farmers out there and the property owners. But if there is a highway going through there and 

that district is protecting it, they get no additional money. I compliment East Bay MUD that actually go through there and assist 

with cash flow. This is the problem. That is why there is a lot of 

time when districts are protecting a lot of very valuable infrastructure but don’t have that cash flow to maybe do the maintenance 

properly or to do as well as they would like, or to do the emergency 

response, and the other agencies have to come in, and we get into 

some of these complications. 

So I think it is the old way. A hundred years ago, that is it. You 

built a levee, you are protecting your farm, you ought to pay for 

the maintenance, you know? But now we have laid on highways 

and aqueducts and all sorts of infrastructure. We transport water 

and everything else, and we never really updated the way that that 

reclamation district system works, where they can maybe get some 

cash flow from some of those other beneficiaries to maintain the 

levees, and also for emergency response. 

Mr. DENHAM. And as well on upgrades, especially in areas where 

you have different jurisdictions or different types of infrastructure, 

in your opinion, where should the money for upgrades come from? 

Mr. BALDWIN. That I think is a shared State-Federal—I mean, 

the Federal Government more or less sets, to a certain extent, the 

standards, because of the flood insurance program, of what kind of 

levee you need to have, and I think that is the debate that is going 

on, what should be the standards for the levees. Once that decision 

is made, then I think it is shared. I mean, it is public good for the 

Delta, so the public, through the Federal and State governments, 

should bring them up to standard. The reclamation districts, then, 

should be able to have enough cash flow to maintain them properly 

and at the same time respond in an emergency, and we should fix 

that system to where they will have sufficient funds from all the 

beneficiaries to do that after maybe the Federal or State, a Corps 

project, something comes in and actually brings the levee up to the 

standard that we decide is adequate for that area. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Baldwin. 

Mr. Simon, upgrades? 

Mr. SIMON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. For investor-owned utilities, and 

it may actually apply to our public utilities as well, it is somewhat 

of a mixed bag. I think to the extent that reinforcement of properties that the utilities have been granted through eminent domain 

or reverse condemnation, and for purposes of that infrastructure, 

31 

that pipeline infrastructure, they will typically seek recovery from 

ratepayers by way of an application or some type of tariff filing. 

Whether or not the ratepayers pay the entire amount or it is apportioned between ratepayers and shareholders, then that would be 

our distinction, for example, in East Bay MUD, would be determined by way of decision. 

Now, I would say that if a utility had infrastructure that sat or 

was laid in a reclamation district or a jurisdiction where the resources were available by way of assessment, Federal, State or 

local funding, I would think that they would seek those resources 

for purposes of protecting the infrastructure to reduce the cost to 

their ratepayers and shareholders. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Coate. 

Mr. COATE. Well, East Bay MUD has taken the position for many 

years that we should make investments in the levees. So we have 

spent over $15 million in levee improvements to protect our aqueducts, but also to protect all of the other infrastructure adjacent to 

it. 

Reclamation districts, as was described, are cash limited. So by 

us making the financial contributions, we have been in a position 

to support the reclamation districts, obtaining money from the 

State. The State typically doesn’t pay 100 percent. They would provide or expect to cost-share. So more recently, working with our 

local reclamation districts and the Delta Stewardship Council, East 

Bay MUD made a contribution of on the order of $6 million, and 

in so doing leveraged about $33 million worth of funds. The majority of those funds have been put in the ground, making significant 

levee improvements, probably some of the most significant improvements that have been done in recent times. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

And finally, Mr. Fenton, from a FEMA perspective? 

Mr. FENTON. With regard to maintenance, sir, basically our programs fund identification of risk, responding, recovering and mitigating from disasters, but it does not cover costs for maintenance. 

That is the responsibility of the owner or the sub-grantee in our 

case. 

With regard to upgrades, we do have some ability within our regulations, within the PA program, to do improved projects and look 

at some of those kinds of things. Also, there are mitigation funds. 

But, generally, we don’t pay for upgrades, and that is specific to 

FEMA, of course. Other Federal agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers, NRCS, have different programs that may be applicable here. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

And finally, I have one final question. Mr. Simon, you highlight 

in your testimony that ensuring the communications and telephone 

service work during emergencies. As you may know, the Integrated 

Public Alert and Warning System Modernization Act, it was included as part of my bill, H.R. 2903, the FEMA Reauthorization 

Act. The bill authorizes IPAWS and establishes a framework to ensure key stakeholders are at the table as FEMA continues to develop its system. 

From your experience, how important is it to ensure information 

can get out to the public during a disaster, especially one that 

32 

could shut down many different roads and could be flooding a huge 

area? 

Mr. SIMON. Mr. Chairman, I think it is critical. One of our most 

fire-prone areas actually is in southern California—that is the San 

Diego region—due to the Santa Ana winds, as you are well aware. 

Between 2003 and 2007, there were 13 fatalities that occurred in 

that region. I held workshops there in the Riverside-San 

Bernardino area, which was also affected, and I heard accounts 

from first responders where they had to use their personal cell 

phones because the system that either the police or fire were utilizing was not operative and/or interoperative. 

There was a case in the Inland Empire where reverse messaging 

was coming from a vendor in Florida. Because residents did not 

recognize the area code, they thought it was some type of marketing call and did not answer the messaging that was being sent 

for purposes of evacuation. 

So I think it is critical that our emergency response capabilities, 

with residents in particular, is commensurate with the technology 

choices that are being made by our citizens for purposes of communications, and that we have the type of messaging, reverse 911, enhanced 911 capacities that can reach our residents in a time of crisis and give them the proper instructions to save lives and property. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. That was the answer I was looking for. 

As Mr. Shuster said, we have the FEMA reauthorization bill that 

has already come out of committee. IPAWS is part of that communication piece of it, and I am looking forward to pushing that as 

we go back in September and trying to get that through both bodies, both Houses, before we adjourn in the 112th Congress. 

Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One of the interesting things that has come out, in my opinion, 

is the availability of funding, and there does appear to be money 

available. 

Mr. Fenton, does the FEMA have sufficient jurisdiction to be able 

to help direct funds where they are needed from the appropriate 

sources for levee protection? 

Mr. FENTON. I think the authority for the Delta area is a combination of different Federal agencies that have the authority and 

resources to do that. Some of it exists for the levees within the 

Delta, some of them are Federal levees. The Public Law program 

is the Army Corps of Engineers. Some of them fall underneath 

NRCS’s program. I know Department of Interior has been working 

on plans with regard to some of the issues they know of with regard to—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Excuse me, but that sounds like part of the 

problem. We need—and I think it is good testimony—an agency 

that can direct the funds where they are needed. If we have all 

these different agencies that have jurisdiction, then it is all going 

to be piecemeal. We are not going to get the real work that we need 

to get done. 

Mr. FENTON. I understand. It is such a complex issue. When you 

start looking at the expertise of the different agencies, FEMA does 

not have thousands of engineers like the Army Corps of Engineers 

33 

does, and it is not a skill set that we would be good at doing without having their experience and capability and hundreds of years 

of doing flood fights and levee work throughout the country on 

water conveyance-type structures. 

For a problem like this, I think it is good that a task force is 

coming together at the State and local level to address it. Federal 

agencies have to be included in that, because there are different capabilities through authorities at the Federal level that need to be 

integrated in that. I think integration and some mechanism to ensure consistency and collaboration is probably better than trying to 

move with just one agency, just because of what we do with our 

specific missions throughout the rest of the United States. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I don’t have the Corps of Engineers here 

in front of me. So what I would like to ask is that either you or 

Mr. Murphy give me some sort of assurance that money is going 

to be there for levee protection and enhancement no matter what 

happens with the BDCP, and I don’t have that feeling, and it is a 

concern to me and to the district, to the region. 

Mr. MURPHY. Congressman, at the State level, I can tell you 

right now, as Mr. Baldwin mentioned, that proposition money that 

is available from 2006, we have coordinated with the Department 

of Water Resources, who controls the emergency aspects, as well as 

the upkeep of all of their own levee system, and the emergency 

planning, especially the long-term emergency planning, has been a 

priority for them and is a priority for them. 

But I think, honestly, your question is a good one, because at the 

Federal level, there are multiple agencies that have a piece of this 

project. It is not an easily answered question. 

So at a State level, I can assure you, we actually sit with the Department of Water Resources and review the applications that 

come in, and you are going to have the highest priority, the best 

value, the best bang for the buck as far as from the reclamation 

districts mostly in that case. 

At the Federal level, though, that is a coordination aspect because there are so many entities involved in the process where we 

probably do need some work. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Who do we go to if we are finding the levee 

money is drying up because of being directed towards the BDCP? 

Mr. MURPHY. You know, I think that Ron has probably had more 

headaches with this than even I have. But there are—literally, it 

is not a one-stop shop. It is the people who are in this game have 

to go to each and every one. You have to approach the Army Corps 

of Engineers. You have to approach the Department of Interior. 

That is just the process that we have had to take at a State and 

local level over the years. 

Mr. BALDWIN. Well, I think the point I was making and the 

money I am speaking of—I mean, there are kind of two issues. It 

is the money for the construction of the levees, and I don’t know 

if it is really the maintenance. I would say the construction and the 

improvement of the levees, a lot of that is coming out of the bond 

funds through other programs, as well as any authorizations that 

Congress may have for the Corps to assist with an upgrade of a 

levee. 

34 

I am really talking about the flood fight, the emergency response. 

I am just saying that there are quite a bit of funds currently coming down. We didn’t have the strategy a year ago. We do have it 

now, and it seems to me good public policy that some document be 

issued to say, OK, there are six different things coming down, and 

I have good faith in the agencies. So to say, OK, Corps, what are 

you doing? How does that fit into the strategy? Here is what they 

are going to address, just to make sure we don’t duplicate efforts, 

and at the same time make sure that the entire strategy is implemented. 

The second thing is just to have a mechanism to make sure 

about quality control, that whatever we got done got done to the 

standards that we all agree it should have been. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A question to Mr. Murphy and to Mr. Simon. Mr. Simon, you 

mentioned that the CPUC, after the San Bruno pipeline explosion, 

put some things in place. But can you sort of talk a little bit about 

what have the natural gas pipeline operators, what have they done 

themselves? Are they complying? Is it a smooth process going forward, such as PG&E, to improve their gas emergency response 

processes? 

Mr. SIMON. They are in that process now, actually. The legislation was approved in the last session, and from all indications I believe San Bruno was the unfortunate wake-up call, and I believe 

all gas operators, if they didn’t understand before, understand now 

the importance of having protocol in place to deal with a disaster 

when it happens. 

Gas transmission infrastructure is a necessity for our society. It 

has to run through densely populated areas. So my response to 

that would be that I believe, again with our Consumer Protection 

and Safety Division and the pipeline operators throughout the 

State, that those cooperative efforts are moving along in an effective fashion. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Murphy? 

Mr. MURPHY. I think the coordination with local first responders, 

as well as the State, has absolutely been heightened from it, without a doubt, and not just PG&E but across the State. I am not 

going to discount that a lot of that has been the public message you 

get when a horrific event like that happens, and other private vendors look at that and say we don’t want that to be us. 

But that has been a great benefit at this point as far as from 

that local first responder and knowing what is in your backyard. 

That has been one of the biggest issues, is where are the pipelines 

and the disclosure of that. CPUC has been a huge help in having 

that. 

We have taken many steps. I think the reality, though, and 

where the CPUC is working forward, is that the long-term replacement of much older pipelines and really what has to happen there 

inside California. I think where we are at, though, is significantly 

light-years ahead of where we were a few years ago, prior to the 

San Bruno incident. 

35 

Mr. SHUSTER. My second question was about the emergency responders, and you did say they are coordinating with and building 

relationships, so it is much better. 

Mr. MURPHY. Oh, like I said, they—and I am somewhat biased 

because PG&E did hire one of our former employees on the gas 

side. But the difference is light-years, and what it is, especially 

those for-profit utility providers are fully engaged in not wanting 

to have anything like this happen again. 

I am sure, as a for-profit entity, there are some limitations. But 

at least on that first responder and State and local, here is where 

we are, here is what we are doing, and here are the potential 

issues we could have in this area. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. 

Thank all of you for being here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I thank each of you for your testimony. 

Your comments have been very helpful in such a short hearing. We 

will be following up as an entire committee with further questions. 

If there are no further questions from here, I would ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open until 

such time as our witnesses have provided answers to all of our 

questions that have been submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to thank our witnesses again for their testimony 

today, and if no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

36 


Insert offset folio 15 here 75571.015
37 


Insert offset folio 16 here 75571.016
38 


Insert offset folio 17 here 75571.017
39 


Insert offset folio 18 here 75571.018
40 


Insert offset folio 19 here 75571.019
41 


Insert offset folio 20 here 75571.020
42 


Insert offset folio 21 here 75571.021
43 


Insert offset folio 22 here 75571.022
44 


Insert offset folio 23 here 75571.023
45 


Insert offset folio 24 here 75571.024
46 


Insert offset folio 25 here 75571.025
47 


Insert offset folio 26 here 75571.026
48 


Insert offset folio 27 here 75571.027
49 


Insert offset folio 28 here 75571.028
50 


Insert offset folio 29 here 75571.029
51 


Insert offset folio 30 here 75571.030
52 


Insert offset folio 31 here 75571.031
53 


Insert offset folio 32 here 75571.032
54 


Insert offset folio 33 here 75571.033
55 


Insert offset folio 34 here 75571.034
56 


Insert offset folio 35 here 75571.035
57 


Insert offset folio 36 here 75571.036
58 


Insert offset folio 37 here 75571.037
59 


Insert offset folio 38 here 75571.038
60 


Insert offset folio 39 here 75571.039
61 


Insert offset folio 40 here 75571.040
62 


Insert offset folio 41 here 75571.041
63 


Insert offset folio 42 here 75571.042
64 


Insert offset folio 43 here 75571.043
65 


Insert offset folio 44 here 75571.044
66 


Insert offset folio 45 here 75571.045
67 


Insert offset folio 46 here 75571.046
68 


Insert offset folio 47 here 75571.047
69 


Insert offset folio 48 here 75571.048
70 


Insert offset folio 49 here 75571.049
71 


Insert offset folio 50 here 75571.050
72 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 51 here 75571.051