U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

24-348 PDF 2006

WATER SUPPLY VULNERABILITIES IN THE SACRAMENTO/

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER SYSTEM

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Serial No. 109-32

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

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

or

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman

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

Don Young, Alaska

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

Vice Chair

George P. Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Greg Walden, Oregon

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Rick Renzi, Arizona

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico

Henry Brown, Jr., South Carolina

Thelma Drake, Virginia

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico

Cathy McMorris, Washington

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana

Louie Gohmert, Texas

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado

Vacancy

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam

Jim Costa, California

Charlie Melancon, Louisiana

Dan Boren, Oklahoma

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Jay Inslee, Washington

Mark Udall, Colorado

Dennis Cardoza, California

Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Ranking Democrat Member

Ken Calvert, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

Greg Walden, Oregon

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico

Cathy McMorris, Washington

Louie Gohmert, Texas

Vacancy

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona

Jim Costa, California

George Miller, California

Mark Udall, Colorado

Dennis A. Cardoza, California

Vacancy

Vacancy

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on Thursday, October 20, 2005 ........................................................ 1

Statement of Members:

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

California ....................................................................................................... 5

Herger, Hon. Wally, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 76

Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of

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

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

of California ................................................................................................... 3

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

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

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

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

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

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

Statement of Witnesses:

Chrisman, Hon. Mike, Secretary for Resources, California Resources

Agency, Sacramento, California ................................................................... 14

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16

Guy, David J., Executive Director, Northern California Water

Association, Sacramento, California ............................................................ 26

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 28

Majors, Dennis G., Program Manager, Metropolitan Water District of

Southern California, Los Angeles, California ............................................. 30

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

Nelson, Barry, Senior Policy Analyst, Natural Resource Defense Council,

San Francisco, California ............................................................................. 22

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24

Neudeck, Christopher H., Owner/Consulting Engineer, Kjeldsen, Sinnock

& Neudeck, Inc., Stockton, California ......................................................... 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Rodgers, Kirk, Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.

Department of the Interior, Sacramento, California .................................. 66

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 67

Schroedel, Brigadier General Joseph, Commander, South Pacific Division,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California ........................ 63

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 64

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘WATER SUPPLY

VULNERABILITIES IN THE SACRAMENTO/

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER SYSTEM.’’

Thursday, October 20, 2005

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Committee on Resources

Washington, D.C.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:03 p.m. in Room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George Radanovich

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Radanovich, Napolitano, Cardoza,

Miller, Costa and Pombo.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. RADANOVICH. Good afternoon. The oversight hearing by the

Subcommittee on Water and Power will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the topic of water

supply vulnerability in the Sacramento/San Joaquin River System.

Today’s hearing is about learning from the past and planning for

the future. Every day, we continue to hear about the impacts of

Hurricane Katrina on Louisiana and the Nation. Yet, our home region of California could experience an even bigger natural disaster

of monumental proportions.

An earthquake or a massive flood in the Sacramento and San

Joaquin Basins could simply erase centuries of progress and leave

a dire future for our entire State. These natural disasters are nothing new to California over geologic time, but what has changed is

how we can better shape our own destiny to withstand Mother

Nature’s constant assaults.

Californians started this effort with the creation of the Central

Valley and State Water Projects, a series of storage reservoirs and

conveyance systems designed to control damaging floods, and provide water and power to our family farms and our cities.

Levees on the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, and in the

Delta, have also been constructed to control floods. Yet, for each

measurable amount of progress, we can also look back at mistakes.

As recently as 1997, we watched as levees broke and people died

because the Endangered Species Act put the Elderberry Bark

2

Beetle habitat before humans. Today, we continue to see how levee

repairs are delayed and costs soar, due in part to the Endangered

Species Act.

In addition, and sadly, we see that meeting our storage infra- structure needs continue to lag behind our rapidly growing demand, and as a result, we face a major water crisis. Meanwhile,

Sacramento continues to have the worst flood risk in our country. As we witnessed last year with the Jones Tract levee failure, we depend on a very fragile, but integrated, water supply system.

Those of us south of the Delta were impacted by this. So it is safe

to say that what happens in the Delta doesn’t necessarily stay in

the Delta.

Like Hurricane Katrina, the Jones Tract situation is a wakeup

call that should not be ignored. The goal of today’s hearing is to

determine the very extent of our vulnerabilities, and more importantly, to help find solutions that all stakeholders can participate

in, whether it is more infrastructure funding, more levee improvements, more storage, more planning and coordination, and/or

common-sense Endangered Species Act changes, we ought to keep

everything on the table. We should find out what is working and what is not. Simply say- ing no is not going to work. We owe current and future generations

of Californians the very best in protecting their lives, their property, and their way of life. We may not find all the answers today, but I hope that we can begin to agree on an extensive road map to protection. We are fortunate to have some of the very best and brightest testifying before

us today to help us find those answers. I look forward to hearing the testimony and working with them and my colleagues in this important pursuit, and I now recognize

my distinguished Ranking Member, Grace Napolitano, for any

statement that she may have. Grace.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]

Statement of The Honorable George Radanovich, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Today’s hearing is about learning from the past and planning for the future.

Every day, we continue to hear about the impacts of Hurricane Katrina on Louisiana and the nation. Yet, our home region of California could experience an even

bigger natural disaster of monumental proportions. An earthquake or massive flood

in the Sacramento and San Joaquin basins could simply erase centuries of progress

and leave a dire future for our entire State.

These natural disasters are nothing new to California over geologic time, but what

has changed is that we can better shape our own destiny to withstand Mother Nature’s constant assaults. Californians started this effort with the creation of the

Central Valley and State Water Projects, a series of storage reservoirs and conveyance systems designed to control damaging floods and provide water and power to

our family farms and cities. Levees on the Sacramento and the San Joaquin Rivers

and in the Delta have also been constructed to control floods.

Yet, for each measurable amount of progress, we can also look back at our mistakes. As recently as 1997, we watched as levees broke and people died because the

Endangered Species Act put the elderberry bark beetle before humans. Today, we

continue to see how levee repairs are delayed and costs soar due, in part, to the

ESA. In addition—and sadly—we see that meeting our storage infrastructure needs

continues to lag behind our rapidly growing demand. As a result, we will face a

major water crisis. Meanwhile, Sacramento continues to have the worst flood risk

in our country.

As we witnessed last year with the Jones Tract levee failure, we depend on a very

fragile but integrated water supply system. Those of us south of the Delta were

3

impacted by this, so it’s safe to say that what happens in the Delta doesn’t stay

in the Delta. Like Hurricane Katrina, the Jones Tract situation is a wake-up call

that shouldn’t be ignored.

The goal of today’s hearing is to determine the very extent of our vulnerabilities

and, more importantly, to help find solutions that all stakeholders can participate

in. Whether it’s more infrastructure funding, more levee improvements, more storage through CALFED, Folsom improvement or Auburn construction, more planning

and coordination and/or common sense Endangered Species Act changes, we ought

to keep everything on the table. We should find out what’s working and what’s not.

Simply saying ‘‘no’’ is not going to work. We owe current and future generations of

Californians the very best in protecting their lives, their property and their way of

life. We may not find all the answers today, but I hope we can begin to agree on

an extensive roadmap to protection.

We are fortunate to have some of the very best and brightest testifying before us

today to help us find those answers. I look forward to hearing their testimony and

working with them and my colleagues in this important pursuit.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

your remarks that are so true. I agree with all that you have stated. If there is one positive effect of the recent Gulf Coast hurricanes, it is that we are now giving more attention to the fragile

levee system in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta.

And that despite all the work that we have done on CALFED,

and other California issues at this level, I think we all will agree

that the Delta levees have been neglected at many levels by all

governments.

When I visited the Delta in 2003, I was struck how fragile, how

vulnerable, these—well, I heard 600 and 700 miles of the Delta levees. I will take either one of them, because even the small waves

from the small boat that we were in was washing away the soil

from the soil levees, and it looked to me like it was just waiting

to have something happened.

And as I have read some of the testimony in the reports about

the condition of the levees, it is frightening and horrifying to learn

that a major earthquake could liquify and pretty much wipe out

the Delta as we know it, and that it would not take months, but

years, to recover, and the expense would be so prohibitive that it

really would put a dent in many budgets.

And hindsight tells me that we should have paid more attention

to the levee system when we authorized CALFED, and everybody

was more focused on new water projects, and the many other elements of CALFED, and now I hope that it is really not too late to

turn our attention to the levee system, and focus on that to fully

understand what we need to do collectively to protect our water

supplies.

And I am talking about not just the north, but also the south,

who also benefits from those water conveyances. So with that, Mr.

Chair, thank you very much, and I look forward to the testimony

from the witnesses.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Grace. I appreciate that. We now

recognize the esteemed Chairman of the Resources Committee, Mr.

Pombo. Richard, welcome.

4

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

Mr. POMBO. Well, thank you, and I ask unanimous consent that

my statement be included in the record. I know that we want to

get to the witnesses as quickly as we possibly can. I want to thank

Chairman Radanovich and Ranking Member Napolitano for holding this hearing.

Obviously this is an issue that is extremely important to me, as

I represent a good part of the Delta, and that has been a major

issue. When you talked about Jones Tract, that was in my district,

and something that we are still dealing with.

So I thank you for holding this hearing. I look forward to hearing

the testimony of these great witnesses, and I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pombo follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Richard Pombo, Chairman,

House Committee on Resources

I commend Subcommittee Chairman Radanovich for holding this important hearing. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by welcoming my constituent Chris

Neudeck, who is testifying before us today. Mr. Neudeck is a leader in the Delta

levee world. He has 24 years of experience as a levee engineer, and I look forward

to his valuable testimony, and thank him for being here today.

We are all aware that Sacramento and the Delta are some of the most flood prone

areas in the Nation. Under current conditions, it is not a question of ‘‘if’’ our levees

fail, but ‘‘when.’’ This scenario is not acceptable.

Protecting Californians in Sacramento and the Delta is not a partisan issue. Senator Feinstein and I sent a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers about protecting

the Delta levees immediately after Hurricane Katrina. We have been working together on getting the Corps to conduct a study to determine where to fix the levees

and to dredge the channels. And today, the Senator and I just sent a letter to President Bush asking him to include funding for $50 million in levee work in his next

supplemental appropriations request.

As it relates to levee maintenance, it is clear that the Endangered Species Act

has driven up repair costs. Thirty years ago, the cost per linear foot of levee repairs

was less than $300. Today, the cost is upwards of $5000 per linear foot due, in part,

to environmental mitigation, permitting and delays associated with the Endangered

Species Act. No one is suggesting that the Act shouldn’t be implemented, but we

should put some common sense into making sure human safety is part of the equation. Otherwise, we are destined to repeat the Arboga levee disaster, where three

people died in 1997 because endangered beetle habitat delayed levee maintenance.

Water storage is another key piece of this puzzle. Storage has worked to control

many floods in the past, but there’s more we can do in this area. We should keep

everything on the table as we look to flood-proof our region.

Mr. Chairman, I once again thank you for holding this hearing. The flood problems in our region will not be solved overnight, but these crucial first steps and this

hearing will only help our cause.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There being no objection, so ordered on the unanimous consent request. Mr. Miller.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, and thank you for holding these hearings. I share the concern of my colleagues on the issues of the delta

and the safety of the deltas, and the need to assess that safety, and

get on—we all signed a letter saying that we would like to get on

with some of this work in this year’s appropriations bill.

But I also would like to reserve the right to raise some questions

with respect to what is going on with the water quality in the

5

Delta, and I see now that the State has issued a 14 point response,

and I am trying to figure out how these things are sequenced when

we have not completed the science, and people are telling us that

they don’t know the answers. This is the worst thing that they

have seen in years.

And when we asked them before what was going on, they said

that they don’t know, and now we have a 14 point response. So I

would appreciate it if we could address that later on, and I hope

to be able to do that, and thank you for the hearings.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, be allowed

to join us on the dais, and participate in today’s hearing. Hearing

no objection, so ordered. Dan, welcome to the Subcommittee.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I object.

Mr. RADANOVICH. You object? We have a problem here. Dan, welcome to the Subcommittee.

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As someone

who lives in the area affected, I appreciate the fact that you are

holding these hearings. It seems the only time we really worry

about floods is when we are in the midst of a flood; and the only

time we worry about water storage is when we are in the midst of

a drought, and we need to have visionary thinking.

I appreciate this. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses

here. Thank you very much for allowing me to sit on the dais.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Lungren. Good to have you

here. Dennis, how are you doing?

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

Mr. CARDOZA. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me and for holding these hearings. I, too, have a statement

that I would like to have read into the record. I would like to make

two points, however.

We cannot accept a band-aid approach to the Delta levee system.

We have to have a comprehensive approach that truly deals with

the magnitude of the crisis that we could see with a disaster here.

If we see a disaster in Mr. Miller’s district with an earthquake

on the Hayworth fault that would liquify the Delta levees, or cause

liquefaction in that area, we have devastation on a scale that

would make the horrible tragedy of Katrina really pale in comparison in some ways.

And it could happen much quicker because of the lighting quickness of the floods. We could see some incredible devastation very

quickly to our urban areas on the heels of a major disaster in a

very populated area, the Bay Area.

We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people in New

Orleans, and Mississippi, and we are talking about millions of people in the Bay Area and in the upper Central Valley region, north

of Stockton.

There is one other point though that I want to make. Some emergency officials came to see me about last week, and that is that one

of the things that plagued the response in Katrina was the lack of

communication, and inoperability of the first responder units.

6

The police and fire officials from Stockton and Modesto have

been coming to see me, and we have to have the opportunity to talk

more about this, Mr. Chairman, because it affects your district, as

well as Mr. Pombo’s.

But they have been discussing the belief that my area and your

area, Modesto and just to the south, would be the Baton Rouge

area where staging would occur if in fact one of these floods and

devastation happened in the Bay Area, and we have a situation

with the levees.

And that they have no ability to communicate amongst themselves between police, fire, and the military, that would be leading

the response. The Highway Patrol can’t communicate with each

other.

It has been a problem that we have all discussed, and you and

I have discussed that in the past, and it is something that probably

should be also discussed as part of this levee discussion as well, because it really is not just rebuilding the levee, but how we respond

to a disaster in that case as well. I thank you for the hearing.

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

thoughts, and look forward to working with you on extensions of

damage that could happen as a result of earthquakes as well.

I want to introduce our first panel of witnesses. Mr. Chris

Neudeck, owner and consulting engineer of Kjeldsen, Sinnock, and

Neudeck, in Stockton, California; The Honorable Mike Chrisman,

Secretary of the California Resources Agency; Mr. David Guy, Executive Director of the Northern California Water Association; Mr.

Barry Nelson, Co-Director of the Western Water Project of the Natural Resource Defense Council; Mr. Dennis Majors, Program Manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Gentlemen, welcome to the Subcommittee. I appreciate you making a trip back here to Washington, D.C. to deliver your valuable

testimony. We will be using the five minute clock here, and I won’t

adhere to it strictly, but please note that your written statement

is submitted for the record, and feel free to be extemporaneous in

your remarks if you would like.

I think we will start from the right. Mr. Neudeck, welcome to the

Subcommittee. You may begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF CHRIS NEUDECK, OWNER/CONSULTING

ENGINEER, KJELDSEN, SINNOCK AND NEUDECK, INCORPORATED, STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA

Mr. NEUDECK. Good afternoon. I thank you for this opportunity,

Mr. Chair, and committee members. Just so you are aware, I am

a registered civil engineer. I have been practicing in the field of

water resources engineering for the last 20 plus years, primarily focused in the San Joaquin Delta.

We refer a lot to the Jones Tract event. I heard it throughout the

testimony and in today’s briefing papers, and I had the daunting

challenge, I guess, to be the one in the field reclaiming the Jones

Tract event, and working with the Department of Water Resources,

one of the first responders.

My firm, Kjeldsen, Sinnock and Neudeck, has been in business

for 50 years, and we have been doing similar type work in the

Delta ever sine the time of our establishment. I am going to walk

7

you through my testimony pretty quickly today, focusing really on

two areas.

One, Federal funding and an infusion of funds into an ongoing

State program, as well as disaster assistance. Just to give you a

little background, my prepared testimony walks you through the

history of the Delta, and some of the makeup of it.

But in 1992, the State legislature filed and passed what is known

as the Delta Protection Act. In that process, they created what is

known as the primary and secondary zone. In my exhibits, you will

see that, but the majority of the Delta as we know it, the legal

Delta, is in the primary zone.

And I want to distinguish between the primary and secondary

zone for one reason. We hear a lot about urbanization of the Delta.

The majority of the Delta cannot be urbanized as a result of this

legislation.

The primary zone is focused and reserved primarily for an Ag

core. There is a whole bunch of other uses that we can go into

later, but there is no urbanization in the primary zone.

With regards to the State and Federal interests in levee programs, up until the mid-1980s, there really wasn’t a whole lot of

activity with regards to assistance and how levees were constructed.

The locals constructed the majority of the levee systems out

there, and were maintaining them. In the mid-1980s, several disasters occurred, and we started to see programs develop.

In mid-1984, we passed what is known as the Delta Levees Subventions Program. That program has features in it that allows for

up to 75 percent reimbursement to the local reclamation districts

for cost sharing the levee maintenance.

It has been that program that has probably kept the delta in its

current state. From 1984 on, a lot of the incidents of flooding in

the delta has been reduced. You hear these situations where there

has been 160 levee failures in the last century.

Well, most of those predate 1984. Now, we haven’t completely reduced levee failures, but we certainly reduced the risk to levee failures. My goal today here is to try and limit the amount of money

that moves into studies.

I know that is the feature of government, is to study and understand the problem before we move forward. But the Corps of Engineers has prepared details for levee rehabilitation and have prepared actual cross-sections, which is known as PLA499.

Those particular cross-sections would enable the local reclamation district to construct to that standard, and achieve a much

higher level of protection, but at the same time it would not required any additional studies.

That particular standard has been referred to on a number of occasions. Our CALFED Bay Delta Program has referred to it, but

we don’t have the funds in order to undertake that work.

The message that I am trying to send today is to put dollars into

dirt, and not dollars into studies. We seem to find the money for

the studies. We don’t seem to find the money for the actual work

itself.

What I am recommending is that—and this is a little bit off the

mark where we typically get monies, and that is that the Bureau

8

of Interior actually be part of the levee program, and actually look

to them to contributing to our levee subventions program.

We would be looking to a Federal contribution of $20 million; $10

million for the local cost-sharing program, and $10 million for the

State special projects program. Moving quickly alone, the other

area that I would like to address is the emergency response.

I think we are all quite familiar with emergency with the recent

hurricanes. The one thing we cannot do is we cannot debate policy

at the time of emergency response. I think it is important that we

understand that disaster is a common enemy, and I think we need

to move forward and address the emergency quickly and rapidly,

and arrest it, and contain it, and restore order as soon as possible.

These local reclamation districts do not have the ability to undertake restoration of a flooded island. The restoration of Jones Tract

was on the order of $70 million. That is two reclamation districts.

So that is 12,000 acres.

These reclamation districts typically have a budget of around

$200,000. So you can see the disparity there. but the importance

to the overall system is incredible. The final area is just to talk

about whether or not to save the Delta.

I think that quite often we talk about they isolated facility not

through Delta. It is very important to understand the relationship

between the islands, and if we lose one, we lose them all. I will

leave it at that, and stay within my time frame.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Neudeck follows:]

Statement of Christopher H. Neudeck, Owner/Consulting Engineer,

Kjeldsen, Sinnock & Neudeck, Inc.,

I am Christopher H. Neudeck, a California Registered Civil Engineer. I have

worked for over twenty-four (24) years as an Engineer for various Reclamation Districts in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. My experience includes levee design,

floodfighting, levee break repair, dewatering, levee rehabilitation and improvement

and routine levee maintenance.

Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta

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

San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries meet Suisun Bay as part of the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary, the largest estuary on the West Coast of the United States.

The Delta comprises more than 738,000 acres in five counties. The Delta’s 700 miles

of waterways surround more than 60 leveed tracts and islands where land elevations vary roughly from more than ten (10) feet above sea level to as much as

twenty (20) feet below sea level. The lowest lands are in the agricultural portions

of the western Delta where pockets of organic soil continue to subside primarily due

to oxidation of peat. The Delta is an extremely fertile and productive agricultural

area, its 700 miles of meandering, sheltered waterways provide for a recreational

wonderland, its channels serve as the hub of the deliveries of water from north to

south and store and provide for the capture of surplus natural flows, and it is the

State’s most important fishery habitat. The Water Education Foundation reports an

estimated 25 percent of all warm water and anadromous sport fishing species and

80 percent of the state’s commercial fishery species live in or migrate through the

Delta. Contained within the Delta are the Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Isleton,

Pittsburg and Tracy and numerous unincorporated towns and villages. Major cities

partly within the Delta are Sacramento, Stockton, West Sacramento and Lathrop.

Attached hereto is Table 7 from the 1993 Delta Atlas prepared by the California

Department of Water Resources which provides Delta statistics

Since 1990, urban development has greatly expanded. Recreational uses have also

expanded but at a lesser rate. The conversion of Delta agricultural lands to other

uses includes major areas set aside for wildlife habitat. In 1992, the State established the Delta Protection Commission which essentially precluded urban development within the ‘‘Delta Primary Zone’’ shown on the attached map. This area which

9

is primarily devoted to agriculture has the least ability to pay and contains some

of the more challenging levee problems.

Recognition of Need for Delta Levee Action

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

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

Ten Million Dollars per year to the State Delta Levee Maintenance Subvention Program. One-half of the funds went to special projects of the California Department

of Water Resources and the other one-half to a local cost-share program where after

the local district expended $1,000.00 per mile of levee the State would reimburse

up to 75% of the cost. Due to limited availability of funding, the State failed to provide its full cost share and the typical reimbursement has been about 50% to 60%.

Funding for this critically important program will end on June 30, 2006.

Although the federal interest in agriculture, commercial and recreational navigation, the Stockton and Sacramento Inland Ports, highways, railroads, electrical

transmission lines, natural gas storage, utility pipelines, anadromous fish, migratory waterfowl, and fresh water supplies as related to the Delta is and has been

clear, the non-disaster federal contribution to maintenance and rehabilitation of the

non-project levees in the Delta has been directed primarily to studies. The U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers Draft Feasibility Report and Draft Environmental Impact

Statement - October 1982 reports that the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Investigation began in 1962. To date the studies have failed to produce any physical work.

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

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

Levee Failure

The most effective way to accomplish this result is to contribute funding to the

already ongoing State Delta Levee Maintenance Subvention Program which is administered by the State Reclamation Board through the California Department of

Water Resources and California Department of Fish and Game. The program allocates funding for reimbursement to local agencies based on categories. Category 3.

includes expenditures to achieve the Short Term Hazard Mitigation Plan Standards

and Category 4 includes expenditures to achieve the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

PL 84-99 Delta levee standards for agricultural levees or the comparable Bulletin

192-82 State Standards.

Attached hereto is a sketch depicting the PL84-99 Corps of Engineers Delta levee

standards. Most notable is the variable landside levee slope or ‘‘backslope’’ which

is dependent upon the depth of peat. Achieving the PL 84-99 Delta agricultural

levee standards is feasible and would reasonably reduce the risk of levee failures.

Recommendation

It is recommended that federal funding be directed through the U.S. Department

of Interior Bureau of Reclamation to supplement the State and local funding of the

State Delta Levee Subvention Program and to supplement the State Delta Levee

Special Project Program.

A federal contribution of Ten Million Dollars per year should be made to each of

the two Delta levee programs commencing as soon as possible to assure that the

programs will continue past June 30, 2006.

The contribution to the State Delta Levee Subvention Program could be limited

to achieving the Category 3 Short Term Hazard Mitigation Standards and Category

4 PL 84-99 Corps of Engineers Delta Levee Agricultural Standards with the proviso

that federal funds will be used with state funds so as to result in the local cost

share for such categories of no more than ten (10) percent. The match with state

funds should be left to resolution between the state and federal agencies but should

not delay or preclude the investment of the federal funds. If, for example, the state

is unable to fund its share, then federal funds should be allowed to be expended

with the local ten percent (10%) match to accomplish the desired work as soon as

possible. The adjustment with the state in recognition of past state expenditures in

the program without federal contribution can, if necessary, be accomplished in future years.

The contribution to the State Delta Levee Special Projects Program should also

involve a match with state or local funds but the emphasis should be on immediate

investment of such funds in accomplishing the needed work on the Delta levees.

In some cases even at ten percent (10%) the local reclamation districts may be

unable to fund their share. The federal funds should be provided with some flexibility to reduce the local share even below the ten percent (10%) based on an abilityto-pay analysis similar to that already being used by the state.

10

Levee Break Response Plan

The Delta levee rehabilitation should be viewed as an ongoing process resulting

in gradual but increasing stability. Although the risk of levee failure will be reduced, it will never be eliminated. Local agencies can help floodfight but do not have

the financial ability to repair a levee break, dewater the flooded areas or otherwise

undertake major restoration work. Once a levee break occurs, the assessable base

of the local agency is of little value. The opportunity for possible reimbursement

through currently structured disaster assistance or similar types of programs does

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

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

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

break occurs is essential to containment of the damages. The plan should provide

for restoration of the public facilities to the point that the local agencies can financially and effectively resume operation and maintenance. Emergency response regardless of the type of emergency should not involve a debate on policy. Immediate

‘‘no holds barred’’ response to arrest the threat should be the goal.

There is no reasonable alternative to preservation of the Delta levee

systems.

Although there are numerous levee systems protecting separate islands or tracts

of land in the Delta, there is a critical interrelationship of such systems. For the

so-called lowlands which are areas below five feet above sea level the flooding of a

particular island or tract will result in seepage into adjoining lands, levees and embankments. The generation of wind waves across large open bodies of water also

creates a serious threat to adjoining facilities. As demonstrated by the June 2004

flooding of Jones Tract, the seepage and wind waves from flooded areas can result

in the failure of adjoining levees, railroad and highway embankments and major

utilities with a real potential for a domino-type impact.

Due to the resulting depth of water flooding of Delta islands or tracts will not result in shallow marsh habitat but rather will result in the creation of a large lake

or bay. The areas abutting such a lake or bay and particularly those which are developed will suffer from rising groundwater tables. Abutting levees and embankments will have to be raised and fortified.

Another important consideration is the preservation of fresh water supplies. The

Delta levee systems are critical to the efficient control of salinity intrusion from the

Bay into the Delta which is the hub for water deliveries throughout the state. There

is also a huge increase in evaporative loss when an agricultural area is left in a

flooded condition. The commonly recognized ‘‘rule of thumb’’ is that 2 acre feet per

acre more of fresh water will be lost from a flooded area than from the same area

subjected to farming. Attached is a copy of the 1976-77 Estimated Crop Et Values

for the Delta Service Area reported by the Department of Water Resources in Bulletin 168 - October 1978. A comparison of the various crop types to the item for ‘‘Riparian Veg. & Water Surface’’ displays the potential impact. If for example 460,000

acres of Delta lowlands were allowed to be permanently flooded, the additional fresh

water loss would be about 920,000 acre feet per year. To replace such a loss particularly in a dry year would require the entire yield from a number of very large dams.

The alternative of an inland saltwater bay with the resulting salination of groundwater basins, adverse impacts to fish, waterfowl habitat and recreation and loss of

Delta pool storage is also not a good choice.

Immediate action is in the best public interest.

[Attachments to Mr. Neudeck’s statement follow:]

11

12

13

14

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Neudeck. I appreciate that. We are pleased to have before the Subcommittee The

Honorable Mike Chrisman, Secretary, California Resources Agency.

Mike, welcome to Washington, and welcome to the Subcommittee.

I appreciate you coming here to deliver your testimony.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MIKE CHRISMAN, SECRETARY, CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY, SACRAMENTO,

CALIFORNIA

Mr. CHRISMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to be here,

and I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to talk about

15

some of the vulnerabilities in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta.

Of course, I think you have all in the Members’ preliminary statements, you all indicated the problems that we have and we are facing in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta.

Of course, the flood damage in Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys have been extensive over the years. If you look back to 1997,

and some of the activities there. Last year, of course, many of you

have talked about the Jones Tract break and the expense there.

Given all of that, given the State’s burgeoning population, and

the fact that we have 37 plus million people now, there has been

a population that really is pushing into many of these new commercial and industrial development, and pushing into a lot of these

areas that historically have been susceptible to flooding.

Yet, State and Federal, and local funding to maintain and repair,

and upgrade some of these flood protection infrastructures has

really not kept pace with those demands. As I think most of you

know also, that in the Delta that we are facing, and we have, some

of the oldest of the flood management system.

The levees were built primarily to protect farm land, but as the

population grows, and as people move into the areas, these same

flood control levees and dykes are being now asked to protect people and property.

There is well in excess of a million people, and two million acres

of highly productive land, 200,000 structures, with an estimated

value of billions of dollars in this particular area.

What we really need more than anything is a comprehensive

plan to help make strategic investments, and I emphasize the word

strategic, but strategic investments in levee maintenance and improvements, and educating the public about the importance of flood

protection on an ongoing basis, about the flood risks, and trying to

discourage to the extent that we can new development in many of

the high risk areas.

This last year, in January of this last year, Governor

Schwarzenegger, through the Resources Agency, and the Department of Water Resources, released a White Paper detailing many

of the existing flood infrastructure deficiencies.

It is a White Paper that is actually on the website, and as Members, you will be receiving, and we are going to be delivering that

to your offices over the next week or so. But in January of last

year, we laid out some of the high risk areas.

This report indicted that we should reevaluate much of the flood

control system to improve on flood plan maps, and do a whole series of new planning activities. I think we know what the possible

catastrophe could come about without good forward planning.

Much of it was articulated by many of you before the hearing.

Damage to structures, and contents, and property, we think would

be extensive over time if you ended up with an earthquake that

could create liquification activities.

But you also know that the problems that we face with much of

the public attention focused on this situation now, we really have

an opportunity to improve our programs and invest wisely, and to

work together to make a difference for the future.

Earlier this year, the Governor proposed to increase the State’s

general fund budget for flood management by approximately

16

$9.4 million, and this was adopted in the final 2006/2007 budget.

This was a 70 percent increase in State funding for levee maintenance, and flood emergency response activities. He also signed two bills that represent small steps to improve the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta flood control efforts, one being

AB 1200 by Mr. Laird, which directs the Department of Water Resources and the Department of Fish and Game to study island subsidence, floods. earthquakes, and other issues facing the Delta. Also, SB-264 by Senator Machado extends the Delta Levee Sub- vention Program for a period of two years, and obviously our biggest challenge as NCRA continues to be funding, and that funding

is going to run out in June of 2006. That is an issue that we are

going to be working on pretty strongly. We have also in place at the State level a Delta Risk Manage- ment Study that essentially is an ongoing effort to take a look

through boring activities and other activities, to take a look at the

health or the integrity of many of the levees. Our plan is to have that study done by mid-2007. We already know in some of the areas where most of the high risk levees are.

We are going to be pushing to try to get those studies done earlier

rather than later.

I think the important thing out of a hearing like this is to recog- nize that we attack these issues by creating partnerships, partnerships from the local, State, and Federal level.

I think that we learned in the Jones Tract at the Federal level,

with our good partners, the Corps of Engineers, that their responsibilities and immediate activities, absent some sort of Federal declaration of emergency, is unclear. We probably ought to clear that up in terms of future flood ac- tivities and emergency activities. So, again, partnership is the key.

I think we really need to work harder to develop these partnerships, and to create these opportunities at the local, State, and

Federal levels.

And, of course, funding is what we really need as much as anything else. One of the lessons that we can take away from these

recent events, and investing in these flood management programs,

including levee maintenance and activities, that emergency response can and is a life-saving activity.

So I really look forward, and the State of California really looks

forward, to working with all of you in this effort. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chrisman follows:]

Statement of Mike Chrisman, Secretary for Resources,

California Resources Agency

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee on Water and Power

on the issue of Water Supply Vulnerabilities in the Sacramento/San Joaquin River

system.

Long before the recent devastation caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we

have known that floods in California could cause damage much like the devastating

flooding that took place in the Gulf Coast.

New Orleans had a 250-year protection level. But many cities in our state, including the Sacramento metropolitan area, have only about a 100-year level of flood protection. In fact, Sacramento has the lowest flood protection of any large urban area

in the nation.

Flood damage in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys have cost property owners and taxpayers billions of dollars over the past two decades. Our 1997 floods

forced more than 120,000 people from their homes, and damaged or destroyed

17

30,000 homes and 2,000 businesses. Last year, a single levee break on Jones Tract

in the Delta cost nearly $100 million for emergency response, damage to public and

private property, lost crop production, levee repair and pumping costs.

Even so, a burgeoning Golden State population is pushing new commercial and

residential development into areas that are historically susceptible to flooding. Yet

the federal, state and local funding to maintain, repair and upgrade our flood-protection infrastructure has failed to keep pace with our needs.

California’s old and deteriorating Central Valley flood management system was

built primarily to protect farmlands. But the system is increasingly needed to protect people living and working in the floodplains. Today, Central Valley flood control

projects protect more than half a million people, two million acres of highly productive agricultural land, and 200,000 structures with an estimated value exceeding

$50 billion. And these numbers are increasing daily.

We need to protect Central Valley residents and businesses from the threat of

flooding, and we need to protect Californians from the enormous financial liability

they face when these floods happen.

We can do this by making strategic investments in levee maintenance and

improvements, educating the public and local agencies about flood risks, and

discouraging new development in areas of high risk unless the flood control system

is upgraded.

This past January, Governor Schwarzenegger through the Resources Agency’s

Department of Water Resources (DWR) released a White Paper that detailed many

of the existing flood infrastructure deficiencies. It highlighted conditions that have

created a ‘‘ticking time bomb’’ for flood management in California.

The report indicates we should re-evaluate much of the flood control system to

improve our floodplain maps, many of which are inaccurate and out of date. Then,

we need to rehabilitate levees to give our communities an appropriate level of flood

protection.

If we do not, the consequences will be staggering.

The Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta is home to 400,000 residents, vital port facilities, major highways and railroads as well as the state and federal water projects

that provide drinking water to 22 million Californians (approaching one-tenth of the

entire U.S. population) and 7 million acres of irrigated land. It includes nearly 60

islands and tracts that lie below sea level, protected by marginal levees. In the past

century, there have been more than 160 levee failures, and we have adopted a solution of fixing them one by one.

Earthquakes are as common a natural condition in the West—particularly California—as hurricanes are a part of common atmospheric conditions in the southeast

and gulf state region. A 6.5 magnitude earthquake on the Coast Range-Central Valley Fault that meanders under the west Delta would produce more than 30 levee

breaches on 16 Delta islands.

Thousands of residents would be threatened. Levee breaks would draw salt water

into the Delta from the San Francisco Bay—shutting down the State Water Project

and the Central Valley Project, as well as water deliveries to much of the San Francisco Bay Area. Major power and gas transmission lines would be damaged, impacting power delivery to the entire state. State highways 4, 12, and 160 would be inundated, creating lengthy detours and jamming other highways and freeways. Environmental damage to the Delta ecosystem would be devastating.

Using optimistic estimates, the damage to the Delta would take more than 15

months to repair and cause perhaps $20 billion in economic impacts. More realistically, several Delta islands would likely never be recovered before Delta wind-driven

waves eroded through miles of unprotected levees on the flooded islands. This would

result in permanent landform changes and water supply and water quality impacts

with perhaps $40 billion in economic impacts.

Consider an urban scenario, not unlike what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. A large regional flood could lead to levee breaches in several parts

of Sacramento, inundating approximately 54 square miles. More than a quarter of

a million people live in areas that would be inundated with at least one foot of flooding; approximately 89,000 people live in areas with at least 6 feet of flooding; and

23,000 people live in areas that would have at least 10 feet of flooding.

The number of causalities for this levee-failure scenario obviously cannot be predicted. But if the experience of New Orleans with hurricane Katrina is indicative,

the number of deaths in Sacramento could amount to hundreds of people, depending

on lead time and response. Damage to structures, contents, and other property

would be approximately $5 billion. Emergency response costs, cleanup, and longterm economic impacts would be greater. Statistically, this scenario has a higher

probability of occurring than what occurred in New Orleans.

18

But knowing the problems we face, and with much public attention focused on this situation, we have the opportunity now to improve our programs, invest wisely,

and work together to make a difference for the future. In the short term, we need to maintain our existing systems. Then, we need to evaluate systems for long-term viability. And for the long-term, we need to adopt

systems to provide reliability, in a way that is balanced with our resource demands. Earlier this year, Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposal to increase the state’s gen- eral fund budget for flood management by approximately $9.4 million was adopted

in the final state FY06-07 budget. This is a 70 percent increase in state funding

for levee maintenance and flood emergency response. The Governor also just signed two bills that represent small steps to improve Sac- ramento-San Joaquin Delta flood control efforts. Assembly Bill 1200 (Laird) directs

the Department of Water Resources and the Department of Fish & Game to study

island subsidence, floods, earthquakes and other issues affecting the Delta. Senate

Bill 264 (Machado) extends Delta Levee Subventions program for two years, but

funding is still lacking beyond June of 2006. This year the Delta Levees Subventions Program will provide $4 million in state matching funds to help maintain and improve approximately 600 miles of levees.

The Special Projects program will contribute funding to make important improvements to levees on New Hope Tract, and the Department of Water Resources will

work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prioritize funding for new Delta

levee work under Public Law 108-361. Land use changes will be implemented on

department-owned land to stop the ongoing degradation of Delta soils In a September 14, 2005 letter to House Resources Committee Chairman Pombo

and Senator Feinstein, Governor Schwarzenegger, together with the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency identified 12

priority projects and programs for California levee system that need federal funding

to help avoid a flood event like Hurricane Katrina (letter attached).

We believe that all of these projects are worthy of funding by Congress now to avoid a situation like we have recently witnessed on the gulf coast and the state

would be please to provide you additional information on any of these projects. In

addition to the specific projects listed in the letter, the following activities are extremely important to ensure that federal, state and local flood management funding

decisions are strategic, long-term investments.

Delta Risk Management Strategy

For more than 30 years, the state has been working with local interests to main- tain and improve Delta levees by cost-sharing these efforts. It is imperative that we

develop a thorough understanding of those risks to the Delta and to our infrastructure of statewide significance resulting from Delta levee failures. Factoring in the

potential for sea level rise, a major earthquake, and greater peak river flows caused

by global climate change adds to the urgency. Thorough understanding of risks and

benefits is needed so that reasonable policy can be made and implemented to preserve the Delta.

The Delta Risk Management Strategy will tabulate the benefits and hazards for each Delta island. It will develop a thorough understanding of the data, and incorporate it into a peer-reviewed risk analysis. This assessment will also propose cost

effective measures to manage the risk in both the short and long term; identify land

use changes to preserve the Delta; and develop a plan of action for future steps. These actions will form the basis for changes in policy that will guide the use of state funding for Delta levee improvements into the future.

HR-2828 Delta Project Priority Study

The Department of Water Resources and Department of Fish & Game are working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide a well-coordinated report to

Congress that will prioritize funding for combined federal, state, and local cooperation to improve the Delta levees. This report will detail the importance of specific

Delta levees to both state and federal interests and provide the justification for up

to $90 million in new federal funding for improving the Delta levees.

Emergency Response Planning

Reinvigorating the federal government’s commitment to emergency response plan- ning for levee failures in the Delta and engaging in robust emergency response planning and pre-positioning of resources are also crucial. The Corps had only a limited

response to the Jones Tract Levee failure in 2004, intended to prevent levee

breaches of adjacent islands after the Tract had flooded. The Corps did not participate in closing the breach or the pumping of flood waters from Jones Tract. The

Corps commitment to assist closing breaches or reclaim islands in the Delta during

a flood disaster is unclear. Congress needs to provide the Corps clear authority and

19

funding that commits the Corps to swiftly respond to levee failures and in reclamation of islands in the aftermath of a flood disaster in the Delta. The Corps should

fully participate with the state to create an emergency response plan that:

• Includes early warning of storm events

• Rapid reconnaissance of distress

• Pre-positioning of flood fight and rock materials

• Planning for contracting for barges and barge-mounted equipment

• Planning for flood-fight resources

• A robust hydrodynamic model that helps analyze the effects of levee failures on

water quality which would help prioritize repairs of multiple levee failures

These action items are important steps for the state and federal government.

Much more needs to be done. As partners, we need to work harder and invest more

resources to ensure that California achieves the comprehensive and sustainable levels of flood protection that it needs and deserves.

One of the lessons we should take from recent events is that investing in flood

management programs, including levee maintenance activities and emergency response, is a lifesaving investment that should not be ignored or postponed. We look

forward to working with you to achieve this goal. Together we will be able to make

a difference.

[An attachment to Mr. Chrisman’s statement follows:]

20

21

22

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Mr.

Barry Nelson is the Co-Director of the Western Water Project, Natural Resource Defense Council, and is next to testify. Mr. Nelson,

welcome to the Subcommittee. You may begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF BARRY NELSON, CO-DIRECTOR, WESTERN

WATER PROJECT, NATURAL RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNSEL,

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Chairman Radanovich, and members,

NRDC has been involved in issues related the Bay Delta System

for over 15 years, and for me those years with regard to levee

23

stability. So we really appreciate the opportunity to testify before

you today.

The Delta is one of the State’s most important ecosystems. It is

also tremendously important for water supply for the State of California. But in addition to those important values, it is also important to the Delta farming community, highways, utilities infrastructure, Delta residents, as well as the Delta economy.

It is a tremendously important thousand miles, a thousand

square miles, in the heart of California. Unfortunately, that Delta

is often overlooked, but two events in the last year have really

brought attention to the issues related to the stability of the Delta.

One of those, of course, was Hurricane Katrina. The second was

a report from the University of California at Davis that revealed

the risk of a combination of Delta subsidence and sea level rise as

a result of climate change, increasing the risk of what could be a

catastrophic failure of levees, that has the potential to be damaging

to all of those interests who depend on the Delta.

In addition to that long term threat, the Delta is facing a crisis

today in the decline of the health of that Delta ecosystem. Delta

fisheries are at the lowest point ever.

It is important to bear both of those crises in mind; the long term

stability, and the short term health of the ecosystem. We think

that solutions that work are going to be solutions that tie those two

problems together, and build solutions together.

The CALFED program has begun to do that, but frankly, it is an

area where we need to put more attention than we have been able

to in the last several years. Governor Schwarzenegger, as Mr.

Chrisman has mentioned, has launched a number of initiatives related to this, including a reevaluation of the CALFED program,

and we think that this issue should rise to the fore in the CALFED

program as a part of that reevaluation.

I would like to very briefly talk about six issues that we think

are key parts of a long term plan to address Delta stability. The

first is addressing diversions, pollution, and evasive species, three

key issues affecting the health of the Delta today.

The protections that have been in place for the last several years

simply have not been working, and we need to tackle the health

of the ecosystem, which is in crisis today.

The second thing we need to do is to effectively address the stability of Delta levees. Frankly, maintaining all of those thousands

of miles of Delta levees may not be possible. We believe that ecosystem restoration, and restoring some of those Delta islands, could

help benefit that declining ecosystem, and reduce Delta levee maintenance costs, and make the challenge of maintaining Delta more

achievable. Financing that is going to be a challenge. The State is

looking at a water infrastructure investment program. We think

that Delta levees need to be a part of that program in order to effectively maintain the Delta over the long term.

Third, we need to reduce California’s risk of Delta failure by reducing our dependence on the Delta. The more we divert from the

Delta increase our dependence, the more vulnerable California is to

a disruption of that source.

24

There are a variety of proven tools that we think can reduce our

reliance on what is by all universal agreement a vulnerable system.

Fourth, we need to tackle sprawl in the Delta.

There are 400,000 Delta residents now, and that number is growing dramatically, and frankly, we are concerned that when we put

Californians below sea level and in a vulnerable Delta, we are putting more people at risk. There is increased recognition of that.

Fifth, we need to step back and look at systems, at programs

that have looked at the Delta in the past, and pay attention to how

issues like this, issues like ecosystem health, and especially Delta

vulnerability, have slipped through the cracks.

And we need to make sure that we don’t let that happen in this

program. And then finally, my sixth and more general point, is

something without which we don’t believe we can ensure the long

term future of the Delta.

Dr. Mount concluded in the UC-Davis study that one of the

greatest threats to the Delta is sea level rise caused by climate

change, and the State of California recognizes that threat.

The State Water Plan recognizes it. Climate change is not just

a threat to the Delta; it is a threat to our snow pack and water

supplies. The Governor has called for action on climate change. The

Governor has launched an ambitious program to address that

issue.

But the State can’t do that alone. We think that a partnership

with Congress is important. The Senate has called through a resolution for mandatory limits on greenhouse gases.

We think that an awareness, and an increasing awareness of climate change, potential climate change, impacts on the Delta and

California’s whole water supply, could increase the possibility of action in Congress in the coming year.

Frankly, the most important thing Congress could do to tackle

the long term stability of the Delta is to tackle climate change

head-on, and if we don’t get that under control, it will be extremely

difficult to protect the Delta over the long term. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]

Statement of Barry Nelson, Senior Policy Analyst,

Natural Resources Defense Council

Chairman Radanovich and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Barry Nelson and I am a Senior

Policy Analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, where I am the co-director of NRDC’s Western Water Project. I have been active in Bay-Delta issues for

twenty years. For the past fifteen years, I have been deeply involved in collaborative

Bay-Delta efforts such as the CALFED Bay-Delta program. For much of this time,

I have been involved in issues related to the stability of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

I am particularly pleased to testify before you today regarding the long-term stability of the Delta. This issue has been long overlooked. The Delta is one of the

state’s most important ecosystems. It is also important to many stakeholders and

tens of millions of Californians who drink Delta water. I will close my testimony

with recommendations regarding a long-term plan for the Delta and additional steps

that must be taken to protect the Delta and other California water supplies in the

future.

Two events in the past year have drawn attention to this issue. First, Dr. Jeff

Mount of the University of California at Davis has studied the Delta extensively.

He has paid particular attention to the ongoing subsidence of Delta islands that are

already well below sea level and to predicted sea level rise, as a result of climate

change. Dr. Mount has determined that during the coming half century, as a result

25

of these changes, the Delta is vulnerable to a large-scale failure of multiple levees.

Large-scale levee failure would be a disaster for farmers, highways and utility infrastructure, water supply, the Delta ecosystem and Delta residents. Hurricane

Katrina is the second event that has drawn attention to the vulnerability of California’s Delta.

Historically, it has been easy to overlook the Delta. California’s more glamorous ecosystems—Yosemite, beaches, the redwoods and the desert—have garnered far

more attention. The Delta was once a 1,000-square-mile tule marsh. Most of this

marsh is now gone, but the Delta remains vitally important. The Delta supports the

biggest salmon run south of the Columbia River and a major recreational fishery.

Every winter its islands fill with waterfowl. Four hundred thousand Californians

call it home. More than 20 million Californians rely on it for a portion of their water

supply. It is important to note that, in addition to the threat to its stability, the Delta is threatened by another looming crises—the collapse of its ecosystem. Delta smelt,

striped bass and other fish have reached their lowest ebb in history. This decline

is discussed further in an article attached to my testimony. A recent Department

of Interior biological opinion cites water project operations as a major cause. It is

not a coincidence that total water pumped from the Delta has been the highest ever

in three of the past five years. Recently, scientists believe invasive species and pollution may also be playing a role. A small nudge could be enough to push the

smelt—a bellwether for the ecosystem—over the brink of extinction. This collapse

also has major implications for the Delta economy, which benefits greatly from tourism and recreational fishing. It is important to note both of these crises, because a successful strategy for the Delta must address both ecosystem health and system vulnerability. A few say that these crises call for reconsidering the Peripheral Canal. If the canal were built, the state’s two big water projects—the Central Valley Project and

State Water Project—could bypass the Delta and pump water directly from the Sacramento River. Voters rejected the canal in 1982, fearing a water grab and disaster

for the Delta and San Francisco Bay. Successive governors and CALFED, the statefederal program to restore the Delta, have rejected the canal as well. Concerns about the Peripheral Canal are well founded. If it were built, there

would no longer be any physical imperative to release water to the Delta and Bay.

The Delta’s fate would be determined by regulations and promises from state and

federal agencies. Water exporters are already working to weaken legal protections

for the Delta and the Sacramento River.

Building the canal would do nothing to improve Delta stability. In fact it would eliminate Southern California’s major motive to protect it. Today, the Southland—

with the majority of the state’s voters and taxpayers—values a healthy Delta because one fifth of its drinking water supply depends on it. With a Peripheral Canal,

it would not. In short, a Peripheral Canal could seal the Delta’s fate. The implications for Delta residents, highways, and other infrastructure, as well as the health

of the estuary, could be very serious.

Finally, the canal would take decades and perhaps tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to build. Delta water users are unwilling to pay for this project. We shouldn’t

consider an investment on this scale until elected officials and agencies develop a

Delta solution that works. It’s time to tackle problems that agencies have ducked

for decades.

The CALFED program has recognized the need to protect the stability of the

Delta. Indeed, reducing system vulnerability was one of the four purposes of the

CALFED program. However, this element of the CALFED program has, until recently, received far less attention than others. CALFED agencies are only now beginning to tackle the long-term concerns identified by Dr. Mount. As you may know,

Governor Schwarzenegger has recently launched several ambitious evaluations of

the CALFED program. In addition, the legislature recently passed and the Governor

signed AB 1200, which will start a process of examining these Delta stability

issues. NRDC and other environmental and fishing organizations have recommended that, as CALFED is reshaped, it should include particular focus on the

development of a long-term plan for the Delta.

NRDC believes that a successful long-term Delta plan must accomplish five

things:

1) Address the problems of diversions, pollution and invasive species to restore

the health of the Delta and its fisheries, including stronger standards that hold

up under the attacks of water exporters. The protections in the CALFED ROD

for the Delta are simply not working.

2) Effectively address the stability of Delta islands. Maintaining them all may be

impossible. Returning some of them to marsh could help the environment and

26

reduce the challenge of maintaining levees. Financing this program will be a

challenge. Delta water exporters, who benefit from these levees, should help

fund their maintenance.

3) Reduce the risks to Californians who rely on Delta water by reducing their dependence on it, through conservation, water recycling and more. Increasing

Delta diversions further would exacerbate the estuary’s decline and make California even more vulnerable to disruptions in the Delta.

4) Stop sprawl in the Delta. Building homes on below-sea-level Delta islands is

putting more Californians at risk.

5) Learn from past mistakes. Any attempt to shortcut efforts to save the Delta

and build a Peripheral Canal will waste precious time and energy.

This effort will require collaboration and leadership.

Finally, as Dr. Mount correctly concluded, one of the major threats to the future

of the Delta is future sea level rise, which is anticipated to result from climate

change. In fact, over the past century, sea level in the Bay has already begun rising.

This, however, is only one of the many anticipated water related impacts of climate

change. For example, the new California water plan recognizes the potential for climate change to reduce existing snowpack, reducing water supplies for all who rely

on the Sierra. One of the attachments to this testimony is a summary of the science

related to climate change. As California’s governor said recently: ‘‘The debate is

over...the time for action is now.’’ Governor Schwarzenegger recognized the serious

potential impacts of climate change on California, and its water supply last summer

when he stated that: ‘‘Global warming threatens California’s water supply, public

health, agriculture, coastlines and forests—our entire economy and way of life. We

have no choice but to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.’’ The severity

of the potential impacts of uncontrolled climate change on the Delta further indicate

the need to address this problem head on. To reduce these future impacts, the state

is developing an ambitious program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However,

the state cannot succeed alone.

During the coming year, we anticipate that Congress will have an opportunity to

pass mandatory limits on global warming pollution. Last June, the Senate passed

a resolution calling for such mandatory limits. We are hopeful that rising awareness

of the potential impacts of climate change on the Delta and water supplies will help

lead to Congressional action in 2006. In short, the most important action that Congress can take to protect the stability of the Delta over the long term is to address

directly the cause of climate change—the emission of climate changing pollution.

The Delta ecosystem is enormously important. Tens of millions of Californians

have a stake in its future. It is time for us to act to preserve it—for the future

health of all of California. Thank you.

NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Nelson’s statement have been retained in the

Committee’s official files.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Mr. David Guy is the

Executive Director of the Northern California Water Association.

Mr. Guy, welcome to the Subcommittee, and you may begin your

testimony.

STATEMENT OF DAVID GUY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION, SACRAMENTO,

CALIFORNIA

Mr. GUY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, and others. It is a pleasure to be here. The Northern

California Water Association represents the area north of Sacramento, from Sacramento up toward Redding, and bound on the

east by the Sierra Nevada, and the west by the Coast Range.

Of course, it is the are of California that has the bulk of the

water supplies that we are now talking about, and also when the

rains and the snows come, it is where most of the flooding tends

to begin.

The question about the committee is are we vulnerable, and of

course, as I think all of your preliminary statements indicated, I

27

think that the simple answer is of course yes, we are vulnerable

in California for a variety of reasons.

And let us first in my view talk about a couple of the problems,

and I think they are fairly self-evident, but they set the stage for

ultimately what the solutions might be. The Delta, of course, is a

maze, and we are in gridlock right now in the Delta.

Nothing is getting done in the Delta that will ultimately reduce

the vulnerability that we are talking about. I think that is a given.

With respect to flooding, the Chairman mentioned in his opening

remarks about the floods in 1997.

We have some very strong memories of that, because the Aboga

Flood was in the areas that we represent, and was just devastating; and if you look at the history of Northern California, of

course, there is a flood on average about every 10 years.

And so it really poses some problems, and I know that Congressman Herger brings this to your attention quite often. We have

some real flood control problems in the north part of the State.

It really leads to a conundrum though because, of course, in the

past we built a magnificent set of bypasses in Northern California.

We built levees that in their day were strong, and would meet the

needs.

And then, of course, we built storage, but yet in today’s climate,

we really cannot take any of these measures for flood protection,

and it really leaves the question that people are asking around the

State of California, how do we in fact protect the public safety.

As far as some of the potential solutions, I think with respect to

the Delta, the bottom line in my view is that we need stability in

the Delta, and that stability comes in several forms.

The first, of course, is the structural stability. I think that goes

without saying. You need to have a system that is structurally

sound, and can withstand earthquakes, and can withstand many of

the natural catastrophes that have been talked about, including potentially a climate change.

But I think in some ways the more important stability that we

really need is political stability in the Delta, and right now, quite

honestly, we have chaos, and that is what we need to find a way

to sort through, because how do we create a Delta solution that

won’t work for all of California.

In my view the through Delta solution that is now before the

CALFED program has shown that it is not working. We need to

step back and look at various options. Secretary Chrisman mentioned AB 1200 as one of the mechanisms that I believe that we

can utilize to in fact look at the various options to avoid being vulnerable as you have indicated.

From the Northern California perspective, of course, some would

say, well, is there risk in that, and absolutely there is risk in that

as a Northern Californian. But in my view, it is something that we

need to take a very hard look at.

I am confident that we can protect Northern Californians’ water

rights, and we can protect Northern California water supplies, and

we can in fact make sure that the water quality in the Delta and

the ecosystem is protected, but we need to look hard at some new

and different options for the Delta.

28

The second solution that I would offer, of course, goes without saying that we need to make investments in infrastructure, and

that of course includes the broad range of infrastructure needs that

we have not been pursuing in California over the past several decades, and which we need to become more aggressive about, and

that includes levees, and that includes opportunities for off-stream

storage in several areas. It includes groundwater storage, and it includes a whole range of infrastructure that in fact can both help with the water supply

and the flood control perspective. And then the final piece that I

would offer is what I call integrated regional solutions. The CALFED issues, the Delta issues, the vulnerability issues, are the ones that get all the headlines, but in California, in my

view, there is a lot of good work that is being done on the regions,

whether it is in Northern California, where we have a very ambitious regional water management program for the Sacramento Valley that is meeting the needs and providing a lot of ecosystems and

water supply benefits for the region. Southern California has an integrated regional plan and we see that throughout the State, and that is where a lot of the excitement is going on in the State of California, and I hope that we will

continue to foster that, while recognizing that the Delta is in fact

what ties a lot of us together. And so I will leave it at that, but to me there is a tremendous

opportunity right now in the wake of the Gulf Coast, and the wake

of the Jones Tract, and in the wake of a lot of the activities going

on in California, and it just feels to me like there is just a tremendous opportunity here to start making some advances. And I know that we sure look forward to working with the Sub- committee and all of you, and trying to advance some lasting meaningful solution for California. Thank you for the opportunity to be

here today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Guy follows:]

Statement of David J. Guy, Executive Director,

Northern California Water Association

Dear Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is David Guy. I am

the Executive Director of the Northern California Water Association (NCWA). We

appreciate the Subcommittee convening a hearing today to discuss and develop solutions to address water supply vulnerabilities in California’s Central Valley.

NCWA is a geographically diverse organization, extending from California’s Coast

Range to the Sierra Nevada foothills, and nearly 180 miles from Redding to Sacramento. Our members rely on the waters of the Sacramento, Feather, Yuba and

American Rivers, smaller tributaries and groundwater to irrigate more than 900,000

acres that produce every type of food and fiber grown in the region. Many of our

members also provide water supplies to state and federal wildlife refuges, and much

of this land serves as important seasonal wetlands for migrating waterfowl,

shorebirds and other wildlife. NCWA also represents the local governments and the

business leadership in the region.

We welcome the opportunity to provide the Northern California perspective on

public safety and water supply security and to present both the opportunities and

challenges we now face in California. You can be sure that Northern California

water users, in concert with counties and local governments throughout the region,

are committed to help improve public safety, water supply reliability, water quality

and the environment.

The Subcommittee’s interest in California’s water security is appropriate and very

timely in the wake of the hurricanes along the Gulf Coast and given the importance

of a successful resolution to the environmental and water supply problems in the

Central Valley and particularly the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and San

29

Francisco Bay (Bay-Delta). The Bay-Delta is a tremendous economic and environmental resource to California and the nation, and there is much at stake in how

we implement the numerous ecosystem restoration and water management actions.

Put simply, people throughout California are vulnerable to various events in the

Central Valley, including prolonged droughts, devastating floods, earthquakes and

what appears to be a change in climate that may affect snow pack in the Sierra

Nevada Mountains.

We believe the recent California Water Plan (Draft Bulletin 160) provides a

framework for California, with the assistance and leadership of Congress and the

Administration, to address the vulnerabilities in the Sacramento/San Joaquin River

systems. This framework contains two major initiatives—maintaining statewide

water systems and empowering regional solutions—that we encourage the Subcommittee to support.

Maintain Statewide Water Systems

California depends on vast statewide water management systems to provide clean

and reliable water supplies, protect lives and property from flood, withstand drought

and sustain environmental values. A significant part of California relies on the BayDelta system for its water supplies. As a result, California needs stability in the

Delta. This stability should include structural stability, such as the integrity of

Delta levees in the face of earthquakes or tidal action, and it will require political

stability with respect to the way in which water flows through the Delta. Although

most of Northern California does not divert water from the Delta, we recognize the

importance of the Delta for water supplies throughout the State and support efforts

to solve the water supply and environmental issues in the Delta.

After 11 years, it is clear that there is little confidence in the Bay-Delta solution

being discussed as part of the CALFED program. Most importantly, we need a sustainable solution to the public safety and water supply issues in the Delta. There

is a tremendous opportunity to focus on the Bay-Delta and to undertake a new evaluation of various options that will protect Northern California water rights and supplies, enhance the environment, and improve water supplies and quality derived

from the Bay-Delta. This, in turn, will provide stability in the Bay-Delta and decrease vulnerability throughout California.

Additionally, California needs an aggressive investment in the State’s flood management system and changes in the way we think about flood management to fully

protect public safety. Northern California has always experienced devastating

floods, including the most recent flooding in early January 1997. High winter and

spring flows, coupled with the fact that many of the rivers in Northern California

serve as water conveyance facilities for the rest of the state, makes flood protection

critical for public safety to protect the citizens and property in Northern California.

Integrating both surface and groundwater storage programs into the existing

statewide water system can help California assure public safety and increase the

water supplies available for all purposes in California, including cities, farms wildlife refuges and managed wetlands and fish. In the Sacramento Valley, for example,

North of Delta Offstream Storage (Sites) could be integrated with the existing system to provide additional flood control at Lake Shasta and to provide valuable water

for the Delta during critical times for fish, birds, cities and farms.

Empower Integrated Regional Water Management Programs

Regional planning and the implementation of strategies that are developed by

leaders in the various regions throughout the state are critical to meet the various

water supply needs in California. Most importantly, regional strategies build on the

successful efforts that have been undertaken or are underway throughout a region

to meet water supply, water quality and ecosystem objectives at the regional and

local level. California is a diverse state where complex water policy decisions are

difficult to fashion in a manner that allows a simple solution to fit problems that

may exist in various regions across the state. As a consequence, regionally based

policies and programs are the most effective and cost effective way to integrate the

various water rights and supplies for a particular region and to undertake the efforts necessary to improve water quality and the ecosystem. We therefore support

empowering regional solutions and partnerships throughout the state to help serve

California’s total water needs. We believe California can best advance the broad interests of the state by helping to fulfill the promise of regional programs and integrated water management.

By implementing these management strategies, regions can plan, invest, and diversify their water portfolios. These strategies will help a region become more selfsufficient with local supplies and will minimize conflicts with other resource management efforts. NCWA and the Northern California water users have embarked on

30

an integrated water management program that has broad support from water suppliers and local governments throughout Northern California. The Sacramento Valley has been developing an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP)

to meet local needs and to increase both the flexibility of the water system and the

water available for multiple uses in the Sacramento Valley and other areas of the

state. This integrated program includes fish passage improvements (fish screens and

siphons), groundwater management, environmental water programs, water quality

improvements, evaluation of the Sites off-stream reservoir, flood protection, water

use efficiency programs, intra-regional water transfers and exchanges, and watershed management.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee today. If you

have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please call me at

916.442.8333.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Guy, for your valuable testimony. Mr. Dennis Majors is Program Manager for the Metropolitan

Water District of Southern California. Mr. Majors, welcome to the

Subcommittee. You may begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF DENNIS MAJORS, PROGRAM MANAGER, METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

Mr. MAJORS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At Metropolitan, I guide

CALFED efforts to achieve and improve water quality and water

supply, particularly at the Delta export facilities.

I will give an overview today of Delta issues, and I will summarize what I think are reasonable emergency, near term and long

term, strategies. And then I will highlight what Metropolitan is

doing to avert problems that might come out of an actual Delta levees outage.

And finally, I will point out what seem to be possible Federal

roles here. Now, we have seen a keen awareness of the critical

issues in the Delta. Subsidence is happening up to a maximum of

30 feet in certain areas.

Overlying that is a network of eleven hundred miles of levees,

which are protecting major infrastructure, as well as the water

passing through the Delta. So it is kind of a recipe for something

to happen pretty bad.

Approximately 162 levee breaches occurred in the past century,

and 11 have occurred in the western Delta and central Delta,

which is the critical subsidence area, and that is what has the

greatest problem from our standpoint.

Breaches in the western Delta can result in large quantities of

salt water being drawn into Sherman and Twitchell Islands, and

when that happens, it just pulls the salinity from Sansume Bay directly toward our pumps. So that is a major concern.

But also major levees breaks interior to the Delta tend to suck

a great amount of water into the south Delta, and we can’t get that

salt out of there through normal releases through our reservoirs.

So you can see the types of problems.

Now, DWR predicts a hundred year earthquake would initially

trigger 3 to 10 levee breaches on one or more Delta islands. Let me

give you a comparison. An earthquake causing this type of damage

to Delta levees would most likely be in the magnitude of 6 to 6.5

Richter range, and would result from faults either near to or directly under the western Delta.

31

A one in one hundred chance of failure means that the risk that

we face in the Delta is orders of magnitude higher than the level

of risk that we find acceptable for any major infrastructure.

Now, progressive failures following an earthquake could lead to

more widespread damage, and you saw a bit of that in Jones Tract

last year, where the island flooded, but then it moved right over

to the unarmored levees on the inside of Jones Tract near Trapper

Slew, and almost took out Trapper Slew.

And if that had happened, water would start marching toward

Stockton. So these are major problems, and we need to be strategic

in how we analyze it. It is crucial, we think, to have things like

where the State has talked about a central regional flood response

center which might co-locate Federal, State, and local commands in

one location, and be just essentially a fluid overall command.

And in catastrophic events, we could see command escalating up

to State or Federal level. We think we need to see that and have

a plan for that. It is crucial to have adequate standby emergency

contracting capability, and prepositioned materials and equipment

in the Delta, and I will give you an idea of what that can do.

You may be able to move in and actually stop a levee breach

when it can occur, but we actually have the ability to model. If we

know where the breach is at, we can see where the salt is flowing,

and then at critical predetermined locations, we might be able to

actually stop through a barge or some kind of fill, and keep salinity

from marching through a particular channel by closing it in the

Delta.

So there are things that can be done, and we think that those

need to be looked at. At Sherman Island, they talked about the

great amount of water that can be pulled through that area in the

event of a breach.

Converting Sherman and Twitchell Island. Now, they are owned

by the State Water Project, and we are half of the State Water

Project. So breaches at these locations are things that are caused

by or draw tremendous water in because the land is so subsided.

So we feel that alternative farming practices that spread water

over the land are important to arrest subsidence, and things like

rice farming or other practices are probably appropriate.

I heard the Delta risk management strategy talked about, and

we think that is a great idea. It is a joint effort of DWR and the

Corps. It evaluates hazard and system conditions together, and it

has the ability to look at fixes both inside and outside the Delta

on a probabilistic basis.

A recent exercise that DWR performed showed that in a 50

breach levee break event in the Delta, what the consequences

would be. But we think that is only part of the picture.

Following breaches of the levees, we see progressive failures occurring which are quite plausible through strong Delta winds, wave

action, and then erosion. So we are concerned about that.

But in that analysis, what is critical to Metropolitan is the

amount of time to repair all of these breaches, because in the

meantime, we either are partially or totally shut down on our experts. So that is a real problem.

32

This determines how much emergency storage we need to have in Southern California, but I wanted to give an idea. Metropolitan,

about 10 years ago, recognized these kinds of problems. We placed strong emphasis on the development of enhanced stor- age, and more storage in Southern California, and in fact, we have

increased our storage almost tenfold in the past decade. So if that total outage was to occur, we would start pulling on about a 1.7 million acre feet of water for emergency, and we would

even pull on our drought storage. That might last 2 to 3 years. So

it just points out that it is critical to have real scenarios to fix

those levees as you proceed. So I think the summary is that we heard the word strategic, and I think that is important, not only for emergencies, but near term

and future actions, fine tuning our capabilities. Federal and State legislation could be required to grant addi- tional authority. Federal authorization and appropriation might—

in addition to CALFED authorization, might best be considered

under the Water Resources Development Act, with expanded Federal flood control responsibility. I have noted that a greater emergency response role at the Fed- eral level may be required, and I guess in the end, I would say that

it seems like the Katrina disaster has kind of focused things, and

we may have a limited period of time when so much attention will

be focused no this issue in order to enhance our capabilities to respond, and I think we feed that a timely action is important. [The prepared statement of Mr. Majors follows:]

Statement of Dennis G. Majors, Program Manager,

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

I am a Program Manager with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cali- fornia, with responsibilities for guiding the implementation of the CALFED Program

to achieve improved water quality and water supplies from Delta export operations.

From 2000 to 2002, I was CALFED’s Delta Implementation Manager, where I became knowledgeable of Delta levees remediation issues as they relate to the water

supply and quality at State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP)

export facilities and the implementation of CALFED Through Delta solution

(Figure1).

This testimony covers the water supply and quality vulnerabilities in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta focusing on the water quality and supply effects at CVP

and SWP export facilities, needed emergency response capabilities and any nearterm and long-terms strategies which can be employed to adequately safeguard

these water resources.

Strategic Overview

The Metropolitan Water District has focused increased attention on the vulnerability of the Delta levees system over the past year. The recent events in New Orleans have heightened our awareness and renewed interest of our Board of Directors

on this critical issue, particularly the adequacy of emergency, short-term and longterm governmental response. It is well known that Delta islands, drained for agriculture in the late 1800’s, have subsided up to 30 feet though the oxidation of peat

soils in critical portions of the western and central Delta. A system of more than

1,100 miles of levees protect major utilities, highways, and railroads and convey

fresh water southerly to state and federal export pumps. The most problematic

areas remain in the western and central Delta, where peat soil subsidence is greatest, levee designs and maintenance practices are varied and 11 levee breaks have

occurred since 1960 (Figure 2). Overall, 162 levee breaches have occurred throughout the Delta in the past century.

Levee breaches in the western Delta can result in an extremely large volume of

salt water being drawn from Suisun Bay into subsided islands like Sherman and

Twitchell, moving higher salinity concentrations toward the export pumps.

Unabated, subsidence on these islands will advance from a total of 30 feet today

33

to more than 80 feet when all peat is depleted, exacerbating potential flooding and

salinity problems. Significantly, multiple levees breaks in the central and southern

portions of the Delta draws salt water into south Delta areas, which cannot be easily flushed seaward through the normal fresh water releases from upstream reservoirs.

‘‘Project’’ levees make up about one-third of the system, which are designed, built and maintained by the Corps of Engineers. ‘‘Non-Project’’ levees make up about twothirds of the system, and are built to varying standards of design, maintained by

local Reclamation Districts (RD’s) and situated generally in the most vulnerable

areas of the Delta with respect to subsidence and adverse consequences of failure.

A small fraction of the levees are privately owned. Disruption of the levees system by earthquakes or other hazards could potentially trigger a progression of failures in the Delta levees system that would have serious

consequences on Metropolitan’s drinking water supply, since on average the SWP

provides more than half of the supplies available to Metropolitan.

A strategic approach to emergency response, and short- and long-term actions to avert or minimize the impact of levees failure is critical. From a levees integrity

standpoint, there must be a logical connection to the proposed CALFED Through

Delta solution, which relies on the integrity of Delta levees for the delivery of high

quality water to export pumps. Under the DWR Subventions Program, established by the state in 1988, Reclamation Districts maintain, repair, restore their levees, and receive reimbursement

through bond or other funds to protect island properties. This program is not specifically aimed at providing strategic benefits to export water quality and supply. The

DWR Special Projects Program is specifically established to focus on critical levee

problems, but needs strategic direction to be properly implemented.

However, a process is emerging to reduce major risks in the short-term and develop longer-term strategies to fund levee improvements, which benefit export water

quality and supply interests. A number of strategies are being embedded in the existing response system, and support is beginning to coalesce around new initiatives.

Emergency Response

DWR predicts a 100-year earthquake would initially trigger the breach of 3 to 10

levees on one or more Delta islands (Figure 3). For comparison, earthquakes causing

this type of damage and failure to Delta levees would most likely be in magnitude

6 to 6.5 Richter range, either close to, or actually beneath the western Delta. Based

on the progressive damage to the unarmored inside face of levees at Jones Tract

(at Trapper Slough opposite the main Jones Tract breach), there is a major concern

that that these seismically induced breaches will result in a broader failure of the

Delta levee system through wave action from high Delta winds and erosion within

the islands being flooded. The effective emergency response at Trapper Slough

avoided further flooding of the adjacent tracts toward Stockton. Probability analysis

reflecting a 1-in-100 chance of failure of the Delta levee system means that the risk

we face in the Delta is orders of magnitude higher than the level of risk we find

acceptable for other major infrastructure and critical facilities.

Impending levee failures require rapid response to prevent permanent damage

and avert progressive damages leading to serious degradation to export water quality and supply. The following are some potential areas that Metropolitan could support.

Emergency response is now coordinated though a DWR Delta Area Command,

linked to the state’s Standardized Emergency Response System. However, DWR is

evaluating and we support a Central Regional Flood Response Center in order to:

• Develop a central command, co-located in a common facility, to facilitate assignment of commands and coordinate operations among the federal, state and local

agencies; this would force rapid approvals and clearances and save time in advancing emergency response measures.

• Establish a pre-set list of trigger points to ensure that the assignment of authorities moves efficiently from local, to state and federal levels, depending on

the severity of the emergency.

• Allow command in catastrophic events to expeditiously escalate, if necessary to

the federal level.

Federal and state legislation could be required to grant greater authority to

respond to such crises. These should be explored and appropriate legislative

approaches taken.

Particularly, we could support measures to reduce the time responding to an

impending or actual emergency by:

• Establishing emergency contracting capability with private construction firms to

respond immediately in the event of a levee breach or similar situation.

34

• Substantially augmenting rock stockpiles and equipment throughout the Delta

to ensure rapid response to close a breached levee or selected river channels at

pre-determined locations; pre-positioned rock stockpiles or barges to achieve

temporarily closure could avert the most serious damage and limit salinity intrusion toward the pumps.

• Establish real-time modeling capability with up to date hydrologic data and

breach locations to help predict the salinity effects of levee breaches and guide

strategic channel closures to minimize salinity intrusion into the Delta.

Near-Term Strategies

There are deliberate steps that we believe can be accomplished in 2 to 5 years

beginning with a comprehensive inventory to identify the levee design standards

throughout the entire Delta levees system. This would identify high-risk areas and

focus immediate attention. For example, at the State Water Project-owed Sherman

and Twitchell Islands, significant soil subsidence caused by farming operations aggravates the risks caused varied levee designs. As note earlier, flooding of these islands would draw large volumes of salt water into the islands toward the export

pumps. Here, farming leases managed by DWR need to be converted to farming

practices which spread water over the islands most months the year. Rice farming

or other practices may be appropriate. Where not already constructed as such, levees should be modified to include toe berms or other stability measures under acceptable design standards, making them less vulnerable to failure under ground

shaking, floodwaters or other hazards.

Measures should developed in the short-term to better develop emergency response capability, such as:

• Improved levee instrumentation, inspection program, and real-time monitoring.

• A fully developed emergency breach closure and real time modeling capability

to help guide emergency operations to limit salinity intrusion.

• Acquisition of island lands that provide sufficient soil, sand and gravel as a

ready stockpile for any scale of emergency.

The Small Projects Authority Program, administered by the Army Corps of Engineers, is ideally suited for post-disaster repairs, maintaining the repaired levee integrity until more permanent repairs can be implemented, or repairing smaller levee

problems that could get worse if left unattended.

Long-Term Strategies

A systematic process is now being undertaken to look at the consequences of different types of failures in economic terms. Alternative actions can then be taken and

measured economically. Here is a long-term approach we would support, that could

be accomplished in 5 to 15 years:

Delta Risk Management Strategy

An ambitious federal-state process now underway is called the Delta Risk Management Strategy (DRMS). This is a joint effort of the Department of Water Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers, with assistance from other agencies. It

evaluates both hazards and system operational conditions in combination to determine the economic consequences of levee failures in the Delta and downstream. The

following steps are taken to determine the most cost effective approach using

DRMS:

• Statistically, develop an envelop of economic consequences resulting from multiple combinations of hazards and system conditions.

• Develop alternative remedial actions both inside and outside of the Delta.

• Determine the change in economic consequences (benefits) that results from applying a particular remedial action.

• Determine the most cost effective remedial action as an overall strategic approach.

A number of strategies can be evaluated by the DRMS process both inside and

outside the Delta. Any alternative must ensure a reliable long-term Delta conveyance system, which is critical to the delivery of CVP and SWP allocations and water

transfers. The following alternative strategies can be evaluated from an economic

perspective using the DRMS:

• The Though Delta solution considered in the CALFED Bay Delta Program EIR/

S, including the North Delta Flood Control program.

• Modified land use practices or acquisitions at strategically identified islands,

along with necessary levees remediation, within the highly subsided western

and central Delta.

• Pre-positioned and enhanced downstream groundwater and surface storage;

Metropolitan has aggressively pursued these strategies by increasing its storage

35

more than 10-fold over the past decade, in part to guard against emergency

events.

Should additional federal authorization and appropriations be required, beyond

the CALFED authorization, such authority may be considered under the Water Resources Development Act with expanded federal flood control responsibility; a greater emergency response role at the federal level may be appropriate as borne out by

the recent New Orleans event.

Metropolitan Response

DWR and UC Berkeley studies indicate that from 3 to 10 breaches of the Delta

levees system would statistically occur in a 100-year earthquake event. This would

have the likely follow-on effect of multiple breaches caused by repeat episodes of

wave action from strong Delta winds and erosion. It is unknown how extensive this

type of failure scenario would be, however the progressive erosion on the inside

levee face at Jones Tract, noted above, tends to substantiate the reality of this scenario. The extent of these types of scenarios would be determined in a statistical

sense under the Delta Risk Management Strategy.

In a recent exercise, DWR performed multiple levee breach scenarios that assessed the consequences of 30- and 50- breaches in the Delta. Critical to Metropolitan is how long the levee repair actions would take and under what conditions export operations could resume. This determines the extent that emergency storage

in the Metropolitan service area has to be utilized, as noted below.

In part to deal with these types of disasters, Metropolitan has increased its surface and groundwater storage substantially in the past decade. Total southern California surface and groundwater storage is currently about 2.8 MAF, of which about

1.7 MAF is available for emergency and non-emergency (carryover) purposes. In an

emergency, such as a multiple-levee breach in the Delta, Metropolitan would draw

upon both emergency and non emergency (carryover) storage at the rate of about

550 TAF per year. This could continue for 2 to 3 years depending on hydrologic conditions while remediation measures were taken in the Delta and SWP supplied were

being restored. DWR has estimated that a ‘‘worst case’’ 50-breach scenario may take

around two years to repair. It is, therefore, crucial that proper attention be given

to levee repair protocols and emergency powers capabilities to complete levee remediation work as quickly as possible.

Summary

The water supply and quality vulnerabilities in the Sacramento/San Joaquin

Delta can seriously affect the CVP and SWP exports. DWR predicts a 100-year

earthquake, equivalent to a magnitude 6 to 6.5 Richter range, either close to or actually beneath the Western Delta, would breach 3 to 10 levees on one or more Delta

islands. Progressive levee failures, initiated under this seismic event, could lead to

more wide spread failures and damages. The impact to southern California would

be significant since on average the SWP provides more than half of the supplies

available to Metropolitan.

Emergency response capabilities, as well as near-term and long-terms strategies

need to be modified and fine-tuned to adequately safeguard affected water resources. Pre-positioned materials and equipment could aid in closing beached levees

or strategically restrict river channels before widespread damage occurs or adverse

salinity intrusion takes place. Near-term remedial actions at Sherman and Twitchell

Islands could significantly reduce overall risk to water quality and supplies at export pumps. Long-term strategies guided by the ongoing Delta Risk Management

Strategy could identify cost effective actions to reduce economic risk and the potential for loss of life. Clearly, the recent events in New Orleans have heightened our

awareness and renewed our interest in this critical problem on the west coast.

A Central Regional Flood Response Center, co-located in a common facility, could

facilitate assignment of commands and emergency operations among the federal,

state and local agencies in catastrophic events. Overall command could expeditiously escalate, if necessary, to the federal level.

Expanded federal and state authorities may be needed to respond to the scale of

emergency operations anticipated in the Delta. As well, new federal and state legislation may be required for equivalent level response, including potential authorizations and appropriations under the Water Resources Development Act. The current

Small Projects Authority Program, administered by the Army Corps of Engineers,

may also be well suited for post-disaster repairs.

Metropolitan has anticipated these types of emergency scenarios that may occur

in the Delta region and placed significant emphasis on the development of enhanced

storage accessible to the Metropolitan to serve these and other purposes. Accessible

surface and groundwater storage has been increased ten-fold in the past decade,

36

making nearly 1.7 MAF available for emergency and non-emergency (carryover) purposes, which would be drawn on under these type events. While these emergency

supplies would last 2 to 3 years, it is crucial that proper attention be given to levee

repair protocols and emergency powers capabilities to complete Delta levees remediation work as quickly as possible.

[Attachments to Mr. Majors’ statement follow:]

37

38

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Majors, for your testimony. I

will now open up the panel for questions from the dais. I am going

to go ahead and start, and state that many of us were a witness

via television to the disaster in Louisiana, and after the hurricane

hit, the levees broke, and it seemed like forever before they were

able to get the equipment in to begin plugging up the holes in the

levee.

I understand that this was a situation where they had many

days of warnings to get ready for and still were not ready for, and

in a situation in California, you might have some warning through

increasing rainfall, causing flood problems.

You certainly would not get a warning from an earthquake and

the damage that might cause. I want to open up this question to

the entire panel. Tell me. Are we due to be managing this problem

worse than New Orleans did with the post-hurricane, and the failure of the levees; or is there any way that we could be in shape

in order to deal with this thing swiftly and effectively?

Mr. CHRISMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I might.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chrisman.

Mr. CHRISMAN. We in California have what we call the Instant

Command System in place for major emergencies, and again it is

major emergencies for earthquakes, for fires, for most natural disasters, and that is an integrated Federal, State, and local response

system in place.

So when, for instance, earthquakes happen, there are already

predetermined responsibilities for specific localities, and specific

Federal, and mainly State, and local entities to kick in and to begin

to help in the activities surround the emergencies.

So our system, quite frankly, is a well-defined system. In fact, we

sent to the Katrina disaster, we sent in the neighborhood of 55 of

our California Department of Forestry Incident Command Specialists down to Louisiana to begin to help them put—and of course

this was after the fact, but help them put an Instant Command Response System in place, much like the one that we have in California.

So we can always do better, and every major disaster that we

have in California, there is always an after the fact assessment of

how did we do, and what did we do wrong, and how do we need

to do better, and how did the specific responsible agencies respond,

and did they respond in a timely manner.

So those types of questions, and so we are constantly improving

the process that we have in California. So we think we are ready,

but we can probably never be too ready, but we think we are ready.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Would anybody else

care to respond to that?

Mr. NEUDECK. Yes, I have one response, or actually two. One,

with resources, and the other with the debate on whether or not

we need to move forward. I think that Secretary Chrisman is correct. We do have an excellent emergency response program in

place.

But the question is if a Delta island levee breaks, do you repair

it. That very question was asked with Jones Tract. We are all sitting here today at the repaired levee. Fortunately, our Governor

39

flew in Saturday morning after a Thursday break, and made that

happen.

We were debating whether or not that was necessary. We can’t

do that. We can’t run that risk. The second thing, and just reality,

because of the Endangered Species Act, we only have work windows that open between August and October.

That means that is the only time we can do in-water work. The

problem with that is that our resources are moving out of the region because they cannot support water borne equipment for only

working three months out of the year.

So we are left with very few water borne pieces of equipment

that are available. Now, I think if we had a major disaster, we

could draw them from other areas, but that is a fact to consider.

Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. Any others wishing to respond?

Mr. GUY. I would just say that there is a couple of islands from

a real practical standpoint out on the western Delta, Sherman and

Twitchell, and we probably could take those out of the equation

pretty quickly here by changing land use practices there and stop

subsidence.

That does a lot for us for water moving in on the western Delta,

but I would point out again that it appears that you might have

a tactical method here for actually curtailing salinity intrusion in

the event of major breaks of the Delta, and it could be done by

great readiness and the ability to go in at predetermined locations

and literally through modeling and understanding where the salt

is moving, and stopping the salinity flow.

So this thing gets away from you pretty quick as we see it with

an initial earthquake, and we see it getting away from you pretty

quick in multiple breaks.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. I am going to ask one more question and then we will go to the next folks here. Now, a lot of levee

studies are going on, and I understand that the Corps has to do

a study, a 180 day Delta levee study, before any CALFED money

can be spent on the levees.

In your estimation, with so many studies out there, can the

Corps assemble this study with the existing information? Can they

do it themselves? Are they the ones to get their hands around this

issue?

Mr. CHRISMAN. Well, absolutely. You know, I think that in my

comments, I made the point that their authority is unclear with respect to responding to emergencies like this. But they have the capability. I mean, they have shown that they have the capability,

and you will hear from the General here soon in the next panel

that comes up here.

But in my view, absolutely. They have shown to us over time,

time and time again, that they are good partners in this effort.

Again, a little clarification from Federal statutes is what I think

would help us in this process, and would help them in terms of responding quicker to help in these activities.

So the will is there certainly, and the knowledge is there. I just

think that we need a little bit more clarity in terms of the Federal

statute.

40

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. Anybody else wish to respond? All

right. Thank you very much. I ask unanimous consent that the

gentlemen from California, Mr. Nunes, Mr. Herger, and Mr. Doolittle, be allowed to join us on the dais, and participate in today’s

hearing. Hearing no objections, it is so ordered. Grace, do you have

questions?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I just wanted to ensure, Mr. Chairman,

that the Delta Action Bill for 2005 be introduced into the record.

That is the one that was just referred to as coming to us.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Today.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We have secured a copy off the web.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Great. There being no objection, it is so ordered.

[NOTE: The information submitted for the record has been

retained in the Committee’s official files.]

Mr. RADANOVICH. If the gentle lady will yield, I will say that I

want to hold each member to five minutes for questions, but we

will go around as many times as needed to get all the questions

asked and answered. So, Grace, thank you.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a lot of questions, and I hope that I will be able to get all of my queries somehow answered. One of them has to do with—and this is nothing

with what has been discussed, but the fact that a 2005 study done

by the State of California showed that the State is at considerable

risk in the event of an earthquake leads to levee failures, and it

goes on. This is on page 3 of a report to me.

And that in addition, salts from seawater, combined with Delta

carbon sources, to form potential causing or cancer causing substances. None of you have addressed that. Is there any information

that you can give this panel, or I mean this body, in regard to any

findings that you may have, or anything that has come up in your

reports or submissions that we can address? Mr. Majors.

Mr. MAJORS. If I could just offer that when Jones Tract broke,

the TOCs total organic carbons, we saw a spike in that. We saw

increases in algae in some of our receding reservoirs in Southern

California.

And in fact, we are studying what we think at one of our reservoirs where they actually had to stop operations and bypass it for

a period of time due to TOCs. So that is a particular problem from

our standpoint.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, may I suggest then that as you are moving forward, gentlemen, the panel, that you consider this as part

of one of the things that you need to consider as an issue, as it will

affect the water quality of Southern California.

To Mr. Chrisman, thank you for spending some time with me,

Mr. Secretary. Do the local reclamation boards have the financial

ability to adequately respond to catastrophic failures of the levee

system, and do they have their own crews and equipment, and further, do they have financial reserves that they will need?

Mr. CHRISMAN. The local reclamation districts that oversee the

districts?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Correct.

Mr. CHRISMAN. The answer is probably no to all of your

questions, and it is not that the desire isn’t there. Mr. Neudeck

41

indicated in his comments the financial capabilities of each of these

districts, and the fact that the answer to your question is no

doesn’t mean that we don’t address these issues, and that is what

I think this hearing is about.

We did it in Jones Tract, and I think there is two reclamation

districts that were involved in the Jones Tract levee break, and

clearly ran out of resources early on in this process. The State

stepped in and made them whole.

And again that is why we need the strategic look at the Delta

levees themselves, because we need to ask some questions about

those 60 plus islands in the Delta, and the levees, and we need to

ask some serious questions about them, and to what extent do they

need to be restored, and to what extent do the levees and where

the levees need to be restored, and what are the highest priorities.

So again it goes to the partnerships that we are going to have

to create out of these conversations. So going back to your original

question, the local reclamation districts do not have the resources.

But working together with our State and Federal partners, we

think the resources can be there.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Then, Mr. Secretary, that begs the question,

why was all this not addressed in CALFED’s bill?

Mr. CHRISMAN. Which bill?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The CALFED bill that was passed last year,

and that was funded out of this committee.

Mr. CHRISMAN. Senator Feinstein’s bill, the bill that passed?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes.

Mr. CHRISMAN. Well, again, improvement in the Deltas is part of

the CALFED program, and again, it is a Federal and State partnership. Levees and flood protection, are one part of the overall

program of CALFED.

Again, it has to do with the availability of dollars, and again it

has to do with priorities in programs. The Federal Government,

through your good work here, have stepped up and are good partners in that process. I mean, we think we have—we can be faulted,

I think, over the long haul at the State level, and we provided the

dollars.

But, you know, budget shortages created us funding some of

these programs less than we would have liked to have funded them

to be honest with you. But at the end of the day that doesn’t mean

they are any less of a priority for us, and it should be for all of us

in correcting some of these issues.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Understood, but one of the comments made in

some of the testimony was that the Feds have done nothing but

study. Well, with all the studies, it has been reported that whether

the State, or the Feds, or the locals, has there been any comprehensive attempt at looking at the overall health of the levees, and

what it would need? Because I have seen some figures that refer

to the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency figures is one billion,

and the Department of Water Resources estimates in its January

report two billion. Has there been any addressing of the total needs

assessment, and how we are going to be able to put all of our marbles into the one basket and work together as you say collaboratively?

42

Mr. CHRISMAN. Again, we talked about the levees in the Delta,

and this Delta Risk Management Study that we are involved is

going to be doing just that. We are in the process of doing that and

prioritizing levees.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But it has not been done before is the answer?

Mr. CHRISMAN. Well, we are working with the Sacramento Area

Flood Control Association or group, and they are in the process of

doing just that, and we are working with the Army Corps of Engineers in that process.

The Governor submitted a letter to Senator Feinstein, and Congressman Pombo, and which I think is a part of the record, that

highlighted where those priorities, those quick fixes, those priorities that we already know need to be corrected. That is already a

matter of record.

We all agree that there is some projects and programs that we

can begin right now to correct some of those deficiencies in those

Deltas, in the Delta, and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin area.

Again, the challenge is priorities and money.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Again, the question was whether there has

been an attempt in organizing all of it so we can understand.

Mr. CHRISMAN. Yes.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And the report has been where?

Mr. CHRISMAN. The report?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. To this committee, to the world, about the

status of the levees, of the Delta levees, and how we can as a

coordinated group be able to help solve all of the above problems?

We are talking about band-aid approaches.

Mr. CHRISMAN. No, we are not talking about band-aid

approaches.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No, no, there have been band-aid approaches,

Mr. Secretary.

Mr. CHRISMAN. Oh, I see. Yes.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank you

all for your testimony and the work that you have done. It is extremely important for us to focus on the specific projects for the

levees, but it is also important for us to think a little upstream to

make sure that we don’t forget about the work that needs to be

done on the dams as well.

And since I happen to live downstream from Folsom Dam, I have

a little concern. I have a boat on my second story just in case we

have any problems. It is going to be a long fast ride, I will tell you

that.

My question is this. Can you articulate—those of you on the

panel, can you articulate—sometimes we need to know the dimensions of the problem in stark terms, so we can get the public support for what needs to be done?

We have talked about—I mean, it has been evident on television

on what happened in New Orleans. What are we talking about in

terms of the Delta? What are we talking about in terms of the

Sacramento region?

43

What are we actually talking in terms of what would confront us

if we don’t get about the business of improving these levees, and

doing modifications that we need to do upstream?

Because as long as we talk here, we know what we are talking

about, and we are talking about in a foreign language compared to

folks back home. And politically the biggest need we have is to

have the political will to do the things that need to be done.

So what are we talking about in terms of the damage to be done

in loss of life and/or property, and our water supply?

Mr. NEUDECK. Well, I will start just with the Delta itself. I was

partly responsible for the estimates that were put together for the

CALFED, and just for the delta, and not upstream of the San Joaquin or Sacramento system.

And in that estimate, you hear a billion dollars being thrown

about quite a bit. That estimate was actually $600 million to a billion, and that is the estimate that we have been working toward

to reconstruct the levees to the base level protection, PLA8499, and

that was in the bill that was passed out of this committee and that

the Congressman was just speaking about.

That was actually one of the features of the bill, was to put

money toward that base level protection. That is where the $600

million to a billion came from. Now, I need to turn to my colleagues

here to tell you what other estimates would be upstream to both

Sacramento and San Joaquin.

Mr. CHRISMAN. Let me if I might. In my written testimony, I

highlighted some of those issues for you, for the members, Congressman. But let me relate some of them to you.

In the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta, it is the home to

about 400,000 people. It has vital port facilities, and major highways, and railroads, as well as State and Federal water projects

that provide drinking water for 22 million people in California.

That is approaching one-tenth of the entire United States population, and 7 million acres of irrigated land. That includes about 60

islands and tracts that are below sea level in the Delta.

If you think about earthquakes, Congressman Cardoza talked

about earthquakes in some of his early questions, or in his early

comments. They are as we know very common in California.

It has been estimated that a 6.5 magnitude earthquake on the

coast range in the Center Valley fault—and of course that is a fault

that kind of meanders around under the west Delta,—would

produce more than 30 levee breaches on 16 different islands.

Levee breaks—and this has been alluded to in some of the previous comments, but levee breaks would draw salt water into the

Delta from the Sacramento Bay, shutting down the State water

project, and the Central Valley project, and damage to State highways.

The environmental damage to that very, very valuable Delta ecosystem and estuary would be absolutely devastating. Those are a

few of the examples that we laid out in some of the estimates that

we have made in some of the early conversations.

Mr. NELSON. If I could, we have a long history of small scale

frankly, relatively small scale levee failures in California that have

been repaired, and this has been happening for well over a hundred years.

44

And generally speaking, those levees have been repairable. What

has happened in the last year or two is the release of a number

of reports looking at earthquake risks.

And as Mr. Chrisman mentioned, the study from UC-Davis, and

which I mentioned in my testimony, that talks about he potential

for the failure of multiple levees, a large scale failure.

And one of the disturbing things about the Jones Tract failure

was that it didn’t come as the result of a flood. It happened during

the dry year, and it happened at a time when the water projects

are particularly vulnerable.

So what we are starting to understand now—and I think what

has really heightened awareness, in addition to Katrina—is the

number of studies that showed the potential for a large scale failure of a kind that we have not seen before, and the need therefore

for a more ambitious, more long range, plan to tackle those multiple issues.

Not just water supply, but water qualify as Congressman

Napolitano mentioned, and protecting all of those Delta infrastructure facilities that are there. It is a complex problem, and we are

starting to realize that we need to tackle in a more long term way

than we have.

Mr. RADANOVICH. If we could wrap up this question.

Mr. GUY. Well, most of the situations that we have seen have

been fairly isolated as you all know, and just to give a feel, again

going back to the 1997 floods, and when we had the so-called Pineapple Express. You get the warm water coming in during the early

part of the year, and that fairly small break in the whole scheme

of the State was over $300 million worth of damage.

But I think that what we can’t lose sight of is that people die

during these events, and people have died throughout the history

of California because of floods; sometimes in the tens, and sometimes in the hundreds.

And the magnitude of any of these breaches, even the fairly

small ones, are serious, and what we are talking about of course

is much larger than that.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Lungren. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing, and just a couple of quick questions to open the

topics, because I don’t think we are going to resolve them here

today.

Just on the integrated crisis management plan that we have in

California, which really is quite remarkable in its completeness,

and how many times that we have tested it, and it has worked

rather well.

But I would just raise the point that Mr. Cardoza did. I just went

through the same exercise that he did in Contra Costa County, and

the concern there is that we are not going to get—unlike Katrina,

we don’t get 4, 5, or 6 days warning. There is no earthquake season.

And there is still a very real concern among our first responders

of the ability to contact one another in real time, and understand

one another in real time. I think we are going to take some actions

in the Congress that are going to free up some money and some

spectrum.

45

But it is still the kind of a frightening program and the ability

of Sheriffs’ offices to talk to State Forestry, and to talk to others.

I recognize that they all understand what to do with the equipment

and the assets, but whether they still have the ability to talk to

one another without warning.

We know about fire seasons, and people start thinking about who

is going to rotate where and what assets are going to be needed

in other parts of the State. This is a different situation. So I just

wanted to say that.

Mr. Chrisman, let me ask a question. Waking up and reading the

press accounts of the new 14 point Delta smelt action plan is quite

stunning, in the sense that it sounds like all of a sudden we are

in high gear on all aspects of this plan.

I suspect that we are not, because of the divisions and expenditures, and if you did that, of billions of dollars.

Mr. CHRISMAN. That is right.

Mr. MILLER. But there is a phrase that we could calm things

down here a little bit. There is a phrase in the action plan on page

three of, I think, the executive summary, and it says that the following is a summary of 14 actions that are either currently being

implemented or under consideration by the IEP to protect and enhance Delta Smelt. This action plan will be updated to incorporate

the results of ongoing scientific studies.

Can I put some confidence in that paragraph, that that is kind

of a gatekeeper there, and that we are not rushing off to embrace

ideas that we had 25 years ago because now we have a crises in

the Delta?

You know, crises are used as multiple reasons in politics, and I

just want to make sure that we have some guide post here that we

have a lot about standing science work yet to be done, and a lot

of questions that remain, because when we ask them about the collapse of the Delta, in terms of water quality, most people tell us

that we are not even close to being able to tell you the answers.

People have theories, and the Contra Costa Water Authority has

a theory, and the State has a theory, and Fish and Wildlife has a

theory. But the answer is that we don’t know yet as I understand

it?

Mr. CHRISMAN. No, we don’t, and it is an excellent question, and

as the pelagic fish population crashed over the last year to 18

months, we began to realize that we don’t.

And we have in place a very aggressive science program run by

the Department of Water Resources, the Department of Fish and

Game, looking at such issues as invasives, pesticides, food sources,

changes in the Federal and State project operations. They are looking at all of those activities.

Mr. MILLER. I have to be fast talkers of America here to get

through in five minutes. So, Barry, is that sort of your understanding of what is taking place?

Mr. NELSON. The Department of Interior’s biological opinion on

Delta Smelt, one of those species that has crashed, says that they

believe, that Interior believes that water project operations is one

of the major causes.

The suspicion now is that the decline of the Smelt may have

steepened because of invasive species and contamination. We think

46

that we have to move on all three fronts. We can’t wait for the

science to come back.

Mr. MILLER. Do you have confidence in this paragraph that this

will be done as we—to incorporate the science that is still out

there, and that we are not rushing ahead here?

Mr. NELSON. There has been a lot of discussion of what are

sometimes called no regrets actions. We need to make sure that we

are acting on all three fronts but at the same time build in flexibility to modify over time. We know that we need to act on all

three.

Mr. MILLER. OK. Just quickly.

Mr. CHRISMAN. Can I answer your question on the talking among

various emergency agencies?

Mr. MILLER. I have a levee question that I would like to ask, and

the question is this. I have been doing this for 30 years, and for

30 years we have seemed to very often go back and pile more on

top of the levees, and everybody wants their levees protected.

We have learned a lot in flood management, and the Corps has

learned a lot, and we have made a lot of different changes in the

upper Mississippi, even some in the lower Mississippi, and some on

the Napa River, and some even on the Delta.

And to raise this question, are we looking at this in a very real

strategic sense about what makes the most sense in terms of

whether we have to move levees back, abandon levees, abandon islands? I mean, there is all of this on the table, and we are at some

point going to be asking people, and we have already asked for a

lot of money to do this.

But we have learned a lot about controlling river flows, and tidal

flows, and the use of levees. And let us not pretend like these levees were strategically placed when they were created.

So now a century later, we have to ask some questions, and I am

just wondering if all of these questions that are on the table, are

they about the architecture of these, in terms of their strategic importance, and what role they play, or are they worth that role or

not?

It is a complicated answer and I don’t expect a full answer, but

again it just goes to the confidence of what we are looking at here.

Mr. MAJORS. I think the answer is yes to all three questions.

There is three things taking place right now. One is emergency response, and how you do that. I talked about things that could be

considered, and where we actually get out there in real time in the

event of a breach, and know where that salinity is going, and literally have the ability to stop salinity from coming into the Delta

on channels.

The other thing that was talked about was short term actions.

While we have the Delta risk management strategy going on, there

are also some no regrets, and I think that Mr. Chrisman talked

about it, actions such as Sherman and Twitchell Island, which are

obvious fixes as far to the west in the Delta that you can get.

And if those goes, Subsume Bay comes in. I mean, there is no

question about that. So those are near term type actions you might

say, some 2 to 5 years. Emergency response, we believe it can be

enhanced.

47

And then long term, I believe this Delta risk management strategy is key, because it is looking probabilistically. You can look at

one levee or three levees, and take them out of the equation, and

cause them to flood, and determine economic consequences all the

way into Southern California.

You see, that is a common denominator, and then you can apply

a fix against that strategically, and say, well, what if we just put

storage in Southern California, and how would that work on economics?

Or why don’t we take five islands out in the central Delta and

guarantee that they won’t fail? Do you see what I mean? It is that

type of thing. I think that sort of strategy needs to guide long term

actions, a good deliberate strategic action.

Mr. MILLER. My remaining time, Mr. Chrisman, is yours.

Mr. RADANOVICH. There is no remaining time.

Mr. MILLER. I just wanted to be generous.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Nice try. Mr. Herger.

Mr. HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. There is not

any other issue more important in the area that I represent in

Northern California than the issue that we are addressing today.

So again I thank you very much, Chairman Radanovich, for having this hearing. I also welcome David Guy, who is the Executive

Director of our Northern California Water Association, and represents a number of water districts that are so important in our

area.

And when we look at the importance, we look at maintaining a

secure and reliable water supply and protecting the people and

property from flooding. Again, as we see now and are witnessing

in the Gulf States, there just are not any issues more important

than this.

I think back to some of the problems that point this out even in

our area, and some of the problems that have brought about some

of the flooding that we have had, that perhaps could have been alleviated.

For example, the 1997 flood that we had in Arboga, just south

of Marysville and Yuba City on the Feather River, in which the

Corps of Engineers in 1991 indicated, quote, that there would be

a loss of human life that would occur if these repairs weren’t made.

But yet because of an Elderberry Bush that they found, and no

Elderberry beatles, but a Elderberry Bush, for six years, these repairs were delayed. And then finally there was a break there, and

three people drowned, including a Japanese-American war hero.

The wife of the manager of the levee district was one of the

three, and I understand that even now we are seeing that this continues. I understand that there is stories of vegetation blocking six

fee wide erosion holes in levees, and the vegetation could not be

trimmed because of endangered beatles.

Would you like to comment on this, Mr. Guy, on just what the

Endangered Species Act is doing to our ability to protect our levees,

and just briefly, very quickly.

Mr. GUY. Thank you, Congressman Herger. Absolutely, there are

these kinds of issues that you see all over the State, and I think

it really goes to the fundamental question that was asked earlier,

which is we spent a lot of time of course developing a response to

48

these kinds of calamities, when I think that most of us would agree

that we ought to be spending the time up front trying to avoid the

problem in the first place, and this is clearly an example.

There are a bogus situation. The levee maintenance was deferred, and just as I might suspect, there is a lot of deferred maintenance going on in all of the facilities, whether they be levees,

storage facilities, and of course a lot of that is purely a fiscal issue.

But then there is also the regulatory issues that you have called

out, and it seems to me that we just need to push forward and say

that we are going to make not only the investments, but also the

streamlining in the regulatory process that is necessary so that we

can avoid this in the future. That public safety has to come first

I would think.

Mr. HERGER. It has to, and I again thank you. And we also see—

I don’t know if any of you—well, if Mr. Neudeck would like to comment on the extra costs that we are seeing coming about because

of this, of all the extra money that we are spending just for what

some of us would think would be very fundamental, and just maybe

move an Elderberry Plant, but yet literally spends millions of dollars more that we normally would not have to do.

Mr. NEUDECK. Yes, thank you. Well, we don’t have the time to

wait under most circumstances, and I think that in that particular

instance, you had the Federal Government involved. A local reclamation district will work around and avoid that. They will actually set the levee back.

They will do things that practically speaking that you wouldn’t

want to do, but when we look at these, there is a law that states

that this is maintenance of a serviceable structure, and whether

there is ESA compliance, and things of that nature.

We are out there basically maintaining a highway, and that some

of these plants came in and voluntarily seeded there, and no we no

longer have that opportunity to maintain it. No more would we

stop maintaining I-5 up California because there was a tree in the

median. We would remove it. The problem here is that we can’t,

and so what we end up doing is that we realign the levee. We move

it back to the land site. Yes, there is a tremendous cost to that, or

we avoid doing the work, or we only do it during the months of August and October, or whatever the work period will be.

So all those complications add to the bottom. line.

Mr. HERGER. Let me follow up to that. Now, I am born and

raised in an area that is flooded, and one of my most vivid memories, and one of my first memories, was being five years old and

having our ranch surrounded in water that had been flooded on a

tributary at Feather River in 1950.

But back in those days, they would annually go in, and up until

1986, I understand, annually dredge out these rivers of all the sediment that builds up every year. So that every year, these river systems are holding less water than they did the year before that.

There is more and more vegetation and so they can allow less

water to be able to travel down as it should. Would you like to

hcomment? David Guy mentioned this phenomenon of a Pineapple

Express, which we seem to get about every 10 or 12 years.

And that is where we get heavy snows in the Sierra, followed by

a warm rain coming from the Hawaiian Islands, which dumps all

49

this warm rain on top of heavy snows, and it all comes down at

once.

And the best levees as William Hammond, the first water engineer in the State of California, stated that there is only two kinds

of levees; those that have broken, and those that will break. We

could have the best levees in the world when all that water comes

down at once, and not having been dredged, with all of the buildup

that we have in it, and without the reservoirs to meter that, we

are going to have a New Orleans type flood. Would you like to comment on that?

Mr. NEUDECK. Well, I will take the first stab. We are going backwards. That siltation or that sedimentation can be used to build

levees, but in reverse, they are going to buildup, and our conveyance capacity drops as a result of that, and it all comes down to

the constituents in that sediment.

Into the mid-to-late 1980s, we used to go out and we would

dredge at will. I mean, I worked with Fish and Game and the

Streambed Alteration Agreement, and it would take us about $25

and two days and we would be out there dredging.

1989 rolls around and Fish and Game got interested, particularly

in the Delta, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board got interested, the cessation of dredging. For instance, we went ahead

and placed some dredged spoils from the Port of Stockton on the

levee on Trapper Slew that has been mentioned here in this hearing to save Highway 4 and another 40,000 acres from being flooded.

And we have been involved with the State in basically a lawsuit

from that point on, because there was some sediment characteristics that a couple of environmentalists did not like that were in

that material, even though it saved public health and safety.

So there is a real restriction on the use of sediments and dredged

borrowed soils. We would really like for that log jam to be broken,

because it serves two purposes. You open up the conveyance, and

you also provide a borrowed source of material, a very valuable borrowed source.

Mr. HERGER. Well, just in closing, we have environmentalists——

Mr. RADANOVICH. Wally, are you going to sum up?

Mr. HERGER. Yes.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Your time is up.

Mr. HERGER. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. We will get back to you. I want to give everybody an opportunity. Mr. Cardoza.

Mr. CARDOZA. I will yield to Mr. Costa.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Mr. Costa.

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and thank

you, Mr. Cardoza, for yielding your time. In listening to the testimony that has been made here this afternoon, two things. One is

that I reminded of all of the years that many of us together have

worked on trying to protect and improve the issues surrounding the

Delta water quality fisheries, and the ability to, when feasible, to

export water south of the Delta, and going back to the Boatright

Delta levee program.

As a matter of fact, I counted the amount of money that the

State has put in for Delta levee rehabilitation over the last 10

50

years, and the number in Propositions 204 and 13 total over $125

million, specifically as it relates to 1996 for Delta levees.

And there has been over $500 million that has been at one level

or another, and provided in ways for fishery habitat, and restoration efforts, and the like. So it is not like the State has been sitting

back idly waiting for something to happen.

What I would like to do in my limited time is try to focus on alternative solutions and cost effectiveness. Certainly the comments

that have been made, in terms of the critical importance of the

Delta as the linchpin of California’s plumbing system for water

supply, water quality, and the environment, I think is known to all

the Californians here.

In light of Katrina, we have an opportunity it seems to me to try

to draw additional Federal support beyond the CALFED effort, and

I think that is where we ought to be focused. And my question, Secretary Chrisman, to you would be is the Department of Resources

carefully examining the risk assessment versus the risk management in terms of where we ought to put our money?

I mean, we did have a levee failure just over a year ago, and I

think Mr. Herger is correct. We all understand that there are only

two kinds of levees; ones that have not failed and ones that will.

And with the subsidence problem—I mean, I think there is an

open question as to—versus continuing to reinforce levees, and taking some of those most vulnerable levees, as was suggested by the

gentleman from Metropolitan, and converting them into water supply, and doing other kinds of things that wouldn’t be pouring

money down an efficient way to protect the Delta.

Mr. CHRISMAN. Well, Congressman Costa, that is exactly what

this Delta Risk Management Study is about, is to do just that, and

as Mr. Major indicated. I mean, it is kind of a scenario planning

approach, and the kind of what-if approach with various scenarios.

And at the end of the day when the study is done, what it is

going to be required is political will to make some of the significant

changes that are going to be recommended as a part of this study.

They are going to be obvious out of this study, that come out of

this study. I mean, he is absolutely right. I think we already know

on the western part of the Delta some of those levees need immediate attention.

And I think that many of us already know that in other parts

of the Delta where those particular vulnerable areas are.

Mr. COSTA. You are going to put a price tag scenario, one; and

continue to do what we have been doing, and that is to just reinforce the existing levees?

Mr. CHRISMAN. Absolutely. Right.

Mr. COSTA. Both project levees and non-project levees.

Mr. CHRISMAN. Yes.

Mr. COSTA. And in scenario two, looking at and dealing with the

dredging issues. And in scenario three, looking at turning in some

of the islands to reservoirs, and in essence buying out the property

owners.

Mr. CHRISMAN. Right.

Mr. COSTA. An in scenario five, god forbid should say the word—

what is it now, the correct word? It is no longer PC.

Mr. CHRISMAN. It is a peripheral canal.

51

Mr. COSTA. Right, it is a peripheral canal, but otherwise known

as an isolated facility.

Mr. CHRISMAN. Right.

Mr. COSTA. And you will get price tags for all five of the

scenarios.

Mr. CHRISMAN. Well, you would have to.

Mr. COSTA. Well, I don’t think we can come back here, notwithstanding Katrina, and ask for additional money notwithstanding

CALFED.

Mr. CHRISMAN. That is right.

Mr. COSTA. And unless we can do a risk assessment, along with

a price tag?

Mr. CHRISMAN. Well, you are absolutely right, and again, you

talk about the Delta facility, and known as the peripheral canal

facility or whatever, and that is an integral part of the record of

decision.

Through CALFED, we are going to be teeing that discussion up

again here in the not too distant future, again talking about it, and

I hope from a strategic standpoint, looking at it strategically, what

does it mean, and how can we better move the water around

through the Delta, and how can we better manage that ecosystem,

and with the demands that are on that system today.

I mean, what are the right answers? We don’t know them yet,

and so we are going to be teeing those conversations up as a part

of this CALFED process.

Mr. COSTA. And what is the time line that you expect, because

memories around here—I have only been here around 9 months,

and I can see that they are pretty short.

Mr. CHRISMAN. The Delta Risk Management Study was due to be

completed in early 2007, and we are going to speed that up.

Mr. COSTA. You need to speed it up.

Mr. CHRISMAN. Exactly, but I think we already know what in

some of the most vulnerable areas of the Delta, particularly on the

western part of the Delta, what needs to be done.

There are going to be some of us suggesting that we need to

move quicker in some of those areas, and so we are going to be

doing that.

Mr. COSTA. One last quick question.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Quickly.

Mr. COSTA. The FED agencies and the locals are participating?

Mr. CHRISMAN. Yes.

Mr. COSTA. I just want the report to be credible.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Than you, Mr. Costa. Mr. Pearce.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for letting

me in on this California caucus.

Mr. RADANOVICH. This is a California——

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, I understand, and if I can learn that secret

handshake, I will then ask my wife if she minds if I get that secret

tattoo put on. First of all, I would go to Mr. Nelson.

Mr. Nelson, on item three on your presentation, it says that you

would reduce dependence on water from the Delta. How much of

a percentage reduction would you think long term you should try

to achieve? Just a percent? Keep in mind that I have lots of questions and a long way to go.

52

Mr. NELSON. Frankly, there are a lot of different ways of tackling

that, but the one way that I would approach that is that in the last

five years—my testimony has said that in 3 of the last 5——

Mr. PEARCE. No, just how much of a percentage reduction, and

if you would give a percent.

Mr. NELSON. Well, a 10-to-20 percent reduction.

Mr. PEARCE. OK. Thank you. Mr. Majors, in Item 2 of his report,

Mr. Nelson says that users should—that the water exporters

should benefit, and simply reading here, I am taking a guess that

you might be a water exporter.

Is that rational that you would be expected to pick up the maintenance of the levees? Is that something that you would agree with,

either up or down?

Mr. MAJORS. I don’t think that we are talking about issues of

taking all of it on board, but if we can a specific benefit that we

are receiving, that is the type of thing that we need to see to make

a determination that there is some money that we want to provide.

But we have to have benefits noted on this so that we can react

to that.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you. Mr. Nelson, you heard Mr. Neudeck’s

comments about the problems and lawsuits. Philosophically, do you

agree with the lawsuits that are stopping progress on dredging and

cleaning out the systems behind the dams or the levees, and do you

understand the process by which groups do that, or are you philosophically opposed, or are you supportive of those lawsuits?

Mr. NELSON. I would have to say that I am not familiar with

those lawsuits. I have worked on dredging issues.

Mr. PEARCE. You heard the testimony, and it is a fairly simple

deal. They are saying don’t take the stuff out because there are

sediments there that are causing problems to the environment, and

so philosophically, it is either yes or no. It is a fairly easy question.

Mr. NELSON. Well, our philosophy has been to try to find solutions on dredging issues, and we have been very successful in doing

that.

Mr. PEARCE. And so you would be opposed to the lawsuits?

Mr. NELSON. I would have to say that I don’t know the details,

but what I do know is that we have been involved with projects

that have allowed dredging projects to move forward and address

sedimentation and contamination without litigation.

Mr. PEARCE. As far as stopping the sprawl in the Delta, how

much would you go back and retrace, or would you simply stop further development in the Delta? Would you actually take houses out

and residents out?

Mr. NELSON. I don’t think that anyone is talking about taking

residents out. Now, that might happen if individual islands came

out of production, but some of the deeper islands. But no one is

talking about eliminating developments on the periphery of the

Delta.

What is becoming clear now is that areas of the Delta that are

not as seriously subsided may be vulnerable to failure, and we need

to take seriously the potential that folks living on those islands

could be at risk.

53

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chrisman, that 10 to 20 percent reduction in

Delta water, is that something that you think is feasible and willing to support?

Mr. CHRISMAN. Well, you have to put it in the larger context. I

mean, if we are going to take that reduction, we have to make it

up somewhere else from my perspective as one of the water managers in California.

So we are going to have to make it up somewhere else, and the

somewhere else is going to be challenging.

Mr. PEARCE. And the somewhere else is through conservation,

and that is the testimony, and can you achieve the 20 percent reduction and get the 20 percent savings through conservation?

Mr. CHRISMAN. It is possible. It is possible with new technologies,

it is, but again, you have to put that in the larger context, a larger

management context.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Neudeck, would you care to comment on the

workability, the ability of the groups here bringing court actions to

stop your progress, and how much are they interested in working

solutions, or are they just interested in obstruction in your opinion?

Mr. NEUDECK. I think there are some groups out there that are

just interested in obstruction. Working with the State and the regional water quality control board, I think their intent is to find

a solution.

Unfortunately, the Delta has a drinking water quality standard

over it, and provides——

Mr. PEARCE. Well, I am about to run out of time here. For those

groups that are simply after obstruction, what could motivate them

to obstruct the processes of the cleaning out of a levee system?

Mr. NEUDECK. There are some political ones, particularly with

the port.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Pearce. You might want to

know, too, that the secret handshake is a little different in Southern California than it is in Northern California. Mr. Cardoza.

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to skip any

comment on that last comment, but that is interesting to know on

an issue like this, the big guns come out; the appropriators, the

Ways and Means folks. We welcome them over here.

I would like to start my first question to Mr. Neudeck. You have

mentioned a couple of times that there is this window period of an

allowability of work because of the Endangered Species Act. Could

you elaborate on that? I am not familiar with why that would be

the case.

Mr. NEUDECK. Certainly. It is the in-water work. It tends to be

toward the fisheries. So any in-water work has to be in a nonspawning period, which tends to be overall in the Delta from about

August 1 to about October 30, or November 1.

So anytime that you work on the water side of the levee, which

is the most active area for erosion and activity, you have to do it

in that period. Otherwise, everything else has to be done up land

or on the land side. So you will see that is why the advent of the

setback levee, and moving levees landward, has another merit to

it.

54

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you. I want also at this point to associate

myself with comments that Mr. Herger made earlier on the Elderberry Beatle, and that is the reason why my community of Newman has flooded twice now, although I will say that the Corps and

other agencies have been much more amenable in working with us

on that problem, and a number of challenges that we have there,

and I would like to thank them for those efforts.

And I think that we have eliminated some of those challenges,

or at least reduced the challenges of having that, and there are

other threats to the community for other reasons. I would like to

focus most of my time remaining on questions other than dealing

with levees, as other members have adequately dealt in my opinion

with questions of the levees.

But as Mr. Herger as well has said, there are going to be failures, and my concern is the catastrophic failure, and the inability

for us to truly be adequately prepared. In 1997, my district was at

ground zero on many of the flood, as Mr. Herger’s was.

And I patrolled the levees and saw boils, and I could not believe

what I was seeing; that 30 feet out, and sometimes more, into a

field next to a levee, you would just see this boil of water start to

come up, and boom, and that would be the precursor to possibly a

levee failure.

And the hydrology of levees are amazing, but all that pales in

comparison, and that is during a flood situation obviously. But all

that pales in comparison to what would happen during an earthquake. And in an earthquake—and my comment is to Mr.

Chrisman, because we were talking about emergency preparedness.

And while this is not your department as a member of the Administration, I thought our Office of Emergency Services did an admirable job, both then and some other times.

But I will tell you that I have been involved in other crises were

there has been difficulty getting a decision made to act, even with

as good as we are in California. And I am afraid that without the

inoperability of communication, without having a more targeted

plan of action to decide how we are going to deal with things before, that no amount of studies on the shelf are going to help us

unless we are really prepared for the emergency that I think is

most threatening to us, and that is the earthquake failure of the

Delta. And I would like to have you have an opportunity to respond

to that.

Mr. CHRISMAN. That is an excellent question. I mean, that is a

question that we ask ourselves all the time quite frankly. It is a

question that we are asking ourselves as we go through this levee

assessment right now.

And it is a question that we ask ourselves every time that we

have a natural disaster, and we sit back, and as I said earlier, try

to figure out what we did right and what we did wrong, and try

to learn from that.

Earthquake preparedness in California is something that we are

very serious about, and all we have to do is look around the State,

and look at what is happening in some of the most earthquake

prone areas, in terms of building rehabs, and that sort of thing.

I mean, I think we recognize it. But levees as you point out, and

particularly in the Delta, and the age of those levees on peak soils,

55

with the subsidence out there, and with the critical nature of which

we have come to depend on the Delta from an estuary standpoint,

and from a water supply and water quality standpoint in California.

Again, we are going to have to do a better job, and that is why

this scenario planning that we are going through right now on the

Delta levee system is going to be critically important.

And it is the kind of scenario planning that we need to do with

respect to our emergency preparedness, particularly as it relates to

levees, and we are going to be suggesting some of those kinds of

activities along the way.

But you are right to be concerned about it, and you are right that

you can in most emergencies, you can never be too prepared. But

in earthquakes as it relates to the levees, we can stockpile material. I mean, there are a lot of things that we can do, rock materials and other materials, to quickly get in and fill the breach.

That is something that we learned out of the Jones Tract disaster, and a number of those things are in the process of being

done. But we can do better.

Mr. CARDOZA. I would just say that if our local officials can’t

communicate, and they don’t have the ability to marshal those

services between irrigation districts, or reclamation districts, the

State, as I have seen in the past—we can stockpile until the moon

and not ever have the ability to get the equipment to the right

place before it is too late.

Mr. CHRISMAN. let me speak to that issue. I wanted to speak to

it. Mr. Miller asked me about it, but we learned that again, that

interoperability of communications during major disasters, and we

learned that the hard way during the 2003 fire storm down in

Southern California, particularly in San Diego County.

And we have at our level moved to correct that. Essentially what

we have gotten is that we have hand radios, and quite frankly,

when we get into a multi-agency event on the ground, we carry

hand radios in, and pass them out to our sister, and brother departments, and agencies that are working with us on the disaster.

We are doing that now. We stepped up to the legislature last

year, and got monies to do just that kind of thing. We are working

to try to get mutual bands, FM bands and other radio frequency

bands that are emergency only bands, and that only work within

a certain range all over California.

So we are working to do just that, and so that is a part of our—

that is part of what we learned out of the 2003 disaster, and we

have moved to correct that, and we are working with our Federal

counterparts, at the Forest Service and others, to correct that also.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Cardoza. Mr. Nunes.

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be back on

your committee, and thank you for holding this very important

hearing on Delta levee security. I think it is really critical.

I had a chance to spend some time in the Delta two weeks ago

looking at these levees, and I think that there could be some

considerable challenges to the Congress if we don’t do something,

especially in a wet year.

56

With that said, Mr. Nelson, I would like to ask you do you think

that storage facilities, especially on-stream storage facilities, should

be an important piece to Delta levee security?

Mr. NELSON. As I mentioned, one of the concerns about the Jones

Tract failure is that it did not happen during a flood. It didn’t happen during an earthquake. It happened during a time of the year

when it was much less expected than that.

Looking at Delta issues, at the moment, it frankly doesn’t seem

that additional storage is going to make a significant difference in

protecting the long term stability of the Delta. There is a storage

project in the Delta right now that is really to be constructed, or

virtually ready to be constructed, Delta wetlands.

And unfortunately—and that is a creative project that the environmental community frankly has not been—where the environmental community has not been the problem for the proponents of

that project.

The problem is that no one believes that that project is financially viable. The Department of Water Resources doesn’t believe it

at the moment. The Water Exporters don’t believe it, and we think

that cost factor has to be factored in at the moment.

Things like restoration of the Delta, setback levees upstream

that actually offer environmental and flood control benefits, we

think that those projects are really promising.

Mr. NUNES. So for the record, you are not for onstream storage?

Mr. NELSON. Not for it? Well, there are——

Mr. NUNES. I know you are against the peripheral canal, and you

outlined that in your testimony.

Mr. NELSON. There are a lot of water projects in California that

we have never taken a position on. I am not aware of a surface

storage facility that we have endorsed. The surface storage projects

are under investigation right now, and other than Delta Wetlands,

for which there are no customers, the other projects are projects

that are not right now at a feasibility level. And at the moment,

none of those projects have shown themselves to be feasible to any

stakeholders in California.

Mr. NUNES. Well, I am concerned that in a wet year, you know,

with the ongoing lawsuit that you are a part of, to take water out

of the San Joaquin River, and in a wet year wouldn’t that add to

the problem of levee security?

Mr. NELSON. Without a doubt, it would potentially offer storage,

and potentially offer some benefits, both for river restoration and

for flood protection in some places. As you know, we have looked

in the San Joaquin River, and the potential for small surface storage projects to be helpful there.

Those are expensive, but we think that some of the smaller ones

are worth examining. Groundwater storage is far less expensive,

and California has made a major investment there in terms of cost

effectiveness for water supply.

That is where not just the environmental community, but that is

where most Water Districts have chosen to put their money.

Mr. NUNES. I am not opposed to any of those projects, but we always get to the same point when we have a lot of water in California, it all comes at one time. And unless you have the proper

storage facilities to handle that flow, you have major flooding.

57

And you can build a lot of off-steam storage, and a lot of groundwater storage, and you are going to have considerable flooding,

which leads me to the concern that I think you bring up, and

maybe you are right on this one, and that is returning some of

those islands out there to marsh habitat.

And I am interested in knowing the 60 islands that are out

there, how many of those 60 should be flooded out and returned

back to natural habitat and marshland?

Mr. NELSON. I can’t give you a number in terms of which, but

I think that is one of the places where we really need a Delta wide

assessment of how many and which islands we need to return.

With regard to your comments on surface storage, from our perspective, we have no concern with all options being on the table,

but we think that we need to look at all of those options—surface

storage, groundwater storage, levee setbacks, and so forth—and

look at all of those options as part of a strategy, and honestly

evaluate the costs and the environmental solutions. We think that

can be doable, and produce results that will provide multiple benefits.

Mr. NUNES. But you definitely think that we should take some

of the islands out and just—that we should flood a lot of those islands out there?

Mr. NELSON. Given that there are eleven hundred miles of waterways, I believe, in the Delta, it is going to be extremely difficult

to maintain all of those Delta levees over the long term.

And if we reduce that number by restoring some islands, it

means that we can concentrate our activities on other islands, and

that is true in the western Delta as a number of folks have mentioned, and it may be true in other parts of the delta as well.

Mr. NUNES. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Nunes. Welcome to the Subcommittee, Mr. Doolittle. John, if you have any questions, feel free.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much. I appreciate being up

here with you, Mr. Chairman. And I guess that as I was looking

over this letter, Mr. Secretary, Secretary Chrisman, from Governor

Schwarzenegger, are you aware, Mr. Chrisman, of what the current

value of State property is in the American River floodplain?

I know what the total value of all assessed valuation is in the

floodplain, but my figures are about nine years old. Are you doing

an updated study for the State based on the concerns that Katrina

has raised, and the possibility of a catastrophic event facing Sacramento?

Mr. CHRISMAN. You know, I don’t know whether we are in the

process of doing that. I will have to get back to you on that, Congressman. I mean, if you would look at the Governor’s letter, and

you look at the projects in the Governor’s letter that I think you

were alluding to, it seems to me that those are the kinds of questions that we need to answer. But I can’t tell you if that is in the

process right now.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I would appreciate it if you would for the

record submit your answers.

Mr. CHRISMAN. Sure.

58

Mr. DOOLITTLE. What if it turns out that no one is doing that?

Is that something that you would feel would be something that you

would care to commit to begin?

Mr. CHRISMAN. I would need to ask why it is not being done. I

mean, I can at least commit to that today, to ask why, because it

seems to me that we need that base of understanding before we

can make some of these bigger decisions.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I have marveled over the years, 25 some

years, where it seems that the State of California has never appeared to be that concerned about the value of its own property

within the floodplain.

And nine years ago, I believe these are the figures that we had

from the Sacramento area flood control agency. I believe there were

$40 billion of assessed valuation in property in the floodplain of the

American River.

That is total, and I don’t know what percentage that belongs to

the State but obviously the State has a number of buildings there

in the American River floodplain, and I would like to have an accurate figure on that.

Also, just to draw your attention, there was a Blue Ribbon Study

done by the Corps of Engineers a few years ago, and I don’t remember the name of that, but in there, they made the statement

that levees are inherently unstable and less reliable than on storage dams, and I never hear any talk of dams anybody, either out

of our Sacramento Administration, or frankly our Administration

in Washington, D.C.

Dams are like politically incorrect. So we talk about levees,

which are inherently less reliable. I just wondered. Do you—you

are living, I presume, someplace around the Sacramento area; is

that right?

Mr. CHRISMAN. That is correct.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Are you in a floodplain?

Mr. CHRISMAN. Yes, I am, and I am worried about it. My office

is on the thirteenth floor though.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Do you have any——

Mr. CHRISMAN. I hear. No, that is a very good question, and

again it is a part of the record of decision that created the CALFED

process. We have teed up, and we are studying five different storage projects around California.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, are any of those onstream storage?

Mr. CHRISMAN. Maybe. Yes, could be, but they are enhancements. There is Shasta. There is Dam Los Banos Grande, a number of those kind of projects. Again, we are still in the feasibility

study stage.

We are still trying to figure out whether in fact they are economical from a storage perspective and water yield perspective. So

to that extent, we are doing just that. We are at work trying to enhance water storage projects that Mr. Nelson talked about.

We are encouraging all of those activities. And our California

water plan, if you look at our Bulletin 160 process that we are involved in now, we are going to be relying specifically on integrated

regional management.

We are prospectively looking out for 30 years, in terms of these

type of water management projects. Ultimately, additional storage

59

projects will be a part of that. But we think in the short and medium term that there are significant benefits that we can gain from

additional groundwater storage projects, conversation, recharged

basin, those type of activities, that will gain us supply over time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Those will help with supply, but they are not

going to help protect your property in the American River floodplain. So are you doing anything about that?

Mr. CHRISMAN. Well, again, we are in conversations with our

partners at the Bureau or Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation, and others, and you will hear about that from

our folks from the Bureau of Reclamation. But, no, at this stage of

the game, we are not.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, unfortunately—and I do mean unfortunately, I cannot stay to hear that testimony, but I will bet you that

they are not going to testify that they are doing anything about

that either. What do you bet?

Mr. CHRISMAN. I am not going to take you up on it, Congressman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RADANOVICH. You are welcome, Mr. Doolittle. Mrs.

Napolitano. Excuse me one second. Secretary Chrisman, I understand that you may need to leave shortly?

Mr. CHRISMAN. I do need to leave, yes.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And I want to thank you from being here, and

excuse you, and for any other members that might have questions

of the Secretary, we will submit them in writing.

Mr. CHRISMAN. Please do.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And we would appreciate a prompt response.

Mr. CHRISMAN. Thank you a lot. I appreciate the opportunity to

be here today.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Grace.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For Mr. Majors, there

is a couple of questions that I have. One of them has to do with

climate changes. Do you agree that climate change in sea level rise

is an important point to consider?

Mr. MAJORS. No, we think they are. In fact, a couple of things.

If you start looking at subsidence taking place in the Delta, subsidence is taking place at about a foot-and-a-half per decade. Sea level

rise, there is a fair amount of numbers out there, but it might be

in the range of .2 feet per decade.

So subsidence sort of overtakes it. Overall subsidence has been

taking place in the Delta since the islands were drained in the

1800s, at about a foot-and-a-half per decade. And then you can look

at a number of sea level rise analyses, but it tends to be in the

range of a couple tenths of a foot per decade. Two-tenths, let us

say.

So the sea level rise is the—pardon me. Subsidence is the greater

problem, but keep in mind when that happens that one is going

down and the other is coming up. So it makes the levees higher.

So it all contributes to more risk.

And beyond that though in Southern California, we sit on a number of forums dealing with the sea level rise issue, and that

prompts a very robust conservation strategy and reclamation strategy that we employ.

60

We have a number of pieces of information that we could share

with you and discuss on that.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. May we introduce those into the

record?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes, without objection, it is so ordered.

[NOTE: The information submitted for the record has been

retained in the Committee’s official files.]

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Does the MWDSC contribute financially to the Delta Levee and maintenance improvements, sir?

Mr. MAJORS. Would——

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No, do you currently.

Mr. MAJORS. Only in the sense that we support the bond issues

that are used to, say, reimburse the reclamation districts, but the

overall question of user fees and such is under way right now in

CALFED and DWR.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Does that include the risk study?

Mr. MAJORS. That I can’t respond to. I would have to get that

answer for you.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. If you would.

Mr. MAJORS. Definitely in terms of right now at the moment,

there is no what you would call an annual fee or something like

that, that the Metropolitan is paying

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. There might be other—how would I say—

assistance.

Mr. MAJORS. Well, I will just loosely use the term user fees. If

we can define a benefit, giving us an economic benefit, I think that

is what our board of directors wants to see. Levees might apply.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Certainly. That means that you are protecting

our water supply in Southern California.

Mr. MAJORS. Right.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. Mr. Nelson, can you tell us

whether the enactment of the AB 1200, which is fairly similar to

CALFED, will that help solve the problem of Bay Delta, or address

the problems of Bay Delta, and wasn’t that what CALFED was

supposed to do?

Mr. NELSON. AB 1200 was a bill that was just signed by the

Governor that directs the State to look at the Delta with regard to

system vulnerability, the issues that we are discussing today, and

to report back on options.

We think that is really going to help strengthen that program

and make it a more robust program. Should CALFED have taken

a broader look at these vulnerability issues from the start? It probably should have.

But frankly the strategy for the first several years of CALFED

was to spend money in the State as Mr. Costa pointed out. It has

spent quite a bit of money on levee maintenance. What has not

happened is the development of an overall plan, and the developments in recent years we have been talking about have really highlighted the need to step back and develop that broader plan for the

future of the Delta.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. One of the questions that has come to mind

as you are talking about the islands, and whether or not there will

be assistance to be able to shore up some of those levees in those

areas that are populated, if you will, what about flood insurance?

61

Is it a requirement? Are we ensuring that those individuals that

are moving are aware that this is floodplain, and that they must

have flood insurance?

Mr. NELSON. Those developed areas do require flood insurance.

There is some concern given the increased understanding of the

vulnerability of the Delta that we may have underestimated the

risk to some of those Delta islands, and that means insured communities may think that they are safer than they really are.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is any attempt being made to be able to educate and inform those currently residing in those areas?

Mr. NELSON. I honestly don’t know. The Governor has recently

appointed a new Reclamation Board at the State that is responsible

for tackling some of these issues, and I don’t know what their programs are to address that public education need.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Nunes.

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Neudeck, I have a

question for you. You have done a lot of work on the levees in the

Delta.

Mr. NEUDECK. Correct.

Mr. NUNES. And I read in your testimony that you are—you cite

a lot of reasons why you should not flood out any of the existing

islands that are out there, the 60 islands, and wants to flood out

some of the islands, and I don’t know how many of the islands that

he wants to flood out.

So based on your testimony, are there any circumstances where

you would flood out any of the islands?

Mr. NEUDECK. Basically, the answer is no. I think that we were

specifically relating to the Delta project which was four centrally

located islands. We are having enough problems keeping the water

out, and putting water in is a substantial challenge.

What occurs when you put water in these Delta islands, they actually seep under the adjoining channels on to the neighboring island, and destabilize the levees in the process.

They also create a much larger windfetch, potentially opening up

the Central Delta to a large lake. We have testified against those

projects for those challenges, and the solutions for those challenges,

and those challenges will become a very large expense to try and

offset them.

The idea of trying to reduce the seepage would require putting

pumps around the entire island that was flooded, and basically return the seepage water from going to the neighboring islands back

on to that island.

And that is where I think that Mr. Nelson is indicating the expense of this is really beyond where anyone thinks they were going.

So the challenge to do that—that is really not the place to put

them. If you are going to do off-stream storage, get it outside the

Delta. The Delta is not the area to be putting off-stream storage.

Mr. NUNES. So are there opportunities then to build a type of—

either through a Delta canal, or peripheral canal, that would bring

more fresh water into the Delta?

Mr. NEUDECK. We are absolutely against a peripheral canal for

a whole host of reasons, and the primary reason is the Delta pool.

We are all in it together. State law establishes that the delta pool

62

is being maintained, and the locals and the diverters share in that

same common pool, and we are going to stand strong behind that.

We are absolutely against any peripheral canal. You will kill the

Delta as you see it today, along with all those that are benefiting

from it. But we believe that State law protects us against that.

Mr. NUNES. But that is a pretty harsh criticism of the peripheral

canal. I mean, under some studies that I have seen, they actually

show that there could be some improvement, in terms of being able

to flush the Delta areas where you don’t get the fresh water, and

to bring the water around, and then back through the Delta.

Mr. NEUDECK. I will answer your question again. Yes, I am absolutely harsh against it, and the reasons for it is that if they have

it and we want it, those that have it will continue to have it, and

those that need it will never get it.

The need for that Delta or for that water source, if it goes to a

isolated facility, will always be higher than the estuary or the remaining Ag islands, and things of that nature, and that is why I

think that State law provided for maintaining that common pool.

Once it goes to the peripheral, you will basically do under the

Delta. So I think it is just based on the way that policy will run.

I mean, there is going to be a much higher need from a drinking

water perspective at that point to maintain that water quality in

the peripheral system, and forget, or allow the water quality in the

remaining system to no longer exist.

Mr. NUNES. But essentially what you are saying is that you are

afraid of losing more water out of the Delta farmers?

Mr. NEUDECK. Well, all those that benefit from it, yes. The original origin of that water.

Mr. NUNES. Well, to say that never turns back and goes the

other way is not correct as evidenced by what has happened in

other parts of California, where we have lost a considerable

amount of water to the Delta to improve water quality in the Delta.

You know, everything from up north, Northern California, to

down south, to the lawsuit that is currently going on, and that impacts my district dramatically. And I find it interesting that water

quality continues to improve. Yet, the Delta Smelt population continues to rapidly decline, and these evasive species are coming in.

So I hope that we are not too shortsighted on the fixes in the

Delta, because I think that if we don’t look at fixes, we are looking

for a disaster on a lot of fronts. Did you want to comment, Mr. Nelson?

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, I would. Mr. Neudeck eloquently stated

the position of the landowners in the Delta, and their concerns

about the peripheral canal. There are a number of reasons why for

the last 20 years that every planning process that has looked at the

Delta has decided to not proceed with the peripheral canal.

One is the health of the Delta, and that Mr. Neudeck talked

about. We are very concerned about potential impacts to the health

of the Delta.

Mr. NUNES. Well, in terms of the question of the health of the

Delta, you have had more fresh water in there than you have had

in the last 50 years, and why do you have the lowest fish populations?

63

Mr. NELSON. We actually have less water this year. I just

checked before this hearing, and this year, and the year in which

the Delta Smelt reached its lowest ebb in history, this year, we

have pumped more water from the Delta than we ever have in history, well over 6 million acre feet of water. That is more water than

has ever been pumped from the Delta before.

Mr. NUNES. Well, pumped, but that does not mean that the

water quality has not been higher. Salt water has come up nearly

to Stockton in years past.

Mr. NELSON. One of the concerns that has been raised—there

have been multiple reasons for the decline of the Delta Smelt. We

think that one of those is water project operations, and the dramatic rise in Delta pumping.

But the other issues of invasive species, and water quality, we

think are all potential problems, and we need to tackle all three

of those.

Mr. NUNES. Thank you. I know that my time has expired. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Nunes. There being no other

questions of this panel, I want to thank you very much for your

valuable testimony, and for coming here and testifying here today,

and with that, you are excused. Thank you very much.

And I will call up the next panel. Mr. Kirk Rodgers is the regional director of the Mid-Pacific Region of the Bureau of Reclamation, and Brigadier General Joseph Schroedel is the Commander

and Division Engineer of the South Pacific Division, of the United

States Army Corps of Engineers.

Gentlemen, welcome to the Subcommittee. Again, if we could

hear your testimony, and then we will open up the dais here for

questions of that testimony. Brigadier General Schroedel, welcome

to the Subcommittee, and you may begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL JOSEPH SCHROEDEL,

COMMANDER AND DIVISION ENGINEER, SOUTH PACIFIC

DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SAN

FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No

apology is required on the pronunciation of my name. I will answer

to anything quite frankly.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Just make sure that you get Radanovich right.

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Got it, sir. Sir, again, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the committee, it is indeed an

honor today to testify here before you, but also to join you as we

engage together to serve the American people.

Second, it is an honor for me to represent the chief of engineers,

Lieutenant General Karl Strock, who sends his regards, and also

to represent my division, which encompasses all or parts of 10

Western States, and not just the State of California, which is in

question today.

And also in some indirect way to represent the men and women

of our country who are serving this Nation around the world, and

our civilians, and I would point out that today that approximately

10 percent or better of the United States Army Corps of Engineers,

64

predominantly civilian, are volunteering serving in many places

around the world.

And I would like to publicly thank also today the Bureau of Reclamation, who offered up in excess of a hundred volunteers of their

own, and who are currently serving and supporting us in Operation

Katrina in the Gulf, and I will talk more about that in a second.

I would like to let my written testimony stand as a part of the

record, and just offer a very brief introduction here orally, to underscore what I think are two very important points as we move

forward.

First, I think we have heard a lot already today regarding the

condition of the levees and we can talk more about that in the

question and answer period. In terms of the solutions, I think there

are two very critical things that we would like to emphasize.

The first is that we do need to take a strategic look at our priorities. We do need to take a look also at how we use the resources

and authorities that are at our disposal. The Corps stands ready

to support that for which we were called to do.

On the resources side, I think Katrina and Rita served as a call

to action. In that regard, we have some tough issues in front of us,

and we need to find the wisest use of all the resources and authorities at our disposal, and to balance competing demands, and to protect life, property, the environment, and also our own values.

And then second, I want to emphasize the collaborative nature,

which you have heard a couple of times today, and I would just underscore that the collaboration between the Federal, State, local,

and other entities is quite alive today.

And if I could just use this little quote. If anyone has read Cadillac Desert, I would tell you that we are in the process by our actions, and not by our words, of rewriting what you find in that

book. I will tell you that the collaboration, the honest to goodness

collaboration, the honest to goodness trying to find the best way to

leverage the authorities and capabilities of each of our agencies is

quite alive and well. And I can give many, many examples of that.

Again, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members, I am very, very

proud to be here to testify today, and to give you the best engineering judgment that we can offer as we tackle a very difficult situation, and find ways to prevent or at least be able to appropriately

respond to any catastrophes that may result that have any similarity to what we have faced in the Gulf. So, Mr. Chairman, thank

you very much.

[The prepared statement of Brigadier General Schroedel follows:]

Statement of Brigadier General Joseph Schroedel, Commander,

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

Introduction

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am Brigadier

General Joseph Schroedel, Commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers South

Pacific Division. I am honored to be testifying before your Committee today. I am

testifying on behalf of Lieutenant General Carl Strock, Chief of Engineers. My testimony today will discuss current infrastructure conditions in the watershed of the

Sacramento/San Joaquin River system and the Corps’ ongoing efforts to reduce the

risk of flood damage to the system.

65

Background

The impact of Hurricane Katrina in coastal areas along the Gulf of Mexico has

focused renewed attention on the potential vulnerability of other regions, such as

the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (‘‘Delta’’), if levees were to fail.

The 1997 and 1998 floods forced more than 120,000 people from their homes in

the Delta region. An estimated 30,000 residential and 2,000 businesses were damaged or destroyed. Rehabilitation of the Federal levee system cost $160 million in

Federal dollars and funded repairs on approximately 600 sites along the Sacramento

and San Joaquin River systems.

The recent levee break on Jones Tract in the south Delta cost nearly $100 million

for emergency response, damage to private property, lost crops, levee repair and

pumping water from the island. The State also bore significant costs associated with

losses in water supply and conveyance. Delta pumping was curtailed for several

days to prevent seawater intrusion and water shipments were possible only through

unscheduled releases from other reservoirs, which sent more fresh water to the

Delta for salinity control.

System Condition

There are over 6,000 miles of levees in the Central Valley. Of that total, approximately 1,600 miles are authorized as Corps of Engineers Federal flood damage reduction projects. The others are local levees, which were constructed, enlarged and

maintained over the last 130 years by local reclamation districts and private entities. In general, the owners of the lands within the levees financed the levee work

by these districts. During the last 30 years, the State of California has provided supplemental financing for levee maintenance and emergency response.

Since the mid-1980s, the Corps has evaluated almost 1,100 miles of the Federal

levees. For example, the Corps found that within the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, approximately 90 miles of levees needed significant repairs and most

of this rehabilitation work is now complete. However, these levee evaluations were

performed using criteria which are now outdated, and, therefore, did not identify all

potential levee deficiencies. The Corps has recently developed new levee seepage design criteria that will require much more stringent field exploration than was used

in earlier levee performance studies. When the new criteria are applied, it is likely

that more deficiencies that may require rehabilitation work will be identified.

In major urbanized areas with large population centers, including Sacramento,

Stockton, Yuba City, Marysville and Merced, the levees have been extensively evaluated and studies or projects are currently underway to improve levee performance.

Much of the new development in these and other parts of the Central Valley is occurring in areas that until recently were agricultural areas. Typically, the levees in

these areas were built 60 to 100 years ago with a view toward reducing the risk

of flood damage to crops. Such levees are aging and may not reflect current flood

damage reduction objectives.

Future Plans for Protection

In September 2004, Congress passed the CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act

(PL 108-361, Title I). CALFED is a unified multi-agency approach to management

of the Delta region in California.

The Act authorizes up to $389 million for new and expanded CALFED authorities

for 2005 to 2010 including studies, projects, and coordination regarding watershed

planning; water conveyance, supply and quality; ecosystem restoration, levee system

integrity, and other purposes. This authorization includes up to $90 million for efforts regarding levee system integrity, which would be headed by the Corps

(USACE) as lead Federal agency in partnership with the State of California Departments of Water Resources and Fish and Game (DWR, DFG), local reclamation districts, and other concerned stakeholders. Additionally, the authorized funding includes amounts up to:

• $184 million for Conveyance Program activities (Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)

lead, USACE as cooperating agency)

• $90 million for implementation of the Environmental Water Account (BOR lead

with USFWS & NOAA Fisheries as cooperating Federal agencies)

• $25 million for oversight and coordination of the Program (BOR lead with

USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, EPA, USACE as cooperating Federal agencies)

For the Delta levees, the Corps will be working with the State of California to

scope out both near-term and long-term solutions and develop a framework for setting priorities. If funds are appropriated, the Corps will prepare a report to Congress assessing the scope of the problem and identifying specific priorities for repair

within the $90 million authorized. This study will be a collaborative effort with

66

CALFED partners and sponsors. This report will also provide details on the locations and lengths of those levees that are high priority for repairs.

In the past, some local agencies have expressed concern about their ability to

meet the 35% non-federal cost share requirements for Delta levee projects. However,

the State of California recently indicated its readiness to work with local partners

to provide funds for priority levee repairs. The Corps will work with the local sponsors to clarify the extent of such concerns in the report to Congress.

The Corps is also currently the lead agency for several studies to help ways to

reduce the risk of flood damage in the Delta, including water supplies, roads, cities

and towns, agricultural lands, and natural habitat. These include the—

• Delta Islands Feasibility study, in partnership with the State of California,

which will evaluate the entire Delta Islands and Levee System consistent with

the Delta Risk Management Study authorized in the CALFED Act. Estimated

cost $3 million; estimated time, 3 years.

• Lower San Joaquin River Feasibility Study, which will focus on the San Joaquin River in the South Delta—estimated cost $2 million; estimated time 3

years.

• Development of the Levee System Integrity Program Plan, pursuant to the

Record of Decision for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to the Act, in which the

Corps is participating with the State of California—Estimated cost $8 million;

estimated time 4 years.

The Corps participates in the CALFED activities. The Corps is represented at the

California Bay-Delta Authority (CBDA), Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee

(BDPAC), and subcommittees to support and monitor refinement and execution of

levee efforts.

This concludes my statement. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you very much, General. Mr. Rodgers,

welcome to the Subcommittee. You may begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF KIRK RODGERS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MIDPACIFIC REGION, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, SACRAMENTO,

CALIFORNIA

Mr. RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you

today to discuss the current water supply vulnerabilities in California’s Central Valley, and in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta.

Today, my testimony will focus on the work and activities in the

Delta, and on the risk faced in the context of levee failures. While

our attention is understandably drawn to the levees, it is important

to keep in mind that the long term reliability and security of water

supplies can be heavily impacted by other problem areas that we

need to address.

Reclamation has no authority to implement levee work, nor do

we have jurisdiction over levees in California, and therefore would

defer certainly to the Corps and to the State to address those important issues.

I would like to speak somewhat about future water supply

projects, and in the context of that ecosystem restoration, water

management strategies, and regulatory decisions that are being developed or implemented by reclamation, and the other CALFED

agencies, and how those will help determine the future viability

and certainty of the State and CVP water management infrastructure as a whole.

The Delta is a prominent feature of California’s complicated

water supply system. Water conveyed through the Delta provides

drinking water for two-thirds of the State. It supports the most

productive agriculture region in the Nation, and conveys almost 50

67

percent, if not more, of Central Valley projects water delivery south

of the Delta.

The Delta channel assists in transporting water from upstream reservoirs to the south, where the CVP and the State Water Project

lift those, and then move them. Given the current reliance on the

Delta levees, one of the primary objectives of the CALFED program

was to look at long term Delta stability. And I would like to skip over a couple of things here in the inter- est of time though, and just mention that because the Delta facilities are very fragile, and Cal-Fed looked very seriously during

stage one of protecting those facilities, they kept alive the idea that

if need be, we might have to look at an isolated facility. And I know that has been mentioned here today, and I just want to make sure that we don’t lose sight of that. So stage one of the

CALFED program addressed Delta efforts for the first seven years,

and said if that doesn’t work, then we are going to have to look at

those facilities.

I also want to mention that in addition to protecting the Delta infrastructure, I believe that additional storage is needed to meet

the water supply and needs of a growing population, and to provide

a much needed flexibility in the system to improve water quality

and support fish and wildlife restoration efforts.

Reclamation in partnership with California Department of Water

Resources is investigating storage, as has been mentioned, and so

we are in support of that, and need to look at that in the full context, I believe, of Delta protection.

As was mentioned earlier, and some of the questions inferred, is

the Delta alone, and we need to look at it in the scope of the total

water management program, and upstream operations is part of

that. So I think that reclamation needs to continue to work with

the systems it has to provide the precise upstream operations also

in support of the Delta.

And we need to be looking hard at storage opportunities where

we can as part of that overall package. I would be happy to answer

any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rodgers follows:]

Statement of Kirk Rodgers, Mid-Pacific Regional Director,

Bureau of Reclamation

Introduction

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I am Kirk Rodgers, Mid-Pacific

Regional Director for the Bureau of Reclamation. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the current water related infrastructure conditions

in California’s Central Valley and the challenges we face in protecting future water

supply deliveries. My remarks are focused on the work and activities in the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta and on the risk faced in the context of levee failures.

While our attention is understandably drawn to the levees, it is important to keep

in mind that the long term reliability and security of water supplies can be heavily

impacted by other problem areas being addressed by the CALFED Program. Future

water supply projects, ecosystem projects, water management strategies, regulatory

decisions, and planning processes currently being developed or implemented by Reclamation and the CALFED Program will determine the future reliability and certainty of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project’s water management

infrastructure as a whole.

CALFED is a collaborative effort among 25 state and federal agencies to improve

water supplies in California and the health of the Bay-Delta Watershed. In August

2000, the CALFED agencies signed a Record of Decision (ROD) that described a 30–

68

year plan for implementing actions to resolve conflict in the Delta related to water

supply, water quality, ecosystem quality, and levee stability. Public Law 108-361,

signed in October 2004, authorized the federal CALFED agencies to implement the

CALFED Program using the ROD as a general framework.

Importance of Bay-Delta

The Delta is probably the most important feature of California’s complicated water supply delivery system. Water pumped out of the Delta provides drinking

water for two-thirds of the state, and supports the most productive agricultural region in the nation. The Delta’s channels assist in transporting water from upstream

reservoirs to the south Delta, where the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State

Water Project (SWP) facilities can pump water into the California Aqueduct and

CVP’s Delta-Mendota Canal. The stability of the Delta levees that contain the water

in these channels is paramount to protecting the Delta infrastructure along with ensuring a reliable supply of water to the Federal and State facilities. The Delta includes nearly 60 islands and tracts lying below sea level that are kept dry by levees

whose construction does not meet modern standards, and which in some instances

were built to protect crops from flooding. These levees were not built to provide as

much protection from loss of life or property damage as they would be if built in

accordance with today’s construction standards and project purposes. We will defer

to the Corps of Engineers and the State of California to more fully address the condition of the levees in the Sacramento/San Joaquin River system.

Delta Levees and the CALFED Bay-Delta Program

Levee stability in the Delta is one of the four primary objectives of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. The Preferred Program Alternative described in the ROD assumed that a through-Delta approach would continue to be the method of conveyance to south Delta project facilities for the first seven years of Program implementation (Stage 1). The CALFED Agencies did not rule out the possibility in the future

of constructing an isolated conveyance facility that would provide superior assurances of a reliable water supply south of the Delta, but because of timing of implementation it was not included in the Stage 1 decision. Instead, the ROD focused on

modifications within the current conveyance system in the Delta and a series of

studies to determine if improved water supply and reliability, protection and improvement of Delta water quality, improvements in ecosystem health, and reduced

risk of supply disruption due to catastrophic breaching of Delta levees could in fact

be achieved with the current ‘‘thru Delta’’ means of conveyance. Other ways to convey water through the Delta include ‘‘dual conveyance,’’ which refers to the conveyance of water through the Delta as well as around the Delta via a pipeline or canal,

or ‘‘isolated conveyance,’’ referring to the conveyance of a majority of the water

around the Delta via a pipeline or canal. A determination on the adequacy of the

existing configuration and the possible need to examine ‘‘dual conveyance’’ or ‘‘isolated conveyance’’ facilities is to be made in the next two years. Currently, CALFED agencies are focusing on the overall risk of Delta levee fail- ures and developing both short-term and long-term strategies for levee improvements. A current high priority activity is the Delta Risk Management Strategy

(DRMS), which is being led by the Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Water Resources. Reclamation’s role in DRMS has been limited to agency

coordination and tracking of accomplishments and the integration of this activity

into the broader CALFED program. The DRMS has the objective of evaluating ongoing and future risk of levee failure; identifying the probable consequences; and identifying levee maintenance and upgrades that are necessary and economically justified to reduce controllable risk. Data gained from this critically important study will

help establish the priorities for near-term and long-term actions that will reduce the

risk associated with catastrophic levee failure in the Delta.

The goals for levee system integrity and improvement contained in the ROD were well founded when developed; however, the DRMS will reevaluate those goals to determine if they remain valid. The DRMS study is estimated to cost $6 million and

is scheduled to be completed in 2007. In the interim while the DRMS study is being

completed, the program will continue to implement levee maintenance, levee improvement, and other components of this ROD.

Reclamation’s On-going Water Supply Improvement Activities

In addition to efforts to protect the Delta infrastructure, expanding water storage

capacity is among several integral components of the CALFED program. Additional

storage is one way of meeting the needs of a growing population and, if strategically

located, could provide additional flexibility in the system to improve water quality

and support fish restoration efforts. One element of a reliable water supply is the

ability to capture water during peak flows and during wet years, as well as more

69

efficient water use through conservation and water reuse and recycling, advanced

water treatment such as desalination, and non-traditional storage methods such as

conjunctive use with groundwater; the flood control benefits of storage capacity are

an inherent part of this. Reclamation, in partnership with the California Department of Water Resources, is investigating the feasibility of expanded surface storage

capacity at existing reservoirs and strategically located off-stream sites identified in

the ROD. Four surface storage feasibility studies are currently in progress, all of

which are to be completed between 2008 and 2009. Storage projects are not being

developed in isolation but rather as part of an overall water management strategy.

As such, storage combined with other program actions such as conservation, transfers and habitat restoration could contribute to and be compatible with the water

supply reliability, water quality and ecosystem restoration program objectives.

Conclusion

Protection of the Bay-Delta is of critical importance to California. Much more needs to be accomplished to ensure the long-term sustainability and reliability of

California’s water supply. Major decisions will need to be made in the near future

regarding the protection of the Delta’s critical infrastructure and the many integrated elements of the CALFED program, including the potential construction of

new surface storage facilities, that will shape California’s water management system into the future. We believe that these challenges will be best addressed through

the CALFED Program. That concludes my testimony. Mr. Chairman, I would like

to reiterate my appreciation to the sub-committee and others for continuing to work

with the Administration to address these significant water issues facing California.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Rodgers. I will start off the

questioning. Storage was brought up, and you brought up storage,

and actually it was brought up earlier in the hearing as well.

Where are you in relation to completing the storage studies in

CALFED? You know, the four main projects. But where are you on

those?

Mr. RODGERS. As was mentioned, there are four main projects

that we are doing feasibility studies on, and it is the Upper San

Joaquin, the Shasta enlargement, the Sites Reservoir, and the Los

Vocaros enlargement.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Do you have target dates for when those will

be completed?

Mr. RODGERS. Between the years of 2008 and 2009 is when those

feasibility studies will be completed.

Mr. RADANOVICH. OK. Thank you. Also in your testimony, you

mentioned that for the next two years that you will be making a

determination on the adequacy of existing conveyances through the

Delta, and the possible need to examine dual conveyance or isolated conveyance facilities.

I know that you talked a little bit about it, but what are your

plans, including a time line, for completing that determination as

well?

Mr. RODGERS. Well, we are working in cooperation with the State

Department of Water Resources in looking at those issues. As you

are aware, AB 1200 was passed, and the assignment came to the

State to take a hard look at the vulnerabilities in the Delta. And

we are jointly working together with the State on those issues.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. The modifications to Folsom Dam

would provide Sacramento with protection for about a 200 year

flood, which is relatively modest when compared to other large

United States cities that have a 400 to 500 year protection. What

would it require to bring that level of protection to Sacramento and

the San Joaquin Valley?

70

Mr. RODGERS. From 200 to 400 year flood protection?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Yes. Hint, Auburn Dam.

Mr. RODGERS. Let me say that——

Mr. RADANOVICH. Instream water facility.

Mr. RODGERS. In looking at the 200 year feature, we would be

making modifications to the dam and to the spillway structure

itself, and I think given the range of alternatives that we have

looked at there, we would just about exhaust the flood protection

capability of that structure with those additional features.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Making that a more than 200 year feature?

Mr. RODGERS. No, I think it would be about 200, and so I say

that as a preface to your question. We would have to look to other

features to gain additional flood protection for the Sacramento

area.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Do you have in your mind what the completion

of the Auburn Dam and the water behind it, would that get you

up to a 400 or 500 year feature? Specifically that one flood protection feature?

Mr. RODGERS. There were studies that were performed that

showed various sizes of Auburn dam, from small ones for flood control only, up to a very sizable system, up to the 2.3 million acre

feet range, all of which would increase substantially the flood protection for Sacramento, although I don’t have any updated or current details as to that.

Mr. RADANOVICH. All right. Thank you, Mr. Rodgers. General

Schroedel, Mr. Herger mentioned earlier that the Corps found a six

foot cave hole behind a Elderberry Bush on the Sacramento River,

and I am wondering how long it took to fix that cave hole, if you

are familiar with that.

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Sir, I am somewhat familiar with

that. The hole was discovered as I understand it after one of the

floods of either 1986 or 1997. I am not sure exactly which one, but

after one of the floods, and when we were asked to go in and do

a study to determine why the floods, and why some of the levee

failed, we noted a fairly good size hole that was mentioned by Congressman Herger behind some vegetation that had been missed.

But the point that I would like to bring out there if I can, Mr.

Chairman, is that the studies that we did after those floods were

pretty much as I just characterized them. Basically, trying to identify from visual inspection the kinds of potential failure sites that

we could identify.

We then went after and fixed those. Some people, I think, might

believe that there was extensive drilling, boring, and those kinds

of internal studies that were done to determine the stability of the

levees, and that was not the case.

With respect to the environmental aspects, which I think was

one of the points brought out, those do present some challenges in

some respects, with respect to some techniques that we can use to

stabilize the slopes of existing levees, and some of those issues

probably do need to be addressed.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I am assuming the cave hole is fixed now?

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Sir, it is still not fixed.

Mr. RADANOVICH. It is still not fixed? What is precluding you

from going in and fixing it now?

71

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Sir, I don’t know the exact status.

I can find that out for you, but I can tell you that as we pursue

those kinds of repairs, and where we have environmental challenges, generally mitigation issues are the kinds of issues that

cause us some delays. So I could get the specifics back to you for

the record.

Mr. RADANOVICH. If you can, give me a description of what is

taking so long to get it fixed, and an idea of the mitigation measures being asked for in that fix.

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir, we will do that.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. Also, General, the Delta levee

study, when the Corps conducts this study, will it use existing

studies as well, or are you to start from scratch?

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Yes, sir. I think, first of all, that

that study is very important, and I would strongly recommend that

we fund it. One, to at least get a short term effort to support the

collaborative efforts that are ongoing to help identify the priorities

that I mentioned at the beginning.

But I would also caution that in a six month period, again, that

would not include extensive subterranean investigations or whatever. It would have to rely I think in large measure on the studies

that we have already done, and not just the Corps, but any existing

studies, any existing thought that is out there.

The best science and best engineering that we could bring to bear

to at least try to frame the problem, and help us establish the priorities for the near term, and then I think to address the strategic

direction that we take, which was discussed earlier, and which I

personally support, would take something beyond, much beyond, a

six month study.

But at least to get us all in the same direction, which I think in

many ways we are, but to help reinforce that and help us identify

what the near term needs are, that six month report would absolutely be something that would be important to do. And it would

rely on existing material.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Very good. Thank you, General. Mrs.

Napolitano.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rodgers, for the

surface storage projects now being studied, what is the estimated

water yield that each project might yield? Any idea, any ball park

idea?

Mr. RODGERS. I would only be hazarding a guess, Mrs.

Napolitano. I can get that for you for the record.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would appreciate it, because this is something that is very controversial, or not controversial, but is in question as to one versus the other, and the amount of yield that each

one would produce. Then we can look at the cost.

The second question would be has the total amount of the water

from the Delta increased in recent years? And then can you tell us

what the total delta exports have been for the past six years?

Mr. RODGERS. I can answer the first question. That, yes, the

Delta exports have increased. But I would like to add a clarifying

component to that if I may, because I think sometimes that component by itself can be a distortion. That in addition, for instance,

this year, in addition to us increasing our pumping south of the

72

Delta to higher amounts than we have done in recent years, we

have also seen an incrementally larger amount of water going out

under the San Francisco—out through the Bay and out into the

ocean.

So if you look at the radios of how much is pumped, versus how

much goes on out to the ocean, you find that it is not just disproportional in that regard at all. And I think that one needs to

keep that in perspective.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am glad that you clarified that. One of the

things that we would like to have is any numbers that you might

have that would clarify for future committee questions in regard to

that particular issue which is contentious.

Mr. RODGERS. The total amount of pumping? Now, in asking that

question, so that I can make sure that I am responsive, do you

want to know the total for both the State and the Federal project?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Correct. Yes, as well as the water going into

the San Francisco Bay.

Mr. RODGERS. OK. If I may be so bold, and if I could add another

commentary. I want to indicate to you that we are not the only removers of water from the Delta. There are a lot of other diverters

out there, too, and so that would need to be taken into account.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Understood.

Mr. RODGERS. Thank you.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How much water has been made available for

the Fish and Wildlife under the ROD?

Mr. RODGERS. Are you speaking in terms of like the environment

water account, or—I mean, there are lots of water made available

to Fish and Wildlife, in addition to the regulatory flows that we put

in the river.

As the Bureau of Reclamation put 800,000 acre feet of our yield,

called the B-2 water, and to make that available, and we also have

acquired water under the Environmental Water Account.

So the combination of all of those is a fairly large number, and

I just don’t have the exact numbers for you. Do you want them by

year or for a series of years?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. It would help to be able to understand,

because there is questionable amounts of water that they are stating is not helping some of the fish population. So it would be helpful in clarifying that.

Mr. RODGERS. We can provide you the numbers that would quantify together how much water is being provided for the fish according to our records. If I again could be so bold, I would suggest that

we are not really sure what the connection is between why the fish

are having a problem and we are not necessarily correlating the

volume of water to the fish problem either.

So I would say that we would use caution with those numbers

for that purpose.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That is fine. We understand that there are

some things that do affect the water delivery to Fish and Wildlife

for the use of fish. And I will ask one of General Schroedel. How

is the physical condition of the levee system monitored? In other

words, how do you inspect it? How do you determine that it is

failing, or that it needs prioritizing in working on it?

73

What is needed to improve the monitoring, and how can that be

accomplished, as well as who is responsible for the monitoring of

the condition of the non-Federal levees, which also then is there

any monitoring in real time?

Is there a centralized monitoring effort planned or needed? Is

there one in place, and not just for the saline level levees?

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Thank you, Ma’am. That is a good

question. First of all, the first part of the question, I believe, is who

is responsible for the inspection and monitoring, and the inspection

and monitoring even of the Federal levee is the responsibility of the

State and local authorities, and not the Corps. So once we complete

the projects, even the Federal projects, those responsibilities are

handed off.

In terms of the monitoring, I frankly think that a much more robust and centralized system of monitoring may be in need, but

again, I would underscore the fact that I don’t think that anyone

can really say what the condition of those levees are.

We should be reminded that those are not engineered levees for

the most part, other than the Federal levees. The vast majority of

the 6,000 miles of levees are non-Federal. We have learned first

after the flood of 1986, we attempted to make some repairs using

shallow slurry walls, building up the toes of the slopes to stabilize

the levees. Then we learned after the flood of 1997 that under-seepage was the problem, and we had to deepen our slurry walls. So

it has been more of a trial and error learn by experience, experience, that I think we have had, as opposed to an active monitoring

and proactive prevention program.

And I think that there are a lot of other solutions short of rebuilding the entire system, which is not feasible. There may be

other—and this gets back to the strategy. There may be other solutions; taking some of them out of action, taking islands out of action perhaps. I don’t know.

Others might be setback levees, which in some cases have been

built. Then those are engineered, and then we know that those will

protect lives that we place behind them. So I think that the issue

is much larger, but in direct answer to your question, the Corps

does not maintain those responsibilities, and in fact I think there

should be something done about it.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And who should be the party who would be—

you are laughing—should be at least at the forefront, or the designated hitter if you will?

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Well, I think the first question

would be what are the standards, and once we establish the appropriate standards, whether they are PL84-99 standards, or Federal

standards, and those are not the same.

First and foremost, we should establish a common standard to

which we would build any levee in this country. Second, I think in

collaboration, as we determine a strategy, we should also determine who is the appropriate lead for whatever we are going to put

our resources into, and that is a major issue that is coming out of

Katrina.

I was down as a part of JTF Rita, and I can tell you that is a

huge central issue, not only to our response, but also to our prevention, and that is what is the appropriate Federal role, and what is

74

the appropriate State and local role, which as you know is addressed in the beneficiary pays issue within the CALFED process.

So I think it is a very large issue which we are ready to actively

participate in, and help get the answers to, and then once given the

authority and the resources, to give the American people the best

quality for their money.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much, gentlemen. You were

very, very good. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Cardoza.

Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start where

Mrs. Napolitano left off, and say, General, that I appreciate your

frankness, and your insight. I think you are absolutely right, and

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this committee can sort of inspire the

suggestions that the General made, and work on the suggestions

that the General just made, because I think they are absolutely

critical.

We have to have standards, and certainly if you take New Orleans, for example, building to a Category 3 standard was not a

smart move. We needed to have the worst case scenario, because

we know eventually that the worst case will happen.

And the same thing is going to happen in the California Delta.

We know that is going to happen, and it is a question of when and

not if. And we have to develop those standards, and thank you for

your frankness.

I want to also thank you and recognize that you brought with

you today a very talented individual in Mark Charlton, who I will

tell you—and this is going to embarrass him, but I wish frankly

more Federal officials acted the way he does, where when you ask

him a tough question, he gives you a straight answer.

I find that so rare in Washington that I wanted to recognize him

for it, because to work with him has been really special. You mentioned two studies. You mentioned a six month study and then a

longer study. How much do you think the six month study would

cost?

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Sir, right now the study is budgeted for $500,000, and at this point, we think that could be done

for that amount. A longer study, I couldn’t give you a good answer

today, but I would be willing to give you an estimate in response.

Mr. CARDOZA. I would really like that, and I would also like how

long the longer study would take, and what might be the scope of

the work done in it, because it is something that we need to look

at as a committee, and try and decide on that.

And finally, I would like to ask you one last thing, and that is

the Corps of Engineers is one of the critical components when we

look at this inoperability question that I have talked about, and

frankly, local government isn’t going to have the tools to be able

to marshal the resources. We are going to call the military.

And it is a question of direction, and command and control, and

all of those things that you do very well, but during the crises in

the past, local officials have told me that they can’t communicate

with you folks. Even worse, they can’t communicate among

themselves.

So it is absolutely critical that your organization be brought in

to this process as well.

75

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. Sir, if I could respond to that. We

are intimately involved at this point in the disaster response training preparedness. Again, standards are key, and common equipment is key, but if I could add one thought that I think is something worth thinking about with respect to the comments that you

have made today.

And this is something that I learned again as a part of JTF Rita.

Right now most of our planning is based on capabilities. So if I can

use this example. Within those capabilities, we say we want the

State, the Federal, the local, city, to have the capability to stand

up an emergency operations center. That is a capability.

Well, let us think about what happens once the catastrophe hits.

Some of those capabilities get wiped out and they are gone.

Mr. CARDOZA. That is right.

Brigadier General SCHROEDEL. So what I would recommend and

suggest, strongly suggest, is that in our planning—and we are

pushing hard within the Corps and within the teams that we are

working with, we really need to think about effects base planning.

What is the effect that we are looking for with respect to communication and emergency operations centers. What we are looking

for is that all the right people have the right common operating

picture of what the situation is so they can respond. If you don’t

know what the situation is, you don’t know what the operating picture is, and you can’t respond.

Communication is key to that, but if we think in an effects based

manner, as opposed to a capability based manner, it certainly I

think helps us think through the problem to the right level, and

I would just like to take the opportunity to emphasize that point;

a very major lesson that I think we have learned again in the disaster response context, but something that we build our tactical

plans around all the time. Effects, not capability.

Mr. CARDOZA. If I could just follow up for a moment, Mr. Chair.

I think it is important, especially from our area. Our chiefs, when

they were in to see me—and let me share this with you as well—

told me that the number of refugees that they anticipate hitting

the Modesto area or the Stanislaus County area to be in the

hundred-thousands if in fact we have the earthquake, Delta flood

scenario take place.

And I respect Mr. Chrisman, who was here earlier, and testified

earlier, and I didn’t challenge him on it because it is not really his

area, but the thought that we are handing out radios is so totally

inadequate to dealing with that kind of crisis that it was almost

embarrassing that we are still at that level.

And we really do need to have some kind of other mechanism,

and we need to have a discussion about it, whether it be here in

this committee, or in another venue in Congress. But somehow we

from the valley should start raising the issue, and it is not just our

area, and I am sure in Grace’s area that it is the same way, and

other places around the State.

But it really is a total lack of preparation on our part so far, and

we can’t let this happen again. Thank you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Cardoza. I do have one last

question for Mr. Rodgers. As you are looking at the temperance flat

water storage project, and you are assessing it, I am wondering if

76

the scope of that project includes assessing the impacts on the current hydropower generation that is operating in that area?

Mr. RODGERS. Yes.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And I want to make sure that if you are not, that you are, and also if those private facilities were affected by the

various options that I know are available in that project, that you

would have recommendations on how to resolve the impacts to

those hydro facilities.

Mr. RODGERS. Yes. Thank you for that question. In a recent re- view that I went through on that project with my staff, we did have

that discussion. They have assured me that we recognize in the

various alternatives that we are considering for that project that

existing hydro facilities could be impacted if certain of those alternatives were adopted.

And that mitigation or addressing the issue of those effects is a part of and would be disclosed in the study in the report.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, sir. Any other questions of this panel? If not, I want to thank you very much for being here. Your

testimony was very valuable, and with that, it concludes this hearing. [Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[The following statement was submitted for the record by Mr. Herger:]

Statement of The Honorable Wally Herger, a Representative in Congress from the State of California

I applaud Chairman Pombo and Chairman Radanovich for holding today’s hear- ing, and also for the ongoing leadership they have demonstrated on the water supply and flood control issues important to California and the greater western United

States.

These two issues—water supply and flood control—are inextricably linked. This is especially true in my home State of California. Upstream reservoirs, such as Lake

Shasta and Lake Oroville in California’s second congressional district, the area

which I represent, are the centerpieces of the state’s two major water supply

projects, but they also, working in tandem with the Central Valley’s system of levees, weirs, and bypasses, provide critical flood protection for millions of Californians

who live downstream.

When contemplating or addressing its water supply vulnerability, the state can- not, nor should not, simply choose to maintain or invest in small local or regional

levee projects, without strongly pursuing further development of water detention facilities in upstream areas. Indeed, the multi-million dollar public investment that

is required to bring California’s levee system up to contemporary standards would

be for naught without such a commitment to upstream storage and flood control

projects. Impoundment facilities on the major river tributaries north of the Delta,

such as the North Fork of the American River, would allow winter and springtime

runoff to be held back and then metered out over a period of months, keeping the

levee system intact and providing the state with a new source of high quality water

and affordable hydroelectricity. Though levees are an important part of keeping people, property, and vital infrastructure safe and functional, they do not, by themselves, provide the answer to shoring up California’s water supply vulnerabilities. In addition, any public investment in levees must be made in tandem with a re- sponsible review and modification of the lengthy and costly environmental review

process that accompanies much of the maintenance of this infrastructure. Recently,

under the leadership of Chairmen Pombo and Radanovich, the House passed the

Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act in order to improve the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA). This legislation contains a common sense and long

overdue provision that will require new regulations to cut some of the environmental red tape that flood protection districts face when trying to make urgent and

targeted levee repairs.

My district suffered a terrible tragedy when a levee repair project was delayed

for nearly seven years because of the endangered Elderberry beetle, despite an

77

Army Corps of Engineers prediction that a ‘‘loss of human life’’ would occur unless

repairs were made. Yet, repairs were not made because of the inflexibility of the

ESA, and three of my constituents lost their lives in the January 1997 flood. One

victim was a decorated veteran of World War II; a second victim was the wife of

the manager of the levee district that had been prevented from doing the timely repair work.

It’s my hope that the provision in Chairman Pombo’s ESA reform legislation, as

well as today’s timely hearing on the relationship between natural disaster and

water supply vulnerability, will prevent future tragedies like the one that occurred

in my district, or recently in Louisiana and Mississippi, from befalling California’s

Central Valley, and will play an important role in ensuring that the state is able

to maintain its levee and water supply system.

Æ