STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE RECLAMATION BOARD
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
RESOURCES BUILDING
1416 NINTH STREET
AUDITORIUM
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2004
9:00 A.M.
JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
LICENSE NUMBER 10063
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
ii
APPEARANCES
BOARD MEMBERS
Ms. Betsy Marchand, President
Mr. Tony Cusenza, Vice President
Mr. Bill Edgar, Secretary
Mr. Burt Bundy
Mr. Jeff Mount, Member
Mr. Floyd Weaver, Member
STAFF
Mr. Peter D. Rabbon, General Manager
Mr. Steven Bradley, Chief Engineer
Mr. Scott Morgan, Counsel
Ms. Lori Buford, Staff Assistant
ALSO PRESENT
Mr. Curt Aikens, Yuba County Water Agency
Ms. Margit Aramburu, Delta Protection Commission
Mr. George Basye, Flood Control Association
Ms. Chris Boyer, Contra Costa County Office of Emergency
Services
Mr. Robert Clark, California Central Valley Flood Control
Association
Ms. Marci Coglianese, Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee
Delta Levees Subcommittee
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iii
APPEARANCES
ALSO PRESENT
Mr. Thomas Davis, Griffin Farms
Mr. Ken Dickerson, Department of Water Resources
Mr. Jeff Fong, Department of Water Resources
Mr. James Griffin, Griffin Farms
Ms. Patty Griffin, Griffin Farms
Mr. Butch Hodgkins, SAFCA
Ms. Mary Keller, Sutter County Water Resources
Mr. Rod Mayer, Department of Water Resources
Mr. Charles McClain, Three Rivers Levee Improvement
Authority, Yuba County Administrator
Mr. Mike Mirmazaheri, Department of Water Resources
Mr. Jeff Moresco, Griffin Farms
Mr. Dave Mraz, Department of Water Resources
Mr. Rick Reinhardt, MBK Engineers
Mr. Ronald Stork, Friends of the River
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
iv
INDEX
PAGE
1. Roll Call 1
2. Approval of Minutes - July 16 & September 17 3
3. Approval of Agenda 3
4. Public Comments 5
5. Report of Activities of the Department of
Water Resources 7
CONSENT
6. Consent Calendar
A. Consent Metropolitan Area Watershed Project,
San Joaquin County 22
B. Partial Relinquishment of Flowage Easement,
Solano County 4
REQUESTED ACTIONS
7. Project or Study Agreements 23
8. Applications
Applications No. 17860, Joseph Griffin,
Sacramento River, Colusa County 23
9. Enforcements 68
10. Nonfederal Sponsorship 68
11. Delta Levee Subventions Program
A. Briefing on Delta Levees - subsidence,
sea level rise, and seismicity 79
B. Consider approval of applications and
proposed maximum reimbursement amounts for
Fiscal Year 2004-05 Delta Levees Maintenance
Subventions Program 127
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
v
INDEX CONTINUED
PAGE
INFORMATIONAL BRIEFINGS
12. Reclamation Board Projects 4
13. Yuba County Comprehensive Flood Protection
Program 150
BOARD REPORTS
14. Report of Activities of the General Manager 196
15. Board Comments and Committee Reports 200
16. Adjournment 204
Reporter's Certificate 205
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
1
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Ladies and gentlemen, we're
3 going to call the meeting to order. Welcome, and thank
4 you all for coming.
5 This is a meeting of The Reclamation Board, the
6 State of California.
7 And the first item is our roll call. And let the
8 record show that all members are here except for Gloria.
9 Before we go to Item No. 2, I'd like to call on
10 our Vice Chair, Tony, to make a little statement, which no
11 one, including Pete, knows what's going to happen.
12 Tony.
13 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: Thank you, Madam Chair.
14 You said I'm going to make a little statement. I don't
15 know if these people have ever heard me make a little
16 statement.
17 (Laughter.)
18 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: But this is a big
19 statement.
20 I want to share with the audience -- I noticed
21 that the members of the Board know. I want to share with
22 the audience that our General Manager, Mr. Peter Rabbon,
23 was recently elected President of the National Association
24 of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies. It's called
25 NAFSMA. NAFSMA is an influential group in advocating
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
2
1 effective flood control and storm policy matters
2 nationally.
3 Well, that's our Pete. They finally recognized
4 his talents.
5 And, Pete, we want to congratulate you.
6 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Right. Let's give Pete a
7 big hand.
8 (Applause.)
9 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: Thank you, Tony.
10 I was just talking to Burt. I thought those
11 kinds of positions really took no time. I've found out
12 that's not the case. And I've also found out that when
13 your executive officer for the organization is back in
14 Washington DC, that they pretty much expect you to come in
15 very early in the morning so you can get ahold of them
16 when they are at their desk.
17 So thank you again. And I look forward to trying
18 to move policy forward that will help California.
19 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Well, you will do a good
20 job. This just requires a lot more work, getting up very
21 early, and no extra pay.
22 (Laughter.)
23 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: That was nice Tony. Thank
24 you.
25 Okay. Now, moving right along. We have approval
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
3
1 of minutes for two meetings, July 16 and September 17.
2 I didn't see the 17th in my packet. Do other
3 people have the 17th?
4 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: We do not have the
5 September 17th minutes available. We are trying to put in
6 place a new system to receive some additional staff
7 support. And we are still working the bugs out on that
8 new system.
9 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. So we're going to
10 direct our attention to the July 16th minutes.
11 Are there any comments on the minutes?
12 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: I would move adoption.
13 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Do we have a second?
14 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: I second.
15 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: It's moved by Burt, seconded
16 by Tony, to approve the minutes of the Board of
17 Reclamation for July 16th.
18 Any further discussion?
19 All those in favor say aye.
20 (Ayes.)
21 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Opposed?
22 Motion carried.
23 The next item is to approve this agenda that we
24 have before us. There's plenty of flexibility in this
25 agenda for I think comments that Board members want to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
4
1 make as we go along.
2 Pete, do you have any --
3 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: There are three changes.
4 We would like to remove Item 6B, partial
5 relinquishment of flowage easement, Solano County.
6 We would also like to remove Item 12, the status
7 report on Board projects.
8 And we also would like to change the presenter on
9 Item 10 from myself to Scott Morgan.
10 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: On Item No. 10?
11 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: Nonfederal sponsorship.
12 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: And Jeff has requested,
13 because he's going to make the presentation that he made
14 to the Bay Delta Authority as Item 11, to have a break
15 after 10. Right, Jeff?
16 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: I just need time to plug in.
17 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Yeah. So we'll have a break
18 in there.
19 All right. Any other additions or corrections to
20 this agenda?
21 Do we have a motion to approve this agenda as
22 outlined?
23 SECRETARY EDGAR: So move.
24 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Second.
25 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Moved by Bill, seconded by
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
5
1 Jeff, to approve the agenda with the changes as outlined
2 by Pete.
3 Any further discussion?
4 All those in favor say aye.
5 (Ayes.)
6 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Opposed?
7 Motion carried.
8 This is the time on the agenda for public
9 comments.
10 Is there anyone here who wishes to make a public
11 comment? I do have a card from our friend, Mr. Clark.
12 Welcome, Bob. Glad to see you.
13 MR. CLARK: Thank you President Marchand. And
14 good morning to the members of the Board.
15 And, Mr. Rabbon, my congratulations to you. I'm
16 sure you'll do a good job.
17 My name is Robert Clark and I'm Manager of the
18 California Central Valley Flood Control Association.
19 This morning I wish to address you regarding a
20 recent bill that failed to get through the Legislature,
21 and that is AB 1983. While the bill had good intentions,
22 it created a great deal of anxiety among flood control
23 interests.
24 In spite of the hard work of Assembly Member Wolk
25 and her staff, time ran out before all issues could be
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
6
1 resolved. We believe the issues raised by the Floodplain
2 Management Task Force and addressed by AB 1983 need to be
3 addressed to further future flood control projects in the
4 Central Valley.
5 The Flood Control Association supported the
6 intent of the bill. And its primary concern was that
7 providing environmental elements to flood control projects
8 would not detract from the primary public safety role of
9 The Reclamation Board.
10 In the furtherance of this effort, and I hope in
11 bringing parties together and reaching a consensus on the
12 issues, the Flood Control Association respectfully
13 requests that The Reclamation Board sponsor at least two
14 public workshops, possibly in Sacramento and Fresno, where
15 all the interested parties can review the issues and
16 better understand how to resolve the problems raised by
17 the Floodplain Management Task Force.
18 We hope that such an effort could allow most of
19 the parties interested to work together to bring a more
20 effective and streamlined development of needed flood
21 control projects.
22 We would encourage those interested to follow
23 your effort by developing a legislative proposal that
24 could be presented to Assembly Member Wolk, with broad
25 support from Central Valley flood control interests.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
7
1 Thank you for your time. And I hope you can do
2 that. And we'd be glad to submit a formal request if that
3 would be helpful.
4 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: I think that would be
5 helpful, Bob.
6 Let me ask you a question, too. I think this is
7 a good idea.
8 Is your association willing to co-sponsor or work
9 with us in any way in these workshops?
10 MR. CLARK: We'd be delighted to.
11 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. Other Board members
12 may wish to make comments.
13 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: I think it's a great idea.
14 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Everybody's nodding yes. So
15 send us over a letter and we'll get it on.
16 MR. CLARK: Very good. I will.
17 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. Anyone else here wish
18 to make a comment at this time about any matter not on the
19 agenda? This is the time to tell us what's on your mind.
20 I don't see anyone rushing to the podium. So
21 we'll close this part of the agenda and move to Item No.
22 5, which is a Report of Activities of the Department of
23 Water Resources.
24 And Rod Mayer is going to make this report. It's
25 in our binder that was on our desks.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
8
1 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: Good
2 morning, President Marchand, members of the Board, Mr.
3 Rabbon. Rod Mayer, Acting Chief, Division of Flood
4 Management.
5 I'd like to go over with you and comment on what
6 you've already received in your package.
7 We had a record storm in Sacramento back on the
8 19th, which had one hour precipitation of about 1.8
9 inches, which broke a very longstanding record. There was
10 quite a strong cold front that came in that day.
11 With respect to the long range weather, the El
12 Nio trend still continues. It appears that it will be a
13 weak to moderate El Nio.
14 On Jones Tract, we are nearing the end of our
15 pump out. The pump out is broken into two portions. The
16 first portion is the water -- dewatering down to the point
17 where the levee is completely exposed and levee
18 restoration work could begin. Pumping beyond that point
19 would be considered agriculture dewatering. And we're at
20 about that point where we switch over to agricultural
21 dewatering, which is not reimbursable by FEMA. But the
22 levee restoration dewatering is.
23 We'd expect all the dewatering to be completed by
24 the end of October or early November at this point.
25 We are experiencing some seepage at the levee
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
9
1 break closure site. And -- but we're trying to monitor
2 that. However, it's somewhat difficult because the
3 seepage is primarily below water at this time.
4 The plan is, once the area is dewatered, that we
5 would flatten the slope on the land side, and hopefully
6 the seepage would continue subsurface and not daylight at
7 that point.
8 With respect to Trapper Slough and that
9 levee-raising effort, our intention is in the next few
10 weeks to grade the Trapper Slough levee so that it has a 5
11 percent slope in towards Upper Jones Tract, and that any
12 rainfall that lands on that levee would run off into Jones
13 Tract. And then on the water side slope of that levee, we
14 will compact the material that's been put there and
15 hydro-seed it to prevent it from running into Trapper
16 Slough.
17 There's also a discussion about monitoring. And
18 we have to have further discussions with the Regional
19 Water Quality Control Board with respect to the
20 monitoring. They'd like a much more aggressive and
21 longstanding monitoring program for water quality surface
22 and subsurface than what we're ready to commit to at this
23 point. So further talks on that.
24 We've had a number of conferences in September
25 that I'd like to touch on. We had a NAFSMA conference in
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
10
1 Monterey. Pete was there.
2 We also had Keith Swanson there. And Keith
3 Swanson, who I know that you're familiar with, spoke on
4 maintenance difficulties that DWR is facing in the Central
5 Valley on the Sacramento River Flood Control Project. And
6 those difficulties have to do with erosion repairs,
7 sediment removal, and vegetation removal especially when
8 it involves elderberry. And his speech was very well
9 received, I understood. We expect to have further
10 discussions on that topic.
11 And I know that there was a follow-up meeting
12 that Pete may be able to talk to with the Corps and
13 interested regulatory agencies.
14 The Floodplain Management Association also held a
15 conference in Monterey, at the same location in Monterey,
16 in September. Pete Rabbon provided an entertaining
17 history of the Central Valley flood control during the
18 lunch portion. I made a presentation mainly talking about
19 concepts that are in our white paper, and aired many of
20 those concepts. And that was fairly well received. And
21 we had other speakers as well. I know Jay Punia, who's
22 here, presented information on the Jones Tract levee
23 failure and enclosure effort.
24 Another conference I'd like to touch on is the
25 Gilbert White Flood Policy Forum. And Ricardo Pineda, one
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
11
1 of our branch chiefs, also he went to Washington for this
2 forum. And the subject was: Is the 100-year flood -- or
3 the 1-percent-chance flood adequate protection?
4 Ricardo presented a paper, and his paper argued
5 that there is a substantial residual risk behind levees
6 that have 100-year flood protection and we ought to deal
7 with that, there are severe consequences, and a higher
8 standard would be appropriate for areas behind levees.
9 There were other speakers and papers at that
10 conference with a similar thought and tone. And FEMA is
11 expressing some interest in picking up that subject. So
12 we're encouraged by that.
13 And a consultant to FEMA representing Michael
14 Baker Engineering, one of the representatives from Michael
15 Baker is General Galloway, who led the task force dealing
16 with the 1993 midwest flooding. And you may recall that
17 was one of the major recommendations that came out of that
18 task force, was the idea of developing a zone, we call the
19 AL Zone. And it would be for requiring flood protection
20 behind levees unless the levee can be shown to have 500
21 year or greater flood protection. Mr. Galloway was very
22 interested in furthering this topic.
23 We also had good discussion on a number of other
24 topics, including Paterno and how that's affecting the
25 State, and our various mapping programs and efforts.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
12
1 With respect to legislation, a lot of bills got
2 through the Legislature this session that -- and I'm sure
3 you're aware of them.
4 AB 105 -- I'd just like to comment that it's
5 great that you're now a law abiding board. And although
6 it's a small item, it is interesting.
7 AB 2104 is one that I mentioned to you previously
8 as a bill that was awaiting signature by the Governor.
9 The Governor did sign it. And what the bill did was it
10 changed a recent change in maintenance area law. The
11 previous change, which had been under AB 1107, which was a
12 budget trailer bill, provided to the Department of Water
13 Resources the discretion to not form a maintenance area,
14 if it chose not to, in areas where local agencies provided
15 the assurances to the Corps, and the state never did. So
16 essentially we're talking about areas outside the Central
17 Valley.
18 AB 2104 made some changes to that section of law,
19 because in addition to what I just described in AB 1107,
20 there were some certain costs that were identified as
21 costs the maintenance area could charge. And now AB 2104
22 says you can only charge those costs -- or not only -- but
23 can you charge those costs if it's a maintenance area that
24 you are going to form, not already existing maintenance
25 areas.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
13
1 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: What does that mean?
2 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: What that
3 means is some of the costs that we were looking at
4 recovering in maintenance areas, such as legal costs,
5 costs of settling lawsuits, those costs previously under
6 maintenance area law, we could assess the landowners for
7 those costs rather than going to the General Fund. AB
8 1107 made it clear that we could do that. AB 2104 made it
9 clear that we can do that on maintenance areas that we
10 form in the future. It did not make it clear that we
11 could do that on maintenance areas that already exist
12 today.
13 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Does it prohibit it?
14 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: It doesn't
15 clearly prohibit it either. So it leaves it a little bit
16 in a gray area.
17 One of the bills that I wanted to mention again,
18 I mentioned it last month, is AB 2141. And this is a bill
19 that would require formation of the alluvial fan task
20 force. The Governor has signed that bill. It is now law.
21 And it involves formation of the task force involving
22 numerous stakeholders and county representatives from
23 southern California area. DWR is taking a lead in funding
24 work on preparing a FEMA grant. And the idea is that FEMA
25 through its grant would fund the task force. The bill
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
14
1 prohibits use of state funds for task force work.
2 So the best we can do for them is help with the
3 grant. And after that it's going to have to be
4 FEMA-funded or some other funding source to fund the task
5 force effort.
6 The idea of the task force would be to provide a
7 guide to local agencies on proper use of land use
8 decisions on alluvial floodplains, alluvial fans. And
9 hopefully they would come out with a model ordinance.
10 And I have a video that I'd like to run. It's a
11 12 minute video. What'd I'd like to do is skip through in
12 a couple places to show you what happened last Christmas
13 on an alluvial fan in southern California. It will
14 probably take about two minutes -- two to three minutes to
15 run this.
16 Mr. Davis lives on an alluvial fan in the town of
17 Devore, and he got his new video camera for Christmas, is
18 what we understand.
19 This is a street in front of his house which runs
20 straight down the fan.
21 We don't often get to see debris flows like this,
22 so I thought you would find this interesting.
23 We'll skip ahead.
24 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: Rod, is that strictly
25 watershed water coming down from --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
15
1 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: Yes. This
2 is -- the watershed was a burned area from the fires. And
3 so that's what the cause of this really was.
4 SECRETARY EDGAR: Did you say that that was
5 coming out of the San Gabriel? Or where's that coming
6 from?
7 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: It's the
8 town of Devore. I'm not sure exactly what the stream is.
9 SECRETARY EDGAR: Okay.
10 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: We'll skip
11 ahead a little bit more. And you can kind of see some of
12 the results, the clean up.
13 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: Where is this water
14 actually going before it gets to the ocean? I mean where
15 is the collection -- some river -- the Los Angeles River
16 or --
17 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: I'm not
18 sure.
19 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: As I recall, the Devore
20 cutoff is as you would be progressing into the San
21 Bernardino Mountains. And it's there where Highland
22 Avenue -- old Highland Avenue used to go and you'd go on
23 the Devore cutoff. So I imagine that this is coming out
24 of that burned area, which it's below crestline and
25 Arrowhead -- Lake Arrowhead, in that area. You know where
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
16
1 a mean? And so it would be coming down. And I don't know
2 where it would be heading, but it would probably be
3 heading into the area not too far from Claremont.
4 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: This basically this
5 water is not harnessed by any dam or reservoir or
6 anything; this is just watershed water coming down -- rain
7 water?
8 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: I couldn't
9 say.
10 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Well, thanks for the
11 informative --
12 (Laughter.)
13 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: I think
14 this was very educational seeing firsthand the fan though
15 in the process.
16 Dave, we need to shut this off.
17 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: Betsy, it might be
18 helpful to have an expert in geology that can maybe
19 describe what alluvial flooding is.
20 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Would that be me?
21 (Laughter.)
22 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: I think what was interesting
23 for members of the Board to look at is that the nature of
24 those flows -- and those flows would be up to 50, 60, 70
25 percent sediment and very low percentages of water. And
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
17
1 it actually moves at a what's called a non-Newtonian
2 manner. It doesn't flow like regular water.
3 And they're a nightmare for those in the business
4 who are trying to do flood frequency calculations, because
5 in fact the volume -- we use cube feet per second. That's
6 our usual measure, we look at the distribution through
7 time. These things behave very, very differently. And so
8 the gauge record is actually quite different because it
9 comes -- our slug of a slurry of sediment and water mixed
10 together.
11 And so they really do mess up your flood
12 frequency calculations, which are usually based on what
13 I'd call clear water style approaches. I think the thing
14 that's most important is these fans -- southern California
15 fans at least are such an interesting system. And it's
16 not a problem we have here, with the possible exception of
17 the east side -- I mean west side streams here in the
18 Central Valley. Is that they do move these debris flows,
19 which are very fast, they come very fast, and they
20 disappear real quickly, deposit large volumes of sediment.
21 But they tend to jump out of their channels. They
22 establish new channels. These fans worked in a
23 distributary manner. They've got the apex of the fan
24 where it would come out of the mountain and they would
25 spread out in multiple channels. And that creates a whole
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
18
1 different set of land use planning problems.
2 At least here we know where the Sacramento River
3 is. And these systems, they jump all over the place. And
4 unfortunately -- I guess I'm smiling. I bet you Joe
5 Countryman and others are looking at that, thinking,
6 "Okay, what's the roughness value of that?" You know, how
7 do you model something like that? Because what they've
8 done with these streets is they've created these really
9 interesting first order streams, perfectly straight, low
10 roughness streams that go right down the alluvial fan.
11 And so now one of these communities it will go down one
12 boulevard one year and another year it will go down
13 another boulevard. It jumps all over the place. So from
14 a management perspective, these things are a real pain.
15 At least we know where most of our water in this
16 system is coming from and where it's likely to go.
17 If you guys want a whole schtick on these fan
18 systems, these alluvial fan systems, I'm happy to give you
19 actually, if you want, a little class. But the fact is we
20 get very few of these systems in our purview.
21 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: In our purview. I
22 understand.
23 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Yeah, we're the big lowland
24 river, with wacky-for-days kind of flooding. Whereas
25 these things will last an hour. Very short.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
19
1 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you, Jeff.
2 Around the City of Claremont there's lots of
3 results of these kinds of floods.
4 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: They're all built on those.
5 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Yeah.
6 Thank you, Rod. I would like to ask about this
7 SB 840, Wes Chesbro's bill on Middle Creek up here. It
8 looks like it failed. Isn't that in Lake County?
9 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: Yes. I
10 think Pete may have a little bit more information on that
11 one than I do. But that was for the Middle Creek project.
12 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: The Middle Creek project
13 as of yet does not have federal authorization, and so it
14 is too early to request state authorization. Plus we are
15 still trying to work with the locals there and the tribe
16 in terms of coming up with a project that we know will be
17 sustainable from a maintenance perspective, because they
18 are recommending a levee that would be founded on a poor
19 foundation. And so that it's getting somewhat complicated
20 in terms of it's now being tied to some other federal
21 legislation that has to look at exchanging some federal
22 lands for the project.
23 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. That could be very
24 complicated.
25 Okay. Thank you. Well, that one's going nowhere
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
20
1 what I'm hearing from that report. Thank you.
2 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: And one of
3 the other difficulties is if that ring levee's built,
4 there's no way to assess the tribe for the cost of the
5 maintenance, being a sovereign nation. And we really need
6 to find another alternative for the ring levee.
7 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Well, there could be a
8 negotiation with the tribe.
9 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: There could
10 be --
11 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: And that could be attempted.
12 Because some tribes work with the state.
13 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: I agree.
14 However, this -- the tribe --
15 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: This one doesn't.
16 (Laughter.)
17 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: Well, I
18 think the tribe actually is very cooperative. But they
19 oppose a ring levee. They don't support it.
20 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Oh, Okay.
21 All right. Are there any questions for Rod on
22 the report?
23 Yes.
24 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: I had one last question for
25 him since we're right back to Jones Tract.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
21
1 Have we got any idea what the cost of dealing
2 with Trapper Slough is going to be?
3 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: Yeah, we
4 do. The grading and the seeding and limited monitoring
5 that we're looking at is between 300 and $400,000. The
6 regional board would like us to do a lot more sampling and
7 monitoring, and we haven't put a cost on that and we
8 haven't agreed to that. But it would be much higher than
9 what, 3 to 400,000.
10 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: The hits keep on coming.
11 So did we know this soil was contaminated when we
12 put it on? Oops, I just asked one of those legal
13 questions.
14 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: No, we had
15 no idea.
16 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Okay.
17 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Any more questions?
18 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: I'd like to make just a
19 comment.
20 I'm glad to see that we have people even on a
21 national basis start to talk more about residual risk of
22 flooding behind levees. Maybe we could let other
23 people -- maybe we could let other people realize that,
24 you know, we can build them bigger and bigger and better
25 and better, but there's still always residual potential
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
22
1 out there. And in light of the Paterno case, that becomes
2 even more troublesome to us here in California.
3 Borrowing a term that we hear so much right now
4 in politics is nuisance, nuisance. Well, maybe there was
5 a time when this was strictly ag land and you get a break
6 in a levee and you inconvenience somebody for a while.
7 But now with the urban development in there, it's no
8 longer a nuisance. It becomes a catastrophe. And I'm
9 tickled pink to hear someone starting to speak that way on
10 a national basis.
11 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you. How true.
12 Okay. That concludes I think your report. And
13 thank you very much.
14 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: You're
15 welcome.
16 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: We're going to move to the
17 consent calendar, which is 6A.
18 Six B was removed, as you will recall.
19 So 6A, consider approval of a joint use agreement
20 with the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency and the
21 Corps for access and maintenance of flood control
22 facilities in the Stockton metropolitan area.
23 Is there a motion on the consent calendar?
24 BOARD MEMBER WEAVER: So move.
25 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Second.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
23
1 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Moved by Floyd -- and who
2 seconded that?
3 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Burt.
4 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: -- seconded by Burt to
5 approve the consent calendar Item 6A.
6 Any further discussion?
7 All those in favor say aye.
8 (Ayes.)
9 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Opposed?
10 Motion carried.
11 Moving to requested actions. Under 7 there is
12 nothing to do.
13 So we'll go to 8, which is applications. And
14 this is Applications 17 -- no, 17860, Sacramento River,
15 Colusa County. Consider applicant's request for a
16 variance to the Board's regulations to replace an existing
17 damaged 18-inch steel pipe going through the levee below
18 the design water surface elevation with a new pipe.
19 And, Mike, are you making this?
20 FLOODWAY PROTECTION CHIEF MIRMAZAHERI: I am,
21 yes.
22 Good morning, Madam President, members of the
23 Board. For the record, I'm Mike Mirmazaheri, Chief of the
24 Floodway Protection, DWR. And I'm here to present
25 Application 17860, Griffin Farms.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
24
1 I know Ken Dickerson from the local maintaining
2 agency is here. Also applicant is here. And they may
3 wish to approach the Board and comment.
4 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All right. At that point,
5 if there are others who wish to speak on this matter to
6 the Board, please get a card from our clerk, who is now
7 raising her hand, Lori, fill out the card and return it to
8 Lori.
9 Sorry, Mike. Go ahead with your presentation
10 while they get the cards.
11 FLOODWAY PROTECTION CHIEF MIRMAZAHERI: Okay.
12 I'll just add a couple of slides just to help the visual
13 in this one.
14 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
15 Presented as follows.)
16 FLOODWAY PROTECTION CHIEF MIRMAZAHERI: This
17 Department question is located along the left bank of the
18 Sacramento River, levee mile 10.53. It is approximately 4
19 miles north of Colusa. As I said, the local maintaining
20 agency in this one is Sutter Maintain Yard and is part of
21 DWR.
22 This is an existing steel pipe, 18 inch. It was
23 permitted by Permit No. 9517, which was issued on April
24 12, 1974. The pipe itself may be about 50 years old
25 because it was already in the ground prior to '74 when it
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
25
1 was permitted.
2 In February of 2004, Sutter yard had to -- as
3 part of maintaining the levee had to repair a sinkhole
4 along -- at that location and did some work in there. And
5 Ken can get into more detail if the Board members wish to
6 hear more about that.
7 And in April of 2004 Bob Duffy, inspector with
8 the flood project inspection, learned about the damage.
9 To give you some visual out here, this pretty
10 much represents what's out there. As I said, this is an
11 18-inch pipe, steel pipe. The failure is somewhere out
12 here. And according to Bob Duffy, about 52.2 feet from
13 the land side. This pipe is -- it would approximately be
14 17 feet below the crown of the levee and is 13 feet below
15 the 100-year floodplain. The levee crown is at elevation
16 71 and the floodplain is at elevation 67.
17 After April sometime -- actually in April the
18 inspectors with cooperation of the lessee and the area
19 farmer, they actually investigated this a little bit
20 further to confirm the rupture in the pipe. And through
21 video technology, they were able to confirm that, yes,
22 there is a rupture out here. And this rupture -- I don't
23 know how long it's been there, but obviously there's
24 evidence of that.
25 So staff began talking to Jeff Moresco, and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
26
1 through Jeff Moresco with the landowners. And basically
2 the intention of the staff was to explain what it takes to
3 repair that and to be in compliance with the Title 23.
4 --o0o--
5 FLOODWAY PROTECTION CHIEF MIRMAZAHERI: And this
6 is what Title 23 recommends. Instead of going straight
7 through the levee and create holes in the levee, Title 23
8 is asking to go what we call up and over. So just to be
9 about two or three feet under the levee and go down from
10 the water side all the way to the land side.
11 Landowner raised the issue of existing pump that
12 they have here; and if they do this, they would have to
13 also replace the pump, and that would be costly for them.
14 So they indicated that they can't do that at this time, to
15 repair all of this, and also get a new pump.
16 So we continued dialogue with them. They came up
17 with two alternatives from the proposal. One was to get
18 in and check the core of the levee. If the core of the
19 levee is damaged in any way, then they could go ahead and
20 replace the entire section of this pipe at the same
21 elevation.
22 The other alternative they had was they just
23 cement a 14 inch into this existing 18 inch and grout
24 around it.
25 Both of these proposals I had some reservations
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
27
1 about. I wasn't quite sure if technically it would be
2 supportable. And I indicated to them that in lieu of
3 Title 23 recommendation, the only thing that I would be
4 able to support and discuss that with the chief engineer
5 and general manager is if they put the application in and
6 they proposed to replace the entire section. And they did
7 so. They actually put the application in. And that's
8 application 17860. And they are indicating that they are
9 willing to replace the entire section.
10 This would be a variance to Title 23 and we all
11 understand that. And after talking to general manager and
12 Steve Bradley, the issue was more setting precedence,
13 number one, because we know there are more pipes like this
14 in the area in the entire Central Valley, they're old
15 pipes, and we are going to get more of this. That was one
16 issue.
17 In terms of technical, we obviously don't want to
18 have -- don't like to see a hole, you know, in the levee,
19 that's pretty much given, because this is under the
20 floodplain. But that's something that, you know, if the
21 Board decides to go with a variance, you know, we could
22 work around it.
23 But because this requires a variance and because
24 this could set precedent for other featured projects,
25 decision of general manager was for us to present this to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
28
1 the Board and let the Board make a decision.
2 So at this time, based on the recommendations and
3 guidelines of Title 23, my recommendation is to deny this
4 application.
5 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Questions?
6 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Yes. This may directed as
7 much to Scott, and it's relevant to our next topic that
8 we're going to discuss.
9 Suppose we were to grant this variance and piping
10 occurred along this pipe and this levee failed at this
11 spot. This would be our fault.
12 STAFF COUNSEL MORGAN: I wouldn't go quite that
13 far. But I certainly expect that to be raised by
14 plaintiffs in a flood case and looked at very closely by
15 the jury, especially since this is a variance from the
16 regulations and the staff has recommended that there's a
17 potential for failure of the levee because of this sort of
18 pipe.
19 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All right. Tony.
20 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: Mike, when was Title 23
21 here -- when was that initiated? When did that come into
22 effect?
23 FLOODWAY PROTECTION CHIEF MIRMAZAHERI: My
24 understanding is in about '96 -- 1996.
25 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: Okay.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
29
1 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Do you have a cost figure on
2 how much it would cost to do it and to be in compliance
3 with Title 23?
4 FLOODWAY PROTECTION CHIEF MIRMAZAHERI: I don't.
5 The applicant might.
6 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All right. Are there any
7 other questions?
8 There may be some, so stay close.
9 FLOODWAY PROTECTION CHIEF MIRMAZAHERI: I'll be
10 here.
11 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Do we have any cards of
12 people who wish to speak on this matter?
13 Yes. Come forward. Come up please.
14 Have you turned in your card yet?
15 Do it on the way. Thank you.
16 Please state your name for the record. And tell
17 us what you want to tell us.
18 MR. DAVIS: Good morning. My name's Tom Davis
19 from Davis Machine Shop here in California. We're here
20 working for Mrs. Griffin and the Joe Griffin Ranch.
21 Basically what we're proposing is to put in a new
22 pipe at the same elevation. Because if we go up and over
23 the levee, the pump is going to be useless. The pump that
24 was installed there or at this location was rebuilt
25 completely and installed 12 years ago. If we were to go
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
30
1 up and over with the levee -- or over the levee, we're
2 going to put an extra -- an additional 15 feet of head on
3 the pump. And there's no way that the pump will ever make
4 it up to get the water out, first of all.
5 The additional cost for this project would be an
6 extra 48 to $60,000 to do that. The way we're -- what
7 we're looking at is we've got to go through and take out
8 the existing pipe regardless. So the levee is going to be
9 open and repaired back to normal.
10 And at the same time we would like to go in and
11 relocate the pipe or put pipe at the same elevation,
12 because we've got to go down to that existing depth to
13 remove the pipe.
14 We are proposing to put valves on the water
15 side -- or the river side of the pumping plant just so
16 that we keep -- to ensure that there is additional water
17 at flood stage that can go through the levee.
18 And basically we're going to upgrade the existing
19 system to a much heavier system than what it is now. The
20 original pipe that was put in there was the 18-inch
21 quarter wall pipe. We're proposing to go in with an
22 18-inch 3/8 wall pipe with a coal-tar epoxy coating on it.
23 It's going to be better than the existing pipe was when it
24 was originally put in. And it's going -- it is going to
25 be a better system through the levee.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
31
1 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: You are representing, Mr.
2 Davis, the landowners, correct?
3 MR. DAVIS: Yes.
4 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. Burt.
5 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: I have a couple questions.
6 One is: How far above the pipe at the entrance
7 is it on normal water levels? How much of a head is there
8 on the entrance during normal water --
9 MR. DAVIS: On the pump itself?
10 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Well, on the pipe. Well, it
11 would be the pump too.
12 MR. DAVIS: Okay. If you were to look at the
13 levee today -- and the river is extremely low right now --
14 to where the pipe is, it is approximately 14 feet to the
15 flow line of the pipe. During flood stage, there could be
16 an additional 12 feet above that.
17 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: I was just wondering how
18 much static water level above the entrance of the pipe,
19 during normal flows?
20 MR. DAVIS: During normal pumping seasons the
21 water's never on the pipe.
22 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Never on the pipe.
23 MR. DAVIS: Until we pump it up to it.
24 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Okay. Had you considered
25 putting a valve on the other end of the pipe that would
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
32
1 hold water basically in there would reduce the problem of
2 pumping the water over the top?
3 MR. DAVIS: I'm sorry. I don't understand your
4 question.
5 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Well, if you -- basically
6 you've got an inverted -- or you've got to siphon there.
7 If you kept it full by closing the valve on the other
8 side, on the land side, then you would reduce the amount
9 of head that that pump would have to pull of empty pipe
10 when you started it up.
11 MR. DAVIS: I don't think --
12 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: You're the pump guy, a lot
13 than I am. So I mean --
14 MR. DAVIS: I don't think we could get a pump to
15 make a size that -- first of all, I don't think we could
16 pump it up and over and get enough water in the system to
17 create a siphon with the existing pump.
18 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Can't even if you had a gate
19 there and closed --
20 MR. DAVIS: Even if we had -- even with the gate.
21 It's going to overload the pump initially. And I don't
22 think it would ever recover to make the full siphon on
23 that.
24 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: What is the cost of fixing
25 this the way you want to fix it vis-a-vis the way the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
33
1 staff is recommending fixing it? What is the
2 differential?
3 MR. DAVIS: The cost to go straight through the
4 levee, we're looking at between 52 and $56,000. The cost
5 to go up and over the levee, install a larger pump to make
6 the system feasible is going to be around 120 to 130,000.
7 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay.
8 MR. DAVIS: It's more than double.
9 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All right. Is there
10 anything else you want to tell us about this, Mr. Davis?
11 MR. DAVIS: I think that by doing this we're
12 going to have -- we know that we're going to have to go in
13 and open up the levee to repair this problem. With that,
14 we're going to be down at the elevation of the existing
15 pipe. I think that at that time while we're there, it
16 would be the most prudent for our customer and -- the
17 landowner to be able to put a new pipe in at the existing
18 level with valves and then compact it back, recompact the
19 soils, and finish the job at that point with that.
20 I think that it's going to save a lot of money
21 and we're going to have something that was better than
22 what they had originally. And it is a viable fix to the
23 project. I know that there are other projects in the
24 area, especially for some of the reclamation districts,
25 where they have gone through and installed pipes below
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
34
1 floodplain. And we're not doing anything different here.
2 It's a smaller pipe. I think that it is going to provide
3 a good fix.
4 And we've got the exposure regardless when we
5 open the levee on it. It doesn't matter where the pipe
6 is. We've still got to come back in and back it and
7 compact it up, whether we put the pipe at the bottom or
8 put the pipe at the top. With our valve I see no problems
9 with having a problem with the water flowing directly
10 through the levee during flood stage.
11 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All right. Thank you, Mr.
12 Davis. And --
13 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: I have one other quick
14 question.
15 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Oh, you have a question.
16 All right.
17 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Was there any consideration
18 of screening that pipe and when you put in the new one?
19 MR. DAVIS: I'm sorry. I didn't --
20 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Put in a fish screen on the
21 pipe for -- any consideration of that?
22 MR. DAVIS: Not at this point. Because what we
23 would have to do if they were going to put in a larger
24 pump, we would have to put a fish screen on it. And that
25 is going to drive the costs up 100 to $200,000 more.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
35
1 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Yeah, there is some funds
2 available to do that.
3 MR. DAVIS: At this point are there?
4 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Yes, there are.
5 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. Thank you.
6 On that note, any more questions?
7 SECRETARY EDGAR: One other question.
8 In the event that the Board denies your
9 application, what would be the intention of the owner at
10 that point?
11 MR. DAVIS: You would have to ask the landowner
12 that. I can't make that decision for them. And I know
13 that she is here -- the landowners are here.
14 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Well, the question is:
15 Would she just leave it where it is now or --
16 MR. DAVIS: Well, I think that we would be pretty
17 much at your mercy as to where the pipe will go.
18 Obviously we can't just go in and put a pipe in where we
19 want to put it.
20 SECRETARY EDGAR: Thank you.
21 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: I think the answer is in the
22 packet, is it not?
23 Tony?
24 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: We would fix it and go.
25 We would fix it, put it in a 23 and go.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
36
1 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
2 Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak on
3 this matter?
4 Please give us your name for the record.
5 MR. GRIFFIN: Jim Griffin. I am the son of the
6 landowner.
7 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Oh, thank you for coming up.
8 MR. GRIFFIN: All right. You bet.
9 You know, I just want to reinforce to the Board
10 that the cost is a prohibitive cost. My father is not
11 working now and he is very sick. And the additional
12 60,000 would be a cost that the family would have to bear.
13 Obviously we want to do the right thing here and we've
14 offered a couple of different solutions. You know, one of
15 the solutions was to -- you know, I look at Title 23.
16 It's not clear in my mind if it's for, you know, new pipes
17 that are coming through -- which clearly, I understand,
18 this is an existing pipe. It's been there before the
19 levee was there.
20 And, you know, the thought of putting a new pipe
21 kind of through the existing pipe, it's -- the levee is
22 going to be opened up anyway. And we would just hope the
23 Board would see that -- kind of our thought process and
24 hopefully not cause this kind of financial burden on the
25 family. It would be our wishes.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
37
1 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Could you answer or speak
2 about Mr. Edgar's question about --
3 MR. GRIFFIN: You know, we would need to
4 determine kind of what our recourses are. You know, we
5 would of course need to weigh the additional, you know,
6 $60,000 doing it over versus trying to see what our
7 recourse was as far as fighting it. I mean I guess that
8 would be a decision that we hope that we wouldn't have to
9 come to.
10 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. Well I don't -- let's
11 see if there are any other questions.
12 Are there any questions for Mr. Griffin?
13 I think we understand your position, and it's a
14 tough one.
15 Let me ask you a question. How would you
16 describe the condition of this levee? What kind of a
17 levee are we talking about?
18 MR. GRIFFIN: You know, I am not completely
19 familiar with the type of levee and the overall condition,
20 I mean just the fact of the family has had to farm for
21 over a hundred years. It was there before the -- piping
22 was there before the levee. The levee was put in. We put
23 the pipe through. But the condition of the levee right
24 now, I would imagine there's people that are probably
25 better suited to discuss that than myself, not being an
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
38
1 expert in the area.
2 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All right. Thank you.
3 Well, stay close. There may be another question.
4 MR. GRIFFIN: All right. Thanks.
5 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Can anyone else here answer
6 my question about this levee?
7 FLOODWAY PROTECTION CHIEF MIRMAZAHERI:
8 The question was if the levee is damaged or not,
9 the core of the levee?
10 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: No, my question is what kind
11 of a levee are we talking about here? How old is this
12 levee? What year level of protection do we have? What's
13 the condition of this levee?
14 FLOODWAY PROTECTION CHIEF MIRMAZAHERI: Let me
15 call Ken. I think he'll be better qualified to answer
16 that.
17 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All right.
18 MR. DICKERSON: Ken Dickerson, Department of
19 Water Resources. I'm the maintaining agency for this
20 levee. And I'm not quite sure the year the levee was
21 built, but it was probably in 1920s and '30s. But the
22 levee itself is in good condition. I think as far as I've
23 been at Sutter yard in the 20 years, this is the first
24 actual sinkhole that I've ever seen in a levee of this
25 type. The levee is probably about -- it's just a normal
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
39
1 size levee, maybe 13 feet in elevation there. The
2 condition of the levee I think is very good shape.
3 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: What would it do to run the
4 pipe up one side, across the top, and down the other to
5 that levee?
6 MR. DICKERSON: Yeah, it wouldn't -- in my
7 opinion -- you know, that's Title 23, if that's what --
8 what the Board decides to do is what we'll do.
9 But at that particular elevation there, I mean
10 that particular spot is the highest I've ever seen the
11 water. It's probably about seven or eight feet over the
12 existing pipe right now elevation. So you only have seven
13 or eight feet of head against the pipe at that elevation
14 right now. If you run the pipe up and over, you know,
15 then the pipe's never going to be under the highest flood
16 condition I've ever seen.
17 Does that kind of answer your question or --
18 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Well, it kind of does, yeah.
19 You know, as a lay person, I'm wondering what it
20 does to the levee to make -- you've got to put some kind
21 of a hole or dig something in the levee to run the pipe up
22 one side, across the top, and down the bottom. So my
23 question is -- or down the other side -- what does that do
24 to the levee?
25 MR. DICKERSON: As long as it's compacted, it
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
40
1 doesn't really affect the integrity of the levee, no.
2 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Yeah, that's the question.
3 MR. DICKERSON: Either place, it does not really
4 as far as I'm concerned affect the integrity of the levee
5 itself.
6 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Either place, in your
7 opinion?
8 MR. DICKERSON: Right.
9 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: Betsy, I think Steve --
10 what is missing here is an explanation of why there's --
11 why we are looking for the pipe to go up and over.
12 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. But I wanted to ask
13 the question I asked and he answered it.
14 So thank you.
15 All right. Now, Steve, do you want to speak to
16 this subject?
17 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: Yes, President Marchand.
18 For the record, Steve Bradley, Chief Engineer to
19 the Reclamation Board.
20 To answer the first question about whether the
21 pipe goes through or up and over. The reason you don't
22 want to go through the levee is it's a direct connection
23 from the water to the land side. Where if it goes up and
24 over, you have a break. It has to lift up, be higher than
25 the flood, and so it won't force water through the pipe
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
41
1 because the pipe is above the flood elevation. So that's
2 the main thing. It's a safety -- public safety issue of
3 going through the levee.
4 My opinion on this pipe -- and I talked this over
5 with both the general manager and Mike Mirmazaheri, and
6 that's part of the reason for the denial, is we think we
7 should try to conform to Title 23 unless there's an
8 absolute reason not to. This pipe has been in there for a
9 number of years. I've heard the amount of 50 years
10 stated. It's certainly had its useful life. I understand
11 that upgrading the pump is a very expensive item. I
12 sympathize with the cost and wouldn't like to undergo that
13 myself.
14 Having said that, I think the issue before the
15 Board is a public safety issue. We are going to have
16 other entities come before this Board wanting to go
17 through. There are two pump stations being proposed for
18 the Natomas area, very large pipes, that we are requesting
19 they go up and over the levee with. They have been trying
20 to get us to go through. We're trying to hold the line on
21 that. With Natomas there's $5 billion of developable
22 property, and maybe more at the moment, out there at risk.
23 It's basically in my estimation a public safety
24 issue that we should be going up and over and not
25 through -- we should not have a direct connection to the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
42
1 water -- from the water to the land side.
2 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Questions for Steve?
3 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Steve, is this a pandemic
4 problem? Have we got hundreds and hundreds of these pipes
5 like this?
6 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: Probably -- I wouldn't
7 know if we have hundreds and hundreds. We do have them
8 out there. When it's ag land years ago and most of the
9 system was protecting ag land, a little bit less concern
10 as the valley was developing. You know, we do have our
11 standards. And I really think we should -- there's a lot
12 of thought put into those. And I think we should conform
13 to those unless there's just an overriding reason not to
14 conform.
15 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Failure points on these
16 occurred at the valve itself. I mean if the valve fails,
17 this thing floods the land. And then I assume there is
18 the potential for piping along the exterior of the pipe as
19 well --
20 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: That's correct.
21 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: -- if it hasn't been
22 properly compacted. But that's the two principal places.
23 And these pipes get old and collapse presumably
24 and piping can happen along the margins of the pipes
25 there.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
43
1 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: And if the pipe
2 collapses, then it becomes somewhat of a levee stability
3 problem, is that the levee itself sinks into a hole. If
4 there's flow through it, it will transport that material
5 outward and materials sink into the pipe and go. So that
6 happens on occasion.
7 Primarily it's a direct connect to the water and
8 piping that can occur right along outside the pipe.
9 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: And then, finally, what's
10 behind this levee?
11 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: I'm not sure.
12 MS. GRIFFIN: What's behind the levee is --
13 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Would you identify yourself
14 for the record.
15 MS. GRIFFIN: Yes, I would. I'm Patty Griffin.
16 I'm Joe Griffin's wife and I'm here on his behalf. Thank
17 you for having us.
18 Behind the levee is strictly all of our farmland
19 going all the way back. And our farmland does get
20 flooded. The levee was put in after.
21 In 1953 the state came in and we put in another
22 large pump and the state helped us put the pipe in, paid
23 for it, and did the work on the levee. And we have a
24 maintenance agreement that cannot be located at this
25 point. But they are aware that there was a maintenance
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
44
1 agreement done at that time to allow us to have this and
2 to do it.
3 As soon as this happened, I was made aware of it
4 in August. It was the first contact with me. I
5 immediately started contacting the Board through phone
6 calls, saying, "Let's meet. Let's get this resolved." My
7 gosh, you know, this is -- we wanted to get this taken
8 care of.
9 The nearest homes to us is almost five miles
10 away. So we're not jeopardizing the city or anything like
11 that if something was to happen. However, we maintained
12 this. This has been the way we've operated for years and
13 it's our livelihood, it's how we live.
14 The levees were put in after, not to really
15 protect our farmland, because we get flooded from the
16 Sutter Weir every year in the back. We have maintained
17 the -- we have pumped. And they said we originally -- the
18 state helped us with this. They came in and they did the
19 work, and we were thankful for it. And they helped us put
20 the pipe in with the pump that we call, for lack of a
21 better word -- you're going to laugh at this -- but it's
22 Big Bertha, okay, and it's a large pump. This pump is
23 needed to prime the other pump and it is needed for us to
24 be able to irrigate for the rice fields and to do what's
25 necessary. We have 660 acres there. And it is all of our
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
45
1 property.
2 And the homesite that was there, originally that
3 was by the levee, is no longer there. We had taken the
4 home down, so there was nobody living there.
5 MR. GRIFFIN: I just want to make just -- Jim
6 Griffin -- just real clear. I mean this is kind of the
7 first time I really heard it's really a public safety
8 issue. And I think the two points that have come up are
9 that it's not -- because in this particular case it's not
10 a public safety issue because that area behind the levee
11 gets flooded regardless.
12 The other point that the expert brought up was,
13 regardless of going over or going through, it doesn't
14 matter. Either way it's going to have the same effect on
15 overall public safety. So I can't come to grips on the
16 public safety side of things.
17 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: We understand your position.
18 If the levee isn't needed, why is it there?
19 Patty, why don't you try that one?
20 MS. GRIFFIN: Okay. Well, if you go back to the
21 history books, I'll actually let Jeff Moresco -- we've
22 gone into a lot of history on this as to why the levee was
23 built. It was built years ago, as they said. We were
24 already farming there.
25 So, Jeff, do you want to take that on about why
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
46
1 the levee's there?
2 MR. MORESCO: Good morning. My name's Jeff
3 Moresco. I farm the ground. My father started farming
4 there in the early 1970's and been farming ever since.
5 As far as why the levees are there, they are
6 there for public safety. But not necessarily for the
7 public safety up there. That whole river channel is
8 squeezed down just past the Colusa Bypass, which is just a
9 few miles downstream from this property. And that water
10 is diverted out into the Butte Sink and then eventually
11 through the Sutter Bypass and then the Yolo Bypass. And
12 it basically is to keep this area here from going
13 underwater during high flows, and the other cities that
14 are in the valley.
15 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you. Thank you very
16 much.
17 Pat, you had put in a card, so you obviously
18 wanted to make some other statements. Do you want to do
19 that now?
20 MS. GRIFFIN: Yes, that would be great. Thank
21 you very much.
22 The only other thing that I want to say is that,
23 you know, it is -- in Section 123, what I've read about it
24 and studied, it says that it is fine for public entities
25 to have the pipes like this and maintain them. But going
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
47
1 forward, not for private.
2 Ours was already in existence. And why would it
3 be already for a public entity to do this but not a
4 private entity? And that's what I just don't understand,
5 that they do have this.
6 The other farmers in the areas have all gone in
7 without getting information and they've just gone ahead
8 and sleeved theirs. I can tell you five or six cases. We
9 want to be very honest and forthright and do the right
10 thing and protect everything, and so we did not go in and
11 just sleeve it. And we could have done that. That came
12 up. And I can give you names of farmers that have sleeved
13 right along that levee.
14 When we talked with them about the sleeving we
15 came up with a proposal on August 30th and showed them the
16 sleeving. We were told at that time that, "Well, yeah,
17 you could do this. But we can't be really safe, can't be
18 really sure. What we would like you to do, what we can
19 recommend" -- and I have E-mail on it -- "is that what we
20 probably could recommend to the Board is if you go ahead
21 and do a new 18-inch pipe in there." So we said, "It's
22 going to cost us a lot more money, but let's do it, let's
23 do the right thing. Let's just get this done because we
24 have to get it done before November 1st."
25 And so we came in with the proposal. And I did
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
48
1 the grant. Then I received a phone call, I believe his
2 name was Mike Peterson, and he said, "I've got everything.
3 Thank you for it." And then I received a call from Mike
4 and Mike said, "Now, Patty, would you be opposed to
5 doing" -- Mike has been very nice through all of this. He
6 said, "Would you consider doing an 18-inch galvanized
7 pipe? There's this new --" -- "-- 18 inch PVC. There's a
8 new type of plastic pipe that's better. Would you
9 consider doing that?" And I said, "If that's what we need
10 to do, then that's what we will do." I said, "It will
11 probably be less expensive than this heavy pipe we're
12 going to do." And he said, "No, it might be a little more
13 expensive." And I said, "Well, you know, we want to just
14 get this going and get it taken care of," because it's our
15 livelihood, it's how we live. And we know we cannot go
16 over because the pump would be useless. And all of that.
17 And we're still doing the same type thing.
18 So since we're already going in and going to have
19 to replace this, we're much better off being allowed. So
20 I just ask each of you sitting here on the Board to put
21 yourself in our position, to think about it from that
22 standpoint, and to look at what the fair thing is and what
23 the just thing is, and how Section 123 can be all right
24 for a public entity but not for a private entity. And
25 especially when we've always had it in existence and it's
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
49
1 always been there. So I just ask you to think about that
2 and think with your conscience and put yourself in our
3 position, if this was you.
4 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. Thank you. Well,
5 you've raised a very important issue. And I see Rod Mayer
6 behind you. Maybe he's going to answer that question
7 about public-private.
8 MS. GRIFFIN: Thank you.
9 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: Good
10 morning again.
11 The reason I thought I'd get up and make a
12 comment is, our maintenance yards, which also have
13 responsibility for maintaining about 300 miles of levees,
14 they have active programs dealing with this very issue
15 where there are old steel pipes going through low in
16 levee. And the program, although it's expensive, it does
17 replace those pipes with either cast-in-place reinforced
18 concrete pipes down low or up and over or by grouting the
19 space and sleeving it with a smaller pipe inside.
20 And those are all in compliance with Title 33, at
21 a substantial expense. And what I'm hearing presented
22 here would be an alternative that doesn't comply with that
23 practice or any of the Title 23. And the concern would be
24 that a low pipe that isn't cast-in-place reinforced
25 concrete is very difficult to get good compaction under
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
50
1 the haunches of the pipe and you create a potential
2 seepage path.
3 There are a number of old pipes like this, and
4 that is the way they were constructed. And in general
5 they're not a problem until they deteriorate and collapse
6 and then you get sinkholed in the levees.
7 But it doesn't mean that they always work that
8 way. And there have been pipe failures and levee failures
9 as a result of pipe failures and seepage along the
10 pipeline itself. So that's the reason for the standard
11 being that way.
12 With respect to a public agency being allowed to
13 put in the reinforced concrete pipe down low versus a
14 private party, it's just because of the extra level of
15 diligence that you can expect from a public agency and
16 their ability to get in and inspect pipes with cameras and
17 so forth and see how their performing, because there is a
18 substantial load that goes on top of the pipe when you
19 bury under a high levee. So I think that answers that
20 question.
21 And I just wanted to reinforce to you, the state
22 is spending a lot of money dealing with this issue, and
23 we're trying to do it consistently with the standards.
24 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. Maybe the rest of you
25 totally understood what he said, but I didn't. So I've
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
51
1 got to ask you questions.
2 Now, is there a way that they could put the pipe
3 through the bottom part and still comply with Title 23, by
4 doing something that isn't being proposed or something
5 else?
6 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: If they
7 were a public agency, yes. They could do reinforced
8 concrete pipe cast in place or reinforced concrete pipe
9 with batted walls, 4 to 1 slopes, so that he could compact
10 against it with --
11 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Why can't they do that?
12 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: Again, the
13 reason being the ability to inspect the pipes with cameras
14 and the extra abilities you can expect from a public
15 agency versus a private party.
16 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay.
17 FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACTING CHIEF MAYER: That's the
18 reason for that standard.
19 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you, Rod.
20 All right. Mike, did you want to make a comment?
21 FLOODWAY PROTECTION CHIEF MIRMAZAHERI: I have a
22 few comments I'd like to make.
23 In reference to the public agency, I just might
24 want to add the regulation says that public agency is
25 allowed to do it if they had a history good maintenance
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
52
1 based on annual maintenance or inspection reports. So
2 that pretty much clarifies that point. And even a public
3 entity needs to have a good history of inspection.
4 I do want to just emphasize perhaps that we'd
5 like this work to be done -- whatever the Board decides,
6 we'd like it to be done by November 1, beginning of the
7 flood season. And that is important.
8 The second comment I had: As an alternative, if
9 we were certain that the levee out here is in a good
10 condition -- which we don't know, we're not really -- we
11 don't have that confidence here -- they could have
12 abandoned this grouted completely and then go up and over
13 and save them some costs. But because we don't know of
14 the condition of the levee, you know, that wasn't even
15 discussed in the presentation.
16 Mrs. Griffin has indicated that there may be some
17 maintenance agreement between DWR and Griffin Farm which
18 goes back to several years. We checked our archive and we
19 cannot find any document. And I asked Mrs. Griffin if she
20 can find any document in reference to any agreement
21 between DWR and the landowner, then I'd like to have that
22 and I'll just act on that. And apparently, just to me,
23 because nobody can find it, then in my opinion is not in
24 existence.
25 Last comment that I have. If the Board decides
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
53
1 to grant the application and go straight through, we would
2 prefer to have high density polyethylene, HPE, pipe versus
3 steel pipe simply because it lasts longer.
4 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you.
5 FLOODWAY PROTECTION CHIEF MIRMAZAHERI: Thanks.
6 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Is there anyone else here
7 who wish to make a concluding statement?
8 Mr. Davis, is that you?
9 MR. DAVIS: Yes, thank you.
10 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Go ahead.
11 MR. DAVIS: Just in regards to the backfill and
12 compaction around the existing pipe. If we were to be
13 able to go through at the existing level, there's testing
14 as such that has to be done throughout the backfill of the
15 pipe. All of our testing would comply with levee
16 standards throughout. Whether we're going around the pipe
17 or going up and over, we still have to compact and test
18 the levee as we do it.
19 As to the validity of the pipe crushing, we have
20 an existing pipe that's been in for over 50 years. It was
21 put in with a quarter wall steel pipe. We're proposing
22 3/8-wall pipe with exterior coal-tar epoxy coating --
23 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Well, I think that's not so
24 much the issue at the moment. The location of this pipe
25 is the major thing that the variance is dealing with.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
54
1 Did you wish to make any concluding statement
2 about the locations?
3 MR. DAVIS: Just the fact that we would -- we are
4 proposing to put it at the existing level.
5 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you, Mr. Davis.
6 MR. DAVIS: Thank you.
7 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: I think we understand your
8 position.
9 Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak on
10 this matter?
11 Identify yourself.
12 MS. GRIFFIN: Patty Griffin.
13 Thank you.
14 My concluding statement would just be based upon
15 him saying that the public entity can do it because they
16 inspect it every year and they'll look at it. We would
17 agree to inspection every year if we placed it back in
18 that spot. We don't want anything to happen any more than
19 anybody else does. We just want to be able to continue
20 doing what we have done for years and have not had any
21 damage or caused any problems over -- for 100 years.
22 The other thing that I would ask is if something
23 like this has ever been denied before, you know, public
24 versus private in court, I would like to know the Court
25 case and I would like to know how the ruling was on it,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
55
1 because I just feel that this is something that is not
2 correct. And I'm not trying to put anybody on the spot.
3 I just feel that this is the right thing to do. And the
4 cost is prohibitive even to do what we have to do, but
5 we're willing to come forward. And we were the ones that
6 stepped forward to make it right.
7 So I thank you very much for your time.
8 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you very much.
9 All right. Is there anyone else here who wishes
10 to speak on this matter?
11 We close this hearing and we'll have Board
12 discussion and action.
13 Who wishes to speak?
14 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: I'll make a motion on it
15 regarding that. I'm going to move to allow the variance.
16 I have some concerns about doing that, but I do think --
17 you know, the question as far as whether it's a public
18 entity or private entity doing the inspection on it, I
19 think that, you know, our maintenance people are there and
20 can look at it.
21 And I would actually move the variance to allow
22 the poly pipe and with a gate. I'm not sure though that
23 the gate ought to be on the water side. If it's on the
24 water side it's going to be difficult to get to,
25 particularly during flood times. And I'd like staff to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
56
1 look at it for the possibility of -- the location of gate
2 possibly on the land side of it. But wherever it should
3 be, I'm comfortable with staff on that.
4 And I would in that motion ask that they work
5 with staff to develop a new pipe that going straight
6 through the levee.
7 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All right. You're moving to
8 grant the variance with a pipe as -- is this the same kind
9 of pipe that Mike was talking about?
10 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Yeah.
11 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Mike's pipe. And to do what
12 with the gate, to review the gate, where it is --
13 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Yeah. Then have staff work
14 with design on that gate for the location and type of
15 gate. Like I said, I'm a little concerned about it being
16 on the water side.
17 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All right. Is there a
18 second to that motion?
19 BOARD MEMBER WEAVER: If we do this, who's going
20 to be responsible for the maintenance? Will we be
21 responsible or are the home --
22 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Well, let's get a -- see if
23 there's a second to this motion and then we'll work with
24 that.
25 BOARD MEMBER WEAVER: That's why I would -- I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
57
1 would gladly second it. But I would still like to know --
2 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All right. So it's been
3 seconded by Floyd.
4 Now, Floyd has a question on discussion. Who's
5 responsible for the maintenance of this pipe --
6 BOARD MEMBER WEAVER: -- and inspection.
7 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: -- and inspection?
8 Steve.
9 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: Yes, this will be a
10 permitted encroachment under The Reclamation Board permit.
11 And the permittee will be responsible for the maintenance,
12 repair, anything else that goes wrong with this pipe.
13 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: So it's the Griffins, the
14 family, will be responsible.
15 All right. Is there more discussion on this
16 motion?
17 SECRETARY EDGAR: Well could there be a condition
18 in that that the state on it's own behalf has access and
19 could inspect that annually?
20 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: That is done actually
21 four times a year by the state. The state inspects all
22 the levees four times a year.
23 SECRETARY EDGAR: So in connection with that
24 you'd go in and inspect this pipe, is that what you mean?
25 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: Yeah. And this is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
58
1 also -- the maintenance of the levee in this area is the
2 responsibility of the state. It's one of those areas
3 where the center maintenance yard maintains it. So they
4 also -- and that's separate from the inspection. The
5 maintenance area also has -- they don't maintain the pipe
6 per se, but they maintain the levee and make sure that the
7 levee is okay. Part of that would be looking at the
8 pipes.
9 SECRETARY EDGAR: Okay. Then in answer to
10 Floyd's question, it's really a state maintenance area
11 and, therefore, the state is responsible for the
12 maintenance?
13 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: Maintenance of the levee
14 but not the encroachment, which is the pipe. So if
15 there's anything wrong with that pipe or that pipe causes
16 a problem, it's the responsibility of the permit holder to
17 address those.
18 SECRETARY EDGAR: Yeah, what I'm -- yeah, the
19 question is not who pays for it and all of that. The
20 question is: If the maintenance yard goes in and
21 determines there's something wrong with the levee because
22 of the pipe or the pipe because of whatever, can they then
23 demand from the property owner that they go in and fix it
24 if -- or we would fix it and bill them or whatever?
25 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: We would normally
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
59
1 request that they fix that. And that's a typical
2 condition in the permit. They're responsible for all
3 impacts of the encroachment.
4 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Well, that would be a
5 condition. Okay.
6 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: Yeah. So that's a
7 standard condition.
8 SECRETARY EDGAR: Okay. Then the answer to
9 Floyd's question then, it's really the state that's going
10 to maintain the oversight and inspection?
11 BOARD MEMBER WEAVER: And all the other stuff.
12 SECRETARY EDGAR: Yes or no.
13 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: Well, the levee itself
14 is what the state maintains. But now there's an
15 encroachment in it. And anything that encroachment does,
16 the state would probably be involved and may notice it
17 before the landowner, the landowner may notice it first.
18 But those repairs would be the responsibility of the
19 permit holder, anything that their encroachment caused.
20 So if there's some erosion from that pipe, if the pipe was
21 failing, it's their responsibility to fix the levee and
22 any damage that's caused by their encroachment.
23 But you go further down, and then it's the
24 state's area to make sure that the levee's mowed and that
25 the maintenance road is surfaced.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
60
1 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. Scott.
2 STAFF COUNSEL MORGAN: Madam President, I would
3 ask the Board to consider also asking for an additional
4 condition on the permit if it's going to grant a variance
5 like this that would somehow hold the state harmless in
6 the event that there is a failure there. Obviously a
7 standard hold-harmless clause like we have with a
8 governmental agency wouldn't suffice. But Mrs. Griffin
9 did indicate that the property that would flood in the
10 event of failure there would be largely her property. It
11 would be possible to perhaps negotiate with the landowners
12 to acquire some sort of a flow easement across the
13 property that could be rescinded if the pipe was ever
14 built up to standards.
15 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Do you have a problem with
16 adding that to your motion, Mr. Bundy?
17 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: No, I don't.
18 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All right.
19 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Can I --
20 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Jeff.
21 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: I'm reminded how much I hate
22 being on this Board in these situations, because every
23 decision we make has a direct financial and, if not
24 social, cost. And in listening to this family, one of the
25 things I think keep in mind is that the last thing we want
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
61
1 to do is discourage farming on the floodplains, because
2 the alternative to farming is typically houses. So
3 anything we do, we should keep that in mind.
4 That said, I want to remind you for the last
5 three years we've been throwing little old ladies off the
6 floodplain with chain-link fences that we all know in our
7 own minds don't really have all that much hydraulic
8 impact.
9 But here's the structure that actually goes
10 through a levee. It has a very small potential to fail,
11 but it does have a potential to fail. And we've asked as
12 a matter of policy on this Board repeatedly for our staff
13 to maintain rigor and to stick to the -- to stick to our
14 guidelines. And I would say you just are undoing that,
15 and you're actually setting new policy. And so you should
16 keep that in mind.
17 And, in fact, everything you guys have said is
18 absolutely rational and reasonable. But I do remind you
19 that this is a -- you're sending a mixed signal here,
20 especially when, we might say, we tell Steve Bradley to
21 hold the line on encroachments and hold the line on things
22 that threaten the public. So I want to you that's what
23 we're doing here and you should be fully aware of it if
24 you vote "yes" on this.
25 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Well, you know, there is
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
62
1 that old saying, I'm just bringing up, "Consistency is the
2 hobgoblin of small minds."
3 (Laughter.)
4 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Sorry Jeff. I couldn't
5 resist that right then.
6 (Laughter.)
7 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: It seems to me that there is
8 a problem with a lot of things here. And I'm going to
9 vote for this motion because I think it is the right thing
10 to do. But I also think there should be a second motion
11 which asks somebody to look at the extent of this problem
12 and really explore the seriousness of these pipes: If
13 there are a whole lot of other old pipes; if there is a
14 distinction, and it seems to me to be artificial here,
15 between public and private agency and the definition; if
16 in fact this is a state levee, built by the state and
17 inspected by the state -- which is what I heard -- and the
18 pipe is in the levee, so you're going to look at it, I
19 hope, when you're out there.
20 So this is a problem that I have. So I think
21 that we need to -- you know, I don't know how big this
22 problem is or how small it is in all of the levees. Maybe
23 it's like a lot of other problems, the levees are aging.
24 Maybe this is a bigger problem and needs to be clearly
25 addressed in urban areas, not in rural areas. How do you
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
63
1 make that different -- how do you differentiate between
2 the two when we have a lot of rural areas that are
3 developing? That's where I see the real problem.
4 I hope the Griffins aren't planning on developing
5 their rise farm, because then we're in real trouble.
6 Anyway, that's what I think. And I think we
7 really need to look at that and see if we can't do some
8 modernizing of our policies about these pipes.
9 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: What are you going to do
10 about Scott's question about holding the state harmless?
11 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: He added it to his motion.
12 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: And, Scott, do you think
13 that's actually going to make any kind of a difference? I
14 mean I'm seeking the reality check. I'm trying to have
15 little mind.
16 (Laughter.)
17 STAFF COUNSEL MORGAN: It's the best that I think
18 that I could offer under the circumstances if the Board
19 wants to offer a variance that is going to expose the
20 state to additional liability. And if -- particularly if
21 the farm -- if the landowner owns a considerable tract of
22 land, then a flow easement or some kind of -- some kind of
23 easement on the land that would allow the state to flow
24 water without regard to the flood protection system, if we
25 can legally work through that problem -- and actually I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
64
1 only speculate that we can -- would be the protection we
2 would have just for that parcel and that only. And it
3 wouldn't of course immunize the state against any
4 liability for the damages beyond that property.
5 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. Did that answer your
6 question, Jeff.
7 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Yes, it did.
8 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: That will teach you.
9 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: No, it's not good news.
10 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Burt, comment?
11 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: I'll just -- really in
12 addition to the motion was the hold-harmless agreement as
13 far as I was concerned. I'm not sure that we're going to
14 get any type of flowage easement on that. And I'm a
15 little cautious about, you know, tying that to
16 the requirement.
17 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. So your motion does
18 not include the flowage easement but the hold-harmless
19 clause, is that correct?
20 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: That's true.
21 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All right. Tony.
22 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: What does Steve --
23 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay.
24 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: I know Scott wants to
25 respond.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
65
1 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: I just want to -- before
2 a vote is taken, could the motion be restated.
3 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: We're going to do that.
4 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: There's been a lot of
5 discussion.
6 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: We're going to do that.
7 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: Okay. Thank you.
8 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Is there any other
9 discussion on this motion?
10 Tony.
11 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: Yeah, just I want to
12 make a couple comments.
13 It was stated here this morning that we should
14 vote to allow this variance because it's the right thing
15 to do. Let's be aware it's not the right thing to do.
16 The right thing to do would be to go along with the code.
17 Staff has worked hard and staff has come up with the
18 answers to the code.
19 Okay. The variance is something that we have the
20 latitude of allowing. But granting a variance is still
21 not the, quote, right thing to do. We may do it. I have
22 a feeling that we will do it. But the right thing to do
23 would be to adhere to a code. As it was said earlier, if
24 we're going to stand for something, we're going to stand
25 for something.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
66
1 The other thing is this: If this was a brand
2 spanking new placement, it would have to be to code. It
3 would have to be to Title 23. And whatever the cost is,
4 the cost is. That's a part of the cost of doing business.
5 Now, I understand that the people are against it,
6 this thing, and I have empathy for them. I wrestled with
7 this thing for quite awhile. And I just, like themselves,
8 I think, "This isn't fair. It's been there for 50 years,"
9 et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
10 And I'm also going to vote for it, but only
11 because I have the latitude of granting a variance. But
12 down deep in my heart I know that sooner or later we're
13 going to have to bring these things up to code. It may
14 not be in my lifetime, it may not be in your lifetime.
15 But code is code, and that's what the staff was working
16 with and their proposal for denial was based on that.
17 That's all I have to say, Madam Chair.
18 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you, Tony.
19 All right. We're going to have a vote on this
20 motion, which I'm going to ask Burt to repeat. And I
21 would like to remind everyone in the audience that it
22 takes four votes for an action of this Board. So it takes
23 four votes to have an action one way or the other.
24 Burt, would you restate your motion please.
25 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Okay. I believe my motion
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
67
1 is to grant the applicant's request for a variance
2 regarding Application No. 17860 to allow a through pipe --
3 and candidly I indicated a poly pipe because that's what
4 staff recommended. But I don't think we need to go into
5 that, whether it's a poly or whether it's a steel. I
6 think that's really up to the staff.
7 And I'd like to see a gate on it. Location of
8 that gate, it's up to staff again where that gate should
9 be located, the type of gate.
10 And at the request of counsel, that there be
11 included a hold-harmless agreement for the state on that.
12 I would like to see a negotiation -- the
13 discussion on the flowage portion of it. I'm just not
14 confident that it's going to be done.
15 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: So your motion would include
16 to discuss the flowage easement with the applicant?
17 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Yes.
18 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All right. Is that the
19 motion you second there, Floyd?
20 BOARD MEMBER WEAVER: Only because this is
21 unusual circumstances and because it's an unusual --
22 something that happened many years ago, yes --
23 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All right.
24 BOARD MEMBER WEAVER: -- I accept the motion.
25 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All those in favor of this
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
68
1 motion say aye.
2 (Ayes.)
3 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Opposed?
4 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: One opposed.
5 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: One opposed.
6 The motion carries.
7 Thank you all for coming.
8 I would like to request that we have some kind of
9 a paper or discussion from the staff about these pipes for
10 the future with some recommendations. I'm not sure one
11 size fits all with this issue. And so you may want to
12 look into it and come back for a discussion. I don't know
13 if it justifies a workshop, but we could put it on the
14 Board agenda and have a discussion of it.
15 Is that agreeable with the Board members?
16 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: Absolutely?
17 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All right. Thank you all
18 for coming.
19 We are now going to do Item No. 10. And then we
20 will have a short break while Jeff sets up.
21 So let's move to Item No. 10, which is going to
22 be presented by Scott.
23 STAFF COUNSEL MORGAN: Thank you, Madam
24 President.
25 Oh, excuse me. I got the wrong notes.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
69
1 This issue came up last month when there was an
2 issue before the Board about whether the Board should
3 accept responsibility for a federal flood control project.
4 And there was some discussion about whether there should
5 be a Board position on accepting flood control projects
6 generally, which was referred to this month so it could be
7 agendized.
8 General Manager Pete Rabbon asked me to make a
9 few comments and then suggest some language to read into a
10 resolution that you may wish to consider.
11 In the late 1800's property owners organized
12 reclamation districts on the west bank of the Sacramento
13 River. And those levees affect their lands. The effect
14 of the levees on the west bank of the river of course was
15 to send floodwaters over on to the east side of the river.
16 And the east side property owners promptly went to court,
17 suing the west side property owners for the damages. But
18 the courts ruled that the floodwaters were the common
19 enemy, following the English Common Law Rule, and that the
20 landowners whose properties were inundated by those floods
21 caused by the levees constructed by the other landowners
22 could not enjoin such construction or recover damages for
23 their injuries.
24 Now, the only recourse at the time for the
25 landowners then on the east side of the river was to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
70
1 construct their own levees, which they did. Those
2 protected their lands. But thereby increased the chance
3 of a flooding on the west side of the river, which then of
4 course prompted the landowners on the west side of the
5 river to raise their levees, which then forced the
6 landowners on the east side to raise theirs.
7 Of course the landowners also resorted to other
8 self-help procedures such as dynamite and trenching,
9 resulting in what were known as the levee wars.
10 Finally, that prompted action at the state level
11 as described in California Supreme Court case back in 1923
12 where the court said, "Clearly, therefore, the only
13 adequate method of preventing this result the unification
14 of the individualistic and antagonistic efforts of the
15 landowners on the opposite side of the river into one
16 comprehensive coordinated plan, looking for the flood
17 control of the river in its entirety."
18 Part of that plan was the creation of The
19 Reclamation Board and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage
20 District, the goal being the control of the floodwaters.
21 The State through the Board has cooperated with the Corps
22 in the establishment of flood control systems throughout
23 the valley now as its range has been extensive.
24 Things went along relatively well until 2003,
25 when the Third District Court of Appeal in the Paterno
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
71
1 decision held the state liable for damages resulting from
2 the failure of the levee that was part of this
3 comprehensive coordinated plan. It was part of that plan
4 to the extent the state had adopted it into its flood
5 control system. Liability attached to the state because
6 of what is known as the acceptance doctrine. When you
7 accept something into your system, it's yours, you're
8 responsible for it no matter how well or poorly it was
9 built and maintained.
10 There's certainly good logic behind that aspect
11 of the decision, and that has a long history. You don't
12 want to be able to circumvent the system by allowing the
13 state to take over poorly built local features. You want
14 the state to be responsible for the whole thing.
15 However, since Paterno, staff particularly, but
16 not limited to staff, have questioned the logic of the
17 state taking over projects at all and have asked whether
18 refusing to accept flood control projects would thereby
19 reduce state liability. The short answer of course is
20 yes. If we don't have state responsibility for a project
21 we have never accepted, we're never going to be liable for
22 that element of the project.
23 But the greatest concern, the greatest issue
24 facing the state now in the light of Paterno are not the
25 newly constructed flood control projects that are built
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
72
1 with the cooperation of the state and local entities and
2 those exacting insurance standards, but primarily it's the
3 levees that exist like the Paterno levee, that have been
4 around for a very long time, were built to some other
5 standards or no standards, and that may not necessarily
6 have -- be given any indications of the inspectors that
7 there was a problem there or to -- beneath the surface.
8 Now, in terms of a decision whether or not to
9 continue accepting projects, there's sort of a dichotomy
10 here, because significantly the Board does not always have
11 the discretion not to accept a project. Often the
12 Legislature will say, in mandatory language, that the
13 state shall accept a project.
14 So the question really comes down to projects for
15 which there is some discretion about whether the state is
16 going to accept a project or not.
17 One of the concerns that I think the Board should
18 take some consideration of is that rejecting projects
19 could lead to a piecemealing of the flood protection
20 system by eliminating the Board's jurisdiction or at least
21 affect the jurisdiction over some elements of the project.
22 The bottom line I feel is that the flood control, being
23 the reason the Board exists, is something that it should
24 continue doing wholeheartedly. CalTrans certainly is sued
25 rather regularly for some problems with the construction
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
73
1 of its highways. But it has never changed it's core
2 function of building and maintaining the highways of the
3 state.
4 And, similarly, I think the Board should not be
5 deterred to exercise its authority to accept flood control
6 projects from the federal government when the Board
7 believes that the project is good for the flood control
8 system as a whole. So what I would recommend is that the
9 Board consider adopting as its policy that when the Board
10 is vested with discretion as to whether it should be the
11 nonfederal sponsor of a flood management project, that the
12 Board should resolve to assume the role of a nonfederal
13 sponsor when the Board determines that the project in
14 question is consistent with the purpose of the Board to
15 provide a comprehensive coordinated plan of flood
16 protection.
17 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Are there questions?
18 I guess -- who raised this issue? I don't think
19 it was the Board.
20 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: I believe --
21 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Was it you, Jeff?
22 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: I think I was the one who
23 pitched a small-minded fit about it last time.
24 (Laughter.)
25 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: The little --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
74
1 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: I might have known.
2 (Laughter.)
3 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: With this regulation in
4 place or this concept in place, would the world have been
5 any different than Paterno? Let me give you -- let's use
6 that as an example since we live in that everyday. How
7 might that have been different? How might that have
8 turned out differently if the Board in 1970 had this kind
9 of language or this kind of approach? What would have
10 happened?
11 STAFF COUNSEL MORGAN: I guess -- I need to know
12 some more facts. Had the state accepted the Paterno levee
13 as part of its system?
14 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: I have no idea.
15 STAFF COUNSEL MORGAN: I mean -- I'm not sure of
16 your question.
17 I mean to put this into a sort of a hypothetical
18 or a reality maybe. I mean you lawyers, you use language
19 really well, almost as much as us professors --
20 STAFF COUNSEL MORGAN: Well, some of us.
21 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: And I want to use a
22 real-world example where we might make a decision which is
23 different than the decision we always make, which is to
24 basically take on sponsorship of these projects.
25 Give me an example of where we might say, "Well,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
75
1 we're not going to take that project on."
2 STAFF COUNSEL MORGAN: Well, first of all, it's
3 going to have to be one of the -- it's going to be a
4 project that there are multiple agencies eligible to
5 accept the project from the federal government. So it
6 would not be one of those that the state has said -- the
7 Legislature has said that the Board shall accept this from
8 the Corps.
9 I would assume that the Board would be looking at
10 whether the particular project in front of the Board
11 contributed to the overall system of flood control
12 throughout the Sacramento and San Joaquin range area.
13 If it's an isolated feature, if it doesn't really
14 contribute to that or in some way has what is perceived to
15 be, for some reason, a deleterious effect, I would think
16 the Board might decide that it does not want to opt into
17 that particular project, has discretion to say no. And
18 since this does not further the interest of a system-wide
19 flood protection system -- and I'm not an engineer, I
20 don't want speculate on what that would look like -- but
21 that would be something generally that the staff would
22 bring to the Board and say, "This particular feature
23 doesn't really fit into our scheme of flood control."
24 SECRETARY EDGAR: Scott, just on that point.
25 He's looking for specific examples. In the Plumas Lake
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
76
1 situation, where the levees were previously grandfathered
2 in, they have not been certified with the 100-year
3 standard, they're coming before us in the next couple of
4 months for some improvements and so on. Under this
5 policy, how would this policy affect that decision?
6 STAFF COUNSEL MORGAN: I don't believe that's an
7 accepting of the project from the federal government. And
8 I think -- my understanding is they're looking for permits
9 to do some work. So this would have no affect on that.
10 This is really the first step in getting the
11 state liable, by saying, "We'll put our name on the
12 title." And after that --
13 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: -- everything else?
14 STAFF COUNSEL MORGAN: -- everything, yeah.
15 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Can I ask him a question?
16 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Sure.
17 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: And then I promise I'll shut
18 up.
19 So is there really any functional difference
20 though? If we grant a permit for something, don't we
21 assume a liability because we granted a permit for it,
22 even though we aren't actually holding a project or
23 sponsoring a project?
24 STAFF COUNSEL MORGAN: No, not quite. It's
25 substantially less. And I'm not an expert in the area of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
77
1 law what kind of liability the state would have for
2 permits, but it's a much different thing. When the state
3 agrees to accept the project, it becomes the state's
4 project as if it had built it itself.
5 If we grant -- the Board grants a permit, there's
6 still a tremendous amount of responsibility on the
7 permittee to do the work properly, to make inspections
8 necessary, so forth and so on.
9 It won't necessarily immunize the Board
10 especially if there is a problem later down the road with
11 something that's been permitted. But it's not nearly the
12 same level of automatic responsibility that you have when
13 you own the system.
14 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Are there more questions?
15 I think that it's important to vote for this to
16 support it. But what we're really saying is that the
17 State of California Department of Water Resources has a
18 role in flood management and they need to continue to have
19 a role. A lot of the projects that come here have been in
20 the works for a long time, and we just sort of move them
21 along. And the Department of Water Resources, Resources
22 Agency has of course been the prime mover in getting those
23 going. In fact, that's why we asked for a budget
24 committee, so we could try to understand what was going
25 on.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
78
1 And I think that what we're really saying is we
2 think that the state should continue to have a role and be
3 a partner with the federal government on major projects in
4 the State of California.
5 Is that not what we're really doing, Pete? And
6 how can you say no? I really put him on the spot.
7 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: Well, that is what we
8 are trying to do. And this policy would make the Board
9 look at projects a little different. There are projects
10 the Board -- past boards have accepted that if they were
11 to listen to this policy, they probably would have chosen
12 to not be the nonfederal sponsor.
13 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you.
14 Okay. Do we have a motion?
15 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: I'll move that we adopt this
16 language.
17 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: It's been moved by Jeff to
18 adopt the language as outlined by our attorney, Scott.
19 Is there a second?
20 BOARD MEMBER WEAVER: Second.
21 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Seconded by Floyd.
22 Any further discussion?
23 All those in favor say aye.
24 (Ayes.)
25 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Opposed?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
79
1 Motion carried.
2 Thank you, Scott.
3 And break time. We're going to have a 10-minute
4 break at this point. And so thank you all very much for
5 being so patient.
6 And we will resume in 10 minutes.
7 (Thereupon a recess was taken.)
8 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: We'll call the meeting back
9 to order.
10 Would you please take your seats. Thank you so
11 much.
12 All right. We're very, very lucky today to have
13 an informational item that has been moved to this
14 location. And it's going to be given by one of our
15 very -- well, our outstanding world's authority on geology
16 and one of my favorite professors, Jeff Mount.
17 And Jeff, as you know, is indeed one of the most
18 distinguished geologists. Professor at -- he has an
19 endowed chair at UCD. And I almost sold him a kayak the
20 other night at a raffle for -- an auction.
21 But Jeff is going to make a presentation for us
22 similar to the one that he made for the Bay Delta
23 Authority.
24 And, Jeff, please proceed. And we're anxious and
25 glad that you could do this.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
80
1 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Certainly.
2 And I do want to remind you I bought $300 worth
3 of wine instead. So it will allow me to forget that I --
4 this.
5 And I'm used to people sitting behind me while I
6 talk. But I'll get turned around and talk to you here.
7 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
8 Presented as follows.)
9 What I'm giving today is the talk that I gave in
10 front of the Bay Delta Authority earlier this week, and is
11 a slightly altered talk -- a slight change in the talk
12 that I gave the plenary session of the CALFED Science
13 Program last week.
14 To give you some background on this. First and
15 foremost I have some disclaimers that have to come with
16 this. First of all I'm speaking as Jeff Mount, not
17 representing the Rec Board. I am not representing the
18 Independent Science Board. I'm just speaking as me.
19 But I do want to let you know that what -- the
20 trick in advertising here is as a member of the
21 Independent Science Board for the CALFED Science Program,
22 I was sent off with Bob Twist to look at the Levee
23 Integrity Program and whether in fact issues in the Levee
24 Integrity Program impact broadly issues in CALFED. As a
25 good -- as the person who would his raise his hand and be
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
81
1 sent off to do this project, which was probably a mistake
2 to my part, I ended up studying the integrity program.
3 Getting back to -- the CALFED Independent Science
4 Board said there were eight big science issues that they
5 have to pay attention to in the Levee Integrity Program in
6 CALFED -- in that regard. And that in fact there should
7 be more investments in science. And they said, "Well, go
8 back and get us some specifics." So they launched me and
9 Bob Twist off on an analysis, long range analysis,
10 landscape scale analysis of the impacts of subsidence,
11 seismicity, and sea level rise, and with the specific
12 objective of looking forward -- looking forward. And in
13 this case we arbitrarily chose 50 years.
14 So what you are hearing is the sum -- literally
15 the description of how I spent my summer vacation, looking
16 into this problem. I want to make it clear though these
17 are my conclusions, not yet adopted by the Independent
18 Science Board. Although they're currently under review
19 and some form of them will be adopted by the Board.
20 --o0o--
21 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Also it's important that you
22 all recognize that I didn't just dream all this up on my
23 own. The GIS work was done for me, the modeling work --
24 some of the modeling work was done for me by Josh Johnson
25 of UC Davis. And you also wanted to say that Steve
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
82
1 Devereux gave -- generously gave a bunch of time. This is
2 the guy I think is the top expert on subsidence in the
3 Delta. Joe Lewis and Nick, who you're going to hear from
4 shortly, and Curt Schmutte were very helpful, along with
5 my colleagues on the Independent Science Board. And a
6 number of conclusions and some basic data from a variety
7 of published and unpublished reports.
8 --o0o--
9 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Okay. There's no better
10 insight to science than to tell what he's talking about is
11 old news. So I like to think of this as old news dressed
12 up in a different way. I'm only going to hit you with
13 four issues before I leave here and then I'll answer a
14 bunch of questions here.
15 One of the things that I want to get across --
16 and this is part of talks that I've been giving actually
17 for the last year or so on flood management and flood
18 planning as well as watershed management -- is the bulk of
19 our management takes place in a fixed -- in a fixed
20 surface. We look at the landscape as absolutely fixed.
21 And all our planning is either evidenced -- or hydrology
22 in the past and superimposed on a fixed landscape.
23 And the point I want to make -- and this is
24 relevant to all of us -- is the Delta is a very dynamic
25 landscape. It is undergoing significant physical change,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
83
1 and will continue to undergo that change into the future.
2 It won't -- and focus on that. I will argue that this
3 change is considerable. And although we can quibble about
4 the magnitude of change that I'm talking about, I think
5 the cases can be made real solidly the change will be
6 substantial particularly due to subsidence and sea level
7 rise.
8 I also want to remind everyone that when --
9 something we new 50 years ago and have revisited about
10 every 20 years like a plague of locust, we get worried
11 about seismicity in this system. Seismicity has a
12 potential to -- and as well as large floods, has the
13 potential to rearrange the Delta, literally create a new
14 Delta.
15 And I also will argue -- and as I said at the
16 beginning, there's certainly -- there is no institutional
17 capacity at this point to respond to dynamic global
18 landscapes. That's significant, especially where that
19 dynamism is reflected in something that's abrupt change.
20 --o0o--
21 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: There are lots of landscape
22 processes. You've got to remember when I say landscape
23 processes, I'm not talking about the work on the Bacon
24 Island levee dislocation. I'm talking about the view that
25 you have when you are on the airplane flying to Los
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
84
1 Angeles. I mean this is the 12,000-feet-up view. So you
2 can -- if you get bogged down in detail here, it is
3 problematic. What you need is a low resolution approach
4 to kind of look into this system at a broad scale. And
5 that's what I mean by landscape scale.
6 And I'm going to focus on three processes that
7 are shaping the Delta today and have shaped it in the past
8 and will shape it into the future, and that's subsidence,
9 sea level, seismicity. I'm not going to talk about the
10 other issues which are going to affect the Delta in the
11 future. I'm going to basically dodge those.
12 --o0o--
13 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: So to remind you about the
14 Delta, for 6,000 years the Delta was essentially a broad
15 tidal fresh water marsh system. And on that type --
16 covered with tule marshes and riparian vegetation. It sat
17 at roughly mean sea level. If you averaged all the
18 elevations across the Delta in the last 6,000 years, it's
19 been about at mean sea level.
20 Now, what happened of course, which is the issue
21 that has caused concern, is driving the subsidence, that
22 is, the land lowering inside what we now know are the
23 islands which are really holes in the ground surrounded by
24 levees, is microbial oxidation of the soils. And, that
25 is, basically when you drain the soils in the Delta and
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
85
1 you lower the water table, you expose it to oxygen. That
2 sets up the whole hidden set of microbes which are working
3 in the soil, which basically break down the organic
4 material, turn it into carbon dioxide and pump it into the
5 atmosphere. So microbial oxidation accounts for most of
6 the lowering of the Delta islands.
7 Compaction plays a role. And historically bad
8 land-use practices, I mean in some cases very severe
9 land-use practices, exacerbated the lowering of the Delta
10 islands. And this includes of course bad management of
11 the soil itself associated with wind erosion. And then
12 even the -- perhaps the most egregious example is the
13 literally burning of the soils. You know -- as most of us
14 know, these are peat soils. A lot of them are not
15 technically peat the way a geologist would describe it as
16 peat, but they're just organically rich. But they would
17 burn and they would literally burn the soil. And they'd
18 lose as much as five inches in a single burn. And the
19 reason they burn the soil is to change the characteristics
20 to grow potatoes, which they don't do anymore in any
21 abundance, I think.
22 --o0o--
23 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Okay. So where are we today
24 With the issue of subsidence? What's happened with
25 subsidence is you've created these islands, this network
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
86
1 of islands, over 300,000 acre area. That's to give you an
2 idea how defocused I am, only about 300,000 acres. So
3 you've been looking at these islands. They set well below
4 mean sea level, many of them substantially below mean sea
5 level, certainly much more than 15 feet, some more than 20
6 feet in some locations below mean sea level. And that
7 produces a series of processes which the landowners in the
8 Delta and the maintenance groups in the Delta do a heroic
9 battle against.
10 And that includes of course, associated with the
11 subsidence is -- increased seepage is in effect because
12 essentially the hydraulic head, the difference in the
13 elevation of the water around the islands and the
14 elevation of the groundwater table of the islands. You
15 have poor foundation soils underneath some of these levees
16 which is contributing to the maintenance problems and the
17 need for upgrading. So you have considerable pressures
18 there associated with the levees and the subsidence.
19 --o0o--
20 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Now, what I want to get at
21 is how do I get a handle on that? I mean when I look at
22 60 different islands and then I dropped it down to 40
23 somewhat islands. And I scratched my head for quite some
24 time to try and come up with a way to tell my colleagues
25 on the Independent Science Board what this looks like in,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
87
1 again, this landscape scale.
2 So being a good academic, I came up with some
3 absolutely -- some terms that no one can possibly
4 understand because that's what academics do. It's the
5 language of exclusion, right? May not -- if you think I'm
6 bad, you ought to go look at the psychology literature.
7 That's the one that really gets you. But those are words
8 that -- yeah, never mind.
9 I used a random number generator to generate this
10 term and to -- accommodation space. This is a concept --
11 accommodation space is a concept that has been around in
12 geologic version for 20 years. So this is why I'm
13 immediately familiar this. And I'll give you an example
14 of this in a second.
15 But in using this accommodation space, which is
16 essentially this empty space in the Delta, as a proxy for
17 the consequence of landscape change, what I mean then is
18 the consequence of things that happen if the channels
19 reconnect with the islands and somehow reconnect with the
20 islands.
21 At the same time I tried to scoop up all of the
22 forces that are acting to restore that connection between
23 the subsided islands and their channels into essentially
24 what I'm calling regional items standing force. Now, this
25 is essentially a proxy, because levees don't fail this
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
88
1 way, doesn't operate this way. It's just simply a way to
2 get at the regional forces which are acting on the levee.
3 --o0o--
4 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Don't worry about the
5 equations in all this. Basically what I want to do is
6 explain what anthropogenic accommodation space is.
7 In the Delta -- give you an example -- for the
8 last 6,000 years sea level has been slowly rising. In
9 effect, it's the slow rate of rise of sea level for the
10 last 6,000 years. And there's regional substance of the
11 crust underneath the Delta. And what that is doing in the
12 process is making space below mean sea level for the
13 accumulation of sediment.
14 And through time the sediment that came in from
15 the watershed, along with the sediment that was generated
16 by the death of bazillions of tules, organic accumulation,
17 kept up with the creation of that space. And that's why
18 it stayed a tidal fresh water marsh for 6,000 years, is
19 there was that dynamic balance between inputs of sediment,
20 generation of sediment within the Delta, outputs of
21 sediment and the creation of that new space.
22 The reason we know that is you can take a core in
23 the Delta and you can measure the thickness of the
24 sediment within the Delta, and you know that it's going to
25 accumulate as a tidal fresh water marsh for 6,000 years.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
89
1 So that's the creation of accommodation space.
2 And that drives patterns of sedimentation and now habitat
3 is formed and destroyed over time.
4 Well, we've got a -- you've got accommodation
5 space going on in the Delta, which my colleagues might
6 say, "Oh, yeah, I guess so." You're forming accommodation
7 space just like you did historically. But in this case it
8 is filled with neither water or sediment. It is empty
9 space below mean sea level, which has nothing in it but
10 air. So we call it scenario accommodation space. But I
11 like the term "anthropogenic accommodation space".
12 Okay. That is a measure of consequence. The
13 more of that you have in the Delta, the greater the
14 consequence -- the potential consequence of reflooding
15 these islands.
16 At the same time, you have essentially what I'm
17 going to call here a hydrostatic force which is acting on
18 the levees. I'm going to calculate that hydrostatic force
19 per unit -- per unit meter, so we get a length of the --
20 so we get a length of the levee. And you can summit to
21 the various regions. And this is not the force that
22 causes levee failure. But it is a regional force which is
23 acting on the levees.
24 The more -- and basically the thing to remember
25 is the taller the levees, and in this case the difference
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
90
1 between the elevation of the water surface and the bottom
2 of the islands, okay, the greater that force, and then if
3 you distribute that force over the length of the levees.
4 --o0o--
5 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: So simple levee force in --
6 just briefly I'll just mention a variety of data sources
7 that we use. In fact we use shuttle radar to -- an SRTM,
8 which has low resolution, isn't really good for like an
9 island study. But does a perfectly adequate job of the
10 scale that we were looking at. Lots of information on the
11 regis data set, and DWR was of course very generous with
12 their information and their GIS layers.
13 --o0o--
14 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: We basically used the SRTM
15 data to calculate the accommodation space. And used the
16 existing bath to measure data to estimate the amount of
17 water that existed in the Delta at any given time, and
18 also just calculate the hydrostatic forces on these
19 levees.
20 --o0o--
21 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: But, remember that I was
22 told to run off a thing about the future. So I could
23 describe the presence, I thought, pretty well, and I could
24 also describe the past based on the literature that exists
25 out there. But I've got to take this out at least 50
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
91
1 years. And so we did -- we took a hard look at the rates
2 of subsidence that are going on in the Delta on the
3 handful of islands where there's been some decent study.
4 You'll be disappointed to know there's not been a great
5 deal of study of subsidence in the Delta, which is a
6 surprise since it's something we've all known about.
7 Basically what we know is better land-use
8 practices and decreasing organic content within the Delta
9 soils has slowed the rate of subsidence. We experiment
10 with various ways to model that, and we ended up with a
11 very similar -- demos, very simplistic assumptions about
12 the future subsidence.
13 What we know is the post-1950's better management
14 practices and changes in organic content slowed that rate
15 of subsidence. So all we did is we took the rates of
16 subsidence from the period 1900 to 2000, the bet period,
17 and had reduced that rate by what we saw as a reduced rate
18 post-1950. I can explain it more in detail if you want.
19 So the estimate is that -- they estimate the
20 changes in rates of subsidence through the 2050. At the
21 same time we had to keep in mind the sea level's rising.
22 There's an internationally accepted -- by the way, there's
23 always somebody disagrees with this -- estimate for the
24 relative rise in sea level. But it's got a -- of bars on
25 it for the next 50 years. But basically it's an increase
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
92
1 in the rate of rise of sea level by about 50 percent
2 between now and 2050.
3 That is a change from about two millimeters per
4 year to three millimeters per year. Doesn't sound like
5 much, right? That's a very conservative estimate. Now,
6 the U.S. has suggested coming out and stating it's
7 probably twice that amount of rise. Also makes some
8 assumptions that businesses as usual is likely to go on in
9 the Delta, that is, the Delta will continue to be farmed.
10 --o0o--
11 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Okay. So here are two
12 slightly fuzzy maps. And their fuzziness is actually a
13 benefit, in the sense that I do not want you to
14 over-interpret the resolution of these maps. They're
15 really pretty good for a kind of island-by-island
16 averages. But this -- the way we constructed these maps
17 is we estimated subsidence rate on the organic soils and
18 then basically lowered each island in time -- step-wise
19 every year.
20 And we take a year, we run the model. And then
21 we'd lower the elevation of the island until an island ran
22 out of organic soil, because underneath that 6,000 year
23 there's a clay layer basically underneath that 6,000 years
24 of sediment. And you stop. And so large parts of the
25 Delta are done subsiding or they stop subsiding between
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
93
1 now and 2050. And some parts of the Delta don't stop
2 subsiding until about 2200. And so it's highly variable.
3 So we developed that simple model.
4 But what you want to see on this though, what is
5 important to this Board -- although the relationship
6 between this Board and the Delta is always kind of a
7 fuzzy, goofy thing as the long as I've been on the Board.
8 I've never quite figured it out. What you do see is that
9 subsidence is strongest and the depth -- those dark brown
10 colors that you see there are depths below 15 feet, 16
11 feet -- or 16 feet or more below sea level -- it increases
12 considerably in the central and western Delta. So there's
13 some significant impacts in the central and western Delta.
14 --o0o--
15 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Here's the basic
16 calculations and simulations of this. And what you see on
17 this thing -- these are anthropogenic accommodation space
18 here, which is expressed in simply million cubic meters,
19 because outside of the United States that's the way we all
20 talk, in meters. And what you see is that since about
21 1900, if were you to add all that up, we've generated on
22 the order of about 2.6 billion cubic meters of
23 accommodation space. That is the area below -- the volume
24 below sea level. That's about three -- this is a little
25 more than 3 billion cubic yards. So it's big -- it's a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
94
1 big number and a space that -- below sea level that's
2 quite large.
3 But what you can see in them is when you look at
4 the east Delta, its organics are already burned up. It's
5 gone. It's not going to be creating a whole lot of new
6 space in time.
7 You're looking at the south Delta and the north
8 Delta -- well, in fact the south Delta's pretty much close
9 to done, and it's not going to be creating a lot of new
10 space through time. The north Delta on the other hand is
11 going to continue to create space, just not very fast.
12 And that's because the organic contents of the soils are
13 low.
14 Remember, all this incorporates the impact of
15 rise in sea level. So rise in sea level is contributing
16 to the increase in the area below sea level.
17 The key thing I want you to catch is the west and
18 central Delta. And the west and central Delta is where
19 the bulk of this below sea level volume is, and it will
20 continue in the future. Although what's interesting is to
21 note the central Delta starts tapering off because it too
22 is burning through its organics pretty fast.
23 --o0o--
24 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Let me give you some ideas
25 about this.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
95
1 We all know that the hydraulic mining era was
2 probably the most destructive land-use practice in the
3 history of California in terms of the volume of sediment
4 which was hosed out of the Sierra Nevada, washed down to
5 the Delta and out in the San Francisco Bay. It would take
6 two and a half hydraulic mining eras to just fill the
7 space that we have created in the Delta through the
8 process of subsidence. And it would take much more than
9 that of course when you project out for the next 50 years.
10 Okay. Well, let me give you another example of
11 this. Right now we know how much -- we have a good
12 ballpark number for how much sediment is coming into the
13 Delta. This is Dave Schoellhamer's data from the U.S.
14 Geological Survey. And based on Dave's data and the
15 average amount of sediment coming in, if we could just
16 capture all that sediment and use it to fill the holes in,
17 then we might take care of the problem. But it turns out
18 it would take 1500 years to fill the holes that are
19 created by this if you captured all the sediment. That's
20 if you held it static.
21 But in fact sea level rise alone -- the
22 continuing of sea level rise alone will outstrip the rate
23 at which the sediment's coming. And what I mean by that
24 is that just the new space that's created by that slow
25 imperceptible rise in sea level is far greater than the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
96
1 space that could be filled by the total volume of sediment
2 that's coming in to the Delta today.
3 So the point is, this is not a promise that it
4 will go away at all. In fact, keep in mind everyday, a
5 daily average, we create about 27,000 cubic meters of new
6 space in the Delta. And, remember, that's spread out over
7 a very, very large area. That's, you know, 30 -- that's
8 31 or 2 thousand cubic yards. But that's spread over a
9 really, really large area.
10 Finally, just to give you again -- this is a
11 sense of landscape scale, because this is the scale the
12 Rec Board actually operates on. I just went ahead and did
13 some real simple core analyses in the Delta and looked at
14 the amount of material that's accumulated over the last
15 6,000 years and what percentage of that material is now
16 gone. What turned up is about 5 billion cubic meters of
17 material -- so it's 6 billion cubic yards -- was deposited
18 in the Delta over the last 6,000 years, and half it is now
19 gone -- almost half of it's now gone. So in the space of
20 100 years, we've eliminated about half of what accumulated
21 over 6,000 years.
22 And that's -- you know, I love those statistics
23 because I'm a geologist and I can't help myself in that
24 regard.
25 --o0o--
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
97
1 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Levee force. The reason I
2 worry about this is that as you create this space, okay --
3 most of us will start by saying, "Here, look now, Jeff,
4 your diagram showed that the formation of new space in the
5 Delta slows," just as you would -- just as we predicted
6 when we sat out to look at this, we predicted that it
7 would slow. But the forces acting to undue the levees are
8 actually a proportion of that depth squared or related to
9 that depth squared. That's how the force actually works
10 out.
11 So in fact the forces, if you're using
12 hydrostatic forces, actually increase substantially
13 through time. The simplest way to think about it, if
14 you're using depth, if you doubled the depth of something,
15 you don't double the force on it. You quadruple the force
16 on it. That's the way it works. And that's why, even
17 though your rate of accommodation -- formation of new
18 accommodation space slows, the rate of the force, this
19 proxy that I'm using for things acting on the Delta,
20 increases dramatically.
21 And what I want to point out again is that -- you
22 know, unfortunately people take away the wrong messages.
23 The message I'm trying to get across here is this is not a
24 catastrophe for the Delta in all of this. It's really
25 specific to about two places in the Delta, that's the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
98
1 central and the western Delta. This is not something
2 which is wipe out for everything. And I'll get to that
3 question later.
4 --o0o--
5 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: So here are the two indices
6 that I developed, the idea being to show you here that in
7 fact it's a new space, which is and index of
8 consequence -- I mean these are areas that can take water
9 and can be filled with water. And I'll discuss real
10 briefly what the consequences of that would be. And here
11 are also the forces, by forces that are acting to restore
12 the channel -- the connection between the channel and the
13 islands themselves.
14 --o0o--
15 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: So what do we do with this,
16 how do you interpret it? Remember, I said we were talking
17 about landscapes being changed and its impact on the
18 Delta.
19 Okay. Let's start with the gradual change issue
20 that I talked about, because this is imperceptible. You
21 can't see it. You can't visually see it. But we can
22 detect it with satellites. We can see it -- we can see it
23 from the space shuttle, we can detect it with the space
24 shuttle. But you can't see it, especially when you're
25 standing on the ground. The point is is that what I will
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
99
1 argue, and I'll argue heavily with anyone on this one, is
2 that what these indices tell you is there is an increasing
3 both potential for and consequence of levee failure.
4 Okay. This is assuming business as usual, no
5 changes in the current way we maintain levees, no changes
6 in the investments we make in levees. They're just
7 business as usual. I think it is undeniable that you have
8 increased potential in consequence of island flooding.
9 Let me briefly mention to you what the
10 consequence of island flooding is. Besides the fact we
11 know that the Jones tract costs us somewhere between 50
12 and $100 million -- nobody really knows. That's why I ask
13 that question every time I hear a Jones tract report,
14 because I still don't know how much it's going to cost.
15 And I also don't think it's really clear who' going to pay
16 for it.
17 That see, island costs are very expensive. But,
18 remember, the one -- the big deals in all of this is that
19 these have an impact on water quality and therefore have
20 an impact on water supply reliability. And that's what
21 gets people up and out of their chairs and running around.
22 No offense to the landowners in the Delta, but
23 the southern California interests get pretty excited -- or
24 agitated when you have these levee failures or at least
25 when you start talking about these levee failures.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
100
1 They're also under the impacts in the water supply in the
2 ecosystem as well.
3 Okay. CALFED's documents say we are one billion
4 dollars behind. And I don't -- and, you know, I've got
5 one of the authors of -- at least with that figure is
6 here. And you can ask Gil -- I think Gil is one of the
7 ones who did that. Gil Cosner's one of the ones who
8 prepared that sort of analysis of what it takes us to get
9 us the PL-84 standards, which is what we -- which is
10 commonly used as the standard.
11 So we've got a huge backlog in both levee
12 improvements and, to some extent, levee maintenance.
13 Although Levee maintenance continues to go on in the
14 Delta.
15 But, see, that's the slow. So what I'm telling
16 you is that I don't think things are going to get better.
17 I don't think things are going to just stop. And just
18 because this is old news -- people sort of said, "Well,
19 it's old news. It's not hopping anymore." But, anyway,
20 where there's the Delta that's the problem, then this is
21 old news for them. They know the pressures that they are
22 under. But I'm telling it to you that the pressures will
23 continue to build over the next 50 years. And the
24 probability of a potential for as a consequence of island
25 failures will increase.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
101
1 --o0o--
2 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Okay. That's just half the
3 story.
4 I'm almost done, Betsy,
5 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: You're doing good.
6 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Landscape change takes place
7 in two ways. The way that we can't see it, which is a
8 very subtle landscape change, and this whole valley has
9 changed in very slow subtle ways. But occasionally we get
10 dramatic change and dramatic reorganization. Okay,
11 there's a potential for significant island flooding during
12 major flooding events and seismic events.
13 Now, during the flooding events, which has
14 recurrence in something less than -- something greater
15 than 100-year event. And then I'm talking about -- I'm
16 going to be talking about seismic event, which has the
17 same occurrence -- roughly the same occurrence.
18 The bottom line is one of the things we don't
19 really know and understand well is what happens during one
20 of these major reorganizations of the Delta? We have some
21 information of this. DWR has got some specific
22 information. We've got that new RMA model that is coming
23 forward that we can probably use to assess the water
24 quality impacts.
25 But what we all know intuitively is that a major
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
102
1 multi-island failure within the Delta has substantial
2 societal consequences, not just to the local landowners
3 but to the State of California at large. So why do I
4 start telling you -- is something that can cause
5 multi-year disruption, perhaps even multi-billion dollar
6 disruptions to our system.
7 Okay. You might even have a new Delta.
8 --o0o--
9 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Now, don't get excited.
10 This is not a model or anything. This is just an
11 illustration. What do we do? I say, what do we do --
12 what do we do with the extreme large Sacramento flood that
13 causes a cascade of island failures in the Delta? What do
14 we do with this -- with a major San Joaquin flood that
15 causes widespread island failures throughout the central
16 and southern Delta? Or, more likely, in all of these,
17 what do we do in a major seismic event which causes
18 widespread failures?
19 And the reason I say all this -- and I want to
20 thank Jay Punia for this -- is that one thing that hit me
21 square between the eyes, before we had the Jones Tract
22 failure, by the way -- is now just a convenient picture --
23 is when I started to ask what we could do to repair these
24 systems I discovered we had a major shortfall in the
25 infrastructure to repair levee failures. We have one
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
103
1 contractor, a good contractor -- I mean nobody's had a bad
2 thing to say about the -- Incorporated, at least has said
3 it to me.
4 We have one contractor with one source of rock,
5 which is currently -- which the current local landowner is
6 trying to get rid of that source of rock and close down
7 that quarry. We simply can't respond -- and there's no
8 pretty way to make this -- we can't respond quickly,
9 certainly not within one season, to a major multi-island
10 failure event. It just doesn't exist there.
11 And what's happened is over the years -- a simple
12 explanation is over the years -- and we can look at
13 ourselves as part of that -- over the years as the money
14 has dwindled away from the Delta that has been invested in
15 the Delta, there just simply remained the range of
16 contractors and equipment in the Delta to keep it going,
17 to keep competition going. So you're down to one
18 contractor in the Delta. You can't cover it rapidly.
19 --o0o--
20 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Okay. As geologist most
21 people look at me kind of godly eyed when I start talking
22 about these things. And they say, "Well, that's somewhere
23 way out in the future." But, remember, I'm just
24 simulating 50 years. And I use 50 years as an example
25 because -- and I say this every time I say this -- I have
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
104
1 a 14-year-old boy, and that 14-year-old boy will be
2 looking at retirement the next year.
3 So I'm thinking I'll be dead, but he'll be
4 looking at retirement. So what's the likelihood in his
5 lifetime he would see the effects of this gradual
6 landscape change or, worse yet, this abrupt landscape
7 change within the Delta?
8 If we assume that a hundred-year earthquake has
9 the potential to do considerable reorganization in the
10 Delta, or that a regional hundred-year flood event has the
11 potential to reorganize the Delta, standard methods for
12 calculating probabilities of something like this, it's a 4
13 to 10 probability that either of those would occur during
14 that period of time. Actually not "either". I take that
15 back. I recalculate that. What's the probably that a
16 hundred-year earthquake will occur? It's .40, 4 in 10, 2
17 in 5. What's the probability that both of those disasters
18 would be visited on the Delta? It's .16.
19 That doesn't seem very common. But I'll bet you
20 Burt Bundy would step up with a pair of dice and say, "I'm
21 going to roll a 7." So it's the same probability as
22 rolling a 7 with a pair of dice. I realize that's lost on
23 some people. But to me, that -- you know, I know a lot
24 friends that put a lot of money on being able to roll a 7.
25 But what's worse, if you go to -- if you go to my
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
105
1 statistics -- I'm really embarrassed. I had to go ask him
2 if I was right about this. If you ask the question
3 differently, "What is the probability that either of these
4 Delta reorganization events is likely to occur in the next
5 50 years?" that period that I'm stimulating, which is the
6 life of the project, typical project that we'd look at in
7 50 years, the fact of probability is 2 out of 3. That
8 strikes me as pretty likely that we're going to see
9 something significant in the Delta which may lead to a
10 reorganization.
11 So it's a double -- so it's two things that I
12 really want to get across with this, is that we're looking
13 at two types of landscape scale change in the Delta which
14 will impact the Rec Board, which will impact the
15 landowners of the Delta, which will impact the State of
16 California substantially. And one is gradual change and
17 the sort of sarcastic island failures like Jones Tract.
18 And then the other is of course the -- this abrupt
19 reorganization.
20 I will tell you here that my estimates on this
21 are conservative. I tried to be conservative because the
22 accusation of scaremongering which might come along with
23 it. I have underestimated, I believe, the actual
24 magnitude of the change that's going on in the Delta in
25 the future, because I've left out all kinds of thresholds
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
106
1 and -- effects that one worries about.
2 As anybody here who battles with islands know,
3 you can lose one island and the probability you
4 immediately proceed to lose the adjacent island. And so
5 when you start doing that kind of -- to go through those
6 exercises, it gets pretty complicated. In effect, it's
7 simple.
8 I'd also left out -- time change. All my
9 colleagues at the University of California Davis have -- I
10 get to be one who would disagree with this -- will tell
11 you we are probably going to warm up in this area one to
12 two degrees over that period of 50 years. It turns out
13 rates of subsidence are controlled by temperature. The
14 higher the temperature, the higher -- the faster the rate
15 the microbes eat up the organics and the faster rate of
16 subsidence in the air.
17 And then of course I haven't even talked about
18 the issue which we're starting to get our brain around, is
19 how flood releases might be different in this system and
20 actually affected during the winter that is maintaining
21 higher stages through the winter.
22 Okay. So higher temps, higher floods.
23 Okay. I have -- in deference to my colleagues on
24 the Independent Science Board have been sort of reserved
25 about discussing the implications for this. But, look, I
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
107
1 will argue that the -- whatever we're seeing is an
2 increased tendency and potential for levee failures within
3 the delta with time, with a significant but unknown
4 impact. That is presumably business as usual, that is,
5 going about the business the way we do it. We have yet to
6 see an economically feasible method to restore elevations.
7 But that debate is just beginning because I'm throwing
8 that bombastic statement out there.
9 But of all the data that has been produced from
10 the CALFED projects that we've seen, we're talking like
11 700 years to restore elevations in some of these, unless
12 you go out and you mine the Montezuma Hills, for example,
13 move the Montezuma Hills into the Delta. When I say
14 economically feasible, we're talking $5 billion to do
15 something like that.
16 --o0o--
17 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Okay. And then, finally,
18 CALFED -- where does CALFED fit in all of this? Well, on
19 CALFED there's supposed to be -- Delta -- Central
20 Committee is Delta centered, despite what some people
21 might claim. But CALFED -- all of the CALFED planning
22 which we're related to is predicated on a fixed landscape.
23 That is, the hydraulic integrity -- the intended hydraulic
24 integrity of the Delta.
25 My argument will be, as a scientist who raises
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
108
1 the flag here, that I don't think it's going to be that
2 way. In fact, I think the odds are much higher that it
3 will be something substantially different and it might
4 occur quite quickly. So it is not a fixed landscape.
5 It's quite dynamic.
6 --o0o--
7 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Okay. Let me finish up with
8 this last slide and make a couple of comments, and then
9 I'll answer some questions.
10 Here's what I don't want you to take away from
11 this talk -- and unfortunately people have taken it away
12 from the talk -- that I've painted this apocalyptic view
13 of the Delta. The Delta's -- we're pouring money down a
14 rat hole, this is a big waste of time and -- no, that's
15 not at all what I said. What I said is the Delta is
16 changing.
17 We are not adapting to those changes. We're not
18 prepared for those changes. We need to face that as a
19 policy question as to how we might actually adapt to those
20 changes. That is not going to be the same everywhere. As
21 I said, the north, the south and east Delta are not likely
22 to -- I mean they're really quite different than the
23 central and western Delta. And one-size-fits-all
24 approaches for the Delta are likely to be bad choices.
25 But the point is that this -- because of this old
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
109
1 news, and we know about it 50 years ago, we decided not to
2 do anything about it. We're really not doing much about
3 it. It's old news. The exception of that is the DWR is
4 running -- has just started a levee workplan development
5 program to do a seismic risk analysis, to do a
6 comprehensive risk analysis, which will actually
7 incorporate economics as well as the impact of seismicity.
8 They too are doing their study predicated on a fixed
9 landscape. But for no other reason than the fact it is so
10 complicated and hard, that's where they have to start, is
11 in a fixed condition.
12 Do not take away the notion that I think the
13 Delta is going to blow up tomorrow. It could. But I'm
14 not saying the Delta is going blow up tomorrow and we're
15 all making mistakes when investing in the Delta. I will
16 tell you -- when I sit down as a Board member, I will tell
17 you we have to continue to invest in the Delta. We have
18 no choice at this point. We have to continue to invest in
19 the Delta. Walking away from it would be a social and
20 economic disaster.
21 So, that's it.
22 I'm happy to answer any of your questions.
23 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Questions?
24 Jeff, why don't you conduct your own question and
25 answer session.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
110
1 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Sure.
2 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: But I would ask people to
3 stand up and speak loudly if you want to ask Jeff a
4 question so we can all hear it.
5 MR. BASYE: I'm very much -- I'm George Basye,
6 attorney for the Flood Control Association. And I very
7 much appreciate the fact that the Professor is showing
8 what problems we face in the Delta in the long run.
9 There's no question, that has to be analyzed and pursued
10 and developed. But I'm particularly appreciative of his
11 comment this morning, "In the meantime we can't abandon
12 the Delta." And unfortunately the impression -- wrongly,
13 I'm sure, because I didn't hear your first presentation --
14 that's gotten into the press is "Oh, the Delta is a loss."
15 No, we have no alternative, as the Professor has
16 said, but to maintain the program we have going and expand
17 it. Now, in the future what we need to do, we have to
18 look at the issues that he's raised. I appreciate very
19 much your presentation.
20 MS. RAMFORD: Barbara Ramford, Delta Protection
21 Commission.
22 You showed us a lot of charts and graphs. One of
23 the things that I have -- on working the Delta for 11
24 years -- and I've seen that the knowledge about the
25 subsidence processes has been one of those curves. And a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
111
1 lot of knowledge and I think basically all Steve
2 Devereux's work has been done in the last 10 years. When
3 I first came here they told me that the answer to
4 subsidence was no-till agriculture. And certainly we've
5 gone a long way.
6 Could you maybe perhaps comment on the status of
7 knowledge about subsidence in the Delta and where --
8 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Yes. So my comment is --
9 okay. Essentially the question is: What is the status of
10 knowledge about subsidence in the Delta? Steve Devereux
11 has done the best work. I think Steve -- did probably the
12 best work in nineties on that.
13 Unfortunately the look tended to be very
14 localized. And actually there's -- it looked in places
15 which may actually not be representative of the entire
16 Delta, but gave us kind of a picture. The problem is is
17 that that work was done in the nineties and it was never
18 picked up. I mean they got started, some really great
19 ideas and good questions. But the ball got dropped on the
20 scientific side of this. And we have major gaps in our
21 understanding.
22 We've got gaps in understanding of -- remember
23 the elevations I just gave are off the SRTM data, which is
24 low resolution stuff. It's not exact enough to do any
25 kind of planning on that. We need good quality elevation.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
112
1 We need to go back and remap our soils in the Delta. We
2 need to know what the organic contents of our soils. It's
3 the only way we're going to be able to tell what the
4 future holds.
5 Keep in mind that one of the things I've been
6 telling you is that -- you know, you might go over the
7 wrong impression. Remember that in fact near the levees
8 the soils tend to be -- organic content tends to be much
9 lower. Okay, so this tends -- this actually overstates on
10 a local scale what's happening. It doesn't understand it
11 on a regional scale. On a local scale places in some of
12 these lands which the levees plop down on sands -- of
13 course sand's not a good choice. But inorganics soils,
14 which are not being affected subsidence and they're much
15 more stable. So there's lots of local variation which we
16 have to take into -- oh, I have that data right now.
17 Because that's been one of my biggest complaint.
18 And then, finally, we need a plan tool. And this
19 is the pitch I -- I guess I'm off the -- I'm not talking
20 CALFED anymore. WE need a planning tool in this thing.
21 We can't just do this overnight. We're talking about
22 decades. This is a process of managing the Delta, which
23 takes place over decades. And we just need some good high
24 quality modeling and planning to help us make some
25 choices.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
113
1 And so that's going to be one of my main
2 recommendations to CALFED, is to take that existing water
3 quality model and prove -- start making some choices, get
4 some decent elevation data, some decent soils data. And
5 of course the other big deal is geotechnical data.
6 But all we need is some really great stuff. In
7 the nineties, that's it. Nobody's doing anything with it
8 anymore. University of California's not studying that I'm
9 aware of. And there's going to be no going around campus
10 trying to find help for people. And none of us really
11 have had a comprehensive look at it.
12 So I'm hopeful in the end that even though I
13 rolled out this state bomb of a talk on these last few
14 weeks, that it will spur CALFED to think about actually
15 investing in the -- and asking some of those questions and
16 giving some answers.
17 I just gave another speech. Sorry.
18 SECRETARY EDGAR: One of the things that comes to
19 my mind, obviously the Delta is a major instrument for
20 water conveyance and water quality. Should we put the
21 peripheral canal back on the table?
22 (Laughter.)
23 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Somehow that got stuck to me
24 in the media. And I never said that in my talk.
25 But my less constrained colleague, Peter Moyle,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
114
1 did say -- his feeling was that -- and I'm speaking for
2 Peter here -- his feeling was that the trajectories, the
3 way they're currently aligned, are that even a heroic
4 effort can't save major chunks in the Delta; and that in
5 fact in the long term, somewhere in the next 50 years,
6 we'll be looking to have them put in a peripheral canal.
7 And I don't want to call him for that isolated facility.
8 And that his -- his argument is we should be talking about
9 that now because it will take decades to build it. It's
10 not something you can go out and just do overnight.
11 I'm not ready to commit to that. I know it's
12 kind of like being wishy-washy about something. I think
13 we need actually -- I honestly generally need me to have
14 the stuff on the table. But because that peripheral canal
15 has been poisoned -- politically poisoned some years ago,
16 it kind of got swept aside and nobody wanted to talk about
17 it.
18 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Pete has a question.
19 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: Jeff, you speak of the
20 need to do planning. CALFED is the primary planning
21 agency for the Delta area. How did the -- what were their
22 comments to your presentation? And what currently is
23 CALFED's plan for the Delta?
24 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Okay. There are many, many
25 plans. So the response to my talk -- I gave in front of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
115
1 the Bay Delta Authority this week -- was silence. I mean
2 it was sort of stunned silence. And then it was the --
3 "Is this hopeless?" And my answer was no And then it was
4 "What do we need to do?" And I just gave that speech here
5 about the kinds of things I think we need to do and the
6 investments we need to make.
7 But the bottom line is that CALFED is not
8 planning for the future. They are planning on a fixed --
9 they're using a fixed landscape for all their future
10 planning, period. There isn't an organized water supply
11 reliability, drinking water quality, levee integrity --
12 sorry, Dave. And an ecosystem restoration in particular
13 was a -- none of them are actually -- none of them are
14 taking risk into account. I mean we do this all the time
15 as a board.
16 I mean that's what we -- we live in a risk
17 environment and we're always wondering about risk. But
18 none of these other groups seem to be taking risk, with
19 the exception of the levee integrity group. I take that
20 back. They don't take risk into -- I mean what is a risk
21 of, you know, investing X amount of dollars into this part
22 of to Delta? And it might all just go away.
23 So strategic planning is not being done. And,
24 like I say, I hope to convince the Independent Science
25 Board and release a short paper on that same...
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
116
1 MS. COGLIANESE: Good morning. My name is Marci
2 Coglianese. I'm the Mayor of the City of Rio Vista. And
3 I'm Co-chair of the Levee Subcommittee of the Bay Delta
4 Public Authority, advising the committee.
5 And we have been laboring mightily to bring the
6 plight of the levees to the attention of, first, CALFED
7 and now the Authority. We feel our particular part of the
8 larger CALFED program has consistently been under-funded.
9 And through the ten-year financing plan and the program
10 plan for the levees' portion of it, we've been attempting
11 to increase the targets for spending for maintenance and
12 improvements for the levees. But we are also cognizant of
13 the issues that are being raised about the long-term
14 future of the Delta. And for that reason we are
15 advocating an inclusion in the funding program for a --
16 plan or comprehensive program evaluation.
17 And, yes, there is a seismic study under way.
18 It's had the typical state contracting difficulties, which
19 really are urgent to overcome. And we have a phase 2 that
20 is it being scoped right now.
21 We would welcome very much Professor Mount's
22 efforts to correct the impression that was given to some
23 that the conclusion is final and it's scientifically based
24 that the Delta is doomed; and, in fact, turn this
25 conversation into an opportunity to redirect positive
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
117
1 attention to this program so that we can have adequate
2 funding to do some of the things that are being suggested.
3 Thank you.
4 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Jeff, a quick question.
5 You know, the first -- sometimes the first steps
6 are just short-term first steps. And is there any
7 opportunities out there that you see that may occur? It
8 kind of crossed my mind that even what occurred at the
9 Jones Tract, there might be something we can learn from
10 that, I mean, you know, other than to say we've got some
11 bad levees out there. But I mean, is there -- you know,
12 are there any suggestions or anything that we can do
13 incrementally on a short-term basis to get the process
14 started?
15 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Well, after every natural
16 disaster of some kind there is a period of talking,
17 intense talking, where we try to decide what we do next.
18 We're in that period right now. I mean even though it's
19 been five months since the Jones Tract failure -- by the
20 way, that was a good levee. I've heard there's two kinds
21 of levees: Those that have failed and those that will
22 fail.
23 (Laughter.)
24 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: I think we're in the talking
25 phase right now. The reason I say that is that I've got
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
118
1 to check my calendar, and I'm giving a talk on this every
2 week for the next six weeks at various universities and
3 the Water Education Foundation, having that meeting there.
4 And an aqua meeting in Palm Springs. So we're in the
5 talking phase right now, I think, trying to figure out
6 what to do. So it would be unreasonable for me I think to
7 speculate. I'd make a mistake with speculation, so I'm
8 going to beg off on that.
9 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Okay.
10 MR. BASYE: Can I volunteer?
11 MS. COLLINS: I'm Jackie Collins. I'm a citizen
12 of Bethel Island. And can everyone hear me?
13 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Use the microphone.
14 MS. COLLINS: Okay. Use the microphone. Very
15 good.
16 I'm a resident of Bethel Island.
17 And there is a portion of your talk, Jeff, that I
18 think is very important, but I need to have it restated.
19 My mind doesn't exactly work like yours. What I hear you
20 say is that -- okay, everything changes. We know that.
21 And we understand that the dynamics of this area, things
22 were going to change anyway. And what I hear you saying
23 is that it's not only that we have no way of predicting a
24 range of increase in hydrological pressure of any kind;
25 it's that the actual exponent for rates of increase will
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
119
1 change in a random fashion that will decide itself at the
2 time, correct? So what we are facing is a challenge that
3 we can't put into any parameters because the challenge
4 itself will dictate how rapidly it happens. But the
5 longer we wait to prepare for any change, the harder it
6 will be to compensate for that change and the less time we
7 will have to do it in, yeah?
8 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: The latter part of what you
9 said is exactly what I'm trying to say. The front end you
10 got some of the things mangled, but the concept was
11 correct. The concept you were saying is that -- if you
12 want to have one thing to take away, I'm telling you that
13 every day 27,000 cubic meters of space of the Delta goes
14 into the atmosphere. So that's basically what I'm telling
15 you. And that's a volume of a little more than 30,000 --
16 31,000 cubic yards. Imagine $10 a yard, if you want to
17 give it a cost of moving. That goes into the atmosphere
18 every single day. So then that means every day we don't
19 do something, you're right, the problem gets worse in the
20 long run, everyday we don't do something.
21 Then there's the other side of that, okay. And,
22 that is -- that's why I looked at 50 years and aggregated
23 50 years. There's an old saying in earthquake
24 engineering, the longer it's been since the last one, the
25 closer you are to the next. So then when you start
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
120
1 looking over longer and longer lengths of time, the
2 probabilities of that reorganization occurring in that
3 segment of time becomes higher.
4 So I mean even though it's a .01 probability that
5 you'll have a hundred year flood next year, there's a .01
6 probability that we'll have a hundred year flood in year
7 10. When you take it over 40 years, its a 4 in 10
8 probability that during that period of time we'll have
9 a disaster. So the longer we wait, the closer we get to
10 the next disaster.
11 So my take away from all of that to my colleagues
12 is we got to get going on making decisions about what
13 we're going to do with the Delta.
14 And let me add one other thing. And I want to
15 say this to -- it's great somebody from Bethel Island is
16 here. Another mistaken impression that came out in my
17 talk, saying this is -- you know, "you shoot your mouth
18 off and then you try to clean it up afterwards."
19 One of the things that I -- I do try to explain
20 to people is the complication you have with the
21 privately-owned levee. And the overwhelming majority are
22 privately owned. Yet every single one of those islands is
23 a state resource, because we have based our planning on
24 the fact that all that has to hold together, that fragile
25 network of channels has to hold together in order to meet
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
121
1 water supply reliability and drinking water quality and
2 ecosystem restoration.
3 And now we're chasing fish all over the Delta,
4 and we're doing it all the time. But everything is based
5 on that -- based on that assumption. So it is a state
6 resource. And that has produced a goofy relationship
7 between private landowners and the government, that I also
8 haven't quite understood. I've never been able to get my
9 brain around that part of it too.
10 But I think my encouragement to my colleagues
11 here on the Board and CALFED, Bay Delta authority is
12 just -- we just -- we've got to think about doing this, at
13 least planning -- starting the planning process.
14 I think a got the gist of what you said actually.
15 MR. BOYER: Hi. I'm Chris Boyer of Contra Costa
16 County Office of Emergency Services. I'm Senior Emergency
17 Planner there. And I'm relatively new to the job. But it
18 seems like levee technology today, they're using the same
19 shovel that they did in the 1800's to build levees.
20 What's the state of levee technology, and is
21 there something new coming along? Because it seems like
22 all you do is keep building it taller and wider. Why
23 aren't we pouring concrete, why aren't doing things -- is
24 there a point at which you need to invest in that
25 technology?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
122
1 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: We've got 1100 miles of
2 levees. Yeah, it's cost. Cost is at the top of the list.
3 But I also tell you technology hasn't changed a lot, but
4 it has definitely improved. We need only to look at
5 Sacramento. And now Sacramento's dealing with it, trying
6 to put the best technology into it. But it's still pretty
7 much brute force engineering, and it's very, very
8 expensive.
9 MR. BASYE: George Basye again.
10 Lawyers like to play engineering, so I'll respond
11 to Burt Bundy's question: What can be done in the short
12 run? I think the most valuable investment that could be
13 made was shown from the Jones Tract event, which, as
14 Professor Mount indicates, was as far as we knew a good
15 levee, except there was a great big beaver den down there
16 that nobody knew about because it was under the water.
17 The most important investment I think in the
18 short run is let's get some equipment developed that can
19 go along the top of the levee and pick out voids. And run
20 them all over those levees and find out where those holes
21 are and fix them before the levee collapses. Now, that
22 wouldn't be, I don't think, a big investment. And I don't
23 know how well developed that equipment is, but I'm very
24 encouraged to hear that it's close to being developed.
25 And I hope it gets finished soon because that would be --
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
123
1 that would have prevented the Jones Tract failure.
2 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: In answer to that, I think
3 if we could negotiate with Fish & Game a beaver season --
4 (Laughter.)
5 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: And squirrels.
6 MR. MRAZ: I'm Dave Mraz, the Program Manager for
7 the Delta Levees Program. And I'd just like to make a
8 couple of comments on Dr. Mount's discussion this morning,
9 and take away a couple of things that I think are
10 important.
11 The first thing that -- or among the first things
12 that Dr. Mount mentioned is that there is about half to
13 two-thirds of the Delta that's no longer subsiding. These
14 are places where the subsidence has occurred. The
15 foundations are stable. There's still some consolidation
16 going on, but we can make some headway in raising those
17 levees to match the rise in sea level.
18 Next item. You know, the long-term fate of the
19 Delta is really the subject of future policy. Currently
20 we have a policy in place to protect the Delta as it
21 exists today. And the Reclamation Board Subsidence
22 Program is the means -- or one of the key means of
23 actually accomplishing that.
24 I'm sorry. The Subventions program, not the
25 Subsidence Program. We do study subsidence, but it
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
124
1 doesn't work that way.
2 The funding limitations have had a major impact
3 on the levees. And I think the way that we're going to be
4 able to make some improvements is to improve -- increase
5 the funding that goes out to the reclamation districts so
6 that they can put more dirt in place. That's the thing
7 that's going to preserve the Delta long term.
8 There are other elements, notably the permitting
9 process, the limitations on dredging, that give us real
10 headaches; the inability to do waterside work, the narrow
11 work windows for preservation of fish and wildlife, that
12 are -- that really hamper the reclamation districts'
13 ability to do the maintenance that's required to preserve
14 the Delta.
15 Dr. Mount mentioned a number of items that need
16 to be done. And with the limited budget that the DWR
17 program has, I'd like to let you know that there are a
18 number of them that we're working on. By no means are we
19 addressing them completely.
20 We do have subsidence studies that we fund on a
21 regular basis. And the work of Steve Devereux has been
22 funded under the special projects portion of the levees
23 program.
24 Our GIS database is working cooperatively with
25 any agency that will help us out to get those surveys
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
125
1 done. We do have YR data coming that's going to give us a
2 higher precision level in the Delta.
3 We've got a large scale demonstration project
4 where we're actually going to try and see if we can't stop
5 the subsidence on one of the western islands and hopefully
6 reverse it in the long term.
7 The risk analysis program is a levees program
8 contract. And we have started on a strategic plan.
9 The Delta survey that George mentioned, we have
10 an item in mind that I think is going to work. We've got
11 a test run on I believe it's Webb Tract. And I'm waiting
12 to see what the results are of that before we commission
13 it Delta-wide.
14 So the Delta Levees Program agrees very much with
15 Dr. Mount's presentation, and is working as diligently as
16 we can within the constraints of the budget to help to
17 bring some resolution in the long term.
18 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Okay.
19 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Yeah, I want to ask you one
20 question, Jeff. And thank you. What a terrific
21 presentation, and it was really informative.
22 But it seems to me that the Delta projects and
23 the whole Delta situation needs to be elevated in the
24 state's list of concerns, and particularly the Bay Delta
25 Authority. It should -- the authority for the Delta, it
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
126
1 seems to me, should reside in one place. And maybe I'm
2 oversimplifying that.
3 But how are you going to get more funding, more
4 attention to the problem, other than what you're getting,
5 unless it has a real home with high visibility? And I'm
6 kind of thinking it just needs -- there needs to be some
7 structural reorganization of responsibility for addressing
8 the Delta.
9 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: That's a big swimming pool
10 full of quicksand that you described there.
11 In answer to it, I think at this point a lot of
12 it is the issue of the Bay Delta Authority. I mean I
13 think these are probably the people who push these issues
14 so strongly; the Delta Protection Commission as well. But
15 the Bay Delta Authority, because they're really, because
16 of their member agencies, most capable to respond to
17 something like this. They don't have any specific
18 planning authority, but they are able to respond.
19 But that's about it at this point. I think
20 that's the best shot.
21 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thanks, Jeff. Thank you
22 very much.
23 This is the second time Jeff's made a
24 presentation to us that was open to the public on some of
25 the work that he's doing. And we hope it won't be the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
127
1 last.
2 Okay. Under Item No. 10 -- excuse me -- under
3 item No. 11, we have: Consider approval of application
4 and proposed amendments for the Delta Maintenance
5 Subventions Program.
6 Dave, I think we just heard what a fantastic job
7 you were doing. You want to tell us why you want some
8 funding.
9 MR. MRAZ: I've got to take any opportunity I can
10 to applaud the program.
11 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: I notice that.
12 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
13 Presented as follows.)
14 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: Madam President, the
15 staff assistant is handing out a correction to what was in
16 the Board packet. The wrong table was placed in the Board
17 packet. It was the 2002-2003 that was in the packet. And
18 what we're going to be discussing is the 2004-2005
19 approvals.
20 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Well, you know, he said
21 there wasn't a whole lot of progress being made. So I
22 thought that, well, that's part of the course. You know,
23 we'll reapprove last year.
24 Okay. Go ahead.
25 MR. MRAZ: Madam President, members of the Board,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
128
1 thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this
2 afternoon.
3 I'm going to talk about the Delta Levee
4 Subvention Program. This is The Reclamation Board's
5 program for maintaining and improving those Delta levees
6 that are at risk.
7 The program actually started in 1972 as the Way
8 bill. And what it does is it provides local assistance,
9 reimbursement to the reclamation districts for ongoing
10 maintenance and restoration projects.
11 --o0o--
12 MR. MRAZ: The goal of the program is to reduce
13 the risks to land use and associated economic values,
14 preserve the water supply system, and prevent economic
15 catastrophe from breaching the Delta levees. And the
16 program will do this by building the levees to a higher
17 standard. The one that's in the goal happens to be in the
18 Bulletin 192-82.
19 The Delta is made up of more than 60 islands and
20 tracts that are below sea level. The land surfaces are
21 protected 24/7/365 by a thousand or eleven hundred miles
22 of levees. These levees, unlike those that are along
23 river systems, they are the sole protection against
24 flooding of the land from sea level -- both the tides and
25 sea level rise, the hydrologic events that we get.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
129
1 They're subject to attack and degradation on a regular
2 basis from subsidence, wind and waves, high river stage,
3 rodent attack, boat wakes and other forces.
4 The Delta levee islands work together as a system
5 for the good of each of their neighbors. The levees on one
6 island protect the land mass on adjacent islands by
7 reducing the wind fetch, by reducing the seepage, by just
8 keeping the whole system together as an integral.
9 The goal of the program is to build the levees to
10 a higher standard. It's shared among the Legislature, the
11 Department of Water Resources, FEMA, Corps of Engineers
12 and CALFED. We have a little different standards that
13 we'd like to see. But all of us believe that it's a goal
14 to build all the levees within the Delta to some higher
15 level.
16 The Board has a plan to do that, to build those
17 levees to a higher standard. And let me get into the
18 standards.
19 --o0o--
20 MR. MRAZ: What we've got here is that -- the
21 lowest is the hazard mitigation plan, that most islands in
22 the Delta are up to. There are still a few that are
23 trying to achieve HMP.
24 Then we go to Bulletin 192 -- or, I'm sorry -- PL
25 84-99 and Bulletin 912. Those two are basically the same
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
130
1 for the agricultural standard. And that is what CALFED
2 considers to be base level protection, the Department of
3 Water Resources considers to be an adequate and acceptable
4 level of protection. And there is a belief that some
5 islands should be built beyond the Bulletin 192-82 level
6 of protection because they are so significant to the
7 state's health.
8 --o0o--
9 MR. MRAZ: Going on with the plan. How does it
10 work? With first $1,000 per levee mile is borne by the
11 reclamation districts.
12 There's no reimbursement on that. The next thing
13 that we have to talk about is that all reclamation
14 districts an levee maintaining agencies within the legal
15 Delta are eligible to work with Reclamation Board's
16 program.
17 They cost share on an equal percentage basis.
18 The ones that spend more get more. The ones that spend a
19 little less get a little less. But there's an equal
20 percentage that refunded to every reclamation district
21 that has eligible costs.
22 There are guidelines that the program has that
23 determine how much each reclamation district receives
24 back.
25 And there's an emergency response component to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
131
1 the overall plan. Each year the Department administers
2 about $200,000 in emergency response funds where we try
3 and keep a levee incident from becoming a levee
4 catastrophe.
5 --o0o--
6 MR. MRAZ: There was a request for budget
7 numbers. And what I'd like to point out here, on the
8 bottom it says total to date; you'll see that there's been
9 $86 million spent -- of state funds spent to maintain the
10 Delta levees. And that's been matched by $80 million of
11 local cost share. This is through about 2003.
12 The last five years the levee program budget has
13 varied between $5 million per year and $8 million per year
14 for the state's share. Now, you have to add to that 750
15 to a million dollars for the staff that administers the
16 program. But these -- and then of course you add the
17 local cost share that they contribute to their own
18 maintenance.
19 This is the leading program that has been in
20 place. And I did a brief calculation based on the 30,000
21 cubic yards per day and $10 a yard. This is about 20 days
22 worth of gassing off.
23 So we're a pretty lean program. We're slightly
24 funded. We could definitely use a significant increase to
25 start making some headway.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
132
1 So with these funds we have to scale back our
2 goals from building PL 84-99 to doing things like
3 providing long-term protection from flooding, to maintain
4 the system of islands much as it exists today, and provide
5 for an equitable distribution of available funds.
6 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: On your breakdown, I think
7 the question arose at the last meeting about how much for
8 capital and how much for the maintenance. Is that in here
9 to explain?
10 MR. MRAZ: The capital improvements are -- I
11 believe you're referring to the PL 84-99 levee
12 construction. It's all inside the program. It comes out
13 in the priorities. And a little bit later on I'll get
14 into priorities. But let me say that most of the work
15 that's done to build a PL 84-99 levee cross section is
16 done at the full expense of the reclamation district. I
17 believe in the last year that we funded there was -- about
18 20 percent of those costs were reimbursed. I could give
19 you a more detailed breakdown in the future. If you would
20 like to see that, I can provide that.
21 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Well, that was your
22 question, Bill, wasn't it?
23 SECRETARY EDGAR: Yes.
24 MR. MRAZ: I will bring that next time.
25 Okay. Moving on.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
133
1 --o0o--
2 MR. MRAZ: So part of this is priorities and
3 guidelines, how do we administer the program. The
4 priorities that have been set up are for maintenance to be
5 funded first. You have to protect what's -- the
6 improvements that you've gained and make sure that the
7 system stays healthy as a whole. So maintenance is the
8 first funded item. And it is capped at $15,000 per levee
9 mile. So you recall that there is $1,000 per levee mile
10 that's not eligible. So it becomes a functional cap of
11 about 14,000 in state funds.
12 After maintenance we get into rehabilitation.
13 And rehabilitation is broken down into three priorities.
14 The first priority has another cap of a hundred thousand
15 dollars per mile, and includes The Reclamation Board's
16 highest priority, fish & wildlife, hazard mitigation
17 planning improvements and Bulletin 192-82.
18 Currently there's no stated highest priority from
19 The Reclamation Board, so there's no costs associated with
20 that. Fish & wildlife in the last year that we -- that
21 was approved was funded at 75 percent. HMP was funded I
22 believe at 75 percent. And Bulletin 192-82 was funded at
23 about 20 percent.
24 Priority 2 is the costs that are in excess of
25 $100,000 per levee mile and has not been recently funded.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
134
1 And Priority 3 is costs associated with building
2 levees in excess of the Bulletin 192-82 standard. And
3 we've not received any requests for funding in that
4 category.
5 --o0o--
6 MR. MRAZ: So how do we -- how does the process
7 work?
8 It starts in the spring of the year, where we
9 receive applications from each reclamation district
10 telling us what they expect to spend on the program. The
11 applications are based on an unlimited budget and the
12 ability to go ahead and build all the way out to Bulletin
13 192-82.
14 The Department goes ahead and takes these
15 applications, reviews them, puts them into categories and
16 brings the recommendation to the Board. And that's the
17 item that you have today in Table 1.
18 That recommendation reflects the maintenance, the
19 repairs, and rehabilitation that the reclamation districts
20 are planning to do. We apply those guidelines and we take
21 a look at the available funding and we'll recommend
22 that -- I believe it's 63 percent goes into the
23 maintenance plan.
24 Once The Reclamation Board approves the plan,
25 then the Department works to develop work agreements with
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
135
1 each one of the levee maintaining agencies so that it's
2 official how much they could -- what is the maximum number
3 that they can expect and that there will be some
4 reimbursement. The reclamation districts are operating
5 right now. They're out there maintaining the levees,
6 they're doing the rock work, they're doing the termite
7 abatement. They're doing whatever has to be done in order
8 to make sure that the levees get through the winter.
9 They're acting in reliance on the history of the
10 program that they'll have some reimbursement. However,
11 without the work agreements, without approval of the
12 program, the Department has no basis for making any
13 payment at all.
14 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. We understand that
15 situation.
16 Would you cite a brief conclusion there, Dave.
17 MR. MRAZ: Yes ma'am.
18 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you.
19 MR. MRAZ: The priorities are listed here for
20 your review. And I think this is a reasonably convenient
21 table. And the crux of the matter is this Table 3, where
22 the actual costs that were made in the application or
23 submitted in the application, the available amount of
24 reimbursement is $6,025,000 this year, and that should
25 cover about 63 percent of maintenance.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
136
1 And at this time I'd appreciate your vote for
2 approval of this funding plan.
3 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Great. Thanks a lot. That
4 was very helpful.
5 I have two cards from people in the audience who
6 wish to speak.
7 Stay close by. Someone might have a question
8 later.
9 Mr. George Basye would like to comment on this
10 matter.
11 MR. BASYE: George Basye, attorney for the
12 California Flood Control Association. I want to
13 congratulate Dave Mraz on his great work on this
14 subvention program. We appreciate it very much.
15 But I think that the presentation this morning
16 has indicated to you how important the subvention program
17 is and has been and will be at least for the foreseeable
18 future, until something else is developed which can
19 anticipate and deal with the longer range concerns that
20 Professor Mount has given to us. There is no alternative
21 presently to this program.
22 And this program needs to be funded in a greater
23 manner than it has been for the purpose of at least
24 maintaining this system until we can do something
25 otherwise in the future.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
137
1 You're all acquainted with the concept of
2 charities that say, "If you give me 50 cents, why I've got
3 50 cents to match." And that draws money. We have the
4 impression that if -- from the districts that we've heard
5 from, that if there were insurance that there really was
6 75 percent available from the state, which is the maximum
7 available, there would be additional funds available from
8 the local districts to match that.
9 If you'd look at the record that Dave Mraz has
10 given to you over the years since 1972 -- incidentally, I
11 want to say that the Flood Control Association was working
12 with Senator Way to develop this program in 1972 after
13 that flood -- the record has been about 50 percent, not 75
14 percent, has come up and been raised by the local
15 districts and contributed to the program for their own
16 protection of course.
17 But had it been adequately funded, that means
18 that -- 80 million and 80 million is $160 million worth of
19 work over the years, which is great. But suppose it had
20 been funded at the level of 75 percent. Instead of 80
21 million, if my numbers are correct, the state would have
22 contributed over these many years 240 million, plus 80
23 million, is $320 million worth of work.
24 So if the funding had been adequate you would
25 have -- what have I got? -- four times or twice -- I had
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
138
1 it written down -- you would have four times as much
2 money, that's right. You'd have four times as much money.
3 Thank you. I didn't bring my notes that confirm that.
4 Instead of the 160 you would have the 320,000 -- $320
5 million worth of work. So it amplifies considerably.
6 And, therefore, it's an important thing for this
7 program to be supported. And we are trying through the
8 CALFED process, which is where our program is now -- it
9 was never a CALFED program, but apparently it is now -- to
10 expand the support that we get for that subvention program
11 to come closer to that 75 percent so that we can attract
12 the additional dollars, which I think are out there.
13 You'll find them there from the local
14 contributions. And that will give us a lot more
15 temporary, at least, and immediate safety for the Delta
16 levee system, which we have to hold together until you
17 have some other plan that might take -- might modify that
18 situation.
19 So we would appreciate the Board's support for
20 not just continuing the program, the subvention program,
21 but support for the request which the Levee Subcommittee
22 is making to expand the financing so that we can come
23 closer to the ability and really take advantage of that 25
24 percent and multiply that by 4.
25 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you George. I was
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
139
1 following all of your numbers there.
2 MR. BASYE: Did it come out even?
3 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: I have no idea.
4 (Laughter.)
5 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Margit, you're next.
6 MS. ARAMBURU: Thank you, Madam Chair, members of
7 the Board. I just wanted to urge your support of the
8 '04-'05 funding program.
9 One of the issues that came up at the last
10 meeting was how has the program really worked and are the
11 original estimates of work exaggerated in the process and
12 was there any kind of weakness in the system of how the
13 program was run. And one of the things I think Dave
14 pointed out is the reclamation districts are responsible
15 to the many -- requests before we even have a state
16 budget.
17 And while the chart shows a pretty even funding,
18 about 5 to 6 or $8 million over the last several years,
19 several of those years we've been -- the levee program's
20 been threatened with zero funding or a minimal funding
21 level, for staff only and their work. It's only been
22 through the process well after the reclamations had to
23 submit their materials that there had been a budget that
24 has been -- it's the same level.
25 So I think the key, and I think Mr. Basye also
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
140
1 emphasized this, of a regular amount of funding every year
2 will really help strengthen any of the weaknesses or
3 inconsistencies that you perceived might have been in the
4 past part of the process.
5 And I -- last I just wanted to note that this is
6 recognized as one of the most efficient state funded
7 programs we have around today. And then, lastly, to
8 applaud your continued interest in the program. You are
9 the oversight body for this program, the Levee Subventions
10 Program. And I just urge your continued participation and
11 interest in the program. As I noted, CALFED is currently
12 preparing a ten-year budget for this program, which you
13 may also want to become familiar with.
14 And there's a new legislation drafted. The
15 current legislation that oversees this program expires
16 July 1st, 2006. So the next couple of years we'll have
17 some good discussions. And if there are changes need to
18 be taken into account, it would be helpful to have your
19 input on those processes.
20 Thank you very much.
21 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. Thank you.
22 Does anyone else in the audience wish to speak on
23 this matter and has not filled in a card?
24 Okay. Thank you.
25 We're not going to have any more comments then
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
141
1 from the audience.
2 Scott, I understand that you have a comment here
3 that has to be said.
4 STAFF COUNSEL MORGAN: Thank you, Madam
5 President.
6 The Board is the oversight body for this program.
7 And one of the critical elements of this program are the
8 criteria by which the funds are allocated. And the
9 Department is responsible for providing the Board with
10 some sort of a plan, and the Board evaluates that plan and
11 approves it. And prior to the funds being approved, this
12 approval, the criteria by which those funds are going to
13 be disbursed has to be approved.
14 The scheme that's been used up until recently or
15 up to now is the one that was approved by a board back in
16 I believe the eighties. And what really needs to happen
17 is for -- each board before these dispensations are being
18 approved needs to evaluate how the money is being
19 allocated and approve those criteria.
20 Now, that particular issue is not on this agenda.
21 However, it is an essential prerequisite before this
22 decision should be made. And I understand from General
23 Manager Rabbon that you have received those criteria
24 and -- as the guidelines in the packet from last month's
25 material. So you've had a chance to review that; is that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
142
1 correct?
2 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: I thought that was the
3 case. They have not received it. I think there are only
4 two Board members that may have reviewed those guidelines
5 in a -- or three Board members in a subcommittee-type
6 forum.
7 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. I don't -- well who
8 was on the subcommittee? And do you want to make a
9 report?
10 All right. BILL.
11 SECRETARY EDGAR: Yeah, thank you, Betsy.
12 As you recall, this item was continued from last
13 month. And I'm prepared at least to support this item
14 this month. We've had two ad hoc meetings in which Tony
15 and Floyd and myself participated. And the reason, at
16 least that I feel -- and I'm not speaking for Tony or
17 Floyd -- that we ought to poke our nose into this program
18 a little more is because it's one of the few programs that
19 we are really responsible for. This is our program. We
20 own this program.
21 It's not like other things, administrative items,
22 budget, legislation and some other -- many other DWR
23 programs that we only make recommendations on. This is
24 really our program and it's a -- it is the subventions
25 program of the Board. And we're responsible for it and,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
143
1 therefore, accountable. So I think it's appropriate that
2 the Board get involved in it.
3 Now, as we sat down and looked over the program,
4 Dave and his staff were kind enough to point out the three
5 issues I think that at least we ought to address. One is
6 the planning aspect. And we're required to have a plan.
7 Our plan now is to make sure that these levees are brought
8 up to '84 or '99 standards.
9 We asked some questions about that as to whether
10 there was sufficient money to do that. And the amount of
11 money was estimated to be between 1.5 and $2 billion to do
12 that, which over a 30-year period I guess is probably 30,
13 $40 million a year. I don't know about you, but, quite
14 frankly, that's probably unrealistic I think that that
15 amount of money is going to be available.
16 So I think we need to revisit the plan and, as
17 people have said this morning, take a look at it and
18 revise it or come up with a source of funding that would
19 fund it. But at this point we have a plan that I think by
20 any measure is not achievable.
21 The second -- so I think we need to get into that
22 and look at it a little bit.
23 The other thing is the priorities and guidelines.
24 As Dave pointed out, The Rec Board does not have a high
25 priority, as you recall from his presentation. I think
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
144
1 implicitly we've set maintenance as our highest priority.
2 But we don't have a priority that at least he lists on his
3 report.
4 I think there's a variance -- he showed us a
5 chart in one of those meetings where there's a variance of
6 the amount of money spent on maintenance from the low
7 where one district spends $1,000 per mile per year on
8 maintenance and another spends close -- not quite, but
9 just under 200,000 per mile per year. So I think we need
10 to get into there and figure out, you know, what is an
11 appropriate maintenance cost and what's involved.
12 And then I think the third area that we talked
13 about was the process. And I really think this process
14 needs to be simplified. I do not think there's any public
15 benefit in the districts -- and they've already done it
16 for the item we're talking about -- to spend a great
17 amount of time and effort preparing requests that add up
18 to 36, $37 million. It seems to me something along the
19 lines of a letter -- a simple letter requesting
20 participation in the program would be sufficient.
21 We apply the guidelines and the priorities to
22 what they spend, like we do now, and make the money
23 available to them. And I think it would be helpful if a
24 couple members of the Board would meet periodically with
25 the staff to get an update on any revisions to the plan
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
145
1 that we might want to bring to the Board, revisions to the
2 priorities and guidelines, and revisions to the process
3 for at least the next time around.
4 So that was the thrust I think of our meetings.
5 Tony and Floyd can amplify on those. But I think we're --
6 with that understanding, that we would work with the staff
7 to try to get a better understanding of the program and
8 maybe make some recommendations to the Board for these
9 changes, I think we're prepared to move this item.
10 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Yes, Floyd, do you have
11 anything to add to that to our committee?
12 BOARD MEMBER WEAVER: No, I agree with the
13 Board's program, that we need to take a look at it, and
14 certainly make some standards that all of our levees need.
15 You know, some of them we're putting more money into them
16 than others are and, consequently, we're having favorites.
17 And we know that it has to be something that's done on a
18 regular annual basis to keep the levees where they're
19 functioning.
20 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Tony.
21 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: Well, maybe it's because
22 of being on the Board and being kind of too -- with some
23 this. But it appears to me that the word is getting out.
24 This Delta is in trouble, the levees are bad, we're
25 putting pennies in where we should be putting big dollars
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
146
1 in. I was glad to hear from Mr. Basye speaking of some
2 creative way to finance this thing. You know, we have to
3 look at that. That was a good point, by the way.
4 And I'm real pleased that I'm on this committee.
5 I've often wondered, my gosh, how much are we spending and
6 what are we getting out of it? And --
7 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Always your bottom line.
8 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: That's always my bottom
9 line. Yeah, I'm Peck's bad boy when it comes to the
10 budget, I guess.
11 But, anyway, I feel the same, that we have to go
12 ahead and approve this -- we really have no choice -- and
13 hope for the better. We will work on it. We'll see if we
14 can come up with some better ideas. And until someone
15 decides what the overall plan is, what the overall
16 landscape is, my colleague says, that they want this Delta
17 to look like, we have to work with the deck of cards
18 that's been dealt to us at this point in time.
19 So I would -- if you want a motion from me or --
20 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: I want a -- yeah. But let's
21 wait one minute, because I need to make a couple of
22 statements.
23 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: But I feel that we have
24 to approve this at this point in time.
25 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Great. Thanks, Tony.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
147
1 There was a statement from Scott about
2 guidelines. And I think that the guidelines are pretty
3 clear, at least for this year, from the statements that
4 have been -- and the presentation presented by Dave. So
5 we're going to assume that that's the situation, okay,
6 that the guidelines are there.
7 Secondly, yes, we need to pass this. But we also
8 need to do something else. And we have a Levee
9 Subcommittee, and I think they need some more assignments.
10 We need to look at the guidelines and the plan and the
11 priority in a setting where we're not then expected to
12 vote on the subvention at that point and it's all prepared
13 and sat in front of us. We need to have the committee do
14 some work in advance and make a recommendation. And I
15 think that that needs to happen. And we have a committee
16 in place. We'll use the same one if there's no objection.
17 And let's look at the plan, let's look at
18 revising the plan, let's look at the guidelines, let's
19 look at the priorities. And I'm referring to the Levee
20 Subcommittee, which I am not a member. By the way, it's
21 Bill, Tony and Floyd. And then come back at a time when
22 we're not under the pressure of approving some money that
23 everybody thinks we might not give them and that raises
24 everyone's anxiety. And that was never the intent. So
25 I'd like to have in the motion approving this also the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
148
1 motion to have the subcommittee do the things that I've
2 just discussed.
3 And, you know, we can develop a letter also, if
4 you wish, Subcommittee, that would go to the Director of
5 DWR about this stuff too. Because there's some confusion,
6 does anybody care about it, low priority, whatever. So
7 you can do whatever you want. If you wish to consult with
8 Mr. Mount on these issues -- excuse me -- Dr. Mount,
9 please do that because he's the acknowledged authority.
10 I'm sorry, staff, you're really good to, but --
11 (Laughter.)
12 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: -- the acknowledged
13 authority, so why don't you consult with Jeff.
14 Anyway, that's what I would like to say. I mean
15 let's get it on. If it's our big thing, then let's do it
16 right.
17 Anybody want to make a motion?
18 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: I'm afraid to now.
19 (Laughter.)
20 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Before I make that motion, I
21 do want to remind you that in the previous discussion I
22 had recused myself. Unfortunately I didn't fully explain
23 the counts of why I was recusing myself. And they since
24 informed me I should not recuse myself from these
25 discussions. So I just want to make sure everyone knows
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
149
1 that.
2 I will make that motion. I wish -- what it was.
3 But I will make that motion, which is essentially to
4 approve the Subventions Program and also to embark upon
5 our own internal planning process which allows us to go
6 through objective evaluation of some of these numbers. I
7 mean I can see why Bill raised these issues last week when
8 you look at things like Fay Tract, which is an
9 extraordinary cost in the amount of money that they're
10 requesting. So that we can go through a planning process.
11 And I especially like the motion because -- I especially
12 like the fact that we might actually review this before we
13 have to vote on it. I think it's reasonable for us to go
14 through that review process.
15 And I say that also -- I want to remind my
16 colleagues I'm saying this because I really think that the
17 levee issue is going to rise out of the obscurity, rise
18 out of the mists of the swamp -- the marshes, I should
19 say -- and we're really going to start paying attention to
20 it. And so I think it's a vital that we do that.
21 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. Thank you. I think
22 that's a good motion.
23 In other words do the planning, get it together
24 before the money is requested.
25 Is there a second to that motion?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
150
1 SECRETARY EDGAR: I'll second it.
2 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. It's been moved by
3 Jeff, seconded by Bill.
4 You have all heard the motion.
5 Any further discussion?
6 All those in favor say aye.
7 (Ayes.)
8 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Opposed?
9 Motion carries.
10 Okay. You did a nice job there, Dave.
11 MR. MRAZ: Thank you.
12 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: The thing of it is is that
13 we need to -- we need to put more time and effort into
14 these things. And it's very difficult with the limited
15 availability of everything we have, which is the staff.
16 And So we're just going to have to do it.
17 All right. The next item -- and we thank them
18 for being very patient -- is the Yuba folks. And I see
19 Curt roaming around in the back.
20 So if the Yuba people want to move forward, we'll
21 begin with Mr. Bradley.
22 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: Good afternoon. For the
23 record, Steve Bradley, Chief Engineer.
24 This item was presented last month as an
25 informational item to the Board. During that presentation
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
151
1 the Board requested an interim presentation this month.
2 It is on a fast track. The permit is supposedly coming to
3 the Board for decision next month. From staff's point of
4 view, it looks like we will be ready with our permit.
5 The Board during last month's discussion had
6 several items they wanted to address. One was the overall
7 issue of a large package. That is probably a little bit
8 beyond this permit. But there are other things in the
9 flood control of the Yuba-Feather system beyond what is in
10 this permit. This deals with the Bear River Western
11 Pacific interceptor canal. There's also work being done
12 on the Bear and -- or on the Yuba and Feather Rivers,
13 Oroville Dam and Thermalito.
14 So that one of the things is that the overall --
15 in order to provide flood protection for this area, it
16 takes an overall comprehensive plan. This is only one
17 piece of that.
18 There was quite a bit of questions on the
19 funding, primarily the bonding the applicant is proposing
20 to do, and the use of Prop 13 funds. So those are
21 questions that this Board had for the applicant.
22 Also there was some -- a lot of expression that
23 this project not be a partial project. We don't want to
24 have it partially developed and then ended for various
25 reasons. So there's some concern, and the Board had asked
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
152
1 the applicant to address -- making sure that they have
2 enough funding for this and that the project be built as
3 designed -- or as being proposed at this moment.
4 There was some question on the FEMA maps. The
5 FEMA maps have moved forward. They are with DWR
6 management at the moment, so they have not been released
7 to FEMA. But they are under review. They've passed, I
8 believe, chief of flood management and they are in the
9 Director's office.
10 CEQA has been completed. And so I think, as I
11 said when I started this, staff will be ready with the
12 permit. I will probably devote the next week or two to
13 working on the conditions of that permit. I have agreed
14 with the applicant that we would not send forward any
15 conditions they have not seen. It is not my intent to
16 ever blindside somebody on this, that we wouldn't come up
17 with some unreasonable condition. We will work with the
18 applicant on that.
19 They've asked for assistance in addressing Corps
20 404 permitting. We will provide what assistance. We
21 can -- we don't control the Corps' staffing or budget, but
22 we will provide what assistance we can to move that
23 process forward.
24 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Would you explain to me,
25 because I'm not familiar now -- that's something new to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
153
1 me -- about their federal 404 permit. What do they need
2 it for and what's the deal on that?
3 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: Four oh four is the
4 wetlands permit. And they're doing some of the work on
5 the water side of the levee. And that is a separate
6 permit from The Reclamation Board permit. And the Corps
7 of Engineers is the lead agency for reviewing that,
8 although it actually fall under EPA. And so they issued
9 the permit for that.
10 We generally have a condition in our permit that
11 they need to contact the Corps because of Section 404, or
12 sometimes Section 10 if they're doing work in the
13 navigable stream. And so it's just a permit that they
14 have to have.
15 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Well, construction is under
16 way there. I guess I'm a little confused --
17 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: That's not for the
18 permit that's coming before us now. That was for a permit
19 for repairing a deficient levee. The permit that is
20 coming -- that will be coming before the Board in November
21 is for improvements along the Western Pacific interceptor
22 canal, the upper portion of the Bear River, and setting
23 back the lower portion of the Bear River levee, creating a
24 backup levee which will eventually become the project
25 done.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
154
1 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: So -- this is a dumb
2 question then. Did that include an EIR for that?
3 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: They have done an EIR
4 for -- they actually did two EIR's. They had a two-step
5 process. One was to improve the levees along the Western
6 Pacific interceptor canal in Bear River. And then they
7 had a separate EIR that addressed setting back the levee
8 along the Bear River.
9 So the environmental has been met. It just
10 happens to be in two documents. And we did discuss this a
11 little bit last month.
12 With that, I believe I will turn it over to
13 Yuba -- or to Three Rivers Improvement Authority, who is
14 the applicant, to address their presentation.
15 MR. McCLAIN: President Marchand, members of the
16 Board, it's a pleasure to be back again before the Board.
17 We look forward to appearing again -- I'm sorry.
18 My name is Kent McClain. I'm the Executive
19 Director of the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority
20 and County Administrator for the County of Yuba.
21 We'll be back again before the Board at your
22 November meeting to secure -- to request a permit, as
23 Steve indicated, for the Western interceptor canal and the
24 setback levee.
25 (Thereupon an overhead presentation was
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
155
1 Presented as follows.)
2 MR. McCLAIN: The EIR on the setback levee
3 comment period ends today. The public meeting was held a
4 week ago Wednesday, on October 6th. Unfortunately we had
5 representatives of the property owners whose property's
6 involved in the acquisition of lands in conjunction with
7 the setback levee. We also had representatives of RD --
8 of RD 1001 and SAFCA.
9 We would expect to have the comments answered and
10 the EIR certified at our board's November 16th meeting.
11 And we will have that certification available for your
12 board at your meeting on the 19th.
13 One of the concerns that Mr. Edgar made obvious
14 at the last meeting had to do with the issuance of
15 building permits. I have given your clerk, and I believe
16 she has distributed a copy of that response. I'd be happy
17 to read it into the record or not, at the --
18 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: You don't need to. Why
19 don't you just give us the main points.
20 MR. McCLAIN: The main points are that -- and I'd
21 like to quote the letter in this -- "After taking known
22 flood hazards into the account, the county has elected to
23 continue to permit development as the most expeditious way
24 to eliminate existing hazards in the immediate future by
25 assessing new developments the cost of the levee repairs
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
156
1 and improvements. We find this to be consistent with the
2 floodplain manager's obligation to operate an overall
3 program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing
4 flood damage."
5 We don't feel that we can simply sit around and
6 wait for money to come from other sources first. So we
7 are developing the means to generate the local funds up
8 front. And I'll comment on that further on in my
9 presentation.
10 At any rate, suffice it to say the setback levee
11 comment period is closed and we expect to certify it on
12 November 14th -- or 16th in advance of your Board meeting.
13 The final supplement to the feasibility study has
14 been completed and will be submitted to your staff next
15 week. This is significant, especially as it relates to
16 Prop 13 monies and the process, and will allow us to
17 proceed with requests for design funds for the project.
18 The Community Facilities District has been
19 formed. The debt that has been the total debt authorized
20 is 33 million. We anticipate net proceeds to be in the
21 neighborhood of $26 million. We will be -- assuming the
22 Board grants the permit, we will be issuing debt either
23 through a public offering or a private placement,
24 depending on which is best, in the first week in February.
25 One of the debts we've taken in the formation of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
157
1 the district, which is a little bit different from most
2 Mello-Roos districts, is that we don't anticipate this
3 debt will ever be applied to the homeowners. Rather the
4 proceeds are derived at the time of filing of the final
5 maps. So we've already collected several million dollars
6 as a result of the filing of these maps.
7 --o0o--
8 MR. McCLAIN: The Board granted -- or the staff
9 granted a maintenance or repair permit. And that was
10 discussed at our last meeting with the Board as well.
11 The slurry wall has been completed and the
12 restoration of the levee was begun earlier this week. We
13 expect the completed project to be by October 30th, well
14 within the provisions of the permit that was issued.
15 I want to give some special thanks to the staff
16 at DWR for their sense of urgency in considering our
17 request for the project and the permit. It's a
18 circumstance in which we have gone from the identification
19 of a problem, through the environmental process, through
20 the permitting process, the selection of a contractor, and
21 project completion in four months -- four months.
22 I don't know of any seven-figure construction
23 project on the levee that has been accomplished in that
24 timeframe and be on time. And we think we're going to end
25 up about 10 percent below the budget that was allocated
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
158
1 for this.
2 Now, our agency, the Three rivers Levee
3 Improvement Authority, has only been in existence a little
4 over seven months. But we have based on this project I
5 think the beginning of a track record that is
6 satisfactory, at least in my own view, excellent.
7 If anyone on the Board would like to visit the
8 repair site within the next week or two, we'd be pleased
9 to host you a tour. We also would be available to answer
10 any questions you might have about that project or about
11 the project area that is protected by the project.
12 With that, I'd like to introduce my colleague,
13 Mr. Curt Aikens of the Yuba County Water Agency, to
14 continue discussions as it relates to the project.
15 One of the really impressive things to me about
16 this whole process has been the fact that local agencies
17 and state agencies have really pulled together to
18 develop -- deliver a really successful project to the
19 people that we all work for, and that's the taxpayers.
20 Curt.
21 MR. AIKENS: Thank you, Kent.
22 My name's Curt Aikens, for the record. I'm the
23 General Manager of the Yuba County Water Agency.
24 I was the one that took this picture on
25 Wednesday. That is the last section of slurry wall that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
159
1 needed to be completed. It was completed by the end of
2 Wednesday. And in fact on the other end of the levee
3 they're already bringing it back up to speed or back up to
4 grade.
5 This is just one example of a lot of work that
6 has been accomplished on the Reclamation District 784
7 levee since the 1997 flood. If you look at all of Yuba
8 County, there's been over $60 million worth of work in the
9 last year. Just this year alone there's been $10 million
10 worth of work. And the point I'd like to make is simply
11 that there's been a lot of work to improve the levees
12 since the 1997 flood.
13 --o0o--
14 MR. AIKENS: One of the actions that we're
15 talking to move forward is working with our stakeholders,
16 our partners in flood protection on a regional level, also
17 on a local level. We have contacted all these entities
18 one way or another. We've had sit-down discussions with
19 many of them. And we're working through this using --
20 we're getting very positive comments back, and we expect
21 to be able to work through all the issues there.
22 On the last Reclamation Board meeting there was
23 some questions about the assurance of Proposition 13
24 funding for the local use. And this funding came as a
25 direct result of Yuba County Water Agency's flood control
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
160
1 studies in 1996 -- or 1997 actually in '98, and it led to
2 these amounts: The 90 million total, 70 million for flood
3 protection projects and another 20 million for enhancement
4 projects. The primary area of target was the Yuba-Feather
5 region. That is actually in the bond language itself.
6 Also the Colusa drain and its tributaries were added to
7 that.
8 --o0o--
9 MR. AIKENS: And in terms of who can use the
10 funds, it was specifically limited to a local public
11 entity that has legal authority and jurisdiction to
12 implement a flood control program. That was done
13 specifically to provide assurance that this was done for
14 flood control by local interests. And that's a very
15 important part of all this.
16 --o0o--
17 MR. AIKENS: On the Prop 13 process, you have a
18 grant application. That takes two to three months to put
19 together and turn in. And you have a feasibility study
20 and the CEQA compliance, that's one to two years. You
21 have the design grant application, two to three months in
22 preparation of that, turning it in. You have a design of
23 6 to 12 months. You have the implementation application,
24 that's for construction, another two to three months. And
25 then you have construction.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
161
1 Really the point of all these bullets is to show
2 that this is a long involved process. It takes a lot of
3 time to do, all of this. The construction is where the
4 majority of the dollars is granted. And YCWA local
5 interests are uniquely positioned to take advantage of
6 these funds as was intended by the proposition and the
7 programs in moving it forward.
8 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Where are you in this
9 process?
10 MR. AIKENS: We're at different phases. And what
11 I'll do is -- Rick's the next speaker. I'll let him talk
12 about the specific steps of where we are and then he'll
13 continue on.
14 MR. REINHARDT: For the record, I'm Rick
15 Reinhardt. I'm the principal of MBK Engineers.
16 We just -- Three Rivers Levee Improvement
17 Authority on October 5th approved submission of design
18 grant application. And that was submitted to DWR. In
19 order for DWR to approve the design grant application,
20 they have to accept the feasibility study. We've
21 completed the feasibility study. We're going to be
22 ordering that next week. So we're getting ready to start
23 the design process. And we hope to be submitting an
24 implementation application probably in the March-April
25 timeframe, with construction beginning in the May-June
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
162
1 timeframe.
2 --o0o--
3 MR. REINHARDT: One of the questions that has
4 been asked of us by the Board is how are you going to deal
5 with project cost estimates? That projects that the Board
6 has dealt with in the past has experienced significant
7 cost increases, one, two hundred percent.
8 We have a very experienced project team that has
9 made a number of -- that has been involved in a number of
10 levee improvement projects in the Sacramento Valley. And
11 we've taken this into consideration with the realization
12 that we're going to construction. A lot of times when a
13 feasibility study's done, you don't know what you're going
14 to construct and if it's going to be constructed. Because
15 of the sense of urgency that we were operating under, we
16 collected a lot more data that is normally done in the
17 feasibility stage. We're using the Corps' hydrology that
18 they just updated as part of the lower Feather River
19 Floodplain Study.
20 We've collected data consistent with the Energy
21 Task Force recommendations for design. Not for
22 feasibility, but we've gone the next step and collected
23 all the data so that we've clearly defined what the
24 problem is with these levees so that when we get into
25 design, we're not going to discover that because we didn't
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
163
1 collect enough data we're going to find more problems.
2 We used a conservative estimate of costs to make
3 sure that when the project goes out to bid that we haven't
4 underestimated fluctuations in things like what's
5 happening with cement right now or steel or other factors.
6 We've also added a 25-percent contingency for our
7 construction estimate and 35-percent contingency for our
8 real estate.
9 With that, our estimated project cost is about
10 62.3 million.
11 --o0o--
12 MR. REINHARDT: Right now in unallocated Prop 13
13 funds there's 54.4 million. Right now there's no
14 allocation of the 20 million in Environmental Enhancement
15 Funds. We're requesting 11.2 million of that 20 million.
16 The net local proceeds from the bond sale will be 27
17 million, giving us a total potential funding of 92.6
18 million.
19 --o0o--
20 MR. REINHARDT: I'm going to wrap this up,
21 turning it back over to Curt to go through some of the
22 ongoing issues that we have.
23 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Let's review that bond sale
24 there, on the response. What's the status of that now?
25 MR. REINHARDT: The milestone of forming the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
164
1 community facilities district has been completed. Once
2 you issue the permit, then the plan is to sell the bonds
3 and in February as Mr. McClain said earlier.
4 MR. McCLAIN: Yeah. And there will be a private
5 offering. But we intend to make a public offering first.
6 But we've got a guaranteed private sale as the back up.
7 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay.
8 --o0o--
9 MR. AIKENS: Anyway, Rick talked a little bit
10 about the application process of applying, securing
11 Proposition 13 funds. We're continuing to talk with DWR
12 staff about getting assurances for these funds and
13 creating the comfort for all involved that these funds
14 will be available. I personally believe with my
15 experience on this program, and it's been going on for
16 several years, that we are uniquely positioned to tap
17 these funds in the timeframe that we need to move the
18 project forward.
19 The bond sale I think Kent gave a pretty good
20 description of that in terms of the CSD has been formed.
21 We're on track for selling the bonds and getting that
22 moving forward early next year.
23 The Corps 404 permits, we had a discussion on
24 that already. I think Steve adequately explained it's for
25 the wetlands aspect of the project. And we will be
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
165
1 working with the Corps. We do have concerns with their
2 staffing levels and to be able to work forward to get the
3 Corps done in the time -- or get the permit completed in
4 the time needed. And we will be working with the Corps to
5 do that. We believe that there is adequate time to do
6 that and not hold up the project.
7 On the last item, this is part of our bigger
8 plan, is this the step to moving what we do here, which
9 will be considered under the Yuba Basin project. We're
10 having preliminary discussions on that with the Corps of
11 Engineers. This work is being integrated into that
12 project. And we will be working with you to -- and the
13 Department to get a Section 104 credit request letter put
14 together. So that will formally be done. We were
15 successful with that on the Yuba River fix. That was the
16 picture that you say earlier. And the Corps accommodated
17 us with that in bringing us back up a letter on that.
18 That completes our formal presentation. We'd be
19 happy to take any questions that you might have.
20 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Sure.
21 Does the Board have questions?
22 SECRETARY EDGAR: Curt, on just your last points.
23 You estimated the bond sales in February. What's the
24 estimate that you're going to have the Prop 13 funds?
25 MR. AIKENS: I believe the Prop 13 funds are
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
166
1 there right now. We're working with the Department to
2 produce a letter that would further clarify that. And our
3 intent is to get that letter in the next month before the
4 Rec Board meeting.
5 SECRETARY EDGAR: Okay. So that will be next
6 month then, right?
7 And then the Corps 404 permit, what's your
8 estimate there?
9 MR. AIKENS: Rick, help out with that one.
10 MR. REINHARDT: We're getting ready to submit our
11 application next week. And what we're hoping is that the
12 Board can assist us with drawing attention to the
13 importance of processing it and what is their statutory
14 time lines.
15 Unfortunately because of staff reductions and
16 funding restrictions, permits are taking quite a bit of
17 time. We have about eight months for them to process that
18 permit before it becomes on our critical path. And so we
19 want to raise the issue with Corps management early and
20 make sure this gets the attention that it's going to need
21 to have.
22 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. I need to say wait a
23 minute.
24 I didn't understand or I missed that you were
25 having to get a 404 permit and that you hadn't even
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
167
1 applied for it yet.
2 Has that really been discussed before? And I'll
3 ask either Rick or curt about that.
4 MR. REINHARDT: We haven't discussed it in
5 detail. It's one of many permits that we need.
6 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Well, a federal 404 permit's
7 a pretty big deal. They used to be. Have they reduced
8 their importance lately?
9 MR. REINHARDT: No, absolutely not.
10 SECRETARY EDGAR: What's the normal processing
11 time for a 404 permit right now?
12 MR. REINHARDT: I can't tell you what the exact
13 statutory processing requirements are.
14 SECRETARY EDGAR: No, I don't mean statutory. I
15 mean the actual realistic timeframe that you can expect
16 one. I know when Butch and I were involved with SAFCA, I
17 mean that was just a nightmare for us. And I'm thinking
18 like it's two years.
19 MR. REINHARDT: It can be as much as one to two
20 years.
21 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Oh, it usually is.
22 MR. REINHARDT: Part of it depends on what the
23 project is accomplishing. Our project is going to result
24 in an increase in -- it's going to result in an
25 enhancement of the environment through the setback, the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
168
1 other -- and we don't have significant impacts. So we're
2 hoping that it's not going to be a contentious permit.
3 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Pete.
4 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: Steve, I can't remember.
5 If you can help refresh my memory. I was under the
6 understanding that for a different project, which though
7 is very similar to this, would enhance the environment and
8 supposedly wouldn't cause any impacts, that they were
9 going to require an EIS be completed for the 404 process.
10 And I'm referring specifically to the River Islands
11 Project.
12 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: That is correct. And
13 the time line for that was a year and a half to two years.
14 I believe that Three Rivers Authority is requesting a
15 finding no significant impact. Is that -- I mean they
16 think they can have that if I'm not mistaken.
17 So I guess what I'm saying it's not a full-blown
18 EIS that's going to be required. If it is, the time line
19 will extend beyond what they project.
20 MR. REINHARDT: We definitely don't believe that
21 any EIS will be required. And we understand that if it
22 is, that it completely blows this time line. We believe
23 that the impacts that we've identified today that are
24 within the federal jurisdiction for the 404 program are
25 not significant and can be dealt with -- either through
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
169
1 the programmatic permits or the nationwide permit program
2 or through an environmental assessment.
3 SECRETARY EDGAR: Now, on the Section 104 credit
4 request, this is really not critical to actually getting
5 real flood control improvements on the ground; it's just a
6 matter of getting reimbursement for your work that --
7 local work that you have fronted the cost for, is that
8 right?
9 MR. REINHARDT: It's local work and state monies
10 that's expended on this. We want credit towards the
11 nonfederal share.
12 SECRETARY EDGAR: Right. So really in terms of
13 looking at, you know, impediments or constraints on
14 getting real flood control improvements on the ground,
15 that's the first three, not the last one --
16 MR. REINHARDT: That's correct.
17 SECRETARY EDGAR: -- would you agree with that?
18 Okay. Thanks.
19 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Pete.
20 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: How are you going to
21 incorporate the issue of potential remapping into your 404
22 process if you're saying there's no -- I guess from an
23 environmental perspective or from the EIS perspective
24 you're saying there is no impacts?
25 MR. REINHARDT: I'm not sure I understand what
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
170
1 the federal nexus is to that mapping. They have a very
2 narrow focus on what the federal decision is. And that
3 decision, as I understand it, is the dealing with waters
4 in the U.S.
5 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: But I think your project
6 is going to cause -- has a potential to cause major
7 environmental impacts, which has to be addressed, I
8 thought, through the environmental process.
9 MR. REINHARDT: It's major environmental impacts
10 associated with a federal decision. And if -- and our
11 permit will -- that permit application will address
12 whether we have concluded those --
13 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: Okay.
14 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: You mentioned -- I'm
15 sorry -- the environmental interests. Could you identify
16 the ones you've been working with?
17 MR. REINHARDT: It's probably better for Curt to
18 do that. He's been working with them.
19 MR. AIKENS: Since the creation of Proposition
20 13, we formed the Yuba-Feather work group and we've been
21 working probably three, four meetings a year. The primary
22 participants have been the South Yuba River Citizens
23 League, and Janet Cohen has attended from that
24 organization; Friends of the River, Ron Stork has been at
25 most of the meetings; Allen Everhart from the Sierra Club.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
171
1 Those are the primary components of the environmental
2 groups that have been in detailed discussions as we
3 proceeded with this whole Proposition 13 plan. And we
4 have taken into, you know, account their interests in the
5 process.
6 And, quite frankly, their interests have led us
7 to the project features of levee setbacks that were
8 originally considered. And of course this has the Bear
9 River levee setback. And we have a proposed Feather River
10 setback between Star Bend and Shanghai Bend. And it's
11 been a very good process, a very healthy process. And I
12 think we've all benefited from having that process move
13 forward and getting their advice up front rather than
14 having it later when it's too difficult to deal with.
15 MR. McCLAIN: If I might. During the course of
16 the comment period for the EIR, we received comments on
17 the Feather River Levee Setback Project, et cetera. The
18 letter was signed by Mr. Stork of the Friends of the
19 River, Janet Cohen of the South Yuba River Citizens
20 League, and Allen Edgar of the Sierra Club. And I'll read
21 their final paragraph in their comment letter on EIR.
22 "We strongly urge the Three Rivers Authority to
23 support the Feather-Bear Levee Setback Project and to work
24 with local governments managing the areas -- and that
25 might be floodplain management programs -- or the State of
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
172
1 California to establish floodplain management programs for
2 protected floodplains."
3 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Yeah, I think that's
4 helpful.
5 But I also would like to make one little comment
6 here. And that's that I'm very concerned about the people
7 living in Plumas Lake. And I'm concerned that all of the
8 good intentions are going to actually get those people 200
9 year level of protection and that all of the work that's
10 going to be -- that is envisioned is going to actually
11 happen and that the mapping is going to be completed, that
12 all the levee work's going to be done, that all the Prop
13 13 money's going to come in, and that there is a way to
14 measure and to enforce that all of those things happen.
15 We've had this discussion, Kent. So when it comes up here
16 next time, we want to see how in fact that's going to be
17 accomplished. This Is my comment again.
18 MR. McCLAIN: President Marchand, I don't think
19 that any one of us can be in a position to guarantee the
20 future. I don't know what will occur in the next minute
21 and cannot, therefore, guarantee what the next minute will
22 hold.
23 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: I know that that is true.
24 MR. McCLAIN: We meet in Yuba County --
25 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Just a minute, Kent.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
173
1 That in a broad sense of course is true.
2 However, I've seen so many situations where developers, et
3 cetera, have made promises in the development agreement or
4 before a legislative body, and then it gets watered down,
5 watered down, watered down until it basically is not what
6 was envisioned when the permits were approved.
7 MR. McCLAIN: President Marchand, the population
8 that exists in the area today, something in excess of 25,
9 26,000 people, are our concern, are the concern of our
10 elected officials, our appointed officials. We know the
11 names of the people who live there. We know what their
12 children -- who their children are. They're there today.
13 We see the development that's taking place as a means of
14 protecting the people who already live there, including
15 many of the people that fill these positions who live in
16 those neighborhoods. I assure you and I assure this Board
17 that it is of a much higher level of concern and interest
18 to the people of Yuba County than it is even to this
19 Board, although I acknowledge certainly your deep concern
20 for those people.
21 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: That is our responsibility
22 as well. And also it was a very big lake in 1997 and it
23 wasn't that long ago. I'll just let it rest there. Okay?
24 MR. McCLAIN: Thank you.
25 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Bill.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
174
1 SECRETARY EDGAR: Kent, I appreciate your getting
2 the letter on the building permits. And I think your
3 third sentence in letter pretty clearly states your
4 position. I'm not necessarily in agreement, but that's
5 pretty clear what your position is. And it's probably one
6 of the clearest statements I've seen. And, that is, you
7 feel that the most expeditious way to get the 26,000
8 people out of the floodplain is to make the improvements,
9 which in fact will allow others to go into the floodplain.
10 And that's your position, and I understand that perfectly.
11 What we're talking about up here and what Betsy
12 is talking about are the assurances that the project will
13 be done. Because the worst case is if we have 70,000
14 people instead of 26,000 people in an area that doesn't
15 have protection. That's our concern. So we're not --
16 we're not -- we're about assurances up here. And Rick and
17 Curt went through the items that are being discussed.
18 But I think -- we talked about this before. And
19 it's a tough subject, I know for an elected board,
20 certainly for you. But I think we're going to have to
21 have some milestones when you come to the Board next
22 month. And, that is, what these projected dates are.
23 And if the budget goes haywire, for a lot of
24 different reasons, construction costs go up or funds or
25 the bond sale has not progressed or Prop 13 funds are not
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
175
1 there, or whatever, and the schedule goes bust, at what
2 point do we stop issuing building permits? And that's got
3 to be -- I think that's got to be our fail-safe position.
4 Not that we want to issue moratoriums. That's
5 not our purpose here. But at least "This is our plan,
6 this is our schedule, this is our budget." If something
7 goes haywire, well, we're going to take a time out -- or
8 the 404 permit is a good example of that. Or if they
9 require an EIS or whatever, we need a time out. And it's
10 not this Board, but it's certainly your board that's going
11 to have to deal with that.
12 But I think we need to have that discussion next
13 month, because it's the bottom line fail-safe kind of
14 backstop here if something goes wrong. And I'm interested
15 in that. And we've talked about that before. So I hope
16 we can have a discussion about that next month.
17 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: And, you know, another
18 reason we really need that? Is that we can all show, and
19 primarily the Yuba folks, responsible government and that
20 you mean what you say. Because how many instances have we
21 seen in the state where, you know, things have just not
22 worked out the way they're supposed to and people have
23 been killed.
24 So I think we all need it for everyone's
25 credibility.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
176
1 MR. McCLAIN: Thank you.
2 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. Are there any other
3 Board questions?
4 Okay. We have a couple of cards here from people
5 who wish to speak.
6 And please stay close because there may be a
7 question.
8 Ron Stork.
9 Okay. Ron, we hear you've been up there watching
10 this and think it's all a great plan. So what's your view
11 now?
12 MR. STORK: Madam Chair, I'm Ron Stork with
13 Friends of the River conservation staff. I have been a
14 member of the Yuba-Feather Task Force since its inception.
15 And today I'm speaking for the Sierra Club/Friends of the
16 River circle.
17 We are very pleased at the success of the task
18 force. Our conversations with Yuba County Water Agency,
19 natural resources agencies, citizen groups and DWR are
20 very forthright, honest, refreshingly so. And, in fact,
21 whenever a meeting is delayed many of us are actually
22 disappointed that we're not able to go to a meeting.
23 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: They must serve good food up
24 there.
25 MR. STORK: No, they don't, not at all. I can
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
177
1 assure you that the department is very careful of public
2 funds.
3 We were supporters of Proposition 13. We were
4 supporters of this element of Proposition 13 under which
5 many of the funds will be devoted to these projects. And
6 we have been supporters of many of the elements of these
7 projects. In fact, we have not objected to any of the
8 elements of the proposed projects put together. And once
9 again I think that's a credit to the collaborative work
10 that the task force is fostering.
11 We are pleased that the interests in Yuba County
12 have been interested in seriously approaching some of
13 these levee setback alternatives. We understand that that
14 of course does involve a lot of local language at times.
15 And we applaud the local community for having the courage
16 to undertake these kinds of projects.
17 If there's any caveat to the project that's
18 apparently the preferred alternative and it may be
19 approved, we have a number of them. And the first one is
20 that we would prefer a more ambitious levee setback
21 project than the one that's the preferred alternative. We
22 understand, however, many of the reasons why. One of the
23 most significant ones of course is the availability of --
24 where Proposition 13 funds just aren't enough to fund some
25 of these projects.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
178
1 Failing that and failing the -- or the
2 comprehensive study, which really should have been
3 planning some of these projects rather than the local
4 entities. Failing that we are strongly encouraging the
5 Authority to work with land-use agencies in that county
6 and essentially put in the planning documents that we can
7 intend to make some of these levee setbacks sometime in
8 the future so that land uses don't occur that prevent a
9 longer term comprehensive or ambitious flood control
10 project.
11 So in the spirit of the fact that we believe that
12 these are elements of a grander vision, we are supportive
13 of the flood control projects.
14 However, we are also very concerned about the
15 flood management aspects of this issue which you have just
16 been discussing. The discussions that you've been having
17 are on growth moratoriums or essentially pulling building
18 permits until flood control is approved. And those are
19 critical discussions and your discussions very warranted.
20 And a community response is as well.
21 We're also concerned about kind of the larger
22 picture issue, which is, even if these projects are
23 constructed and flood protection is significantly improved
24 in these areas -- and I might add also with habitat
25 improvements and potentially wonderful recreational
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
179
1 amenities for the community because of parkways that might
2 be formed in these areas -- even if those projects are
3 completed, it is still conceivable that flooding could
4 occur. And these areas are slated for major urbanization
5 decisions that -- in some cases that have already been
6 made. Whether or not they've been implemented or not, of
7 course, as you know, they haven't all been implemented.
8 So what you're really looking at here is
9 confronting the failure of a federal floodplain management
10 program to deal with issues of protected floodplains.
11 Protected floodplains are allowed by the federal
12 government to exist as if they were the high ground.
13 They're not in the high ground. This area floods pretty
14 deep. And it's flooded a couple times since the formation
15 of the Flood Control Insurance Program.
16 We believe that it's important for these
17 communities and for the state in general to improve the
18 Federal Flood Insurance Program so that it actually deals
19 with protected floodplains and includes them in the
20 system -- includes them in the system in ways in which
21 floodplain management exists. Current federal system, if
22 it's outside of the regulated floodplains, it doesn't have
23 any floodplain management requirements. You just have the
24 opportunity to purchase flood insurance. But you don't
25 have flood control -- or floodplain management
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
180
1 requirements.
2 Obviously basic floodplain management
3 requirements for this area might include not making
4 urbanization choices in some of these areas. It may also
5 include, if you urbanize, you should build flood safe.
6 Other choices could include you should have flood
7 insurance. Other choices should -- could include -- or
8 should include you need to be very careful about siting
9 critical infrastructure, things that you can't afford to
10 not be available because it's been flooded in floodplains.
11 These are the kinds of things that need to be
12 confronted by the state and are highlighted by these
13 projects here. And we strongly encourage both the State
14 of California and these communities to more successfully
15 confront these floodplain management issues that are
16 raised by -- below the flood control project and then
17 thousands of more people enter the area.
18 And with that, I'll conclude my remarks. But I'm
19 sure I'll be chatting with you about this again.
20 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: Don't go away. Don't go
21 away, Ron. I want to pin you down on something.
22 And, that is, what you're hearing amongst us is
23 the crux of the problem here, that is, to put more people
24 at risk, to lessen the risk, which is of course the --
25 it's really what we're talking about. If they want to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
181
1 build homes, they can pay for the infrastructure and
2 reduce the risk.
3 But what we're seeking is assurances. How
4 comfortable do you feel -- I mean you've studied
5 floodplain management as much as anybody in this room --
6 that this notion of having to put people at risk in order
7 to somehow reduce the risk, which is the only way they're
8 going to get out of it, number one. And then, number two,
9 I think the question of assurance. Heard from us is
10 really worried with this project. I mean we have to speak
11 plainly about this. We're worried about this project.
12 Financing not being there, to go beyond just hundred year
13 level of protection, it's been my personal opinion that
14 would be placing people in far greater danger than
15 actually doing nothing at all and holding -- and stopping
16 further development.
17 How do you guys feel about those issues?
18 MR. STORK: It's a deal with the Devil. And
19 whenever you make a deal with the Devil, I think you need
20 to have a lawyer to be very --
21 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: To deal with the Devil.
22 MR. STORK: Yeah. So maybe, yes, correct.
23 It is a fundamental dilemma that this Board
24 grapples with, Yuba County grapples with, Sutter County
25 grapples with, Sacramento City and County grapple with.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
182
1 So many of you have been in this spot before.
2 I really believe that your questions are very
3 warranted. And I think that these projects should not go
4 forward without real assurances that you're actually going
5 to get better flood protection.
6 The strange circumstance that you're in right now
7 is that in 1986 some of these areas flooded. And in 1992
8 after a whole bunch of work, The Reclamation Board came up
9 with an estimate that the levee system was only at 80
10 percent of its designed capacity. It should have -- FEMA
11 should have decertified that levee at that time. The
12 flood control system, that is, the federal system
13 basically failed us there.
14 Land-use decisions have been made during, before
15 and certainly well after those critical events. Of course
16 in 1997 we had another flood in this area. And, remember,
17 flooding is the Lord's way of telling you that you're in a
18 floodplain. And we still aren't -- these areas still
19 haven't been mapped into the federal floodplain, which
20 means the local floodplain.
21 So unless FEMA remaps the area, which they may
22 finally do after more than a decade of knowing that they
23 should have, this area is considered to be high ground.
24 And the land-use decisions by the local entities are
25 reflecting that this area will be successfully protected
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
183
1 in the future.
2 If you assume that this area is going to be
3 urbanized, you need to have better flood protection and
4 you need to have floodplain management behind the
5 protected levees. If this area is protected, it's still
6 not infinitely protected and it's still under water if you
7 have George Basye's beavers or some other adverse
8 circumstance occurring.
9 So you've got the interim problem of protection
10 of people from bad land use decisions based on optimistic
11 flood control projects scenarios. And you have the longer
12 term question, which you may need to face immediately as
13 well, of even if we fix these levees, they still may break
14 problem.
15 I also submit that you also have a comprehensive
16 planning problem in that you need to make sure that the
17 levee setbacks that the Agency has identified but not
18 chosen to undertake because of bad engineering, cost, and
19 availability doesn't get built on in the meantime.
20 So those are the issues that you have to
21 confront. And I think that it is important for the Board,
22 the State of California, and the local communities to be
23 extremely conservative about making these land-use
24 decisions, given the depth of flooding that these areas
25 have.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
184
1 And perhaps I wasn't as direct as you wanted.
2 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: No, but that's --
3 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: That's really a nice way of
4 saying a very big problem.
5 Thank you.
6 Oh, did you have a question?
7 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: No, I just want to make
8 a statement.
9 We keep talking we rely upon this FEMA flood plan
10 map. FEMA could come with a flood plan map tomorrow,
11 eventually, you know, here it is. And you build within
12 the floodplain somewhere, like we're doing -- if this were
13 the case. The more you put in that floodplain, the more
14 runoff you're going to have from the building areas. And
15 that floodplain is going to raise, it's going to spread.
16 If you have a glass of water and you put ten marbles in
17 it, it's going to overflow.
18 So the FEMA floodplain map that you map today,
19 give it a couple years and it's outdated. And this is
20 what's happening. Developers are using, say, outdated
21 floodplain maps or -- and it's not so much the fault of
22 FEMA. It's just, after all, as my colleague said earlier,
23 we keep constricting in that floodplain.
24 I take my position here on this Board as a very
25 heavy responsibility to try to protect the people from
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
185
1 flooding. That's the whole project of this thing. And I
2 grab every strip of paper I can and read and see what's
3 out there in the horizon. And here's stuff that's been
4 written: Floodplain maps give planners a false sense of
5 security. Developers say they followed the local plan
6 rules, but those standards are based on barely adequate
7 recommendations. Locals don't want to discourage economic
8 growth. After all, that's their tax base. I understand
9 that.
10 But one thing I understand is Uncle Sam is
11 becoming tired of paying bills. Mr. Fazio said that
12 himself.
13 (Laughter.)
14 VICE PRESIDENT CUSENZA: Memories are short.
15 Developers are persistent. Tens of millions of dollars
16 have been spent to improve levees, and we still have levee
17 breaks. By building levees, we induce a lot of growth.
18 And then you would have an urban area protected by high
19 grade levees that probably fail eventually on their own.
20 And then the last one I've got and I'll quit.
21 Some city officials believe development may have been a
22 mistake. I don't want to be put in that position 5, 10,
23 15 years from now. I'll be gone by then. But I don't
24 want to know that something that we did potentially
25 endangered somebody's life and limb.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
186
1 And my colleague talked about his 14-year-old son
2 today. You know, 50 years from now when he's 64 years
3 old, if he's living in there and something happens, I
4 can't -- I have a hard time with it, gentlemen. That's
5 all there is to it. And until you show me something a
6 little bit more concrete, I'm just going to have to
7 hold -- reserve my vote. I need more help.
8 Thank you.
9 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you. We all do, Tony.
10 Thank you very much.
11 I have a card here from Mary Keller, who would
12 like to speak to the Board about this subject.
13 MS. KELLER: Good afternoon, Board. Mary Keller
14 from Sutter County Water Resources.
15 I'm here today to speak on behalf of what we've
16 been doing in the Yuba-Sutter Flood Control Group. We've
17 been involved with that. And give maybe a little bit of
18 insurance from our side of things that, unlike in the past
19 where we heard about earlier where one side would build
20 theirs higher and the other side would build theirs higher
21 and having the war of the levees. We realized early on
22 that the project that Yuba County is working on benefits
23 us as well. And we've been supportive of that and working
24 with them towards that goal.
25 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you, Mary. Do you
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
187
1 want to be more specific? You don't have to now. But you
2 might send a letter telling how it's going to benefit
3 Sutter County. I think that would be good to have perhaps
4 a kind of positive communication about agencies working
5 together and counties working together.
6 MS. KELLER: I can do that -- direct it to the
7 Board?
8 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Yes, you can direct it to
9 the Board and do a CC to Mr. Rabbon here.
10 MS. KELLER: Okay.
11 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you. And be specific
12 how it's going to help you all.
13 MS. KELLER: Like lowering the stage reduction.
14 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Sure.
15 MS. KELLER: And the reoperation of -- in
16 lowering the bar. And anywhere -- of being reoperated
17 there as well.
18 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Yeah, I think that would be
19 interesting information to have. Okay?
20 MS. KELLER: As like the Delta being surrounded
21 completely by levees, we don't directly have a lot of
22 control over what's coming into our county. It's all
23 coming from the facilities above us. So we're in a little
24 bit of a unique position as well.
25 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Yeah. I'm from Yolo. So we
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
188
1 even get what you guys send us, you know.
2 (Laughter.)
3 MS. KELLER: Don't talk about us saving it.
4 We're just passing it through to you. We've helped you
5 out the last couple of years ago, in '97 I think we took a
6 lot of that off of you.
7 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Yeah. Well, let's not go
8 into that too much.
9 But thank you, Mary.
10 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Butch, do you want to speak
11 also?
12 MR. HODGKINS: Butch Hodgkins representing
13 Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.
14 I think last time on behalf of SAFCA I talked
15 about the possibility of the condition here that would
16 control flows, because of the setback here. Well, we want
17 to be sure that you know that we looked carefully into
18 that concern. We found in fact that the very condition
19 that we were suggesting is already in effect and is part
20 of the flood control diagram for Oroville, that there is
21 an effort being led by the Department of Water Resources
22 to implement a program that would perhaps revise other
23 conditions so that -- you know, we learn we go on.
24 Jeff, your points today about learning to
25 remember -- or recognizing that we are not working in a
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
189
1 static system are so important to us.
2 But it's a real focus to improve our forecasting
3 system and our operational capability up here like we're
4 doing at SAFCA. And, you know, given that that's in
5 place -- that's not in place, but it's under way, that
6 it's being headed in fact by the very people who can
7 implement it, which is the State of California, the folks
8 who operate Oroville, our concerns about any condition are
9 absolved.
10 And we also -- like Ron said, it's important that
11 somebody get a marker out here on a setback levee. And
12 unless somebody thinks setback levees are always going to
13 solve the problems -- I mean setback levees remove
14 hydraulic impediments, which gives rise to the concern
15 that Betsy just raised about what happens to the folks
16 downstream, and leads right into what Ron said about the
17 lack of a comprehensive plan. And I would just as soon
18 not use that because I don't want to tie what I'm saying
19 to the very brave undertaking that the Corps and the state
20 took here in the Central Valley.
21 But I guess I'm going to go a little farther with
22 it. We need a marker out there on a setback levee. And
23 this is the best one there is that I can see, because it
24 is a small watershed and it doesn't let a whole bunch more
25 water into the system. But we're going to have to
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
190
1 understand and work together. And the Yuba people have
2 been among the best for us to work with to figure out how
3 we're going to expand the planning of this system in a way
4 where we all feel like we're benefiting from the
5 improvements that take place.
6 And I'd like to make one last comment. I
7 think -- Ron's comments are always very thoughtful. And
8 we in SAFCA have been very focused on the blueprint plan
9 and trying to focus -- you know, trying to understand the
10 blue print in wider flood protection. And I think one of
11 the things that we very clearly realize is we have -- we
12 don't call them islands. We call them reclamation
13 districts. But they're very much the same as the Delta
14 islands. Mary talked about her area surrounded by water.
15 Once the development has started, the primary
16 question ought to be in our view: Is it feasible to get
17 this particular reclamation district or island, whatever
18 you want to call it, to 200-year protection? Okay? I
19 think Natomas, we will get it there. It's going to cost
20 some money, but we will get it there. And they have a
21 plan that is less costly than the plans for Sacramento.
22 Yet the Plumas Lakes area is greater than 200.
23 The real place we need to sort of try and draw
24 the line in the sand is not letting this get started in
25 another one before we really have addressed the issue of,
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
191
1 can we provide flood protection?
2 So I would encourage you to think about that in
3 the future. I know we do. And I hope the Department in
4 their white paper is thinking about the same thing.
5 But I mean with respect to this particular
6 project, we are very supportive of seeing the project go
7 forward.
8 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you, Butch. You know,
9 your point about not getting started somewhere else of
10 course is really an important one. Please give us, not
11 now, but give us your idea of how we do that. There is a
12 proposed development in Clarksburg, which is in the
13 primary zone of the Delta, for something like 240 houses.
14 So, you know -- now, they haven't been built yet and they
15 don't have a permit. So, you know, I'd like to know how
16 to stop that.
17 Just a little comment there.
18 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: I want to take, in all due
19 respect, a little exception to one of Butch's comments as
20 far as the first setback one. There is a setback levee
21 project up at Hamilton City that we've been working on for
22 quite a while. Now, I know it's not down here in
23 Sacramento. But yesterday I had the pleasure of sharing
24 with Jeff Sutton from Family Water Alliance a presentation
25 to the Colusa High School on setback levees there at
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
192
1 Colusa. And we agreed that there was a need. Setback
2 levees were a tool, and we talked about Hamilton City. So
3 we are making some progress elsewhere around. And I think
4 Hamilton City's a good example for a start as far as
5 setback levees are concerned.
6 I certainly think that -- and to congratulate the
7 Yuba County people as far as moving forward in a setback
8 proposal here.
9 I'm a little concerned because I haven't seen the
10 full I guess assurances or ties to the setback on the
11 Feather besides the Bear that really gives me the
12 assurances that there's a good strong connection there and
13 that will be completed. I know Mr. Stork and Ms. Keller
14 both talked about the benefits of that -- you know, of
15 reduction of a foot and a half space up at Marysville is a
16 real important step in that direction. I mean I can
17 remember '55 when the flood came down through there. So
18 it's really important.
19 But I haven't yet made a full connection from
20 where we are now to how we get to where I want to see us
21 get. I'm kind of reminded that I -- I was out the other
22 morning in my barn and I was feeding a couple steers and a
23 horse. And I have a feed barrel, it's a garbage can. And
24 I looked down in there and there's a mouse down in the
25 bottom of the feed barrel in the bottom of the feed. And
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
193
1 I've got a new cat. He's supposed to be a barn cat, but
2 I'm not sure yet. I got him at the pound. And I thought,
3 well, I'm going to grab that cat and throw him in there
4 and get that mouse.
5 Well, you know, the cat was looking up and I
6 throw the cat in and tried to put the lid on it and the
7 cat came back. I ended up getting scratched pretty well.
8 I never did get the mouse. I finally -- I mean the cat
9 never got it. I feel like that cat, you know. I keep
10 throwing it into the barrel and I never see the target
11 down at the bottom. And that's kind of the way I feel
12 here.
13 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: That's a great analogy.
14 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Somebody's got to show me
15 the mouse and, you know, show me how to catch the sucker.
16 And then I'll feel a little better about it.
17 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Curt, I want you to hold
18 that thought.
19 Okay. Those were great, great comments.
20 Any more comments from the Board?
21 I want to see where we are on this 404 permit and
22 what that business is all about.
23 I see someone raising her hand in the back.
24 You must approach the podium. You must give your
25 name and then tell us what you have on your mind.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
194
1 MS. COLLINS: Jackie Collins, Bethel Island.
2 Thank you for acknowledging me, Madam President.
3 My comment -- I'm sorry. I didn't turn in a
4 card. I wasn't here then during that period. But my
5 comment was specifically about the Army Corps 404.
6 Bethel Island is about to have their levee
7 breached and 6 miles of additional levee added to our 11.5
8 mile levee system, 560 homes on the water. I'd like to
9 thank Mr. Rabbon and Mr. Bradley both for, you know,
10 helping me deal with the state's position, which is they
11 can't help us, they're sorry, in the past.
12 But in the process of investigating this
13 development I was afforded some additional consideration
14 with the Army Corps of Engineers through the intervention
15 of Ellen Tauscher. So I've spent a great deal of time
16 with the Army Corps of Engineers in the last six months.
17 And what I can tell you is that anyone who would do
18 anything trying to second guess or say that the Army Corps
19 of Engineers is going to do what they think they are going
20 to do according to a 404 permit is not thinking
21 rationally. Okay. They do not know.
22 If I have ever heard a complaint about the Corps,
23 it is that they're a little on the arbitrary side. They
24 do what they want to do. And if they decide to apply the
25 full NEPA process to this project -- and if I were a Corps
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
195
1 personnel I would apply the full NEPA process to the
2 project because they have certain satellite permits that
3 they are required to address before they can even issue
4 that 404. That's too large an unknown.
5 And I just wanted to give you my insight, having
6 recently been there, I tried to dissect a 404 permit, you
7 know. And what I can tell you is that their
8 considerations and their mandates are their considerations
9 and here mandates. And no one, no matter what you put on
10 a piece of paper, can tell you what they might or might
11 not be.
12 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you for your insights
13 from recent experience. I think that's why people up here
14 when the subject came up really raised their eyebrows and
15 kind of looked at each other.
16 Okay. Is there anything else on this? This is
17 just an update.
18 Any other directions from the Board or comments
19 from the Board?
20 I hear none.
21 Thank you very much for coming down again. We're
22 not trying to give you a hard time. You have to
23 understand that. You got a project there that's a real
24 doozy. And maybe that isn't a kosher word to use. But
25 it's one that gives a lot of people a lot of concern.
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
196
1 MR. AIKENS: We will continue to work hard on
2 this to get a hand of cards, as Tony suggested earlier in
3 another subject. And then you play them the best you can.
4 We feel pretty proud of how far we've come so far. We
5 really appreciate the help of the Rec Board, our
6 stakeholders and everything in helping us move this
7 forward. We're very optimistic. We know we have
8 challenges. But I think as you've seen in the past, we've
9 been able to overcome those challenges and make things
10 happen. So that's our pledge.
11 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Thank you. None of the
12 comments are directed at any of you as individuals,
13 because you have been really doing everything that you
14 possibly can to correct the situation. It may not be
15 correctable I guess is the point.
16 So thank you very much. We'll see you next
17 month.
18 Okay. Where are we? You know, we're not going
19 to have lunch until after we finish this agenda, sorry to
20 report to you guys, unless somebody wants to overrule the
21 Chair.
22 But we are down to Board reports.
23 Activities of the General Manager.
24 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: Okay. Being that I
25 think we have a board that would like to eat, very, very
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
197
1 briefly: Rod had alluded to it and, that is, to work at
2 the local level to try to address an O&M policy conflict
3 on both facilities regarding -- or related to levees and
4 channels. That will be a slow process, but we are getting
5 their attention.
6 Also at the local level. And I'd like to add a
7 little more to what Rod had commented regarding the
8 National Flood Insurance Program. We are starting to see
9 some momentum regarding FEMA or the NFIP program looking
10 at insurance for facilities behind levees. And that would
11 be very helpful in terms of just bringing the issue to the
12 attention of --
13 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Would you say that again. I
14 want to understand what you're saying.
15 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: Okay. Currently if you
16 live behind a levee with a 99-year level of protection,
17 you are required to have flood insurance. Once you get to
18 a hundred year, which in essence is really the exact same
19 thing, you no longer are required to have flood insurance.
20 And what's worse is once you get to a hundred year, the
21 homeowners believe they are now safe.
22 Every homeowner is still in a floodplain if
23 they're behind a levee. It doesn't matter if they're
24 protected for 5 year or 500 year. If they're behind a
25 levee, there still is some kind of risk if that levee
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
198
1 fails. And the National Flood Insurance Program is
2 wanting to try to recognize that.
3 And that's, again, a long ways to go since it is
4 a national level issue.
5 Let me see. We have had a chance to sit down
6 with a couple of the Board members, the Executive
7 Committee, and sit down with Colonel Light and meet with
8 him and start some dialogue. And I will make sure that we
9 continue those discussions where we can just cover some
10 issues that are of importance at the time.
11 We also have had a chance to have a partnering
12 session on the American River activities with SAFCA and
13 the Corps in an effort to make sure those projects move
14 forward as rapidly and efficiently as possible. I believe
15 we still need to -- we have a long ways to go before we
16 can say that the Rec Board, Corps and SAFCA staff are
17 working together as a full fledged single team. But we
18 are working towards that.
19 A couple of items that are coming up. November
20 9th and 10th the Water Education Foundation, and along
21 with the Department of Water Resources and The Reclamation
22 Board, is having a two-day flood management workshop. I
23 believe everybody on the Board is either going to be a
24 speaker or attending. And the primary purpose of that is
25 to start looking at some of the issues or some of the
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
199
1 recommendations and -- get feedback, but recommendations
2 and issues that's found in the white paper. So that
3 should be a quite interesting two days.
4 And I think because of time I'd like to stop at
5 this point.
6 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. Oh, you -- if there's
7 some other things you think we should hear about, then you
8 go ahead.
9 GENERAL MANAGER RABBON: Steve, could you briefly
10 mention the proposed Indian museum by the American River.
11 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: Yes. This has been in
12 the paper in the last, oh, week or so.
13 They have picked a site for the Indian museum.
14 And their first choice is along the American River, inside
15 the levee, just downstream of Highway 160.
16 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Who would have ever guessed.
17 CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY: A couple of issues that
18 go along with this. One, right now there are a bunch of
19 trailers in there. That's a trailer park. So, you know,
20 you're going to get the consideration you trade a museum
21 for habited structures.
22 The other is that the Indian museum was not part
23 of the American River Parkway Plan. So it's not part of
24 the plan at the moment. So it's in variation with that.
25 Anyway, it will be coming to the Board some time
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
200
1 in the future. It's going to be another one of these very
2 interesting issues. Like I said, I don't know where I'm
3 at on it. I don't know what all they proposed. I just
4 know my -- I was approached about a year ago on this and
5 I -- you know, a museum only. Since I've heard there's a
6 museum and some infrastructure buildings. I have not seen
7 the overall plan yet and we don't have anything -- nobody
8 has submitted a permit application yet. But it will be
9 coming to us.
10 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: I think I have a conflict of
11 interest and can't participate in this.
12 (Laughter.)
13 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Okay. I'm sorry that I said
14 we could have one more thing.
15 Do Board members have comments?
16 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: I have --
17 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Yes, Burt.
18 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: -- just a couple of real
19 quick ones.
20 One is that the Sacramento River Conversation
21 Area Forum is entered into a partnership with the Nature
22 Conservancy to do a Colusa subreach study from Colusa to
23 Princeton and look at modeling and several impacts along
24 their "tied to restoration" projects. And because the Rec
25 Board owns quite a few properties and easements in that
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
201
1 area, we would like to have someone from Rec Board or DWR
2 Flood Management be part of that advisory group -- core
3 group that helps in that process, a staff person or
4 whoever.
5 And I'll probably talk to Peter and to Rod about
6 that to see, you know --
7 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Yeah, I was going to suggest
8 that work with Pete on that.
9 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: -- who that person might be.
10 I think it would be beneficial. It probably won't meet a
11 whole lot, but we'll need some of their advice.
12 And I did attend a meeting with staff the other
13 day on the Woodson Bridge Project. As you know, we had
14 worked with the Corps on Section 1135 for quite some time.
15 And we're looking at possibly moving it over for
16 mitigation for Sac Bank. And I'm pretty enthusiastic
17 about that. I think it's got some real possibilities. It
18 still will probably be tied to a Corps project on that.
19 But there was a -- there was a question that came
20 up, because the property there is actually held in trust
21 to the State of California and managed by the Nature
22 Conservancy is the critical questions as far as how that
23 property would be possibly transferred. And I think we've
24 worked through it. And Scott was there, and I really
25 appreciated his comments and work he had done on it. But
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
202
1 it really clarified it that, you know, in order to utilize
2 that property, it's going to have to -- actually going to
3 have to exchange it for property -- you can't just give
4 away that property. That trust is very clear that there
5 has to be exchange for property of equal economic value
6 and at least equal or better environmental value. So it's
7 a pretty clear statement as far as that goes.
8 I think that Scott was very helpful in that
9 process.
10 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Yeah, okay.
11 And down here, anybody?
12 I would like to make a request for agenda item.
13 And I think this probably -- you couldn't get to it until
14 about February. And, that is, this Board has some
15 responsibilities for designating a floodways. I'd like to
16 have the staff come back and give us a report on the
17 status of how we're fulfilling this responsibility. And
18 we should have a Board discussion of that after we clearly
19 understand what that mandate is.
20 The second thing I'd like to ask for is an agenda
21 item for Board discussion -- and I'll ask Mr. Edgar if he
22 concurs that this might be appropriate, because he's the
23 one who keeps raising this issue, that behind -- or that
24 sometimes -- or usually when there's a requirement in
25 areas such as the Pocket for flood insurance, that folks
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
203
1 get it for a year or two and then don't get it any longer,
2 and so the issue becomes mandatory flood insurance. And I
3 think we need to have a discussion of that subject, and to
4 see if we wish to do anything about that.
5 Bill, am I on or off the track here?
6 SECRETARY EDGAR: Well, it's an issue of
7 enforcement. And this may be something we'll need to talk
8 to the lending community about, because it's basically a
9 private sector lending enforcement requirement. It's
10 the -- you know, your house is the bank's asset
11 essentially, unless you purchased it yourself.
12 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Is it mandatory at this
13 time then --
14 SECRETARY EDGAR: Well, if you're in a
15 floodplain, it's mandatory that you have flood insurance.
16 And the lender's supposed to enforce that as I understand
17 it. But you're right, we need a discussion on that.
18 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: All right. Let's have a
19 discussion of that. And if there's any lending lobbying
20 group, agency, whatever, let's find out who they are and
21 they could come over for the discussion.
22 Those are two items that are policy items that
23 are heavy duty, so we might as well get going on them.
24 Is there anything else to come before this Board?
25 Motion to adjourn?
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
204
1 BOARD MEMBER MOUNT: So move.
2 Moved by Jeff.
3 Somebody second it?
4 BOARD MEMBER BUNDY: Second.
5 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Moved by Jeff, seconded by
6 Burt to adjourn the Board meeting.
7 All those in favor say aye.
8 (Ayes.)
9 PRESIDENT MARCHAND: Adjourned.
10 (Thereupon the California Reclamation Board
11 meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345
205
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2 I, JAMES F. PETERS, a Certified Shorthand
3 Reporter of the State of California, and Registered
4 Professional Reporter, do hereby certify:
5 That I am a disinterested person herein; that the
6 foregoing Reclamation Board meeting was reported in
7 shorthand by me, James F. Peters, a Certified Shorthand
8 Reporter of the State of California, and thereafter
9 transcribed into typewriting.
10 I further certify that I am not of counsel or
11 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting nor in any
12 way interested in the outcome of said meeting.
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
14 this 1st day of October, 2004.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22 JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR
23 Certified Shorthand Reporter
24 License No. 10063
25
PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345