Document Sample
					                    STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                   THE RECLAMATION BOARD

                   REGULAR BOARD MEETING

                       714 P STREET


                  SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

                 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2002

                         9:00 A.M.





Ms. Betsy Marchand, President

Ms. Gloria Moralez, Vice President

Mr. Burt Bundy, Secretary

Mr. Tony Cusenza, Member

Mr. Bill Edgar, Member

Mr. Jeff Mount, Member


Mr. Peter D. Rabbon, General Manager

Mr. Steven Bradley, Chief Engineer

Mr. David Sandino, Counsel

Ms. Lori Buford, Staff Assistant


Mr. Chris Adams, OES

Mr. David Aladjen, RD 537

Mr. Frank Bigelow, Madera County Board of Supervisors

Mr. Stein Buer, DWR

Mr. Ray Chau, FEMA Region IX

Colonel Michael J. Conrad, Army Corps of Engineers

Mr. Kevin Elcock

Mr. Tom Ellis

Mr. Tom Evans, Family Water Alliance

Mr. Sergio Guillan


                     APPEARANCES CONTINUED


Mr. Reggie Hill, Lower San Joaquin Levee District

Mr. Lou Hintz, California Central Valley Flood Control

Mr. Diana Jacobs, Department of Fish and Game

Ms. Gwen Knittweis, DWR

Mr. Boone Lek, DWR

Mr. William Mattos, RD 785

Ms. Jennifer Martin, The Nature Conservancy

Mr. Rod Mayer, DWR

Mr. Jonas Minton, DWR

Mr. Ron Pistoresi, Madera Irrigation District

Mr. Denis Prosperi, San Joaquin River Task Force

Mr. Tim Ramirez, CALFED

Mr. Monty Schmitt, Natural Resources Defense Council

Mr. Jim Staker, San Joaquin River Task Force

Mr. Ronald Stork, Friends of the River

Mr. Tim Washburn, SAFCA

Mr. Chris White, Central California Irrigation District

Mr. Roy Wickland, Wickland Piplines

Mr. Joseph Wright, representative of State Senator Jeff



1.    Roll Call                                         1

2.    Approval of Minutes - November 15, 2002               1

3.    Approval of Agenda                                    2

4.    Public Comments                                   3

5.    Report of Activities of the Department of Water
      Resources                                         4

6.    Consent Calendar                                      13

7.    Project or Study Agreements                       18

8.    Applications

      a.   Application No 17243, Arabella Wildlife
           Habitat, Chuck Collins, Sacramento County    2

      b.   Application No. 17508, City of Sacramento,
           Sacramento River, Sacramento County          44

      c.   Application No. 17497, Wickland Pipeline
           LLC, Sacramento River and Sacramento
           Bypass, Yolo and Sacramento Counties         54

9.    Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
      Comprehensive Study                               72

10.   Statewide Floodplain Management Task Force        140

11.   Urban Levee Encroachment Standards                162

12.   Report of Activities of the General Manager           179

13.   Board Comments and Committee Reports              192

14.   Election of Officers for the Term of January      197
      2003 through December 2004

15.   Adjournment                                       202

Reporter's Certificate                                  203


 1                             PROCEEDINGS

 2              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Ladies and gentlemen, we'll

 3   call the meeting to order of the Reclamation Board.       And

 4   Merry Christmas to everyone.     And thank you for finding us

 5   over here on P Street.    And we're going to proceed with

 6   the meeting now.

 7              Again, I'll announce that the cards are on the

 8   back table.    So if you wish to speak before the Board,

 9   please get a card, fill it out, and give it to our clerk,

10   Lori.   Thank you very much.

11              The first item is the roll call.     And let the

12   record show that all members of the Reclamation Board are

13   here today.    Some are to be commended for starting so

14   early down in the valley.

15              Pete, did you wish to make a comment?

16              GENERAL MANAGER RABBON:   I did want to comment

17   that Mark actually -- Mark Garrett is not here today.         And

18   he will be submitting his resignation effective December

19   31st of this year.    He will be working for the new

20   Congressman Cardoza as Chief of Staff.

21              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Thank you, Pete.   You see,

22   that's really bad.    I've already assumed that he's not

23   with us.    And that's too bad because Mark was a really

24   good member of our Board, and we're going to miss him very

25   much.

26              But the next item are the minutes.    The minutes

27   are before us for November 15th.     Are there any additions,

28   corrections for the minutes?


 1            If not, we'll have a motion.

 2            BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     So moved.

 3            BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:     Second.

 4            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     It's been moved by Tony,

 5   seconded by Bill to approve the minutes for the November

 6   15th meeting.

 7            Is there any further discussion?

 8            All those in favor say aye.

 9            (Ayes.)

10            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Opposed?

11            Motion carried.

12            The agenda is also in the packet, and I presume

13   on the back table.    And we need to approve the agenda as

14   it is before us.

15            Is there any discussion about the agenda?       And if

16   not, we'll have a motion to approve it.

17            BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     Madam Chair, I'd like to

18   pull Item 6 from the consent calendar.

19            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Yes, we'll take Item 6 off

20   the consent and have discussion.

21            Pete.

22            GENERAL MANAGER RABBON:     And the applicant for

23   Item 8A has requested that that be removed off this

24   month's agenda.

25            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     All right.    So 8A is going

26   to be removed.

27            Are there any other changes to the agenda?

28            All right.    We'll have a motion for the approval


 1   of the agenda with those two items changed.         The consent

 2   calendar item will be discussed and taken off the consent,

 3   and item 8A will be removed.

 4               SECRETARY BUNDY:   So moved.

 5               VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:    Second.

 6               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Moved by Burt, seconded by

 7   Gloria to approve the agenda as amended.

 8               All those in favor say aye.

 9               (Ayes.)

10               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Opposed?

11               Motion carried.

12               The next item on this agenda is the public

13   comments.     This is the time on the agenda when anyone in

14   the public who wishes to do so may speak to the Board on

15   any item that is not on the agenda, unless there is an

16   overriding issue here.

17               So if you wish to speak, now is your time.

18               Pete did you have a comment first?

19               GENERAL MANAGER RABBON:    Yes -- no.    Well, Mr.

20   Dick Schaeffer out of the San Joaquin Valley was not able

21   to be here today.     But he did want me to pass along to you

22   that his organization has been working quite some time on

23   what has been Rogue 9 structure for the Fresno River.         And

24   he will be available though for the February meeting to

25   bring this before the Board at the public comment period.

26               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Does he wish to be

27   agendized?     Why not agendize him?

28               GENERAL MANAGER RABBON:    We can do that if that's


 1   the Board's pleasure.

 2            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     It's usually good.    Then

 3   everyone knows what's going to be coming before the Board.

 4            GENERAL MANAGER RABBON:     Okay.    We will place

 5   that on the agenda.

 6            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     All right.    Is there anyone

 7   here who wishes to make a public comment to the Board?

 8            If so, please come to the podium and give us your

 9   name.

10            Okay.    No one is trotting up here.     So we'll

11   close that part of the agenda.

12            And we'll move on to Item Number 5, report of

13   activities of the Department of Water Resources.

14            Stein, welcome.    Thank you for having your report

15   in the packet.

16            Looks like he may have an additional report.


18   good morning.    I'm Stein Buer, Chief of the Division of

19   Flood Management, Water Resources.     I've augmented your

20   package with a couple of additional sheets this morning to

21   describe the situation with respect to water conditions.

22            So far conditions look very good this year.          As

23   you know, we had a very productive storm in early

24   November, which was particularly productive in the

25   southern Sierra, generating unusual flows in those streams

26   which responded to the heavy precip.

27            Last weekend's storm delivered a very good wallop

28   of rain, particularly to the north state and to the north


 1   coast.     We had some significant precip amounts, for

 2   example, Honey Dew Precip Station on the Matolle River,

 3   which is famous for the higher amount of precip.       It

 4   delivered 26 inches of precip over the storm sequence last

 5   week.

 6               The rivers responded.    We had a number of monitor

 7   stages and flood stages, some in the north coast.        In

 8   general, everything went reasonably well.       In the Napa

 9   River the county and state declared a state of emergency,

10   based primarily on local flooding.       As you know, there is

11   a major flood control project under construction there,

12   including efforts to raise bridges and pull the waterway.

13   And that those portions of the project which have been

14   constructed functioned well.

15               On the Sacramento River system we also had a

16   pulse moving down the river resulting in overflow at the

17   Colusa Weir and Tisdale Weir.       Colusa Weir shut off this

18   morning about 2 o'clock.     And flow is still continuing at

19   Tisdale Weir.     So the Sacramento River system is not

20   particularly challenged at this point, the pulse is

21   relatively small as far as the Sacramento River is

22   concerned.

23               Probably the most significant consideration there

24   is Hamilton City.     This Board has been briefed a number of

25   times about the situation there, they're having an eroding

26   bank on the right bank of the river just upstream of

27   Hamilton City.     And that erosion is continuing fairly

28   rapidly.     We were informed by the locals that a couple


 1   large trees adjacent to their home very close to the

 2   erosion site now are about ready to topple into the river.

 3               So our inspectors are monitoring that situation

 4   carefully, and we're looking to see what we could do to

 5   help in the case that something goes on there.

 6               As you know, the J Levee itself is threatened by

 7   erosion.     And Glenn County is constructing a setback levee

 8   somewhat back from the river.     And the hope is that it is

 9   constructed over solid foundation, that is, back from the

10   alluvium bed that is rapidly eroding now.     That piece of

11   construction is now done -- it's about half done at this

12   point.     And with the wet conditions, it's not been

13   possible to move forward with it.     But we're monitoring

14   that situation and we'll report to the Board as the

15   condition evolves.

16               We have monitor stages in the Delta, that is at

17   Rio Vista we have stages above 8 feet.     And any time

18   stages are high in the Delta, that is a cause for concern,

19   particularly if you have windy conditions, which we've had

20   ample in the last couple of storms.

21               One of the typical characteristics of storms in

22   the El Nino type periods is that they tend to be

23   energetic.     You can't predict exactly where they'll go,

24   how big they'll be.     But typically they carry a fair

25   amount of energy driven by the heat from the ocean that is

26   above normal.

27               So so far conditions appear to be following the

28   El Nino pattern, that is, slightly above normal and


 1   energetic storms as they do come through.

 2               The sheets that I gave you, I included after the

 3   summary sheet an executive update, which we make available

 4   on our website, it's easily accessible through the menu

 5   there.     It gives a quick synopsis of conditions statewide.

 6               At the top we have snow water conditions, which

 7   as you can see are now significantly above normal for this

 8   date.     The next element is a northern Sierra precipitation

 9   accumulation.     As of this morning, we're at about 20

10   inches.     And the accumulation will continue over the next

11   few days.     So for the northern station index we're at

12   about 137 percent of normal.

13               So we're well ahead of the normal pace thanks to

14   the power of these storms.     And we'll expect that to

15   continue over the next few days.

16               We also provided a selection of precip stations

17   throughout the State, to kind of give you flavor.        As you

18   can see, most of those are above normal now also.

19               In the second page we provide a summary of key

20   reservoir storages.     All the major reservoirs have plenty

21   of flood space at this point.     Only three reservoir

22   systems that I'm aware of have flood control releases at

23   this time.     They include Black Butte Reservoir up on the

24   Stoney Creek in northern California; and Terminus and

25   Success, which are still -- they made flood control

26   releases during the November storm, which is again very

27   unusual to get that from one storm.

28               So, overall, water conditions, I'm sure you're


 1   not surprised to hear, that they're going to be wet,

 2   looking good, and things are reasonably under control.

 3   There are a few spots in the Delta that bear watching at

 4   this point.    But traditionally the Reclamation District

 5   did an excellent job.    DWR is there to assist with -- as

 6   is the Corps as a backup as need be.

 7              So overall I think this series of storms has been

 8   a good test, a good first sequence for the season.        And

 9   everything's going reasonably well.

10              Any questions about the water conditions?

11              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Do you have any levee

12   failures that you're aware of?


14   aware of any levee failures.     Although we have a

15   threatening condition on RD 1601 where a failure of a

16   drainage pipe is causing significant erosion of the cross

17   section.    But that's being watched.   The consultants and

18   the reclamation districts are on the case.

19              The other topic I wanted to report on very

20   briefly was the Sacramento River Corridor Floodway

21   Planning Forum.    Both the DWR and Reclamation Board staff

22   have been participating in this process.     I think it's

23   going very well.

24              The working groups are continuing to work through

25   issues on a number of fronts.     Most recently, the State

26   staff has been reviewing the flood protection check list

27   for projects affecting the Sacramento River Corridor

28   between Fremont Weir and Courtland.     This is a very, very


 1   useful piece of work in that it brings to the front a

 2   number of considerations so that applicants and planners

 3   can be thinking about the flood control aspects of a

 4   project early in the process.

 5               The Reclamation Board staff and DWR staff are

 6   also interested in promoting a consideration of the

 7   broader policy issues as this process continues.

 8               I believe that working groups will meet again in

 9   January.     And the plenary session is scheduled for

10   February.     Pete may have the dates at his finger tips.

11   I'm not sure.

12               The last topic I wanted to mention was the AB

13   1147 regulations.     That package is now moving through DWR,

14   and currently in the legal review phase, after which we

15   plan to send the package to the Office of Administrative

16   Law for the formal rulemaking process.

17               That's all I have to report on.

18               Do you have any questions?

19               BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:   Could I ask a question.

20               AB 1147, Dr. Mount and I worked a little bit on

21   that.   And in light of the budget situation of the State,

22   then even though we have the rules and regulations, we're

23   not going to get any money as I understand for that

24   program.     So is that right?


26   short term -- the current situation is that the general

27   funds that were available for subvention projects, 58

28   million have been frozen to be reverted to the general


 1   fund.    They will not be available, to the best of our

 2   knowledge.

 3               The only funds remaining for disbursement are

 4   Prop 13 funds.     About 32 million have yet to be disbursed.

 5   Our view is that we need to take a look at how those funds

 6   were prioritized because they were part of the overall

 7   package, a combination of both general funds and Prop 13

 8   funds.     Now, as a pulling off the general funds, it seems

 9   to us reasonable that we should take a fresh look at the

10   prioritization.     At this point there's no new money at all

11   for subvention of programs.

12               So I anticipate we will move forward with the

13   regulations package, hope to get it in place.        But we're

14   doing so with diminished staff.      Two of the key folks that

15   have been involved in that process are moving on to other

16   positions as part of our budget-cutting process.

17               BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:   So I guess the bottom line

18   with regard to 1147 is that you had better figure on 50

19   percent, not any increment between 50 and 70 percent, is

20   that the bottom line of all of this?


22   percent looks pretty good at this point.

23               BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:   All right.    That's what I

24   thought.     Thank you.

25               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   You might keep us posted if

26   there's any change.

27               I also was thinking, Burt, that you may wish to

28   speak a little bit while Stein is here because he brought


 1   up Hamilton City.     And you brought some pictures and have

 2   some information on Hamilton City's situation.       And let's

 3   do it now while it's being discussed.

 4              SECRETARY BUNDY:   Sure, we will do it.    And I

 5   actually have several photos that were taken I believe

 6   Monday morning.     So they are a little bit outdated because

 7   the river has been moving.     And I think most of the Board

 8   has seen them, but I will pass them on down, and then

 9   share with the audience also, of Hamilton City head-end of

10   the J Levee location.     And many of you have been there and

11   have seen the river move steadily toward the head-end of

12   the J Levee.    And it's -- those trees that you see in the

13   pictures now are actually hanging out a little bit over

14   the water.

15              I guess a couple of things -- As Stein indicated,

16   that the county has been working with DWR and the Corps of

17   Engineers to do some preliminary work ahead of time as far

18   as the backup levee is concerned to be ready to go as soon

19   as the river encroaches into the toe of the J Levee

20   itself.    And that work -- actually the base got in, and I

21   understand the compaction was very good in that area.         But

22   as soon as it started raining, as Stein had indicated,

23   they had to back off.     But we've got a tremendous start

24   there.    And I think that can be attributed just to the

25   coordination that's been going as far as that effort is

26   concerned.

27              There's of course the ongoing Hamilton City work

28   group effort with the feasibility study that the Corps and


 1   the Rec Board, DWR, and locals are all working together

 2   on.     We did have a work group meeting on Monday also.      And

 3   so everything seems to be moving forward very well on

 4   that.     I was impressed with the work group's efforts.

 5   They seem to be, you know, pretty determined to move

 6   forward.     And so I'm thrilled to death with that

 7   particular effort.

 8               On the one note as far as the erosion around that

 9   house is concerned -- and that house -- the people have

10   vacated that house.     So that I understand that they

11   already -- basically they have abandoned it to some

12   extent.

13               But from the information I get, there is to some

14   extent a more resistant formation is starting to become

15   evident around where that house is built.      We call it

16   geologic control, but that's really a misnomer.       It is a

17   more resistant formation.     It will erode.   But it won't

18   erode nearly as fast as more alluvial soils that are above

19   and below it.     The river is continuing to eat out above

20   it, which may create some type of a boil or even erosion

21   that concentrates in that area.     And it's still working

22   below it, which is taking it to the toe of the J levee.

23               So I wouldn't doubt that there will be an

24   emergency situation there very soon.     Locals, DWR, Rec

25   Board, and the Corps have all agreed upon a specific level

26   of -- if there's increasing river levels there at 143,

27   which is the level that they've agreed upon, as long as

28   it's increasing, well, then there will be an emergency


 1   flood fight start there.

 2               On Monday night it was at 142.9.        But it peaked

 3   at that point, so it wasn't a raising one.          So it was very

 4   close to it then.     I wouldn't doubt in the next week or so

 5   that that situation may occur.

 6               But I've talked to the local flood control people

 7   there at the county, the Community Services District, last

 8   night.   Pete was at our meeting.       And it was pretty

 9   evident that they, you know, certainly don't like the

10   situation as far as the river encroaching into the J

11   Levee.   But they're very pleased with where we are at the

12   present time as far as being ready to flood fight it.             So

13   everything seems to be in place.        And I congratulation

14   DWR, the Corps, Rec Board, and everybody else as far as

15   that effort is concerned.

16               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thanks, Burt.    I think that

17   was very complementary to Stein's report.

18               And thank you, Stein.

19               DIVISION OF FLOOD MANAGEMENT CHIEF BUER:        Thank

20   you very much.

21               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     All right.     We'll move along

22   to item number 6, which has been pulled off the consent

23   calendar.     And let's talk about it.

24               This item has to do with something that obviously

25   has been around for a long time.

26               So, Pete, do you want to discuss this?

27               GENERAL MANAGER RABBON:     We do have Gwen

28   Knittweis here, who has placed this item on the agenda.


 1            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   All right.    State your name

 2   for the record very clearly.

 3            Welcome.

 4            MS. KNITTWEIS:   President Marchand, members of

 5   the Board, I'm Glenn Knittweis.   And I do have a business

 6   card to aid with spelling.

 7            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Thank you.

 8            Gwen, can you tell what this item is about and

 9   what the request from the Rec Board is?

10            MS. KNITTWEIS:   Basically this request is to

11   amend an existing feasibility cost share agreement.      It's

12   an agreement for the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta

13   Investigation Feasibility Study, which is commonly known

14   as the Delta Special Study.

15            We propose to amend this agreement to allow the

16   Corps to participate in a feasibility study and also as

17   the federal lead for North Delta ecosystem and flood

18   control improvements, which is a Stage 1 implementation

19   action of the CALFED Bay-Delta program.

20            So the proposed amendment would provide a

21   feasibility study vehicle for the Corps' participation by

22   amending this existing feasibility agreement and would

23   provide an increase in the feasibility costs of $1.815

24   apiece for the Corps and for the State.      What this

25   represents is existing funds in the amount of 1.8 million

26   that DWR already has programmed for this effort because

27   DWR is acting as the State lead for this item for CALFED.

28   The Corps will bring matching funds and will come on


 1   board -- bring matching funds in the amount of 1.8

 2   million.

 3               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Yes.   Tony, you called this

 4   off.     Do you want to speak to it first?

 5               BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:    Yeah.    Gwenn, first of all

 6   I want you to know I am going to vote for it.         And I'm

 7   going to vote for it mainly because of my concern about

 8   flooding, about loss of life, loss of property, and the

 9   disruption of the economy, whatever reason this should

10   occur.

11               But the reason I asked that it be pulled off

12   is -- you know, I'm just a little old taxpayer from the

13   country.     And once we had a light hearted little joke up

14   here about, if we get an estimate from the Corps, just

15   double it and you're pretty close.         Well, now this one

16   here is darn near tripled.        And it bothers me that we have

17   to do bookkeeping that way.       That's the part of it I don't

18   understand.

19               And, you know, like they said in Sacra --

20   Washington, we're talking about real dollars.         We're not

21   talking about Monopoly money.       And it went from 1.8 times

22   2 -- Corps, State -- comes to 3.6.         They're asking for an

23   increased total study to 9.5.       It just -- I mean that just

24   baffles me.     We're just not used to those kind of figures.

25               MS. KNITTWEIS:    Well, to clarify that issue for

26   you, what we're doing is amending an existing feasibility

27   cost-share agreement.        The existing agreement is for 5.95

28   million.     That's existing work that's already proposed.


 1   We're proposing to add a $3.6 million effort.        So that

 2   $9.58 million total that you see is an additive number.

 3   That represents the original $5,950,000 plus $3,830,000,

 4   which our total costs for this effort for North Delta is

 5   3.8 million.

 6               BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     Fair enough.

 7               GENERAL MANAGER RABBON:     Well, Tony, this is new

 8   money for new work beyond the original agreement.        So at

 9   this point it should not be considered an increase to do

10   the original work.     This is new work.

11               BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     And who approved the new

12   work?   I mean where did that -- what the process of the

13   new work being approved?      Did that come through here?

14               MS. KNITTWEIS:   This is an implementation action

15   under the CALFED Bay-Delta program.        DWR already has an

16   existing effort to act as the lead for implementing this

17   item, north Delta flood control and ecosystem restoration.

18   And that item is already funded in roughly 1.8 million.

19   That represents existing staff and contract costs towards

20   the effort.

21               The Corps' coming on board will allow them to act

22   as the federal lead for this effort.        There's no

23   additional funding that the State is bringing up, because

24   their portion of work is being provided with in-kind

25   services.

26               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Well, this points up one of

27   the problems though with the way the budget process works.

28   These multimillion dollar things that we're supposed to


 1   vote on here, and it's the first time we ever heard of it.

 2   But that is a problem.       And I think that it's one good to

 3   highlight.

 4               Let me ask you this.     What is the end product of

 5   this going to be?     What are we going to know when we're

 6   done -- or they're done with it that we don't know now?

 7               MS. KNITTWEIS:     Well, this project is planning

 8   for flood control and ecosystem restoration in the North

 9   Delta area.     There will be production of an EIR/EIS and a

10   feasibility study that will allow us to implement flood

11   control and ecosystem restoration in the North Delta area.

12               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Okay.   Anymore questions

13   about this item?

14               Thank you, Gwen.     You were very responsive to the

15   requests.

16               BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     Thanks, Gwen.     My abacus

17   just ran out of beads, so I have no worries.

18               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     All right.     We need to take

19   some action on Item Number 6.

20               We need a motion actually.

21               BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     I'll move.

22               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     All right.     It's been moved

23   by Tony for approval.

24               Is there a second?

25               SECRETARY BUNDY:     Second.

26               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Seconded by Burt.

27               Any further discussion on this item?

28               All those in favor say aye.


 1               (Ayes.)

 2               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Opposed?

 3               Motion carried.

 4               All right.     Now we're going to move to Item

 5   Number 7.     And, Rod, this is American River Watershed

 6   (Natomas) Project.

 7               Welcome.     Merry Christmas.


 9   Thank you, President Marchand.        Good morning, members of

10   the Board.

11               I'm Rod Mayer, Chief of Flood Control Project

12   Management Office in the Department of Water Resources.

13   And I'm here to request approval of Resolution 23-02,

14   which approves the local project cooperation agreement for

15   the American River Watershed (Natomas Features) Project.

16               I'd like to note that your package today includes

17   the resolution.        However, it's misnumbered there.   And it

18   should be Resolution 23-02.

19               You also have fact sheets in your package and the

20   local project cooperation agreement.

21               I would like to provide a brief overview of the

22   project.     And then following me, Tim Washburn of the

23   Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency will also provide a

24   more detailed briefing on the details of the Natomas

25   Features Project.

26               The Defense Appropriation Act of 1993 provided

27   federal authorization for this project.         And it authorized

28   the Corps to construct the Natomas Features, which was a


 1   separable element of the 1991 American River watershed

 2   investigation, which recommended the Natomas Features as

 3   well as a dry dam at Auburn, providing 200-year flood

 4   protection to the Sacramento area.

 5              The Defense Appropriation Act also provided that

 6   the non-federal sponsor, SAFCA, could be reimbursed for

 7   construction if it proceeds to construct the Natomas

 8   Features prior to the Corps receiving federal

 9   appropriations for construction.     And, indeed, that is

10   what occurred.    SAFCA proceeded with the construction.

11   And at the time the State had no ability to cost-share the

12   project with SAFCA and be a partner.     But it did in effect

13   partner with it by issuing an encroachment permit for the

14   levee improvements that SAFCA undertook.

15              The Board in 1993 issued Encroachment Permit

16   16042BD, which was a master permit authorizing

17   construction of the project.    And it also issued a number

18   of subpermits for the specific geographic areas of the

19   project.    Construction began about 1994 and was completed

20   by 1998.

21              And, in brief, the project involved raising and

22   extending levees on Arcade Creek, Dry Creek, Robla Creek,

23   Natomas Cross Canal, Natomas East Main Drainage Canal, and

24   included strengthening the levee along the Pleasant Grove

25   Creek Canal and constructing a new levee on the north side

26   on Dry Creek and a new pump station on Natomas East Main

27   Drain Canal.

28              SAFCA's construction costs for their local


 1   project was approximately $81.7 million.

 2            Now, the project design basis that SAFCA used

 3   assumed that there would not be a detention dam at Auburn

 4   and it assumed 180,000 cubic feet per second flow in the

 5   American River, the stages associated with that which back

 6   water up Natoma's East Main Drainage Canal.     And the levee

 7   raising in that area along Arcade, Dry Creek, Natomas East

 8   Main Drain were based upon that higher flow than what the

 9   Corps had in its 1991 plan, which assumed that there would

10   be a dam at Auburn.

11            In 1999 the Corps and SAFCA signed a memorandum

12   of agreement which was very much like what we're used to

13   seeing as a project cooperation agreement.     And that was

14   for federal reimbursement of the federal plan that SAFCA

15   constructed.   What SAFCA constructed exceeded what the

16   Corps would have constructed, so the Corps determined what

17   its federal plan would be and entered into this MOA to

18   reimburse SAFCA for the federal plan.

19            Like a PCA, this MOA contains the usual

20   requirements about operating -- SAFCA operating and

21   maintaining the completed features and also holding the

22   federal government harmless.

23            Now, to date the Corps has agreed to reimburse

24   SAFCA for $20,389,000 as what the federal government would

25   have paid for the construction.     And the estimated federal

26   plan cost is $27,280,000.    And that equates to nearly 75

27   percent of the total cost.     It would be exactly 75 percent

28   except for lands even to rights-of-ways slightly exceeded


 1   20 percent.    And there's also a 5 percent minimum cash

 2   requirement.

 3             The reasons for the federal plan being so much

 4   less than the local project construction costs, 27.28

 5   million compared to 81.7 million -- there are two reasons:

 6   The federal project does not authorize the full extent of

 7   the levee raising and the construction because it assumes

 8   the lower stages in the American River consistent with a

 9   detention dam at Auburn; and, secondly, the federal

10   project is limited to those features that are not

11   associated with development in deep floodplains.       There

12   was a special language that was placed in the Defense

13   Appropriation Act in 1993.    And in effect it limits the

14   credit that SAFCA could receive for it's local project.

15   And the features in the northern part of the Natomas area

16   are not included in the federal plan for that reason.

17             SAFCA is continuing to pursue expanding the

18   federal authorization, which in turn could lead to

19   additional state authorization and reimbursement down the

20   road.    If the issue over the higher stages in the American

21   River eventually is resolved in SAFCA's favor, it could

22   ultimately lead to another $4.2 million in the State's

23   share.   If all of these issues were resolved in SAFCA's

24   favor, could ultimately lead to about $9 million

25   additional State cost.

26             Assembly Bill 1147, which was enacted in the Year

27   2000, provides the State authorization for the Natomas

28   Features Project.    And that state authorization is


 1   consistent with the federal authorization.

 2               And it also authorizes the State to pay 70

 3   percent of the non-federal costs.     Those amount to about

 4   $4.823 million.

 5               The state also appropriated in 2000 and in 2001

 6   two separate appropriations totaling $4.9 million.       In

 7   Year 2000 a $2.84 million Proposition 13 appropriation

 8   occurred and in Year 2001, a $2.06 million general fund

 9   appropriation occurred.

10               Now, this local project cooperation agreement

11   that you have is required in order for the Board to

12   reimburse SAFCA.     This LPCA is shorter and simpler than

13   most LPCA's you may have seen.     And that is because this

14   project has already been constructed and the provisions

15   that deal with future work have mostly been struck.

16               As usual, it provides that the local agency,

17   SAFCA, will operate and maintain the completed project

18   works and that SAFCA will indemnify and hold-harmless the

19   State.     It also continues the Board's encroachment control

20   authority over these levees, where they were previously

21   existing federal levees that the Board had encroachment

22   control.     And Public Law 8499 responsibility continues

23   those responsibilities on the new higher levees.     And

24   where the levees have been extended in length or new

25   federal levees are constructed, it establishes Board

26   responsibility for encroachment control and Public Law

27   8499.

28               It also requires that SAFCA provide access to the


 1   Board in all the federal features.

 2            And, finally, it provides for the reimbursement

 3   that SAFCA is seeking after SAFCA submits invoices and

 4   provides an opportunity for the State to review the

 5   accounting records.

 6            Now, this local project cooperation agreement

 7   only covers the currently authorized features.    If SAFCA

 8   is successful in expanding the federal project, this

 9   agreement would have to be amended and brought back to the

10   Board to deal with any additional reimbursement for those

11   additional features.

12            This concludes my part of the presentation.

13   Following me will be Mr. Washburn.    And then after that

14   and any discussion and questions by the Board, I would ask

15   that the Board take action on Resolution 23-02, which

16   approves entering into this LPCA for the Natomas Features

17   Project and authorizes the president and the secretary to

18   sign the agreement.

19            Are there any questions before Mr. Washburn gets

20   up?

21            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    There don't seem to be any

22   right now.   But thank you.

23            This is a project that we are familiar with and

24   have been involved with for a long time.    But stay right

25   close because there might be some very soon.

26            All right.    Tim, you're next.

27            MR. WASHBURN:   Chairman Marchand and members of

28   the Board.   Tim Washburn, Agency Counsel for SAFCA,


 1   suffering from a slight cold, but still have a little

 2   voice here.

 3             I'm going to do a quick overview of the project.

 4   You are familiar with it, but I thought perhaps I'd start

 5   with a little quick geography.     I've got my pointer here.

 6             (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

 7             Presented as follows.)

 8             MR. WASHBURN:   This is the Natomas Basin.       It was

 9   created in the early part of the 20th century essentially

10   by creating drainage canals in the northwest corner of the

11   basin to drain flowage coming out of western Placer

12   County.   They basically cut into the Sacramento River east

13   levee and hydraulically connected the Sacramento River

14   backup into the drainage at southern Sutter and western

15   Placer County in order to drain waters out and keep them

16   from coming into the basin from the northwest.

17             Down in the southeast corner, similarly we have

18   drainage coming out of Placer County to Dry Creek and

19   Sacramento County through Arcade Creek.     A drainage canal

20   was created, the Natoma's East Main Drain Canal, to carry

21   that drainage around the southeast corner of the basin.

22   And in low flow it actually goes right out to the

23   Sacramento River.   In high flow it is connected to the

24   American River.

25             And so this piece of the drainage is now

26   hydraulically connected to the American River.      And,

27   again, the purposes being to keep those creeks and streams

28   from flooding into the Natomas Basin.     And that allowed


 1   agricultural development in Natomas to proceed.     And it

 2   remained agricultural for most of the century, until the

 3   late '60's or early '70's.     Sacramento County put an

 4   airport in the basin.    And of course the State put I-5

 5   conveniently located.    And that led to locating the

 6   airport there just off I-5.     There's I-99 and 70 that

 7   bifurcate the basin.

 8            So some transportation corridors running through

 9   the basin in turn led the city to begin to push north and

10   into Natomas and build subdivisions in there in the early

11   1970's, the community generally known as South Natomas,

12   and to plan for even additional developments after

13   locating the Kings into the Natomas Basin in 1985, then to

14   push into North Natomas.     And that planning went on in the

15   middle '80's and into the late '80's.

16            Next slide please.

17                                --o0o--

18            MR. WASHBURN:     Intervening was the 1986 flood.

19   And this is what was going on along the east levee of the

20   Sacramento River in South Natomas.     High water surface

21   elevations in the Sacramento River seeping through these

22   levees, which turned out to be sandy, silty material,

23   allowing water to seep through and begin to erode on the

24   land side.   Near levee failures occurred there in 1986.

25   This is Teichert, the Corps, RD 1,000 and the State

26   orchestrating fairly massive flood fight to keep that

27   levee from failing along the east side of the Sacramento

28   River.


 1             Next.

 2                                --o0o--

 3             MR. WASHBURN:    On the southeastern side of

 4   Natomas -- this is Dry Creek looking down into Natomas.

 5   Everything backed up due to high flow in the American

 6   River backed up Arcade Creek.     And we did have some

 7   flooding actually out of Arcade Creek.      This is just an

 8   example of what was happening on the eastern edge of

 9   Natomas in the Dry Creek watershed as waters backed up,

10   unable to get out through the Natomas East Main Drainage

11   Canal.   And quite a bit of flooding to the north of Dry

12   Creek, again along the eastern edge of Natomas.

13             Next.

14                                --o0o--

15             MR. WASHBURN:    And then up in that northeastern

16   corner, here is Sankey Road where it comes through the

17   Pleasant Grove Creek Canal.     And this is flooding all up

18   into the southern Sutter County.       Huge amount of acreage

19   put under water in 1986.     Water did come over the levee --

20   or it's actually the levee dips down where Sankey Road

21   comes into Natomas, spilled into Natomas, until RD 1,000

22   built some sandbags and structures there to prevent water

23   from coming in.

24             This area, land owners here and land owners to

25   the south on the eastern edge of Natomas all sued after

26   '86 -- sued the Reclamation Board, sued RD 1,000, the

27   counties, and actually prevailed in Superior Court

28   eventually, saying this water here -- you know, they need


 1   to be compensated for the storage of this water on their

 2   land given that the system did not function as designed

 3   and produced higher water surfaces in the Sacramento River

 4   than were intended as the design of the project.

 5               Lets go back.

 6                                --o0o--

 7               MR. WASHBURN:   So after '86 a couple things

 8   happened.     The first thing that happened, the Corps of

 9   course did a new analysis of the hydrology, both in the

10   Sacramento and American River side, concluded that Natomas

11   did not have a 100 year flood protection given the

12   condition of the east levee of the Sacramento River and of

13   capacity -- inadequate capacity in the drainage channels

14   along the southeast of Natomas.        And so provided FEMA with

15   information suggesting in effect that there was not a 100

16   year flood protection provided by these levees.

17               The city's reaction was to impose a residential

18   development moratorium on Natomas in 1989.        They stopped

19   all residential development and began to work with the

20   Corps and the State and formed SAFCA to figure out how we

21   could recertify or bring those levees back up to a 100

22   year level or greater.      And actually SAFCA's goal was to

23   provide at least 200 year flood protection or more.

24               The plan the Corps developed essentially linked

25   protection for Natomas, as Rod indicated, to the creation

26   of additional flood storage in the American basin through

27   a flood control dam at Auburn.      That affected the design

28   of these improvements because these levee improvements


 1   along the southeast corner of Natomas are really tied to

 2   what the projected water surface elevation in the American

 3   River might be.   If connected to an Auburn Dam, the idea

 4   was we would be planning for a 115,000 cubic feet per

 5   second in the American River from very large floods, and

 6   that affected the sizing of the levee improvements around

 7   the southeast corner.

 8             In the northeast corner, because of the high

 9   waters experienced in '86, the Corps recommended and we

10   agreed that there would need to be some levee improvements

11   on the south levee of the Cross Canal and along the

12   Pleasant Grove Creek Canal, including perhaps building up

13   the low spot in the levee there at Sankey Road, an issue

14   that creates a lot of controversy in southern Sutter

15   County.

16             So we went forward with the Corps program.     It

17   was -- the Auburn Dam was defeated in the House in 1992.

18   And, as Rod indicates, at the last -- 11th hour during

19   that legislative session Congress adopted legislation

20   saying, in effect, to the Corps, "Proceed with the Natomas

21   project or credit or reimburse local sponsors for doing

22   so."   SAFCA took that initiative and in 1994 approved a

23   local project to proceed, with the understanding that we

24   would subsequently be reimbursed by the federal government

25   for our effort.

26             So let me just go through what we did.


28             MR. WASHBURN:   This first slide is looking south


 1   from -- would just about be Arcade Creek.     This is looking

 2   along the Natomas East Main Drain down forward the

 3   American River.   And basically our project consisted of

 4   raising the levees on the west side and the east side of

 5   the Natomas East Main Drain, most -- virtually always

 6   filling to the water side.     And our assumption in taking

 7   on this project incrementally was that we would design it

 8   to handle a flow of 180,000 in the American River.      And it

 9   was our analysis based on the hydrology of the American

10   River that that's about the maximum discharge that could

11   reach the lower part of the American River, even with very

12   high discharges out of Folsom, because there would be

13   levee failures upstream.     So that Natomas is naturally

14   protected, in effect, by the narrowness of the levees back

15   up in campus commons and along Cal State.     And so, you

16   know, it's unlikely even in a severe flood event that you

17   can get 180,000 -- more than 180,000 down to this lower

18   reach of the river.   So if we designed the system to

19   accommodate that, it would mean that Natomas would have a

20   very high level of flood protection from the American

21   River, and that's what we did.

22            But it required that we make these levees

23   significantly higher than what the Corps project depended

24   on in Auburn Dam had planned.     We made them about two feet

25   higher than the Corps.     The Corps had called for about a

26   one-foot raise, and we raised them about three feet, again

27   mostly to the -- by expanding to the water side.

28            Next.


 1                                --o0o--

 2              MR. WASHBURN:   Now we're looking upstream along

 3   the Natomas East Main Drain.     This is Arcade Creek here

 4   coming into the east main drain.       And, again, these are

 5   the levee improvements that we made expanding the

 6   footprint into the water side and raising the levees on

 7   both sides in the Natomas East Main.

 8              Next.

 9                                --o0o--

10              MR. WASHBURN:   Looking up Arcade Creek, it's one

11   of our classic urban creeks, very narrow, development is

12   allowed to approach very close to the creek.      It was very

13   hard to get these improvements in along Arcade Creek

14   because of its narrowness.     But, again, we went water

15   side, raised these levees about three feet all the way up

16   toward Hagginwood Park.     And some of the reaches up at the

17   end by Hagginwood Park we were forced to do flood wall

18   construction because there simply wasn't room to raise the

19   levees.

20              Next.

21                               --o0o--

22              MR. WASHBURN:   On the upper end of the NEMDC --

23   we're now looking south, from Dry Creek looking back south

24   on the Natomas East Main Drain.       This is an important

25   facility as part of the local project.      It's a pumping

26   station.    It's designed to prevent high water from getting

27   past this point.    Because as high water comes past here,

28   it has a potential to flood over into Natomas from the


 1   other side.     So this pump station prevents water from

 2   flooding any -- from going any further north than this,

 3   and it pumps water coming in to the pump station from the

 4   north, from drainage areas just north of Dry Creek.             It

 5   pumps those over in, and Dry Creek essentially becomes a

 6   vast holding basin for flood water in flood stage.

 7               Next.

 8               --o0o--

 9               MR. WASHBURN:     Here's a close look at the pump

10   station.     We had to make this a bigger pump station than

11   was designed by the Corps.        This is a thousand CFS pumping

12   station.     It has a capacity to go to 2,000 CFS.        We're

13   looking north.        This is the downstream end of it.    It

14   pumps water into the Dry Creek area from the north.

15               Next.

16                                   --o0o--

17               MR. WASHBURN:     This is looking -- there's the

18   pump station again.        And this is looking then out to Dry

19   Creek.     We had to create a new levee to the north side of

20   Dry Creek.     One didn't exist.     This is again to keep the

21   water from flooding into the Elk Horn/Elverta area here

22   north of Dry Creek.        So we constructed a new Dry Creek

23   levee that connects to the pump station here and pens the

24   water up in lower Dry Creek.

25               Next.

26                                   --o0o--

27               MR. WASHBURN:     And as you know, we've extended

28   the south levee of -- this is actually Robla Creek, on


 1   up -- off in the distance there and hardly visible is the

 2   Bell Aqua subdivision extending this levee up the south

 3   side of Robla Creek and constructing new levee to connect

 4   up to the south levee of the Magpie Creek Diversion

 5   Channel, again keeping all the water contained in lower

 6   Dry Creek, assuming high water surfaces in the American

 7   River and large flows out of Dry Creek.

 8              Now let me just speak -- so that's basically the

 9   project around the southeast corner.     I don't

10   unfortunately have photos up in the northern perimeter of

11   Natomas.    But we essentially opted to harden the levee

12   along the Pleasant Grove Creek to now where Sankey Road

13   came through and where Housley Road -- we did not raise

14   it.     We hardened it, in deference to community feelings up

15   in Sutter County there.    And we did not raise the levee on

16   the south side of the Cross Canal either.     We made it

17   strongly and fatter.    Again, in deference to Sutter

18   County, that did not want us to raise the south levee of

19   the Cross Canal without doing something about the north

20   canal.

21              I want to speak a little bit about environmental

22   features of the project.    I start here because one of the

23   great accomplishments of this project is we have in effect

24   secured a large open space corridor in lower Dry Creek

25   extending up into Sacramento county all the way to the

26   county line.

27              SAFCA has acquired over 800 acres of open space

28   here.    And this will be, we believe, Sacramento's next


 1   great open space parkway to the north of downtown,

 2   extending eventually all the way through Placer County and

 3   up to Folsom Lake and creating a six-mile loop, in a

 4   sense, between the American River Parkway, the Natomas

 5   East Main Drain, Dry Creek, and all the way up through

 6   Placer County.     So this is a major accomplishment in

 7   acquiring and beginning to manage this open space

 8   corridor.

 9                                --o0o--

10               MR. WASHBURN:   The other things that we did --

11   this is back down in the lower end by -- on the American

12   River Parkway.     This is a restoration project that we did

13   as part of our constructing the improvements on the east

14   and west side of the Natomas East Main Drain.      We

15   excavated 20 acres of what was a hayfield in the American

16   River Parkway which had an elevated -- ground surface

17   elevation due to hydraulic mining in the previous era.         We

18   lowered the land surface in order to bring plants in there

19   connected to the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal through

20   a culvert that will naturally spill in and spill out.

21   It's left open all the time.

22               Next slide.

23                                 --o0o--

24               MR. WASHBURN:   So this provided us with several

25   hundred yards of material for our levee improvement

26   project.     And then we restored it to a riparian and

27   seasonal wetland habitat, which you can see as you drive

28   over highway 160 on the right-hand side there.      Encourage


 1   you to go visit it.     We also built a new leg of the

 2   recreation trail around it.     It's a very popular area for

 3   folks to run and bike around this area.

 4              Next.

 5                                --o0o--

 6              MR. WASHBURN:   Then on the upper end north of our

 7   pumping station we excavated 800 yards of material from

 8   within the Natomas East Main Drain Channel here, and used

 9   that to build the north levee of Dry Creek.     And then we

10   have created an open space -- open water riparian and

11   seasonal wetland habitat here --

12              Next.

13                                --o0o--

14              MR. WASHBURN:   -- that looks something like this.

15   This is again a very nice environmental amenity up there.

16   It's got a lot of bird use and wildlife use in this area.

17   And it's very much appreciated by folks living in the area

18   in Valley View Acres and elsewhere in Natomas.     It's also

19   a key link in what is the emerging city's Way to Parkway

20   project.    It's a recreation trail running across along the

21   top of the east main drainage canal and connecting the

22   northern part of Natomas to the American River Parkway.

23              All right.   Let me go back to the slide and just

24   touch on a couple things Rod's talked about.

25                                --o0o--

26              MR. WASHBURN:   In pursuing reimbursement with the

27   Corps, we've basically done it in phases.     We agreed as a

28   first phase to look for reimbursement only for those


 1   features that were within the scope of the feasibility

 2   study and Chief's report that Corps presented to Congress

 3   in 1992 that assumed the construction of an Auburn Dam.

 4   And obviously a lesser footprint and a smaller project

 5   footprint than we actually built, but that was clearly

 6   within the scope of the 1993 Defense Appropriation Act,

 7   and the Corps agreed, "We could reimburse you at least for

 8   that much."

 9            Okay.    Subsequently we are working with the Corps

10   not necessarily to expand the authorization because we

11   think reimbursement is fully authorized, but to increase

12   the appropriation to include the project that we actually

13   built, arguing that the Corps would have done exactly what

14   we did, in fact; that if the Auburn Dam were not going to

15   be built, they would have designed this project as a cost

16   beneficial increment, assuming a 180,000 flow in the

17   American River.

18            Our job now in this second phase is to

19   demonstrate to the Corps that it is cost beneficial --

20   that it was cost beneficial in effect to do what we did.

21   We've provided that information, and it is, because not

22   only of the existing development in Natomas at the time we

23   started the project, but of course it is -- that

24   development is intensifying as we speak.    Since in 1997,

25   we did get the levees certified, the city was able to lift

26   it's residential moratorium, and that area is now subject

27   to fairly intense development.

28            Anyway, I think that's about all I have to say.


 1   I'm happy to answer any questions the Board may have.

 2            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you for a very

 3   complete report.

 4            (Laughter.)

 5            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     I don't know that we could

 6   have possibly have any questions.        But does anyone wish to

 7   ask Tim a question about this matter?

 8            VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:     I would.

 9            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Okay.     Gloria, go ahead.

10            VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:     I'd like to ask -- you

11   know, you've made those changes without approval from

12   anybody because it was essential to do the job, right.

13            MR. WASHBURN:    Yes.

14            VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:     How much more did it

15   cost.

16            MR. WASHBURN:    Did it cost SAFCA?

17            VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:     Uh-huh.

18            MR. WASHBURN:    Considerably more.      I mean we --

19   as rod indicated, I mean he said 81.3 million.        Well

20   that's -- and counting.    I mean we recognize that as we

21   made the project larger, one of our problems is how do we

22   get to the end of our hydraulic impacts upon landowners

23   living to the east of Natomas?     And we've been with this

24   Board and your predecessors on this issue.        Because as you

25   try to hold these waters, especially in Dry Creek, they

26   want to continue to sort of build up and spill further to

27   the north and the east.    And we have had difficulty with

28   this Board and with your predecessor coming to an


 1   understanding of what's reasonable and appropriate for

 2   downstream landowners protecting themselves, what are

 3   their obligations and duties with respect to upstream

 4   landowners who may suffer some incremental damage as a

 5   result of our project?    And so we've had to expand the

 6   scope of the project.     We've built a much larger project

 7   in south Dry Creek than we ever anticipated.       And so the

 8   project has indeed cost us a lot more than it was

 9   estimated to cost by the Corps back in 1992.

10             Now, we've been able to afford those costs, let's

11   be honest.   We've been able to forward those costs because

12   the protected properties are developing and people are

13   moving into the area and they're sharing that burden, and

14   they are the people who are making it possible to do.

15             That PRESIDENT MARCHAND:      Well, and also you --

16   it is a priority for the elected officials in the city and

17   county.

18             MR. WASHBURN:   Absolutely.

19             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   All right.     Are there more

20   questions?

21             VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:    Thank you.

22             BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:   Tim, we've been over this.

23   So just a little -- every detail on this.       And, as you

24   know, I'll hold my nose when I vote yes on this.

25             MR. WASHBURN:   I appreciate that.

26             BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:    The one issue that never was

27   satisfactorily resolved when we talked the last time is

28   the impact of upstream development on these creeks, in


 1   particular, Dry, Robla and Arcade Creek.       And at the time,

 2   I think -- wasn't it a year ago we reviewed this?

 3              MR. WASHBURN:   Right.

 4              BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:      You were trying to work out

 5   agreements upstream, and that you weren't having a lot of

 6   success.

 7              MR. WASHBURN:   Well, we are working right now

 8   with Placer County.    Placer County has an adopted plan of

 9   flood protection, along with Sacramento County, for

10   creating regional detention in Placer County to knock off

11   peak flows out of Placer County that would otherwise

12   arrive down in Dry Creek.

13              However, I would say this:     In these very large

14   floods -- and we have built that project in lower Dry

15   Creek to handle very large floods.       In those very large

16   floods, the ground in the upper watershed is

17   super-saturated.    And so the impact of upstream

18   development becomes more and more attenuated the larger

19   and larger the flood.      So peak flood management is less

20   and less a problem the bigger the project we built.

21              And so while we are working actively with Placer

22   County to create those upstream detention facilities --

23   and right now they're looking at off-stream detention that

24   would have environmental and perhaps recreational

25   benefits, a whole series of sites they're looking at, on

26   Miners Ravine and Secret Ravine -- we feel pretty

27   comfortable that even with a maximum build-out program in

28   Placer County, we've built our levees in lower Dry Creek


 1   large enough to handle, in our belief, what we now

 2   calculate to be something on the order of a 400-year flood

 3   in Dry Creek.

 4             So, you know, and in that magnitude again the

 5   effect of upstream development becomes more and more

 6   attenuated.     It is an issue for the low flows and for the,

 7   you know, operation, maintenance and other issues, but not

 8   so much for handling peak flood and very large flows.

 9             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     All right.

10             Bill.

11             BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:     Tim, obviously I'm, you

12   know, well familiar with this project.

13             MR. WASHBURN:     Yes, Bill.

14             BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:     And all the features and so

15   on.   But there's -- you know, there's a little process

16   question here.    When we were fighting the war in 1992, as

17   you pointed out, at the 11th hour the common features were

18   separated and so on.      And we subsequently developed a

19   memorandum of understanding with the Corps that we would

20   apply for reimbursement and we're only applying in this

21   case for reimbursement for what the feasibility report

22   shows.

23             MR. WASHBURN:     That's correct.

24             BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:     We've tried to get others,

25   but that's what this is.

26             MR. WASHBURN:     That's right.

27             BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:     Okay.   Now, on the State's

28   side, I guess the question is why didn't we come to the


 1   Rec Board to get the same kind of memorandum of

 2   understanding at that time?      We got the legislation.         But

 3   this is really the first time that the Rec Board has heard

 4   this.

 5              MR. WASHBURN:   I understand.        Well, the Rec

 6   Board --

 7              BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:      And, you know, everybody had

 8   the understanding that we would try to get state

 9   reimbursement.    There was no question -- we have

10   legislation that authorizes that.           But really the Rec

11   Board's kind of a tad late here.        I mean the thing's done.

12   And, you know, everybody assumes that it's going to be.

13   But, I mean, that's not a good process.

14              MR. WASHBURN:   No, it isn't.

15              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:      How are we going to change

16   that in the future, Tim?

17              MR. WASHBURN:   Well, we are engaged now.         And so,

18   you know, the next phase you're going to be engaged with

19   us and the Corps in discussing, you know, what's the

20   prospect for including the State in reimbursement on the

21   next phase.

22              BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:      Okay.     So that would be like

23   we do with a local cost-sharing agreement?

24              MR. WASHBURN:   Right.

25              BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:      We'd do it the same way

26   instead of this kind of --

27              MR. WASHBURN:   The same way.        Right.   I mean we

28   really should have brought that federal plan and should


 1   have had the Rec Board integrally involved in the

 2   negotiations with the Corps.         And we just didn't.     I mean

 3   it was an oversight on our part.

 4               BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:      Yeah, okay.     That's a little

 5   bothersome, but --

 6               MR. WASHBURN:   Yeah, I agree.

 7               BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:      Okay.     Thanks.

 8               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:      Okay.     Any more questions,


10               VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:      Just a comment please.

11               You know, I can appreciate -- I think the project

12   is great and we do appreciate it.            But I think the past

13   year and a half there's certain instances where this

14   occurs, that the Reclamation Board is not given notice or

15   is not part of the process.       I think it's about time that

16   we get really -- you know, work with everybody that's

17   working on different projects.         Because if ever one of

18   those projects doesn't turn out to be as good as what

19   you've done and there's conflict, we will be part of the

20   conflict and we're going to take the hit for it.

21               MR. WASHBURN:   Right.

22               VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:      I think it's very

23   inappropriate when any projects are done and consideration

24   is not put before the Board, just as some other processes

25   that have taken place here.       And we hope that we can work

26   in a better way.

27               MR. WASHBURN:   Let me speak to that, because I

28   think that we are actively attempting to correct that


 1   relationship, especially along the Sacramento River which

 2   is emerging as next problem to be addressed.        We know we

 3   have some underseepage issues there.       We know that the

 4   prospects for underseepage are affected by water surface

 5   elevations in the Sacramento River.       And as I will be up

 6   before you later in connection with the comprehensive

 7   study, we are actively working with the Reclamation Board

 8   to see what we can do about better controlling flows in

 9   the Sacramento River.     And we are working with you of

10   course in the Sacramento River Planning Forum.

11            So we are engaged with you.       What we do in the

12   planning forum and in the regional project and the

13   comprehensive study will have a huge impact on Natomas.

14   And in fact the money that we hope you will agree to

15   reimburse us, we are turning around and investing in a

16   study that our Board has authorized to carry that Lower

17   Sacramento Regional Project forward.       I will speak to you

18   later about that.     But, you know, I think we are actively

19   engaged with you along the Sacramento River.        And that

20   will have a huge impact on the future of Natomas.

21            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     That's true.     I think that's

22   a fair statement.

23            All right.     Are there more comment?

24            All right.     Thank you, Tim.    Stay close.

25            Rob, did you want to finish on this quickly?


27   Yes, I would.   Thank you.    I would like to respond to

28   these concerns about SAFCA getting ahead of the Board.


 1            The Board had no state authorization for this

 2   project until the Year 2000.     SAFCA, not willing to wait

 3   forever for the Board to come on board and have the State

 4   authorization to participate, actually signed this

 5   memorandum of agreement with the Corps in 1999.        You may

 6   recall during that period, '98, '99, 2000, there were a

 7   number of state/federal projects that were held up because

 8   the Legislature was unwilling to authorize new projects.

 9   And this was the result of that.

10            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thanks for that

11   clarification.     That was helpful.

12            I think it's time to move on.

13            The needed action here is to approve Resolution

14   23-02.

15            Do we have a motion?

16            BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:     I would move resolution

17   23-02.

18            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Do we have a second?

19            VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:        Second.

20            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     It's been moved by Bill,

21   seconded by Gloria to approve Resolution 23-02.

22            Is there any further discussion?

23            All those in favor say aye.

24            (Ayes.)

25            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Opposed?

26            Motion carried.

27            All right.     Very good.     And that one's completed.

28            Now, we're going to try to do 8B and C and then


 1   have I short break and then do the comp study.

 2             But on items 8B and C on the agenda, let's see if

 3   we can move those quickly.      So if you're participating in

 4   those, please come right to the point in your comments.

 5             If you wish to make a comment before the Board,

 6   please fill out a card in the back and give it to our

 7   clerk.

 8             Would you introduce Item 8B, Mr. Bradley.

 9             CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:     Good morning.     For the

10   record, I'm Steve Bradley, Chief Engineer to the

11   Reclamation Board.   I'm going to be discussing Permit

12   17508, which is a request to authorize the Rio City Cafe.

13   This is a long string of permits associated with Old

14   Sacramento.   And basically we are covering some details

15   that have preceded us in permitting issues.

16             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     I'm sorry.    We're going to

17   just do something different than I just said.        We're going

18   to have a recess right now because staff needs it for

19   technical reasons.   And so we will have a 10-minute

20   recess -- I'm sorry, Steve, very sorry -- while they do

21   whatever they do with those computer things.        Okay?

22             A 10-minute recess.

23             (Thereupon a recess was taken.).

24             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Ladies and gentlemen, we're

25   going to resume the meeting.      Would everybody try to find

26   a seat so that we can get going.

27             Ladies and gentlemen, would you please find your

28   seats.   We're going to get going.     Tell the people out in


 1   the hallway they can come in if they want.

 2               I would ask you to please take your seat and stop

 3   talking.

 4               Thank you.

 5               My Christmas spirit's running thin.       Ho, ho, ho,

 6   right.

 7               All right.    Mr. Bradley, please start again.       And

 8   I'm so sorry again.        I apologize.

 9               CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:       Again, for the record,

10   I'm Steve Bradley, Chief Engineer for the Reclamation

11   Board.     And we're going to be asking you to consider

12   Application 17508 to authorize the conversion of an

13   existing structure for use as a restaurant.          This has

14   already occurred.        And so this is an after-the-fact

15   consideration.

16               To get you oriented, the restaurant is in Old

17   Sacramento.     This right here is the Rio City Cafe.        Oh,

18   wait.

19               Yeah, right here is the Rio City Cafe.       This is

20   Sacramento River, Tower Bridge Capitol Avenue, L Street, J

21   Street right here.       And one of the main drags through

22   here.    The railroad goes right through here.        This

23   building is the Rio City Cafe, over here, this small

24   building.     Also associated with the Rio City Cafe permit

25   is the small building -- another small commercial

26   building.

27               These buildings were originally proposed as part

28   of an old Sacramento River master plan for the historic


 1   area of Sacramento.     They were designed to represent an

 2   1850's warehouse.     The small building was the steamship

 3   ticket representation building for selling tickets for

 4   steamships.

 5              (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

 6              Presented as follows.)

 7              CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:     And the permit in

 8   general authorized other things.       There was the flood wall

 9   that went in here.    There was some bank protection and

10   other details that were associated with this permit.

11              The original permit basically was issued by the

12   Board.    It was Permit 13589.   And I believe that was

13   authorized by the Board; not by the General Manager, but

14   by the Board in 1983.

15              There was about -- the original master plan was

16   started in '63.    And for a period of between '63 and 1980

17   there was a lot of proposals and back and forth work on

18   developing the master plan, which was finally approved in

19   1980.    And then the city of Sacramento proceeded with

20   implementation of that plan under the Rec Board Permit of

21   13589.

22              Under 13589 there were a lot of features.       And a

23   lot of them hadn't been completely designed out.       They

24   knew they were going to do certain things.       So that permit

25   required the city to coordinate with the Board as these

26   features were to be implemented.       And this process broke

27   down somewhere along the way.       I'm sure there's plenty of

28   blame to go around between both city and Board staff on


 1   this in past history.

 2            And so part of this that -- the original building

 3   that is now the Rio City Cafe was to be constructed --

 4   like I said, it looked like a warehouse, but it was

 5   constructed for use as a museum.     And that was its

 6   original intended purpose.     And prior to being

 7   completed -- I don't believe it was ever used as a

 8   museum -- it was sold and turned into a restaurant.

 9            The construction of the warehouse was actually

10   permitted for the museum.     But the conversion to the

11   restaurant was not.     According to the regulations,

12   restaurant is a habitable structure in the floodway; and,

13   therefore, it is being brought to the Board for

14   consideration as to authorize this permit.

15            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Okay.   I think that we

16   understand the situation.

17            CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:     You want to see more?     I

18   have several slides here if you'd like to take a look at

19   them or not.

20            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     I would like to move along,

21   unless Board members want to see more slides.       Probably

22   everybody's eaten in the restaurant.

23            (Laughter.)

24            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     The present staff, no

25   present Board, were not involved in any of these past

26   activities.    And I do have one question.    Is it clear to

27   the city of Sacramento and to SAFCA and to the

28   redevelopment agency what's needed in the way of permits


 1   now?

 2             CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:    Yes, it is.   There's two

 3   other permits besides the Rio City Cafe.      There's a permit

 4   that's currently going on right here.      It was originally

 5   Gordon Beirsch Brewery.   They pulled out.     The city spent

 6   about four additional years getting another restaurant --

 7   or another vendor, I guess you might call them, to come in

 8   there.   Joe's Crab Shack is now under construction there.

 9   They were constructing under variances issued by myself to

10   work during the flood season, until just last week when

11   they pulled out all their things due to the expected high

12   water.

13             That was a permit that has been issued by the

14   Board.   That was issued I believe in 1998.

15             At the same time there's a permit just upstream

16   of the Rio City Cafe for a restaurant called the

17   Sacramento Fish Market.   That permit was never

18   implemented.   There no pilings that were ever driven for

19   that.    The city -- and I believe -- just handed out their

20   letter -- has agreed to withdraw that permit.      And so in

21   keeping with no new structures at least in the floodway,

22   the city has cooperated with that and has withdrawn the

23   permit for that restaurant.     And they're proceeding with

24   the one that was already authorized and where work had

25   occurred implementing the permit essentially by driving in

26   the piles in that area.

27             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    Thanks.

28             Anymore questions?


 1            No.

 2            We need a motion on item 8B, which is to

 3   approve --

 4            BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:     Actually I would like to

 5   discuss it.

 6            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Sure.     Go ahead.

 7            BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:     Steve, we had a lot of

 8   discussion about another project which involved putting

 9   things in the river recently.     So what you're telling me

10   is these pilings were driven for the other project, the

11   project that we're proposing to approve here, which is the

12   Joe's Crab Shack, and they were under a permit that this

13   Board authorized when?     How long ago was that?

14            CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:        1998.

15            BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:     '98.     So that really wasn't

16   all that long ago.

17            CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:        No, it was not.

18            BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:     Did that come for discussion

19   before the Board, or was a permit that was simply granted?

20   It did require a variance is what I guess I missed --

21            CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:        That permit did not come

22   before the Board.    It was issued through the General

23   Manager at the time.

24            BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:     Okay.     Well, I've only been

25   on the Board for a couple years.        Personally I would have

26   liked to have seen that.     I don't -- I can't imagine that

27   anything like that would not come before Board again,

28   especially on the Sacramento River.


 1               CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:     I would hope not.

 2               BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:     Yeah.   As a Board member, I

 3   would request not specifically.

 4               And actually I would probably oppose the project

 5   in the beginning for the very reasons I've opposed

 6   previous projects.     So I mean I just want to make that

 7   really, really, really clear that one Board member would

 8   sure like to see these things come before the Board in the

 9   future at all times relative to the Sacramento River.

10               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     I think that's an important

11   point.     And I don't think anybody disagrees with you.

12               Tony.

13               BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     Yeah, I have a -- I want

14   to echo that thought, because I'm going to vote against

15   it, Steve.     I just cannot in good faith vote for it.      And

16   it seems kind of silly to vote at something that's already

17   in place.     That bothers me to no end.      Voting no on

18   something that's there is an exercise futility.

19               So because of that, because of that I'm going to

20   abstain.     And I hope that little abstention will send a

21   message that this obscure Board, as per the Sacramento

22   Bee, this obscure Board is not going to stand anymore for

23   having heard it's an oversight or an oversight on our part

24   or something of that nature.

25               After the fact just doesn't sit well with me.

26   There Board does have the power to grant a variance.            But

27   that variance should not be anticipated after the fact.

28   And I have a hunch that anything like that comes before


 1   this Board again, it will be turned down.

 2               CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:   The regulations actually

 3   require certain types of projects to come before the

 4   Board, and habitable structures is one of those.        There's

 5   been differences of opinion on that in the past.        I have a

 6   pretty strong view.     I went and reviewed the regulations a

 7   couple of times, and that talks about dwellings.        But in

 8   my reading of that, it is any time you are encouraging

 9   something that brings people into the floodway, then the

10   Board ought to take a pretty hard look at that.

11               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Sounds like a very good way

12   to go.

13               Gloria, did you --

14               VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:   Yes.    I'd like to make a

15   comment.     You know, I find this to be kind of a double

16   standard.     We've had other projects come before us that

17   may or may not be good for the city of Fresno -- I mean --

18   oops, I'm home.

19               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Careful there, Gloria.

20               VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:   Yeah.    -- for

21   Sacramento.     However, I'm beginning to feel like we use

22   certain rules for certain groups or certain projects and

23   we use a different standard for other ones.       I think

24   that's very inappropriate, totally unfair.       This Board has

25   a responsibility to the general public.       And in doing

26   that, it doesn't allow us to do our job.       And it goes

27   hand-in-hand with the previous project that had all those

28   changes made.     The changes may be great.     However, there's


 1   a process.     And I think we've said it many times, and I'm

 2   just reiterating what we, the group, here has said.         And I

 3   just find it very unfair.      I want the record to reflect

 4   that.

 5               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Thank you, Gloria.

 6               Bill.

 7               BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:   I think there is a

 8   distinction here, and I think Dr. Mount indicated what it

 9   was.    This is a permit, notwithstanding it didn't come

10   before the Board, that was approved by the State, it was

11   approved by the General Manager.      And local government

12   relied on that as an entitlement and proceeded on that.         I

13   think the construction is in place.      The city has now

14   withdrawn application for the other restaurant, which

15   essentially is a no-net loss policy or whatever you want

16   to call it.

17               But I think there is a distinction that can be

18   made with this, which is an existing facility that did

19   have a permit.      It's not a situation where it didn't have

20   a permit.     And they did do what they were told to do when

21   the General Manager approved it.      So I think there is a

22   distension between this one and the one we heard before.

23   It's not a new one.      I think it's fairly clear, at least I

24   hope it is, that the Board and the staff have made it

25   clear that any new development in the floodway is going to

26   be looked upon with not very favorable viewpoints either

27   by the staff and so on.      But I don't think this is that

28   situation, to be honest with you.


 1             CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:     I'd like to clarify a

 2   couple of things.     The Rio City Cafe, the structure, was

 3   authorized by the Board.     The conversion to the restaurant

 4   was not authorized by the General Manager or the Board.

 5   So the structure itself was authorized by the Board.        But

 6   the General Manager authorized previously with the

 7   restaurants, Joe's Crab Shack and the Sacramento Fish

 8   Market, and those did not come before the Board.

 9             Sacramento Fish Market is being withdrawn by the

10   city.    Joe's Crab Shack, which had already started --

11   actually it activated the application.       There is a

12   condition in our applications, if no work is done with one

13   year, then typically we void that permit.

14             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    Okay.   Well, it's a little

15   murky there.     But I think you've laid it our pretty good

16   of what the situation is.     It is there.    They thought they

17   had a permit, but they didn't.      It should have come to the

18   Board.   None of us were here, none of the staff was there.

19   So let's move on.

20             What do you want to do about this?

21             BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:    I'd move approval.

22             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    Is there a second?

23             SECRETARY BUNDY:    I'll second it.

24             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    It's been moved by Bill,

25   seconded by Burt to approve Item 8B, Application Number

26   17508.

27             Is there any further discussion?

28             Yes.


 1              SECRETARY BUNDY:     I would comment.     I do share

 2   the concerns that have been expressed by some of the Board

 3   members here.      I will move forward with this one because I

 4   do believe that it is an existing permit and will move

 5   forward.     But I do share those very same concerns and echo

 6   that.

 7              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Well, I do too.     And I think

 8   the little discussion we had here about putting things

 9   with people in the floodway needs to be taken to heart by

10   everybody.

11              Okay.     Any further discussion?

12              All those in favor say aye.

13              (Ayes.)

14              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Opposed?

15              Motion carried.

16              BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     Abstain.

17              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Two abstention.

18              Let's see.     We have four "yes," so that passes.

19   Four yes and two abstention.       Okay.

20              All right.     The next one, 8C.

21              Who's making this presentation?

22              Welcome, Boone.

23              If you want to make a comment on this, be sure

24   you have a card in to the clerk.

25              Let's make this as brief as possible.

26              We don't want to rush anybody.       But I also think

27   that we need to keep the meeting moving.

28              Do we have more trouble over there with the sound


 1   system?

 2              MR. LEK:   Good morning, Madam President, members

 3   of the Board, and Mr. General Manager.     My name is Boone

 4   Lek and I'm an engineer with the Division of Flood

 5   Management.

 6              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   And Merry Christmas to you,

 7   Boone.

 8              MR. LEK:   Merry Christmas to you.

 9              And today I will be presenting to you application

10   number 17497.

11                               --o0o--

12              MR. LEK:   The topics that I will be discussing

13   today includes the application, description, the

14   background information, and staff recommendation.

15                                --o0o--

16              MR. LEK:   The application again is the numbers

17   17497.    Application was submitted by Wickland Pipelines

18   LLC.

19                                --o0o--

20              MR. LEK:   A little bit more description on the

21   proposed project, is a jet fuel pipeline proposed to be

22   buried underground.     It's a 12-inch diameter pipe.   It's

23   approximately 10 miles long in total distance.     Starts

24   from the city of West Sacramento and terminates at the

25   Sacramento International Airport.

26              In terms of being within the adopted plan of

27   flood control, the alignment crosses under the Yolo

28   Bypass, the Sacramento Bypass, the Sacramento River and


 1   their levees.

 2                                --o0o--

 3              MR. LEK:   Figure 1 here shows you that alignment.

 4   Here's the city of west Sacramento up north.      And this

 5   alignment -- the north is to the right of the picture.           So

 6   you have in dotted line is the alignment of the proposed

 7   project.    Again it starts from the city of Sacramento

 8   between the West Capital Avenue and the Union Pacific

 9   Railroad, crosses under the Union Pacific Railroad, and

10   follows along part of the Yolo Bypass, under the

11   Sacramento Bypass, into Reclamation District 785 on the

12   west side of the back levee here.      And then it crosses

13   under the Yolo Shortline Railroad and into RD 537.         And

14   then it turns in a southerly direction for about half a

15   mile and then crosses under the Sacramento River and then

16   follows along Power Line Road until it crosses I-5, and

17   then roughly about one mile it turns west and terminates

18   between the two runways of the Sacramento International

19   Airport.

20                                --o0o--

21              MR. LEK:   This pipeline will eliminate the need

22   for tanker trucks as a means of transport.

23                                --o0o--

24              MR. LEK:   Some background information.   The

25   California Code of Regulations Title 23, Article 3,

26   Section 7, states that an application must be endorsed by

27   the agency responsible for maintenance of the levees

28   within the area of the proposed work.


 1                               --o0o--

 2            MR. LEK:   And in this case we have four

 3   reclamation districts that are involved.     You have -- it

 4   starts win Reclamation District 900 and enters into

 5   Reclamation District 537 -- actually it gets into the Yolo

 6   Bypass and then gets into Reclamation 785 and then into

 7   Reclamation 537 before it gets into Reclamation 1000.

 8                               --o0o--

 9            MR. LEK:   The Board staff has received

10   endorsements from all four agencies.     Our Reclamation

11   District 900 and 1,000 have endorsed without conditions.

12                               --o0o--

13            MR. LEK:   Reclamation District 537 and 785 also

14   have endorsed, but with conditions.    And staff has

15   reviewed those conditions and determined that the

16   outstanding and unresolved conditions are not related to

17   the protection of an adopted plan of flood control.        The

18   staff has actually facilitated a meeting between the

19   applicant Wickland Pipelines and all four districts.

20   Reclamation District did not attend since they had already

21   endorsed without conditions.

22            The applicant did come to an agreement with

23   Reclamation District 537.   However, the meeting ended

24   without an agreement on endorsement conditions between the

25   applicant and Reclamation District 785.

26            BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:   What was that?    I didn't

27   quite understand that.

28            MR. LEK:   Staff have facilitated a meeting in


 1   the --

 2             BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:    Yeah, got that.

 3             MR. LEK:    And Reclamation District 537 and the

 4   applicant has come to an agreement regarding the

 5   endorsement conditions.

 6             BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:    And that's basically the 8

 7   feet or 6 feet or whatever it is?

 8             MR. LEK:    And also others that were listed in the

 9   attachment that was in the report.

10             BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:    Okay.   So the applicant and

11   the Reclamation District 537 have agreed?

12             MR. LEK:    Yes.

13             BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:    Okay.   Now what did you say

14   was a disagreement?

15             MR. LEK:    And the disagreement is still between

16   the applicant and Reclamation District 785.

17             BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:    Okay.   So the applicant has

18   agreed.   There's no disagreement between 537 and 785,

19   right?

20             MR. LEK:    There may be, and you may have the

21   parties addressing that after my presentation.

22             BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:    Okay.

23             MR. LEK:    And, again, the unresolved conditions

24   are not related to the protection of an adopted plan of

25   flood control.

26             At this time staff is recommending the following:

27                                --o0o--

28             MR. LEK:    And that the Board approve the staff


 1   not take into account local maintaining agency endorsement

 2   conditions that are not related to protection of the

 3   adopted plan of flood control during the preparation of

 4   permit number 17497.    And also that the Board delegate to

 5   the General Manager the authority to approve the final

 6   permit.

 7             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   I don't quite understand

 8   that first recommendation there.

 9             MR. LEK:   Okay.

10             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Are you saying that you are

11   recommending approval of the permit?

12             MR. LEK:   We are not at this time.     The

13   recommendation that I'm presenting to you today is

14   slightly different from that that was presented in the

15   staff report.

16             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Okay.     Thank you.

17             VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:   Madam Chair?

18             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Gloria.

19             VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:   You know, what are the

20   issues that are not being agreed upon by 785 in the

21   permit?

22             MR. LEK:   As I understand it, currently the still

23   unresolved endorsement condition involves the location of

24   the pipeline within Reclamation District 785's boundary on

25   the west side of the back levee that was in that figure.

26             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Perhaps there's some people

27   here that will speak to that later.

28             MR. LEK:   And let me make a point, that that


 1   levee here, the back levee is a nonproject levee.

 2               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Okay.   Any more questions?

 3               BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:     I have one.

 4               If we approve this permit, let's assume that we

 5   approve it, does that override the local reclamation

 6   district's authority, or what does it do?

 7               MR. LEK:     I would defer the question to Chief

 8   Engineer.

 9               CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:     No, what the regulation

10   requires, that we get an endorsement from the local

11   maintaining agency.        We do not have to consider that

12   endorsement, necessarily.        But if we don't, then the Board

13   has to hear it.

14               The conditions that have been added to the

15   endorsement are not related to the adopted plan of flood

16   control, which is what you were charged with regulating or

17   issuing a permit for.        The back levee is not part of the

18   Sacramento River flood control project.           It is a local

19   levee.   The conditions between 537 and 785 or between 785

20   and Wickland Oil are their condition -- or their problems

21   to solve independently of this Board.

22               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Okay.   Is there any legal

23   reason why we can't approve this permit?

24               CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:     No.   It says -- in the

25   regulations it says you do not have to -- they can give

26   you conditions.        You do not have to abide by them.     So

27   it's your decision in the end.

28               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     All right.


 1             BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:     Well, what happens though,

 2   Steve?   Let's assume that we go ahead and approve it.         And

 3   does the local reclamation districts -- can they prevent

 4   the line being put in until they get agreement with the

 5   applicant?

 6             CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:     They have the same

 7   rights they would always have.      I presume that if they do

 8   not come to agreement -- Wickland I believe has

 9   condemnation authority for this as a public service type

10   thing.   They settle it legally.     But it's not a flood

11   control issue that's out there.

12             Does that make sense?

13             VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:     No.

14             May I ask a question?

15             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Um-hmm.

16             VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ: So if it's not flood

17   control issues so we have no authority, what happens if

18   there is a problem that comes out of it?        We will be part

19   of a legal battle, is that correct?

20             CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:     Not if it's outside the

21   jurisdiction of the Board.

22             VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:     Okay.

23             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     I think that there's some

24   questions here that are going to come up that hopefully

25   Wickland will address also.     And the legal aspects here, I

26   understand their attorney is here.

27             Let's just take some testimony and see if we

28   can't clarify this.


 1             Thanks, Boone.     But stay close.

 2             All right.    I have a card from Roy Wickland.           And

 3   so you want to come up, Mr. Wickland, and see if you can

 4   clarify this issue quickly.

 5             MR. Wickland:     Good morning.   I'll try.

 6             My name is Roy Wickland representing the

 7   applicant.   I think the staff has explained what the

 8   project is all about.      And I might point out a couple of

 9   other things quickly.

10             This is a much safer and more reliable and more

11   cost-effective way of moving fuel to the airport.

12   Currently fuel originates in the San Francisco Bay Area

13   and is shipped to West Sacramento by pipeline, and then

14   it's hauled by truck out to the airport.        This would

15   eliminate the trucks.

16             Sacramento International Airport is one of only

17   two major airports in the country that still receives

18   their fuel by truck.      And it is a security and safety

19   issue.   They want to get these trucks off the airport.

20   They're bringing trucks loaded with fuel on to the secured

21   area of the airport.      So it is a project that is vital for

22   that purpose and the future growth of the airport.

23             Wickland has been working on this a couple of

24   years -- a number of years.      We've received all permits

25   and full support of all the federal agencies, all local

26   agencies, all state agencies, with the exception of this

27   Board.   This is the last permit we need to obtain.          And

28   our objective is to have this facility built and completed


 1   this summer along with a tank farm that is being built by

 2   the airlines and service Sacramento Airport out at the

 3   airport.

 4              As staff mentioned, we support the staff's

 5   recommendation, would ask the Board to approve this today.

 6   And we'd also ask the Board to request of staff to help us

 7   solve the differences between the two reclamation

 8   districts.

 9              The difference is that Reclamation District 537

10   would like to see this pipeline built 50 feet away from

11   the toe of their levee even though that means it's in

12   785's district; 785 would like to see the pipeline close

13   to the toe of the levee -- or closer to the toe of the

14   levee.     And that's the dilemma.   It is not an issue this

15   Board should be dealing with, but we would like some

16   assistance.     We're sort of -- we are caught between a rock

17   and a hard spot.

18              Of the two recommendations we support 537's

19   because on the surface the merits seem to say that's the

20   better way to build this, 50 feet away from the toe of the

21   levee, to allow them to provide future maintenance and

22   expansion of that levee if necessary.     So we would like to

23   see that as the -- or some other compromise.     But of the

24   two, that's the one we support.

25              I quickly went through this, but that's the long

26   and the short of the issues.     We do have the power to

27   condemn.     We've been able to work with all the local

28   property owners and have not had to use that power, and


 1   prefer not to do that.        We'd like to work this out with

 2   the district.     But I think the first step would be to see

 3   if the staff could help us do that.

 4               Any questions?

 5               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     There may be some, so stay

 6   close.

 7               I understand that Mr. David Aladjem, you are

 8   next.     And are you the attorney --

 9               MR. ALADJEM:     I'm the attorney, Madam president,

10   for RD 537.

11               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     All right.

12               MR. ALADJEM:     And in the interest of time, I'd be

13   glad just to take any questions.        Our position has been

14   stated by Mr. Wickland quite well.          We are endorsing the

15   permit.     We have an issue with the location of the

16   pipeline.     We'd like it to be 50 feet away from the levee

17   because we have some plans to be extending that levee.              We

18   think it's just poor public policy to put a jet-fuel

19   pipeline underneath a levee that's going to have to be

20   expanded, and then eventually have to move that pipeline.

21               I'd be glad to take any questions.

22               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Okay.    Are there any

23   questions?

24               Stay close.    There may be.

25               And then we have also Mr. William Mattos.

26               And, Mr. Mattos, I understand you're from RD 785.

27               MR. MATTOS:    Yes, ma'am, I am.      And I thank you

28   for the opportunity to present our case to the Board.


 1              Our position --

 2              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   State your name the record

 3   William.

 4              MR. MATTOS:   Oh, it's William Mattos.    I'm

 5   President for Reclamation District 785.

 6              We, first of all, would like to say that we

 7   endorse the project on its merits.     Also as an assistant

 8   fire chief with Elkhorn, we feel the need to get the fuel

 9   trucks off and everything else.     But we've had -- we've

10   taken the position that their depth creates a problem for

11   us.

12              And in the endorsement of the project we'd like

13   the Board to give special consideration to your General

14   Condition 9, which gives our district the authority to

15   also make recommendations within our district.       And one of

16   the conditions that the State has in the permit -- and

17   it's a Special Condition 32 where they have required the

18   pipeline to be buried with a minimum of six feet of cover,

19   and that the Sacramento Bypass is also an exception to

20   what I was presented as, as Mr. Wickland puts it, the

21   typical depths that are in general.     In other words, I --

22   and bear with me just one moment.     I was sent a copy from

23   a Gas Systems Engineering, Incorporated, which gave me the

24   guidelines or regulations from the Federal Pipeline Safety

25   Regulations CFR 49 Part 195, Section 195.246.       And in that

26   it had the guidelines for burying pipes.

27              But I noted that in the State's conditions, even

28   though the crossings of inland bodies of water is a width


 1   of 100 from high water mark to high water mark, the

 2   federal regulations is only 4 feet.        And yet the State

 3   felt it necessary that through the portion of the

 4   Sacramento Bypass that it was necessary to bury at 6 feet.

 5   Obviously they had concerns about the federal regulations,

 6   as we do.

 7               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     How many feet deep do you

 8   all want?

 9               MR. MATTOS:     Well, initially Wickland's plans had

10   said a typical six feet.        During our first meeting on

11   August 27th the typical was five to six feet.        Things

12   started to change.        We brought that to their attention.

13   They have agreed to six.        But also part of that same

14   federal regulation there is a part -- Section 195 where it

15   says, "Installation of pipe in a ditch."        It says, "All

16   pipe installed in a ditch must be installed in a manner

17   that minimizes the introduction of secondary stresses and

18   the possibility of damage to the pipe."        I'm assuming that

19   the increased depth that the State has required over and

20   above the federal regulations through the Sacramento

21   bypass has been done for the same purposes that we would

22   like to see it lowered an additional two feet, to eight

23   feet through our district and only through our district.

24   If 537 agrees to six, that's fine with us.        We just want

25   to prevent any potential risk within our district of

26   damaging to the pipes since we are a district where all

27   the property is farmed.

28               And as well -- I listened to a lot of comments


 1   from Wickland Oil Company and their people where typically

 2   they have had no problems.        Yet as an assistant fire chief

 3   at Elkhorn, approximately eight to nine years ago there

 4   was an instance right along the north side of the

 5   Sacramento -- or it's the -- I forget the railroad there.

 6   It's the one that is right there where they tap into RD

 7   937.    There actually was where they punctured one of those

 8   gas lines because it was typically installed at those

 9   depths.     So we would like to prevent that from a health

10   and safety standpoint.       And, again, we would endorse the

11   project as long as Wickland would give consideration to

12   our concerns.

13               And the only other issue I have to address here

14   is that, initially we had a meeting with 537.         Their

15   concern was that for future development of what they

16   consider the back levee, they wanted to do a setback of 50

17   feet.     And we -- after a Board meeting we agreed to those

18   terms if in fact 537 would endorse the additional depth of

19   two feet to prevent any problems within our district.           537

20   has no jurisdiction to make that request within our

21   district.     They have no easements, rights of way, and

22   their property stops at -- some times not even at the toe

23   of the levee.     So I would feel that the Board would be

24   hard pressed to endorse 537's request to put restrictions

25   into a district where they have no rights whatsoever.           And

26   that would be a precedent I don't think we'd want to

27   establish here.     But --

28               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Okay.   Mr. Mattos, I'm going


 1   to make a suggestion and ask you a question.

 2              Are you and the chap from the other reclamation

 3   district willing to participate in a meeting that our

 4   staff would facilitate, and only facilitate because we

 5   don't have any -- as they say, we don't have a dog in this

 6   fight really.     But the question is that it's clear there

 7   needs to be some kind of facilitation here, getting the

 8   parties together, because this is a project that has

 9   region-wide support and it is, in fact, a plus for the

10   whole area.     So we have to work this out, right?

11              MR. MATTOS:   Yes, ma'am.   And we agree with the

12   merits of the project.     We have no dispute with that

13   whatsoever.

14              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   So then there should be a

15   way to get a happy resolution here.      And I would like to

16   have that on the record, that you all are willing to sit

17   down in a facilitation-type meeting brought about by our

18   staff.    And Mr. Rabbon may wish to speak that.      But he

19   said he's willing to give it a shot.

20              MR. MATTOS:   And I -- there was a meeting that

21   the gentleman had mentioned on, I believe it was, December

22   4th.     And unfortunately because of prior plans -- I was

23   not notified of it until December 2nd -- and on December

24   3rd I left the State.     So I wasn't able to attend that

25   because of short notice.     But I would be more than willing

26   to attend a future meeting to try and resolve this as long

27   as consideration is given to our concerns.      I think

28   they're valid.


 1               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   And you promise not to leave

 2   the State?

 3               MR. MATTOS:    No, ma'am --

 4               (Laughter.)

 5               MR. MATTOS:    -- I won't leave the State.

 6               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   All right.     I think that we

 7   understand the situation.

 8               Is there any Board members that want to make

 9   comments?     Or, Mr. Sandino, did you wish to make a speech?

10   Excuse me, not a speech, a --

11               (Laughter.)

12               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    -- presentation.     Sorry.

13               STAFF COUNSEL SANDINO:     Madam Chairman, I just

14   wanted you to be aware that we did attempt a facilitated

15   negotiation on that date, and RD 785 was represented by

16   counsel.     So we have made that effort.      I'm sure if you

17   direct us to try it again, we'd be happy to.          But you

18   heard the thrust of the issue.        It was depending on the

19   depth of the pipeline.

20               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Compromise seems to be the

21   answer to the solution here.

22               Yes, Gloria.

23               VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:     You know, I can

24   appreciate the extra two feet.        I'm a farmer back in

25   Fresno.     I was a farmer for 20 years.     And sometimes we do

26   have accidents.     We've had many accidents on the west side

27   where we do break some of the pipelines.         And I think in

28   the long term it would be more cost effective for the


 1   pipeline to be done two extra feet.       And it will save the

 2   environment and it will save a lot of headaches.        So, I

 3   know we don't have -- we don't have the authority to go

 4   into that.    But I would like to recommend, as a farmer,

 5   and get some more people that know about that.

 6              Thank you.

 7              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you, Gloria.

 8              Okay.   I think that we need to act on this.

 9              Tony.

10              BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     It appears to me that our

11   biggest concern is the floodplain.       And the other problems

12   that have arisen are actually between the RD districts.

13   And I have enough faith in our General Manager to put

14   together a meeting and get this resolved one way or

15   another.     I don't that the six feet, the eight feet -- I'm

16   not that kind of an engineer.

17              But I would recommend that we approve the staff

18   not take into account the local maintaining agency's

19   endorsement condition that are not related to the

20   protection of an adaptive flood -- plan for flood control

21   during the preparation of Permit Number 17497; and B)

22   delegate to the General Manager the authority to approve

23   that permit when he feels that all parties are happy --

24   nearly happy.

25              (Laughter.)

26              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Happy as they're going to

27   get.

28              All right.    This recommendation is one that


 1   sitting on the screen.

 2             SECRETARY BUNDY:     Well, Madam Chairman, I was

 3   ready to second it until that "happy" came up.

 4             (Laughter.)

 5             BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:        It's Christmas.

 6             SECRETARY BUNDY:     I think we just delegate the

 7   General Manager the authority to approve the final permit.

 8   I'm not sure anybody's going to be happy eventually in

 9   this.   But I would -- if the maker of the motion would

10   delete that "happy" --

11             BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:        I'm all for that.

12             SECRETARY BUNDY:     Okay.     I'll second it.

13             BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:        I was being facetious.

14             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     All right.     You've seen the

15   recommendation.      It's on the screen.

16             Is there any further discussion?

17             It's been moved by Tony and seconded by Burt.

18             Yes.

19             STAFF COUNSEL SANDINO:        I'd make a suggestion on

20   the motion.      The draft permit is in the packet.        And I

21   think you could recommend the Board approving that permit

22   subject to the General Manager signing it and making

23   non-material modifications as he deems appropriate.

24             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Yeah, I agree with that.

25             Is that okay with you?

26             BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:        That's fair enough, sure.

27             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     So what we're -- to clarify,

28   what we're doing here is approving this permit and


 1   authorizing the General Manager to facilitate some

 2   meetings to see if he can get the parties together.            Is

 3   that a fair statement of that motion?

 4              SECRETARY BUNDY:    With the conditions that are

 5   outlined in this packet.

 6              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     All right.    Any further

 7   discussion?

 8              All those in favor say aye.

 9              (Ayes.)

10              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Opposed?

11              Motioned carried.

12              Thank you all for coming.     And good luck.    It's

13   Christmas.    Try to compromise.

14              VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:     I would suggest you make

15   it seven feet.

16              (Laughter.)

17              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Now, we're going to do the

18   comprehensive study next.      And this is a major event, and

19   this is one that has been in the works for a very long

20   time.    And it is something that's never been done nor

21   attempted in this area before.       It's a major historic

22   event.    And I hope everybody will see it in that way,

23   because it's really important for our area.         It's been

24   worked on by people in a wonderful way, in my view, in

25   that they really worked hard on it and tried to carry out

26   the spirit of the legislation that brought it about.

27              And so Kevin is going to make the initial

28   presentation.    Now, our Board the had quite a few


 1   presentations on this matter before.     It's been intimately

 2   involved and has worked very hard on this.     So this is

 3   really probably the most important thing that's going to

 4   come before this Board in a long, long time.

 5            Kevin.

 6            (Thereupon an overhead presentation was

 7            Presented as follows.)

 8            PROJECT MANAGER ELCOCK:     Thank you, President

 9   Betsy Marchand, members of the Reclamation Board.      Again,

10   My name is Kevin Elcock.   I'm an engineer with the

11   Department of Water Resources assigned as project manager

12   to the comprehensive study.

13            And, yes, the Reclamation Board has been very

14   much involved and shown a great deal of interest of making

15   sure that all interests are taken care of and included.

16            Boy, that wore me out, that last one.

17            Okay I'll be brief.

18                              --o0o--

19            PROJECT MANAGER ELCOCK:     The devastating floods

20   of 1997 caused Congress and the State Legislature to

21   authorize the comprehensive study of the flood damage

22   reduction and ecosystem system restoration for the

23   Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins.

24            The first two years were spent collecting data,

25   identifying the problems, and model development.      Data

26   collection and model development are going to be an

27   ongoing process, as current information becomes available

28   through time.


 1               In the third year we analyzed various concepts

 2   that could provide feasible flood control and ecosystem

 3   restoration benefits where benefits outweighed the cost.

 4   This came out in the form of the Starting Point Master

 5   Plan.   We had a series of meetings throughout the valley,

 6   four in the Sacramento Basin, four in the San Joaquin.

 7   And we received a great deal of public comments that

 8   indicated that this was not an acceptable solution or

 9   approach.     In years four and five, we heard those

10   comments.     We said in order to develop successful

11   projects, those had to be projects that were locally

12   generated, knowing what problems they wanted solved, and

13   with broad-based support.     In order to get funding we had

14   to have broad-based support.

15               So we turned the report around based on those

16   comments on the Starting Point Master Plan and developed a

17   bottom-up approach and called this the Draft Interim

18   Report, July 22nd, 2002.

19                                --o0o--

20               PROJECT MANAGER ELCOCK:    Again, we had a series

21   of meetings throughout the valley, nine total, and again

22   received a number of comments, both oral and written.         We

23   had indicated in those meetings that we would respond in

24   writing to those written comments.       And this was sort of a

25   change as well because a lot of times people wondered if

26   we were really hearing them.     So that we put in the form

27   of Response TO Comments, dated October 18th 2002.       There

28   were many, many good comments from all interest in


 1   stakeholders, and we a appreciate it very much their

 2   efforts in providing that to us.

 3             Then those comments were incorporated into the

 4   December 6th, 2002, interim report.       This reflected, like

 5   I said, all the input that everybody had to provide

 6   guidance and responsiveness on future projects.       Again,

 7   this is going to be updated again December 20th, 2002,

 8   which would be before you today for consideration.

 9                                --o0o--

10             PROJECT MANAGER ELCOCK:      What the report includes

11   are guiding principals, approach to project development

12   and administrative structure.    As I said, this is what

13   would be before you today.    What's not before you are the

14   technical studies.    As I had mentioned earlier, these

15   would be ongoing and updated as more current information

16   makes itself available at that time.

17                                --o0o--

18             PROJECT MANAGER ELCOCK:      The guiding principles

19   promote coordination of partnership, reduce or eliminate

20   conflicts, and guide for modifications to the flood

21   management system.

22             I'd like to name those guiding principles.

23   There's 11.

24             Public safety is the primary purpose of the flood

25   management system.

26             2)   Promote effective floodplain management.

27             3)   Recognize value of agriculture in the Central

28   Valley.


 1              4)     Avoid hydraulic and hydrologic impacts.

 2              5)     Plan system conveyance capacity that is

 3   compatible with all uses.

 4              6)     Provide for sediment continuity.

 5              7)     Use ecosystem approach to restore and sustain

 6   the health, productivity, and diversity of the floodplain

 7   corridors.

 8              8)     Optimize use of existing facilities.

 9              9)     Integrate with the CALFED Bay-Delta program

10   and other programs.

11              10).     Promote multi-purpose projects to improve

12   flood management and ecosystem restoration; and

13              11)     Protect the infrastructure.

14                                 --o0o--

15              The guiding principles are just that.       They

16   provide guidance, not absolute requirements.         They'll

17   apply whenever possible.       They won't apply to all projects

18   equally.     And the discretion will always remain with the

19   Reclamation Board.

20                                  --o0o--

21              PROJECT MANAGER ELCOCK:       It also included the

22   approach for developing projects.         As I said earlier, we

23   can come up with ideas that we know to work.         But unless

24   they're acceptable ideas for those who are impacted

25   directly, the stakeholders, it's going to be difficult to

26   push ahead a successfully funded project.

27              Their are projects that would be system-wide in

28   nature, such as the enhanced flood response project.            And


 1   regional projects we would see as the most viable types of

 2   projects, incorporating the maximum number of benefits for

 3   the cost.     Again, this would be -- and there's going to be

 4   situations, like Hamilton City, for example, that would be

 5   a local project in nature.

 6                               --o0o--

 7               PROJECT MANAGER ELCOCK:     The administrative

 8   structure is to provide -- identifies and provides for the

 9   consistent and reasonable applications of guiding

10   principles, minimize costs and redundancy -- that would be

11   good -- and facilitate partnerships -- that's very

12   important -- manage project planning and construction.

13               There's also an implementation barrier

14   identification and resolution.        This is going to be an

15   ongoing process.     Because as we get into regional issues,

16   there's system-wide implementation barriers to new ways of

17   doing projects and doing work, and there's also regional.

18   And sometimes one region's barriers may not be another's.

19   So that will be an ongoing process with broad-based

20   participation.

21               The technical studies and models again, as I

22   mentioned, are going to be updated to ensure comprehensive

23   feasibility of projects with the most current information

24   at the time the projects are submitted for study.

25               I'd like to take this time to thank you U.S Army

26   Corps of Engineers, the Reclamation Board, DWR, and

27   especially, and most importantly, all the stakeholders and

28   interests that donated their time and energies to put


 1   together a guide and a process for developing feasible

 2   cost-effective solutions for the future, demonstrating

 3   through flexibility and cooperation we can get things

 4   done.

 5            And I would like now to introduce Colonel Conrad

 6   from the Army Corps of Engineers, who has some comments.

 7            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    Yes.   And welcome, Colonel.

 8   It's really a pleasure to have you here.     You've worked

 9   very hard, and your staff, on this report.     And it is

10   really a very good one, in my opinion.     So come over and

11   share the glory.

12            COLONEL CONRAD:    Oh, I don't know about that, if

13   I'm sharing the glory, Betsy.     But I do appreciate this

14   opportunity to speak before the Board on this important

15   topic and subject.

16            This has really been a monumental effort, as

17   Kevin referred to.   I do want to, first of all, cite the

18   State Reclamation Board and DWR and members of our staff

19   and all the constituents who came together to get to the

20   point where we are right today.

21            You mentioned today that this is a landmark

22   effort, something unprecedented. It's not only

23   unprecedented in California, but it's really unprecedented

24   across the United States.    Naturally I think the message

25   I'd like to leave you all with here today, this has bigger

26   implications than just California, on really two levels:

27   One, within the Corps of Engineers; and the other one,

28   nationally.


 1            We're struggling -- the Corps of Engineers is

 2   struggling how to continue with water resource projects

 3   and planning.   An this is a model we -- we're going to go.

 4   Our strategic vision within our civil works program is

 5   headed toward exactly what this comprehensive study is a

 6   part of and is made up of.   And the reason is -- really

 7   there's a couple reasons for that.    The first one being

 8   that we've got multi-benefits.   You're combining

 9   environmental restoration, you're looking at public

10   safety, you're looking at flood prevention, you're looking

11   at up front, is the framework document that you have here.

12   No longer are we going to look at these things as single

13   purpose projects again.

14            The second part again is the holistic approach

15   that we have up and down the basin.     Most people realize

16   now the projects specifically that are done always have

17   impacts both upstream and downstream.     And this framework

18   here gives us the ability and the modeling to assess both

19   those impacts upstream and downstream we you do a project.

20            Those two things, although easy to say, are very

21   hard to execute.   And of course we've been struggling --

22   the Corps' been struggling to try to get to this point.

23   And our vision, our future is to get to where this

24   comprehensive study is today.

25            Now, of course this has been a bit of a road to

26   go for the last five years, and me personally for the last

27   18 months, and would appreciate -- and I do appreciate

28   that to you and, Pete, your personal efforts as we've gone


 1   around up and down the valley, into Washington DC, to help

 2   explain this program.

 3             But it really is going to rely on two big

 4   things -- it has relied on two things; that is, courage

 5   and leadership.     This is a change.   This is a change.

 6   This is not the way business has been done in the past.

 7   And whenever you make a change, you have implications, you

 8   have situations that you need to overcome.      And I would

 9   like to just go ahead and cite the courageous nature of

10   both the Board, the State, and the Corps to get through

11   this process.     But it's going to take leadership in the

12   future to continue what we started here today.

13             I wholly recommend this framework study.     There's

14   compliance on that, like people sort of would like to

15   expect.   But this is a different way of doing business.

16   This is setting up a framework for the chart of what

17   things go in the future.

18             So, again, I'd like to just go ahead and -- on

19   behalf of the Corps and I think of this nation, this is a

20   landmark effort, not for just California, but for the

21   nation as well.     And this is at the forefront.   And so I

22   of course recommend that you consider it favorably.

23             Thank you very much.

24             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you, Colonel, and

25   thank you for all the leadership you've provided since

26   you've been our Colonel.

27             All right.    Kevin, let's have Tim Ramirez next.

28             Tim just a promotion.    Maybe you'll tell us about


 1   bus that too.     But it's a pleasure always to have Tim here

 2   representing the Agency.

 3               MR. RAMIREZ:   That's not what I was going to do,

 4   Betsy --

 5               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   I know. But --

 6               MR. RAMIREZ:   Tim Ramirez.   Thank you, Betsy, for

 7   the introduction.     California Resources Agency, Assistant

 8   Secretary for Water Policy and Science.       I'm also the

 9   State Coordinator for the CALFED Bay-Delta program, which

10   in a week becomes the CALFED Bay-Delta Authority.       More

11   about that later.

12               I just wanted to make a couple of very brief

13   comments.     I know that there a lot of people here today

14   who want to address the Board.      And I want to echo some of

15   the comments I think that the Colonel just made.

16               First, let me say that I think the work that's

17   been done, especially in the last couple of years, has

18   just been monumental and deserves a lot of acknowledgement

19   on behalf of the staff, both the State and federal staff;

20   Rec Board members, who I know have paraded up and down the

21   valley and met with lots of people, and especially the

22   last 18 months been a lot of work on the ground.       And also

23   the people on the ground.      I think that the document

24   that's before you now reflects a lot of their feedback

25   that we've gotten in the last 18 months, from all the

26   different interests:       Agricultural interests,

27   environmental interests.      I think that the document has

28   come a long way.     It's hard to look at this and think that


 1   after six years it's all in this little teeny report that

 2   you have before you.    But I think that it does accurately

 3   reflect the work that's been done.

 4              Just a very quick point about the guiding

 5   principles.    I think in large part what the Board is

 6   proposing to do is endorse state and federal policy that

 7   we have now, with a bit of a focus on your roll and on the

 8   comprehensive study and on the Central Valley.

 9              One that jumped out at me -- well, actually it

10   didn't jump out at me in the principles, but it was in the

11   summary.    And I think if you read between the lines and

12   the principles, it is there.     But I want to just make note

13   of it because I think it does reflect a lot of the debate

14   that's been happening in the valley and, that is --

15   there's a sentence at the end of the second to last

16   paragraph that makes mention of compatible uses of the

17   floodplain, which include agriculture and habitat and

18   environmental restoration work.     And I think -- you know,

19   the Board is blind to encroachments.     Anything that's

20   there needs to be considered.     But I think there are

21   things that are more appropriate than others.     You've

22   heard about some other things this morning that are less

23   appropriate.    But I think these are two that are

24   appropriate and they're two that we want to support and

25   get behind and protect those interests.

26              I would hope that people would be here today to

27   support the Board's action.     And let me just go ahead and

28   make my motion to do that.     I think that it's important to


 1   keep the momentum that you really have built.     It's hard

 2   to build momentum for a report like this and a study like

 3   this when there aren't floods.     And I think that you guys

 4   have done that in the last year.     I mean there's been an

 5   amazing amount of interest shown by people on the ground,

 6   by counties, by landowners.    Almost as much as there might

 7   have been maybe six years ago.     I was around then, but not

 8   working for the State.    And this to me is about where we

 9   were then.    There are a lot of people who are trying to

10   effect change and work with you and address their concerns

11   and have you guys address them.     And I think that that's

12   been a good thing.

13              You guys have a very difficult roll in all of

14   this.    You create public forum, which is a very good

15   thing.    But you are the State's voice.   You have a

16   different geographic perspective than everybody else.       All

17   the counties will have their concerns.     All the landowners

18   will, all the different interests will.     But I think it's

19   important for you guys to take that big picture

20   perspective and to keep in mind the State's interests.

21   And I think that from my perspective it's time for us to

22   move forward and to try to devote staff time and Board

23   time and everybody else as well on to addressing some of

24   the problems and talking about solutions.

25              We spent a lot of time working on this report.

26   Everybody has.    And I think it would be most appropriate

27   to have people acknowledge that and to adopt these things,

28   which I think by and large part are just again a


 1   restatement of and some focus on state and federal policy,

 2   and really roll up our sleeves.     This is the easy part.     I

 3   mean we talked about having lines on maps six years ago.

 4   And that didn't happen.     And we need to talk about those

 5   things.    But that involves a lot of work, a lot of

 6   technical work, a lot of time.     And I think the people are

 7   prepared to do that across the Board.

 8              I wanted to make a quick comment on the CALFED

 9   note, which is one of the principles.     And I think -- as

10   the State coordinator, I would appreciate you guys working

11   on that as well.     And I've asked the Board to consider

12   directing staff to not just do that, but to write it down

13   and to articulate it.     I think it's important for these

14   two programs that have this big of a footprint to not just

15   say that we're working together, but to write it down and

16   so we understand, the public understands, what that means.

17   This would be as helpful for the agencies as it would be

18   for the public.     Having worked on the Agency side for the

19   last three years, we need this.     We need to have it in

20   writing.    And I think as much as anybody else does, it

21   would very helpful for us to do that.     And I'd be happy to

22   put my time into it, on behalf of the Agency, to work with

23   Pete and staff on that.

24              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Do you mean the Memorandum

25   of Understanding?

26              MR. RAMIREZ:   Well, whatever you want to call it.

27   I think that we just need to write it down.     And I think

28   that -- you know, we can give it whatever title we deem


 1   most appropriate.

 2              But the last comment I wanted the make is that

 3   when -- I guess it was six years ago now, when the storms

 4   came in in late December, one of my friends working at

 5   Turlock Irrigation District gave me a call and said, you

 6   know, "You better get in the car and come out and see

 7   what's going to happen."     Because they had never had a

 8   situation where they had to open the floodgates on Don

 9   Pedro.    And so we got out there, and we had to take side

10   roads because the main roads were closed.      And went out

11   through the grazing lands and the dairies, and somehow

12   were able to -- managed to cut cones and in a 4-wheel

13   truck get out there and watch that happen and watch the

14   water come over the spillway, uncontrolled, from the dam.

15   And went down at night, and did a very stupid thing, which

16   is to stand on the Old La Grange Bridge, which is the --

17   right where the canyon opens up on the Tuolumne -- an old

18   bridge.    I don't when it was built.    Probably 1914 or

19   1912.    It's pretty old.   There are new bridges now for

20   cars.    This is just for people.    And we went out to try to

21   read the staff gauge on the bridge.      And it was pretty

22   high.    I don't think it's been that high ever since they

23   had put the dam in, certainly.      And it was shaking.   And

24   little did we know that downstream Roberts Ferry Bridge

25   had been washed out.

26              So not the smartest thing I've every done, but we

27   wanted to --

28              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   But you were young.


 1             (Laughter.)

 2             MR. RAMIREZ:     Hopefully I'm not that old yet.

 3             I make that point because I really want to focus

 4   on moving forward.      Because since that time nothing has

 5   changed fundamentally on the ground any place.         For six

 6   years we've talked about what needs to be done, built a

 7   lot of support and a foundation technically to understand

 8   the implications of some of those changes, talked to a lot

 9   of people who care about having a role in making some of

10   those changes.

11             But we haven't even proposed changes yet.        You

12   know, we're just talking about setting a framework to have

13   that discussion.     And I think it's important to focus on

14   the problem and to start talking about the solutions.

15   Because I don't want to be in a situation where we were

16   six years ago and have to start over again.         Now, I'm not

17   saying that we would have to because all the things we

18   have now are dynamic, they exist, and we didn't have them

19   before.   But I would make a pitch for the Board and all

20   the people in this room to endorse moving forward and to

21   try to have the discussions at the regional levels, where

22   they need to happen, to get people to talk together and

23   work out these things.

24             Thank you very much.

25             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you, Tim.     Very good,

26   Tim.

27             Now, there is a group, as usual, from the San

28   Joaquin area that wish to speak, and a certain order.            And


 1   that is fine.     And I'm going to call you in the order that

 2   you wish to speak, I believe.       So if I make a mistake, I'm

 3   sorry.   But I believe that Mr. Frank Bigelow wishes to be

 4   first.

 5               I would ask all of the folks giving testimony to

 6   keep it brief and to the point.       And that's for everyone.

 7   And don't repeat something somebody else has said, just

 8   allude to it, so that everyone has a chance to speak.

 9               Mr. Bigelow.

10               MR. BIGELOW:   Thank you, Madam Chairman, members

11   of the Board.     My name is Frank Bigelow.    I'm Chairman of

12   the Madera County Board of Supervisors.       I'm also Chairman

13   of the San Joaquin River Task Force.

14               I think you all have been receiving some letters.

15   So now you have a face to go along with that name that's

16   there.

17               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    Yeah, we heard a lot from

18   you, Mr. Bigelow.

19               MR. BIGELOW:   Yeah.   Well, you know, it's

20   interesting.     Not to belabor the discussions, but four

21   years ago when I took office water was just a trickle of

22   an issue.     At the end of my first four years -- I've been

23   reelected, thankfully -- it has grown into a flood.        But I

24   just wondered:     Wasn't it really a flood in the beginning

25   all along, and we just didn't recognize it.

26               We've recognized it now and we're dealing with

27   it.   In April of 2002 we formed the task force.       We put

28   together the people in the San Joaquin Valley, in Fresno


 1   County, Merced County, and Madera County.     We put local

 2   agencies together.     We formed a group that you could come

 3   to, find solace.     You could find unanimous decision

 4   hopefully.   So far to date, with pride I stand here and

 5   tell you that every decision made has been made with a

 6   unanimous vote.

 7            And we've taken the leadership and moved it

 8   forward throughout our communities, and we've looked to

 9   find the harmony that we could build in moving forward

10   with this project.

11            Mr. Ramirez made a motion on the floor.     I would

12   like to second that motion in moving forward.     I think

13   it's important that we move forward.     I think a lot of

14   work has been done.

15            I think in light of that I think you'd take --

16   you can take a moment here and take a look at some of the

17   letters -- and I would hope that they're entered into your

18   packets; if they weren't, I'd surely like to make sure

19   they're a part of the record -- from certain individuals.

20   Like State Senator Jeff Denham; Sarah Reyes, Assemblyman;

21   Barbara Matthews, an Assemblyperson; Steve Samuelian,

22   who's an Assemblyman; Dave Coppula, all asking for an

23   extension of time to work out even more details.

24            Well, right now, with great excitement, I arrived

25   here to tell you I would second a motion such as was

26   presented, because we've done our due-diligence.     We've

27   worked with your staff, and we've come to conclusion,

28   we've resolved the issues, and the language was there, and


 1   we were all happy.

 2             I'm a little perplexed because I've heard some

 3   rumblings since arriving here that maybe that language

 4   might be changed today.     I would encourage you to not

 5   change that language.     I would hope that you would

 6   introduce the language as submitted and not change any of

 7   the resolution as it was presented to you.

 8             So with that I'll try to resolve my issues.

 9             Is there any questions?

10             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    Are there any questions from

11   Mr. Bigelow?

12             I want to thank you for coming and for your

13   testimony -- it's very helpful -- and for all of the work

14   that you have done with our staff and with your

15   constituents.     That is the job of a supervisor.   And

16   though I didn't know you when I was a supervisor, I don't

17   think, it's really good to see county supervisors

18   participating, in giving testimony, in showing up for

19   these meetings.     And so -- I know you've been active, so

20   thank you so much.

21             MR. BIGELOW:    Ms. Marchand, I know that we hadn't

22   met prior to this.     And I'm pleased to have met you today.

23   I've met a number of the other folks that are seated up

24   here.

25             I will tell you, thank you, thank you, to your

26   staff.   And to each of your staff that did show up.       I

27   know the Corps showed up.     It's been a fun-filled time.

28   It has been tough at times --


 1               (Laughter.)

 2               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Fun-filled time.     Get that

 3   in the record.

 4               MR. BIGELOW:     I'm one of those optimistic

 5   individuals.     I see the glass half full.       Actually I never

 6   see the glass with anything in it.          I see the glass for

 7   what it is.     It is the glass of hope presents the

 8   opportunity to look at either way.

 9               Anyway, if there's no questions, I know there's

10   others that wish to speak more directly to some of the

11   issues.

12               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you so much.

13               Gloria.

14               VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:     I just want to thank Mr.

15   Bigelow.     He has done an exceptional job in getting

16   everybody together.        And this is the first time in the

17   history of my being in involved with farmers that they

18   actually agreed with each other.        So thank you very much

19   for bringing them together.        I appreciate it.

20               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     That is a red letter day.

21               (Laughter.)

22               MR. BIGELOW:     It is difficult, let me tell you.

23               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Okay.    Thank you very much.

24               Mr. Joseph Wright.

25               Mr. Wright.

26               It's a little tricky getting through there.

27               MR. WRIGHT:     Madam President, members of the

28   Board.     Thank you for allowing me to speak to you today.


 1            I am the Agriculture and Water Policy aid for

 2   State Senator Jeff Denham.     And I believe you have his

 3   letter that was submitted to the Board.

 4            My purpose in even addressing you today was just

 5   to reiterate -- I'm kind of going to piggyback on what Mr.

 6   Bigelow had said regarding the resolution as accepted.

 7            I just wanted to for the record state the

 8   Subsection 1 of the resolution, which is:     "There is a

 9   separate document entitled 'Technical Studies

10   Documentation - Summaries of Technical Studies,' which has

11   seven appendices.   The separate document with appendices

12   is not part of this report.    Work on the appendices, which

13   includes various models, will continue beyond the

14   publication and distribution of this interim report.

15   Planning for local or regional projects will provide the

16   opportunity for updating the existing models or developing

17   new models as needed.    The tools and models for the

18   appendices will not be used until they are updated,

19   considering the best available information, including

20   information based on the expertise and experience of local

21   stakeholders."

22            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    Do you have a problem with

23   that language?

24            MR. WRIGHT:    Not at all.   And I just wanted to

25   extend the Senator's appreciation for all of the hard work

26   by Rec Board staff in getting us to this point; and would

27   like to say as long as this is included in this resolution

28   as submitted, that he is fully willing to endorse this


 1   process and be supportive of it.

 2              And that's about it.

 3              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you very much for

 4   coming over and giving that testimony on behalf of the

 5   Senator.    And we have discussed briefly, but we plan to

 6   ask for a meeting with you and the Senator after the first

 7   of the year so we can go over some of these items in more

 8   detail and duties of the Rec Board and ways we can

 9   mutually work together.       So we're going to be thinking

10   about that.

11              MR. WRIGHT:     I would just -- it bears notice that

12   this is a very bipartisan effort amongst a lot of the

13   legislators in this area, both Republicans and Democrats

14   who have concerns about their constituents in this

15   process, the stakeholders, along this body of water, along

16   the river way.

17              So thank you very much.

18              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you.

19              Chris White.

20              Chris.

21              MR. WHITE:     I'll be as brief as I can.

22              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     It does not look good,

23   Chris.

24              MR. WHITE:     Madam Chairman, Board members.     I'm

25   Chris White, General Manager of Central California

26   Irrigation District and the district engineer, working

27   with the task force and the local counties on this

28   project.


 1             It's been a long 10 days since this report's come

 2   out.   Worked very hard with your staff to try to come up

 3   with a way that we could be in full support of the interim

 4   report and yet be able to set up a process -- or a further

 5   process to work on some of these appendices.     And I just

 6   wanted to explain why we needed that.

 7             This whole interim report talks about a process

 8   under which things are going to get accomplished.     And we

 9   appreciate that.    At the task force and the Resource

10   Management Coalition along the San Joaquin River, we are

11   working on a restoration plan on the San Joaquin River.

12   We may need to avail ourselves of a process to look at

13   floodplain issues, ecosystem restoration, those types of

14   things, at the end of our process.     We've got a half

15   million dollar grant and we're working on it.     Hopefully

16   we'll have that study completed within three or four

17   months.

18             Okay.    That's where we are at in the process.

19             However, in the interim document there are 21

20   pages that refer to a set of appendices which we haven't

21   had access to until very recently.     And as soon as we got

22   those, about 90 days ago, we just went to work reviewing

23   those, seeing where we agree and where we disagree,

24   spending a lot of time on those.     And we thought it was

25   important for us when we -- 10 days ago when these came

26   out that, jeez, how can we cover all this in a 10-day

27   period.   We need 90 days to look at this.

28             Well, through working with Pete and staff, I


 1   think we came up with a language in that paragraph that

 2   gets us there, gives us time to set up a process and go

 3   through the appendices.

 4               Let me just show you a couple things.

 5               And I don't want to read all these into the

 6   record.

 7               (Laughter.)

 8               MR. WHITE:    This is the -- of course this is the

 9   interim report that we're talking about, the comprehensive

10   study.

11               Appendices -- there's seven appendices, okay.

12   And three of the appendices are contained in one kind of

13   package.     And we've -- this is the only appendices that

14   we've received so far.       And these are B, C, and D.   And we

15   got these about three months ago and started going through

16   these.     Okay.

17               So it's a rather large appendices.    Not all of

18   this refers to the upper San Joaquin River, by any means.

19   But a significant part of it does.       And we've been working

20   very hard, and not just internally, the CCID staff --

21   engineering staff.        But we have consultants on the Board,

22   and we're busy working at this.

23               The next thing I had here was just -- this is the

24   user's manual for running the UNET model, which is a part

25   of this -- actually the user manual is bigger than

26   Appendix D, which is the result of this manual.

27               Let's see.    This is the report of the -- summary

28   of the response to comments on the original document.


 1              And then this last document I want to point to is

 2   an effort that was produced by the locals.     In response to

 3   this, we went to work looking at the hydrographs of our

 4   area, the upper San Joaquin River.     Using our local

 5   expertise -- local engineering expertise, we put together

 6   a team of consultants to relook at this 100 year flood

 7   event for our area.     Starting from scratch, look at the

 8   hydrographs, and work from there.     And in an unbiased way

 9   look at the WRC guidelines, which is the standard

10   guidelines that the Corps uses, and derive what we think

11   the actual 100 year flood event is.

12              All right.   This is a central issue to us.     Now,

13   I'm an engineer -- and this is going to sound funny, okay,

14   because engineers tend to tell you in terms of absolute.

15   This report has a different number than what the Corps

16   has.     We need to sit down, have an opportunity to explain

17   to the Corps what our process, what our study entailed,

18   what judgments were made in the process.     We need to

19   further understand how the Corps derived where they got to

20   on their number.    All right?   And it's not insignificant.

21   The difference is very significant.

22              So what' I'd like to do here is present a copy of

23   this report to the Board.     It does determine what the 1

24   percent flood event, based on historical record on the

25   upper San Joaquin River, and using a Monte Carlo

26   methodology, determine what that is statistically.        And

27   we'd like to submit a copy of that to the Board here

28   today.


 1            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Fine.   You could just give

 2   that to Mr. Sandino.

 3            MR. WHITE:     All right.   And I'm falling apart

 4   here with all these studies sitting on the podium.

 5            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     You need a helper to carry

 6   them.

 7            MR. WHITE:     We appreciate the opportunity in

 8   working with your staff.     We're very pleased with the

 9   revisions that were made to the interim report.

10            We do feel though that the appendices as it was

11   written were hard wired to this report.      And as the

12   locals, we want a chance to work with the Corps and with

13   DWR, with the Rec Board on this.      And we are -- we have

14   done this in other studies.     We have worked with

15   Friant/NRDC on their study, the exchange contractors.

16   I've been sitting on those restoration oversight team, the

17   water supply team.     And we're not obstructionists.     We

18   want to have a process that's productive and something

19   that we can use, because we're going to need to use a

20   system to develop a flood control program.

21            So with that, if there's any questions, I'd be

22   happy to answer them.     Otherwise, thank you very much.

23            BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:       Mr. White, have you shared

24   this document with Corps yet?

25            MR. WHITE:     It's -- That's a good point.      What we

26   have done is submitted a -- the only way that we can get

27   Corps consideration, as I understand it, is to appeal a

28   FEMA process.   In other words, the Corps did a calculation


 1   under contract for FEMA.        It was being utilized by FEMA to

 2   produce flood maps.       So the first series of flood maps

 3   came out.     Now we've submitted this document and an

 4   appeal.     Now, I suppose that ends up back at the Corps

 5   somehow eventually.       And I'm not sure if it's there yet.

 6   Hopefully it will be soon.

 7               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you very much.

 8               Denis Prosperi.

 9               MR. PROSPERI:     Thank you, Madam Chairman, members

10   of the Board.     My name is Denis Prosperi.     I'm on the San

11   Joaquin River Task Force.        I'm also a member of the RMC.

12   I'm Chairman of the Madera County Oversight Committee.

13   that my dad taught me a long time ago.        You work for

14   nothing, you get a lot of jobs.

15               (Laughter.)

16               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Yeah, tell us about it.

17               MR. PROSPERI:     But first of all I want to echo

18   something that I think is very important here.        It's been

19   said, but I want to make sure that -- in my positions and

20   I'm kind of in all of these things -- that everyone

21   understands.     The RMC, which is the San Joaquin River

22   Resource Management Coalition, that's working on the study

23   that Chris was discussing with the half a million dollar

24   grant on the river restoration study, working together

25   with Friant, the RMC and the task force -- RMC is a member

26   of the task force, along with Friant Water Authority

27   exchange contractors and the three counties, Madera,

28   Fresno and Merced.


 1               To try to streamline the process -- and we just

 2   started to see in April, so we're moving as fast as

 3   physically possible, still trying to keep an eye on the

 4   ranch.     What we've done, we've taken the task force

 5   technical community team and -- which is Chris and all the

 6   engineers -- and we've taken RMC's technical team and we

 7   made it one technical team.        That job too, another free

 8   job.     But anyway.

 9               And I can assure you as the Chairman and -- we

10   are trying to facilitate this thing to move.         But, you

11   know, it goes back -- and I've been farming 32 years.            And

12   one thing I've learned about farming, especially grape

13   vines, every cane and every vine is going to get pruned

14   off every winter.        And it's the process that determines

15   two things:     One, what kind of crop you get.      But also,

16   I've watched a lot of people prune vines and I've pruned a

17   lot myself.     Every cane's going to come off.      But it's

18   funny how some guys can prune 400 vines a day and do a

19   beautiful job and some guys will prune 300 and do a

20   terrible job.     And it's a function of not necessarily how

21   fast the pruning shears move -- and Gloria knows what I'm

22   talking about -- it's the guy who makes one cut and then

23   the next cut, and he doesn't cut twice because he didn't

24   make a mistake.        So one of two things.   You either prune

25   real fast and do a sloppy job or you prune real fast and

26   do it twice and don't get anything done.

27               And I think the process, and which you heard

28   earlier today in the previous things in your agenda, it


 1   seems to be the problem a lot of times.     And we've worked

 2   diligently on trying to create the process and not hinder

 3   the process.    We know Friant and the NRDC is going to be

 4   coming out with some sort of a restoration plan at some

 5   point in the future.     We're not there to hinder them.

 6   We're there because when they get through with their

 7   process, as -- I forget -- Tim was talking about or

 8   somebody talking about the downstream people, that what

 9   happens upstream affects the downstream.     We're trying to

10   put together the task force so we can -- Friant, who

11   belongs, NRDC, who comes to our meetings, can come there

12   and say, "Okay, guys, we've got a plan.     How's this going

13   to work for you guys?"     And so we can facilitate the

14   process.    The technical team, there's one from each one of

15   those entities, there's six of us, to be able to

16   facilitate.

17              I want to thank Pete and Kevin and John and Jonas

18   and an all the people.     Because we worked very hard the

19   last 10 days to try to not hinder the process.     We felt we

20   needed 90 days, and we got it done, hopefully, in 10.        And

21   it wasn't easy and it wasn't simple.     But I think the key

22   is, if everybody tries to be fair in the process, that

23   this thing can move.     Okay, fairness is the name of the

24   game, and trust.

25              I think by all that we're doing today, I think

26   we're building a certain amount of trust in your staff.        I

27   hope your staff thinks -- builds trust that we are not

28   trying to hinder the process.


 1            I would suggest that as soon as physically

 2   possible at the end of the -- first of the year -- excuse

 3   me -- that we get these technical studies up and running

 4   and the modelings and we start working with your technical

 5   people and people like Chris and our engineers that know a

 6   lot more about this than I do.     I understand the process.

 7   I'm not an engineer by a long shot.     But I do understand

 8   that if we do this thing right, if we prune that vine and

 9   we make every cut precisely with as much speed as

10   possible, we won't have to do it twice.     And that

11   ultimately is what's going to win -- make this thing win.

12            And I'd also like to -- I agree with Tim.      You

13   know, it's very seldom when the sun shines that people

14   worry about floods.     And I do believe that we do have some

15   momentum for the first time in 50 years on this.

16            And other than that, that's about all I want to

17   say.

18            And I want to mention, by the way, because Jim

19   Staker I think is next on your list, Jim unfortunately had

20   to get back to a meeting with the new -- I guess it's

21   Congress-Elect Cardoza.     So he wasn't going to be able

22   to -- he wanted to say hi, but he couldn't make it.      You

23   probably saw him leave.     But he had to go back.

24            So if there's any questions, we're here.      We will

25   move as quickly as possible.     The task force meetings have

26   been very productive.     I think Kevin can assure you that.

27   And Pete hasn't had time to come to most of them, but, I

28   don't know, a couple of them maybe.     But we will work as


 1   many hours as possible.        But we just want to make sure

 2   that we don't get the process out of kilter.

 3               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you so much.       Thank

 4   you for coming.

 5               Ron Pistoresi.

 6               MR. PISTORESI:     Hey, you're getting good at that.

 7               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Not very.    I need more

 8   practice.

 9               MR. PISTORESI:     Ron Pistoresi, Chairman of the

10   Board, Madera Irrigation District.        And, again, I really

11   just wanted to come up -- and it's great to be able to do

12   this -- just to come up and say thank you.

13               All right.   No -- but really to thank the staff

14   and to thank the Board, Tony and Bill.          And I want to

15   especially thank Lori.        She's from our area.    But she's

16   really extended a hand of your Rec Board and making sure

17   we got to where we're at today.

18               And in saying that, I'll make it short and sweet.

19   Thank you.     We're ready to go forward.       And the

20   resolution, the way you have today, I think will let us be

21   able to accomplish what we need to do.

22               I don't think there's any questions.          So thank

23   you.

24               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Well, that's really nice.

25   Good to see you.     Thank you for coming.

26               I think that from this testimony you will note

27   that our General Manager was very significant in bringing

28   the parties together.        And I think that that does need to


 1   be acknowledged.     And, Pete, we do need to thank you very

 2   much, because in the last 10 days you've been a very busy

 3   and effective person.      Okay.

 4             Diana Jacobs is the next card I have.

 5             Diana, Welcome, from Fish and Game -- Head of

 6   Fish and Game.

 7             MS. JACOBS:     Good morning.   I'm Diana Jacobs,

 8   Deputy Director, Department of Fish and Game.          I represent

 9   the Department on the Comprehensive Executive Committee

10   and CALFED program and the recently completed floodplain

11   management task force.

12             At first I want to assure you we appreciate the

13   importance of the Reclamation Board in natural resource

14   management.     You aren't obscure to us.

15             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:      Thank you.     We always like

16   to hear that.

17             MS. JACOBS:     And I talk about water issues on the

18   State level and the Central Valley level all the time all

19   day almost.     And I run into people who don't have that

20   same appreciation.      And am I, you know, quick to point out

21   there are two huge water management systems in the Central

22   Valley.   There's the water supply plumbing system and

23   there's the flood management plumbing system, which is not

24   always appreciated.      The infrastructure kind of overlaps,

25   but there are significant differences.          But not everybody

26   understands there are two plumbing systems.

27             But I have to add, it's worth pointing out, that

28   there's one ecosystem:      Same fish, same wildlife, same


 1   cottonwood trees for both those plumbing systems.

 2              So I just wanted to make three points this

 3   morning.    First, add my congratulations about the work so

 4   far.    It's been great.   And the summary that's in this

 5   interim report just succinctly tells it all, the history

 6   and the new approach and everything.

 7              I have to congratulate all the technical work in

 8   progress too, the volumes, and point out that it's --

 9   what's different about this time also is that

10   accessibility to the data, to the models, and to training,

11   which is pretty neat.      Unique, that I'm aware of, to

12   having that excess access to boxes and to be able to look

13   at it and use it.    And I think that's really special as

14   well.

15              Secondly, support continuing on.   I think you've

16   laid the stage and set the stage.      And, as Tim says, now

17   we have to start doing something with all this great

18   information and the thought on the approach.

19              And, lastly, and maybe most importantly to me in

20   what I do, is support this strong relationship with CALFED

21   program.    This is the perfect time to because January 1

22   starts the new governance of CALFED under the new

23   Bay-Delta Authority, a new state agency.      So it's perfect

24   timing to figure out how we put it together.

25              I was thinking it would be a partnership, which

26   sort of implies side by side.     But it really needs to be

27   more integrated, stronger.     And I don't know whether you

28   call it a marriage or fully integrated or whatever, but it


 1   should be really tight.     And we've got to figure this out

 2   because you can't separate them on the ground.

 3            Through that -- and my feeling, that's where

 4   you're going to get the true multi-objective management.

 5   You're going to get win-wins.     I know that's corny.

 6   Everybody says it.     But it's possible.   And Hamilton City

 7   project in Glenn County is the shining example of what we

 8   can do together.

 9            The other thing that's really important, given

10   the headlines, is how we can pool our resources, our

11   financial resources.     And again Hamilton City is a perfect

12   example of that.     In this day and age we need to do that.

13            I just want to wrap up.     The Colonel talked about

14   how this is a new approach.     And it's scary and you guys

15   are courageous in doing that.

16            And I don't how many of you know my history, but

17   I've been around this stuff a long time, over 20 years.

18   Pete and I go back, way back.     And I want to add my

19   personal note, that this is a great approach.      It's noted

20   in here the existing or old approach was the incremental

21   approach where there'd be one little project here and then

22   we'd come up with mitigation and fight over it.      And we

23   would have these tussles between the engineers the

24   biologists, and nobody was benefiting.      And we said, "You

25   know, there's got to be a better way."      And we used to

26   call it the Big Fix.     That was our nickname.

27            We need a holistic huge view system-wide.       Look

28   at, you know, fish and wildlife resources, look at the


 1   flood management.      And we dreamed of this big fix.

 2              And, finally, it evolved and marked into the

 3   Corps Comprehensive Study.       And it's great to see it

 4   happen.    And we've changed how we're doing things.        We've

 5   changed the outlook.      And, again, it's great to see it

 6   progress this far.      And keep going.

 7              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you very much, Diana.

 8              Mr. Reggie Hill is here, and probably should have

 9   been included in the last group but wasn't.         So now we're

10   going to include him.

11              Welcome.

12              MR. HILL:    Is this somebody's notes?

13              PROJECT MANAGER ELCOCK:     I'll take those.

14              MR. HILL:    I wasn't supposed to see those, I take

15   it.

16              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Oh, well.   It's, you know --

17              BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     It's all out in the open

18   now.

19              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     That's right.

20              MR. HILL:    Still on podium, right?

21              How many copies you got?

22              Madam President, members of the Board, I want to

23   thank you for the opportunity to speak.        My name is Reggie

24   Hill.     I'm the General Manager for the Lower San Joaquin

25   Levee District, which has the same purpose as you, which

26   is public safety on a flood control aspect.         And I can't

27   say anything more than what's already been said, which is

28   basically all the time and the effort's that gone into the


 1   comp study, all the other meetings beyond just this kind

 2   of a public forum, and all the concerned comments that

 3   have been incorporated into the study itself.

 4            Basically, as one of the things that has been

 5   commented, as a flood control agency we like to try and

 6   keep people informed even during dry years because, yeah,

 7   there are things to do when there is no flood waters.

 8   There are a lot of maintenance issues that have to be

 9   dealt with and working with regulatory agencies.     And

10   resolving those things is part of that process.

11            Hopefully with this document we can try and make

12   those things happen a little bit more efficiently.

13            Anyway, just not belabor the point, the district

14   encompasses the three counties that are represented on the

15   San Joaquin River Task Force.      And basically, just to be

16   very succinct, is that the district gets very important.

17   And that the resolution as presented by the task force is

18   accepted as it is written, because those kind of things

19   are going to be beneficial for the district and are able

20   to encompass what is obligations.

21            At that point I'll just leave it at that.

22            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you so much for coming

23   up.

24            Next is Henry Chau.

25            MR. CHAU:   Good morning Madam President members

26   of the Board.   Can you hear me?

27            It's pretty clear.     Okay.

28            My name's Henry Chau.     I am a natural hazardous


 1   program specialist.     I work in the National Flood

 2   Insurance Program for FEMA Region 9 in Oakland,

 3   California.    I'm here on behalf of Ray Lenaburg.      Ray is

 4   our Senior Engineer at FEMA Region 9 and in the National

 5   Flood Insurance Program.     He has served on the executive

 6   committee for this comp study.     And I am just providing

 7   his comments to you and to ask, you know, for your

 8   endorsement of this particular report.

 9              The interim report incorporates FEMA's comments

10   and is consistent with the National Flood Insurance

11   Program.    Although FEMA has -- FEMA supports the study to

12   reduce future flood risks in California.        Although FEMA

13   has no specific funding available to support state or

14   local projects, we are in agreement and supported the

15   local governments and the State in future floodplain

16   management objectives to protect lives and property of

17   California residents.

18              So I just want to keep it very short.      I know

19   that Ray has spent a lot of time working with the Board

20   members and staff and Corps of Engineers folks as well.

21   And I just wanted to present that so that I'm representing

22   FEMA.

23              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Thank you very much for

24   coming over.

25              Ron Stork.

26              MR. STORK:   My name is Ron Stork.     I'm senior

27   member of the conservation staff of Friends of the River

28   and a recent signatory of the California Floodplain


 1   Management Report, which I guess you'll get a briefing on

 2   after this meeting.     I also have participated since the

 3   very beginning, and perhaps even before the very

 4   beginning, in the comprehensive study planning process.

 5             I've lived my entire adult life in the Central

 6   Valley.   And most of it has been in a FEMA special flood

 7   hazard area.

 8             (Laughter.)

 9             MR. STORK:    So I've taken a particular interest

10   in these flooding issues, because I think I, like many

11   folks in the valley, are in that same circumstance.

12             I think that from Friends of the River

13   perspective, we have thought that there was a promising

14   approach in taking a look at the Central Valley's flood

15   management systems.     And that promising approach was the

16   happy coincidence of improving the effectiveness of the

17   flood control system; at the same time removing some of

18   the straight jackets that have been in-placed on Central

19   Valley rivers, I think to the detriment of not just the

20   flood management system, but also Central Valley

21   recreational opportunities as well as habitat.

22             And another important part of our idea that we

23   were hoping that the comprehensive study would be able to

24   get is essentially a more honest reflection of, that

25   levees break and that floodplain storage happens.     And

26   sometimes it happens just because the lord provides so

27   much rain, that that's what happens.     And I was -- we were

28   hoping that the institutional arrangements associated with


 1   that natural event occurring would be advanced to

 2   everyone's mutual interest as a part of this report.

 3              I think that we are all aware that this report is

 4   not the report that we thought it would half a decade ago

 5   I mean this is not a comprehensive study, that is, not a

 6   comprehensive plan for flood control in the Central

 7   Valley.    It is not even really a plan to get a

 8   comprehensive plan.    I would suggest that it's a plan with

 9   a collection of good ideas for which individual flood

10   management plans can be amalgamated into something that

11   might be called a plan.

12              That's not the same as we hoped for.     I don't

13   think it's an idea approach.     However, it may be the only

14   politically realistic one.     And I think that -- I, like

15   some others, have suggested that perhaps it's important

16   for us to be optimistic.     This is a Central Valley

17   problem, and there needs to be a forum in which Central

18   Valley people have the opportunity to have adult

19   conversations about solving common problems.       And

20   hopefully the Corps and the Reclamation Board and the

21   Department of Water Resources and all of the interests in

22   the Central Valley and, for that matter, the interests in

23   California and the country, since we are an important part

24   of the Pacific flyway as well, can utilize the structures

25   that you're putting in place to achieve those goals and

26   make a better place for California and the country.

27              So that's my sermon perhaps, my hopes for the

28   process.


 1            I also have fears.     I think that's something that

 2   you should be aware of.    And I'm sure we all have fears.

 3   My concern is that some of the ideas and guidelines that

 4   are being put together may make it institutionally

 5   difficult to do some kinds of flood control projects,

 6   particularly the kinds of flood control projects that many

 7   in the environmental community were interested in doing,

 8   which were some of these levee setback opportunities.      And

 9   I see some real potential structural problems in seeing

10   that happen.   But I don't know if that will occur because

11   these are guidelines and not necessarily firm regulations.

12   And I think that we're eventually going to approach these

13   matters to some degree in a project-by-project basis.      So

14   that's the fears.

15            And then my final thought was just -- I'll repeat

16   myself, that I've been trying to tell them this for the

17   last five years, which is that I thought it would be very

18   important for the comprehensive study to try to identify

19   more realistically the hydraulic challenges that shape

20   California's rivers, its floodplains and the land uses in

21   the Central Valley.    And I think what we got was a

22   Bulletin 17B approach, essentially a frequency flow

23   relationship approach, for which attorneys and scientists

24   and those kinds of folks can debate endlessly what the

25   details are and particularly what the 100 year flood

26   determination is.     And though that may be of interest in

27   establishing minimum floodplain management standards, it

28   may have very little interest or very little impact on


 1   what the flood control system should look like and what

 2   the floodplain management approaches should be in the

 3   Central Valley.     So I continue to be hopeful that part of

 4   the technical underpinning of our approaches expand beyond

 5   just simply the determination of what the hundred year

 6   flood is.

 7               So thank you for bearing with me.     And I pledge

 8   to continue to work with you folks.       And looking forward

 9   to doing good things.

10               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Thank you very much, Ron.

11   And we look forward to your participation, because it's

12   going to get harder the next few steps, I think.

13               Mr. Lou Hintz, who is here for the California

14   Central Valley Flood Association.       Is that correct?

15               MR. HINTZ:   Well, that's correct, yes.

16               I'm subbing in for Mike Hardesty, who's the

17   President of the Association, and filling in for him.           And

18   this came as a last minute here.       He had to leave because

19   of the time that's been taken up in this process.

20               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   I saw him.    No, I'm sorry

21   about that.     But we're glad you're came.

22               MR. HINTZ:   Thank you.

23               My names is Lou Hintz.    I'm General Manager of

24   the Reclamation District Number 108; also a board member

25   on the California Central Valley Flood Control

26   Association.

27               Mike Hardesty just presented me with his

28   comments.     And I'd like to read them rather than elaborate


 1   on them, if I may.

 2              "The association recognizes the difficulties

 3   encountered in completing the comprehensive study.

 4   Despite that recognition, we are disappointed that this

 5   document could not go further at this time in advancing

 6   the Reclamation Board's and our common objective of flood

 7   control and public safety.       However, we see the interim

 8   report as a step forward, a major step forward as a matter

 9   of fact.

10              "We do, however, make particular note of the

11   report's commitments to itemize these three items:        Update

12   and maintain the technical tools that were developed; 2)

13   develop an MOU with CALFED and with the Army Corps of

14   Engineers to advance effective and implementable flood

15   control projects; and 3) the Board's resolve to work with

16   local interests to resolve barriers to implementation of

17   flood control policy and projects.

18              "We firmly believe that the primary goal and

19   focus of the Board must remain with flood control and

20   public safety.    And we look forward to the Board as our

21   state partner in accomplishing our public safety mission,

22   and the interim report as the affirmation by the Board of

23   that partnership.

24              "It's with these understandings that the

25   Association supports the resolution adopting the interim

26   report of the comprehensive study."

27              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you so much.   And we

28   really appreciate that support very much.


 1              I think I should share with the Board that Mr.

 2   George Basie wanted me to tell you that he would have been

 3   here, but he's celebrating his 50th wedding anniversary.

 4   So he thought that was a legitimate reason to miss the

 5   meeting.

 6              (Laughter.)

 7              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Tim Washburn.

 8              Tim, would you keep it short?

 9              MR. WASHBURN:   Yes, I will.

10              (Laughter.)

11              MR. WASHBURN:   Thank you, Ms. Marchand, members

12   of the Board.    Tim Washburn, Agency counsel for the

13   Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.      I'm here on behalf

14   of my agency to support adoption of the resolution today.

15              My boss, Butch Hodgkins, is not here because he

16   is actively today up in Marysville pursuing a relationship

17   that we are developing with Yuba County Water Agency.        Our

18   two agencies are actively pursuing some of the ideas that

19   have made their way forward in the interim report, and

20   particularly the idea of a lower Sacramento regional

21   project and a Yuba Basin regional project.       And we think

22   there is a great opportunity here for us to link these two

23   regional projects together and to address flood control

24   issues and environmental issues in a broad section of the

25   lower Sacramento Valley.     We're working very hard on that,

26   as you know.    We're working closely with your staff.

27              We have been fortunate to have staff assigned to

28   work with us from CALFED.     So they are working with us on


 1   our lower Sacramento regional project to develop the

 2   ecosystem restoration component of that.

 3               So we are hopeful that we can take the framework

 4   that's represented in this interim document and actually

 5   produce something on the ground covering a very large

 6   portion of the lower Sacramento Valley and, in fact,

 7   really benefiting all of the major nodes of urbanization

 8   in the lower valley.      That would be Yuba City, Marysville,

 9   Sacramento, West Sacramento, Davis, Woodland, and perhaps

10   even Rio Vista.     So we are working very hard on that and

11   are hopeful that it will produce some concrete results.

12               Thank you very much.

13               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    Thank you, Tim.

14               Jennifer Martin from The Nature Conservancy.

15               MS. MARTIN:   Thank you.

16               I'll be brief.   I don't think I can add much to

17   what everyone has already said.

18               But I wanted to provide you with The Nature

19   Conservancy support on the interim plan as well; to

20   highlight a few of the areas that we find particularly

21   inspiring, if that's fair, and that we're really in

22   support of.

23               The first is the CALFED coordination piece.        Very

24   happy to see some more details fleshed out on that.        I

25   would support Tim Ramirez' comments on really putting that

26   on paper.     It's a very important part of the relationship

27   to be built between the comprehensive study and CALFED.

28               Also would support what the task force members


 1   have said about continuing to work on the technical

 2   studies and the data development, agree that that's very

 3   important.     And as well as Mr. Stork's comment that

 4   there's a time to be practical about the definition of the

 5   100 year flood and what that means and to use that

 6   reasonably.

 7               I would also really like to encourage continued

 8   development of the ecosystem functions model, which we

 9   find has a lot of potential for practical use.

10               I'd also like to encourage and support continued

11   investigations into the Delta, which we believe is an

12   integral part of the system and should be included in

13   project analysis.

14               And, finally, we'd just like to reflect on the

15   Colonel's comments encouraging leadership, and

16   congratulate the Army Corps and the Board for your

17   exceptional work in showing real leadership in this area,

18   being creative and looking ahead into the future with

19   creative responses to some real important needs.

20               That's it.

21               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Thank you so much for coming

22   by.     And those were really nice words.   Thank you very

23   much.

24               Monty Schmitt with the Natural Resources Defense

25   Council.

26               Mr. Schmitt.

27               MR. SCHMITT:   Madam Chairman, members of the

28   Board, thank you for the opportunity to provide some


 1   hopefully very brief comments.

 2              There been many statements made in support of the

 3   comprehensive study and the interim report.     And I'd like

 4   to add ours on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense

 5   Council and our hundred thousand members that we have here

 6   in California, and the importance of this study and for it

 7   to move forward.

 8              I think that a lot us had hoped, as we've tracked

 9   this process over the years, that something more might

10   come out of the process, something that would actually

11   draw maps -- lines on a map and provide more specific

12   numbers.     But I think at the same time a lot of really

13   valuable tools have been developed.     The hydraulic models

14   will be extremely important in the future for looking at

15   post projects and assessing their values.     And also their

16   potential constraints on meeting the multiple objectives

17   that are being looked at for the comprehensive study.

18              I think that a lot of statements have been made

19   to talk about the things that need to be included in the

20   comprehensive study as it moves forward, and we hope that

21   it does.     Coordination with CALFED and looking at

22   achieving multiple objectives with projects is very

23   important.

24              I think we would also underscore the need to

25   increase outreach and to bring in more stakeholders into a

26   single forum where people can sit together and express

27   their concerns, hear the concerns of others, and find

28   common ground.     I think a particular good example of this


 1   is the floodplain management task -- or the floodplain

 2   task force that which you'll here about I guess here later

 3   today, where people were brought together and everybody

 4   had a chance to express their concerns and find common

 5   grounds; particularly that everybody I think generally

 6   recognizes there's some very significant problems and we

 7   need to do some things.

 8               I think the second thing I'd like to underscore

 9   is a need to provide a unified framework for future

10   projects.     The historic piecemealing of the flood

11   conveyance capacities in the various reaches of the system

12   has left us with a system which does not provide us I

13   think the level of protection that we hoped for.       And it's

14   definitely left us with a degraded ecosystem, which has

15   unfortunately often been in conflict with flood

16   protection.     In the future, a unified system will allow us

17   to define projects and enable us to not have conflict

18   between the different regional goals and, therefore, avoid

19   future piecemealing of the projects.

20               I think that it's also very important to

21   underscore something that's been said here a number of

22   times, and the action actually occurs, flooding and

23   environmental degradation and loss of valuable

24   agricultural lands and urban encroachment are going to

25   continue unless we do something.

26               And from our experiences working on the San

27   Joaquin -- last month we came and gave the Board a

28   presentation on the progress of our efforts to develop


 1   restoration plans and water supply plans for the upper San

 2   Joaquin.     And we've learned there's much more that we need

 3   to learn.     There's a lot of studies that we will continue

 4   in the future as part of our effort.      But we'd also like

 5   to recognize that the unknown shouldn't be a reason for

 6   inaction and that we need to move forward carefully and

 7   adaptively in learning as we go.      But also to take the

 8   bold steps of moving forward.

 9               With that I'd just like to say that we really

10   appreciate the effort of the Board and the staff of DWR

11   and the Army Corps.      It's been a long process.   It's been

12   very, very hard, and they worked very, very hard to meet

13   the needs of the stakeholders and to meet this important

14   need of flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration.

15               Thank you.

16               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Thank you so much for coming

17   over and telling us that.

18               Mr. Tom Ellis from Grimes.

19               MR. ELLIS:   Madam President and Board members, I

20   want to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you

21   today.     I am Tom Ellis, and I'm here today representing

22   only myself.

23               I live, farm, and own land in the Grimes area of

24   southern Colusa County, right in the middle of the Colusa

25   Basin.     So flood control and security of that basin is of

26   great importance to me and to my family.

27               The concern I'm going to talk with you today --

28   maybe some agreements have been made that I'm not aware of


 1   that have addressed problem, especially since the San

 2   Joaquin folks didn't talk about it.     But I don't often

 3   have the time to come and meet with you.     So I'm going to

 4   go ahead and say this because often times these things

 5   seem to be addressed and they resurface later in either a

 6   little different manner or different terminology.        So I'm

 7   going to share my thoughts with you today.     So bear with

 8   me for a couple minutes please.

 9            My purpose is to discuss -- or express my

10   concerns about the attempt to include ecosystem

11   restoration authority as part of the mission of the State

12   Reclamation Board.     And I've seen this issue surface in

13   the comprehensive study as well as in the Governor's flood

14   management task force.

15            But recently I attended a meeting of the flood

16   management task force in Stockton where this issue was

17   addressed.   And after a very eloquent discussion and

18   support of the inclusion of ecosystem authority by Mr.

19   Rabbon, there followed many comments in opposition.        The

20   main thrust of these comments was that we need an advocate

21   for maintaining the integrity of the flood control system

22   that was developed in the early 20th century and it has

23   served the Central Valley so well.     This advocate must

24   stand guard over this system tenaciously.

25            There is a whole laundry list of agencies,

26   advocacy groups, nongovernmental organizations, et cetera,

27   that have ecosystem restoration as their main and

28   sometimes only goal.     So we need this so call flood


 1   control advocate to represent those of us who depend so

 2   greatly on this system functioning as it was designed.

 3   This advocacy would provide a system of checks and

 4   balances as Mr. Hildebrand described so well at that

 5   Stockton meeting.

 6            Last Tuesday we toured flood control facilities

 7   in the Sacramento area.   And I'm very pleased that Mr.

 8   Cusenza was able to accompany us on that tour.      And we

 9   heard Department of Water Resources personnel discuss the

10   problems they have with clearing vegetation from flood

11   control channels.   We were told of thickets of

12   cornfield-like stands of two and three year old cottonwood

13   trees that had developed in a flood control channel.         The

14   problems created by these trees at a flood event were

15   recognized, so personal attempted to get permits to remove

16   these trees.   This process proved difficult.     But after

17   several attempts, permission was finally granted.

18            I do not understand why such a permit is a

19   problem when dealing with an obvious to public safety and

20   the integrity of a flood control facility involved.      This

21   a situation where I want the Reclamation Board and its

22   management to step in as a flood control advocate to see

23   that such a problem is taking care of immediately.

24            I understand this is an awesome assignment.         But

25   such an assignment must not be diluted in any way.      The

26   safety and security of our great Central Valley and, in

27   particular, the lower Sacramento Valley is at stake.

28   Therefore, I would ask you to not support these proposed


 1   changes in your stated mission.

 2               And I thank you for your time.

 3               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    Okay.   Thank you very much.

 4               Mr. Tom Evans.

 5               MR. EVANS:   Madam Chair, members of the Board.

 6   My name is Tom Evans.        I represent the Family Water

 7   Alliance.

 8               I've read the interim report rather carefully.

 9   And I find some statements in there that should -- appear

10   to be positive to landowners and to others.

11               And perhaps the most important is the change in

12   language in Guiding Principle Number 9.        It now says

13   that -- well, formally it says that future projects must

14   integrate and adopt CALFED ecosystem restoration program

15   goals.   The version we have now has been moderated to say

16   that to the extent possible, projects should integrate and

17   adopt CALFED ecosystem restoration goals.

18               There are also indications in the interim report

19   that the Reclamation Board will use discretion in applying

20   the guiding principles and that it is not a given that all

21   principles have to apply to every project.        And that's

22   very comforting.     But further on, on page 50 it says that

23   the Rec Board will ensure that changes to the system

24   integrate ecosystem restoration, that you will assure that

25   all guiding principles are applied consistently for each

26   project, and that future projects will give priority to

27   benefits of flood damage reduction and ecosystem

28   restoration.


 1              Now, these last statements raise a concern that

 2   when a local district comes to you and asks for approval

 3   of a project, that they are going to feel pressured into

 4   including ecosystem restoration elements that they neither

 5   want or can afford.

 6              Another statement that sounds very realistic --

 7   and I'll quote.    It's on page 107.   It says, "Substantial

 8   sediment deposition in channel vegetative growth have

 9   greatly diminished channel conveyance capacity along many

10   reaches of the river.     Although this increases the risk of

11   flooding, maintenance activities have greatly been

12   curtailed since the late 1980's due to environmental

13   legislation."

14              Everyone can understand that you and the Corps

15   have to abide by the law.     But what disappoints us is that

16   both of those agencies have not been very loudly vocal in

17   tell Congress and the Legislature that those environmental

18   laws are creating counterproductive effects, effects that

19   include imperiling human life.     He think that if you had

20   done that, Congress and the Legislature may have made some

21   changes for the better.     But they haven't.

22              So instead you have embraced environmental goals

23   that are advanced by the most extreme environmentalists.

24   The formula you have for accommodating ecosystem

25   restoration and flood safety is to widen the floodplain,

26   which means realigning levees extensively and transitory

27   storage.    And those two elements alone have the potential

28   for creating too many adverse impacts, especially rural


 1   counties that rely on agriculture and their tax basis.

 2            So we cannot join in the chorus of approval

 3   because of these things.     We think the comp study is

 4   fundamentally flawed and should not be accepted.

 5            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you, Mr. Evans.

 6            Charles Adams.     Is that correct, Mr. Adams.

 7            MR. ADAMS:    Chris Adams, yeah.

 8            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Chris.     I'm sorry.   I'm

 9   sorry, Chris.

10            Your handwriting isn't real good, Chris.

11            (Laughter.)

12            MR. ADAMS:    The educational system.

13            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Oh, yes.

14            MR. ADAMS:    A brilliant third grade teacher

15   changed me from left-handed to right-handed.        And it's

16   been downhill ever since.

17            My name's Chris Adams, and I'm a program manager

18   for the Office of Emergency Service and have represented

19   Dallas Jones on the executive committee of this comp study

20   for the last couple years.

21            And we would clearly like to state that we were

22   very pleased, Madam Chairman and the Board, to being

23   included in the grouping of all the other stakeholders and

24   players here.   We have a very big picture perspective

25   there at OES.   And I find that the comp study clearly is

26   consistent with all of the work that we're doing in terms

27   of maintaining our relationship with the new legislation

28   on DMA 2000, which is requiring state and local hazard


 1   mitigation planning for the whole nation.

 2             The fact that the comp study has set a tone and

 3   it's one that has been multi-disciplinary.       It's one that

 4   has had extensive stakeholder outreach.      And it's one that

 5   has produced I think very important items such as the

 6   guiding principles and also the modeling efforts, which we

 7   all look forward to in terms of continued working to

 8   achieve localization of that data.

 9             We look forward to the implementation of this.

10   And it being consistent with task force as well as CALFED,

11   we think that we've made recent strides in terms of

12   introduction of flood management practices into the

13   general plan elements of the State of California.      I think

14   that you'll find locally this will become very, very

15   important and foundational throughout the Central Valley,

16   certainly; and in terms of the tone and sense and the

17   tools you've chosen to use, probably throughout the

18   nation.   So we compliment you for your work.

19             Thank you.

20             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Thank you, Chris.    And I

21   know you've been a big help all through this process.         So

22   thanks a lot, even though I didn't get your first name

23   right.

24             Okay.   That is all of the cards that I have.

25             And is there anyone else here who wishes to give

26   testimony on this matter?

27             All right.   I don't see anyone.

28             Colonel, did you wish a make some concluding


 1   remarks?

 2              COLONEL CONRAD:    No.

 3              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:      All right.    I'm going to

 4   close the public comment period now.        And we will have

 5   comments and action from the Board.        And those -- probably

 6   each Board member would like to make a brief statement.

 7   So I'll start with Burt.      And we'll just go down the line,

 8   and I'll end.

 9              So, Burt, do want to start?

10              SECRETARY BUNDY:    Well, thank you.

11              I'm never really sure whether I want to speak

12   before the esteemed Dr. Mount or at the other end of it.

13              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:      Well, we could start with

14   him if you'd like.

15              SECRETARY BUNDY:    No, that's fine.       If he speaks

16   first, then I have nothing left to say since I --

17              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:      I thought about that.

18              SECRETARY BUNDY:    If I speak first, then I say,

19   "I wish I had said that."      So never mind.

20               But to get some of my thoughts together, I -- you

21   know, I strongly support this effort.        I have to voice a

22   little bit of disappointment just in the timing it's

23   taken.     Probably the good news is and -- that we've got a

24   lot of rain right now and, unfortunately, we may be

25   looking at flooding.    Because as Tim had pointed out, you

26   know, when the sun's shining, we really don't think that

27   much about flood control.      And so maybe this has come

28   around to the point to where we will be moved to look at


 1   solutions for the problems we have with flooding within

 2   the Central Valley.

 3            And I thought the comment that Ron Stork made

 4   that this is a collection of good ideas is probably

 5   appropriate.   It's not as comprehensive as I would like.

 6   I'm a planner in my nature, and so I would like to see

 7   something that's a little stronger, a little more

 8   structured as far as a plan is concerned.     But I think

 9   it's a great step in the right direction.

10            Are there flaws is it?    Certainly are.   There's

11   no doubt that the hard work is ahead of us.

12   Implementation and getting into the fine print is going to

13   be very, very difficult.    I just hope that we do open the

14   box and look at new ideas and look at ways to accomplish

15   both the flood management and ecosystem restoration,

16   because that is the law, that is important.     And contrary

17   to some people's feelings, we don't tell the legislators

18   what to do.

19            (Laughter.)

20            SECRETARY BUNDY:    One of the concerns that just

21   actually popped up in this discussion is that, you know,

22   there's a lot of confusion out there with people dealing

23   with FEMA and FEMA flood areas and corrections.     And there

24   needs to be far better coordination between what we're

25   doing and what FEMA's doing than I think that we have

26   outlined in these good ideas or this report.     And so we

27   need to move forward with some type of coordination,

28   better coordination and discussion with FEMA I think in


 1   the long term.

 2            The one other area that I know is one that a lot

 3   of people have concerns with is designated floodway

 4   program. And I don't think there's enough strength in what

 5   we have here at this time dealing with the language with

 6   designated floodways.     I think they are very, very

 7   important.   It's prevention, people, is what it is.     And

 8   that's what we need to do, is to look closer at ways to

 9   get ahead of the game as far as flood control.

10            And I really appreciate the effort that the San

11   Joaquin people have done as far as stepping up and looking

12   at some of the issues and be willing to modify their

13   stance a little bit.    I do appreciate that very much.     And

14   I hope we do move forward and keep that confidence that

15   we've gained in that direction, because it is very

16   important.

17            However, I also -- and this is not just for the

18   San Joaquin people, it's for all of us -- is that I think

19   that we need to not stick our heads in the sand, and we

20   have to look this in the face and look at solutions.

21   Because even though we've got some very good flood control

22   systems out there right now, the maintenance process is

23   not that great.   And the priorities that we have now,

24   nationwide, California wide, are different than we had

25   when we designed those.     And so we have to look at those

26   changes and incorporate those changes in the process.

27            I think the Colonel was right in talking about

28   that we do have a great opportunity in front of us.      And I


 1   think that that's what we have to look at and move forward

 2   with.

 3               Again, I would like to congratulate staff and all

 4   the people that have been involved in this process because

 5   I know how hard you've worked on it.        And just thank you

 6   for that.

 7               That's really my comments.

 8               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Very good.

 9               Tony.

10               BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     Thank you, Madam Chair.

11               I've heard everything you've heard this morning.

12   And a couple of points that I made that one person did

13   make -- say that he wished this had been a plan instead of

14   just a study.

15               When this first came out it was a plan.

16   Sacramento/San Joaquin River Basin Comprehensive Plan.            We

17   got away from that immediately.        And the reason we got --

18   the suggestion to them was, if it's a plan, it's us going

19   down into the locals and telling them what we have planned

20   for them.     And that's absolutely what we did not want to

21   do.     We wanted the locals to come up from the bottom up

22   and tell us what they would like to see done.          So we went

23   ahead and came through with -- you know, and staff and you

24   people.     I didn't have that much to do with it.       But staff

25   and Corps and stakeholders got together and they came up

26   with a plan.

27               And the plan was sorely needed.       I saw that at

28   the very beginning.     We do need a study to find out what's


 1   happening in this great valley of ours.      I'm the perennial

 2   optimist.     But when I first saw it, I said, "Boy, if they

 3   can pull this one out, more power to them."      And they've

 4   pulled it out.     They've pulled it out.   I can't compliment

 5   the people involved enough for what they've done.

 6               Another point was made that they're not too happy

 7   about combining flood and ecosystem under the Rec Board.

 8   We wrestled with that too.     We wrestled with that.     And

 9   the thought that I have is -- this is just a person

10   thought -- that is if we don't have some kind of say-so in

11   there, then -- I'm going to use the word "zealot," and

12   that's not a bad word.     It's just somebody who's got deep

13   fervor for their cause.     Some zealot in some particular

14   ecosystem or environmental arena might be trying to

15   dictate to us how the flood system is going to work.         And

16   that can't be.     We've got to protect the public.     We've

17   got to protect everybody involved.     And I have no problem

18   with having a piece of that action, because I know at

19   least that this Board -- I know that this Board has its

20   head on the right spot as far as taking care of all the

21   people of California.

22               I can't compliment the Corps, the staff and

23   stakeholders enough on what they've done.      And if this

24   program does get voted on favorably today, and I am very,

25   very confident that it will, I'd like to paraphrase

26   Winston Churchill in his famous words that he said in

27   World War II, and relate that to this, "Never have so many

28   owed so much to so few."


 1               Thank you.

 2               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Very good, Tony.

 3               Bill.

 4               BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:     I think I'll make it real

 5   short.     I think we all agree that this is a framework now,

 6   that the guiding principles and the approach that we have

 7   in it, we've changed it from what some of us have

 8   mentioned before which was sorely needed for the Central

 9   Valley.     It is a series of guiding principles.        But I

10   think, to be honest, it's going to really get projects on

11   the ground, as Tim Ramirez said, because it will enable,

12   or prod in some areas, local and regional jurisdictions to

13   come up with solutions to the obvious problems that we all

14   see before us.

15               And we saw a couple of examples today.        Tim

16   Washburn outlined what the Sacramento River Forum and the

17   Yuba City -- Yuba area is doing in terms of a regional

18   project.     Obviously the San Joaquin task force has their

19   own regional effort going.        And that's really what this

20   has done.     And that's good, that's absolutely good.          And I

21   think it will mean we'll get projects with local support

22   on the ground that will do what we want to do.

23               Thanks, Betsy.

24               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you.

25               Gloria.

26               VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:     Yes.     I want to take

27   this opportunity to thank everybody that participated.

28   And I'm not going to ask forgiveness from the staff,


 1   because I was one of most forceful individuals on this

 2   Board.   But instead let me compliment you because I think

 3   that you came around to the issue that was so important to

 4   me, and that was stakeholders' participation.     And when I

 5   say that, I'm talking about all kinds of people,

 6   environmentalists, farmers, business people, the housing

 7   industry, the Agency representatives.

 8            I think any time that you take on anything that's

 9   going to have an impact such as this process that we've

10   gone through, it must be something that really represents

11   the general public.     We as Board members are responsible

12   to the general public.    But we do have our own biases.   I

13   have a real more informed knowledge of what happens in the

14   Central Valley.   And we have other Board members that are

15   more knowledgeable about what happens in the concerns of

16   the northern part of California.

17            But I think as team players as we are here, we

18   ultimately come before you with the idea that we want to

19   do what's best for everybody involved.    I take my job very

20   seriously.   And at times I can be kind of a -- kind of

21   difficult to work with.    But I'll tell you, I do not offer

22   any regrets for having taken the position that I did,

23   because I think that what turned out is something that

24   everybody can accept.     There's some issues that are

25   important to certain individuals here.    But I believe that

26   the resolution that we have come forward to put on the

27   record, as agreed by Mr. Rabbon and some of the

28   stakeholders from the valley, clearly gives us enough


 1   flexibility to make sure that we do what's right for

 2   everybody from northern California all the way throughout

 3   California.

 4            So with that in mind, I want to thank Mr. Rabbon

 5   because he went out of his way to make sure that he could

 6   take all the comments from people that were involved.

 7            The Board members were very helpful too.          Many of

 8   them took trips to other parts of the region other than

 9   the Sacramento area.     And the entire staff.

10            As far as the Corps of Engineers and CALFED, I

11   think everybody's tried their best.

12            So I want to congratulate everybody.        And

13   specifically give a big thank you to all the folks from

14   the San Joaquin Valley from down the Central Valley,

15   because, believe me, these people have put a lot of time,

16   a lot of effort, and a lot of money into this.        And I know

17   that they have the most sincere desire to make this work

18   for everybody.

19            So thank you very much.

20            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you, Gloria.

21            Jeff, we're all waiting.

22            BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:     Burt said it all.     How's

23   that?

24            (Laughter.)

25            BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:     That's too easy.

26            Actually most of my colleagues have said the bulk

27   of what I'd like to say.     But I want to focus on a few

28   specific comments.     And then, believe it or not, I have a


 1   question for David.     Actually the specific question.

 2              First goes to the Colonel -- comment to the

 3   Colonel.    You guys change your jobs all the time, so we

 4   don't ever see one single colonel in charge of the whole

 5   process.    But you get to be at the end, and you get to

 6   sign this at the end.     Well, let me tell you what you're

 7   signing, you that has your name on it.     An historic

 8   document in the annals of the Corps.     And I know because

 9   I'm very well acquainted with what the Corps has produced

10   over the years.    And I've served for a year on the

11   Environmental Advisory Board to the Corps.

12              My hope is that you will take this back to

13   General Flowers and you will show him this document.

14   Because when I was in Washington working with the Corps,

15   they were completely and utterly unaware of the work that

16   we were doing out here.     And as I say, it's historic.

17              Your staff will rarely get the credit they

18   deserve.    You get all the credit and all the blame, which

19   it comes with the territory.     But your staff is the ones

20   who did it.    Now, I see some of them here.   Some I work

21   with directly.    And the technical hurdles in this thing

22   were huge, and they still are based on the resolution

23   we're actually going to agree to today.     There's still a

24   lot to be done.

25              So please, take it back to DC and say, "Look what

26   we did out here on the West Coast.     You guys got to pay

27   some attention to the kinds of approaches we've taken."

28   Had this approach been taken in the Mississippi system, I


 1   think we'd be a whole lot better off today than they are

 2   now.

 3             So congratulations to and your staff.     As I say,

 4   you get to take the credit for all the staff, and there

 5   actually will be very little blame.

 6             I do want to make one comment though about the

 7   appendices, which is important.    And this is going to

 8   sound like a corny academic comment, and it is.       One of

 9   the criticisms of the Corps that comes out of the academic

10   institutions says you don't put this stuff out for

11   publication and peer review, scientific peer review.       It's

12   the nature of the Corps not to do so.    This is so

13   important and this has such ramifications, that I think

14   you should give your scientists the time to put this stuff

15   out in the peer review literature and let the rest of us

16   beat up on it.

17             Because I think that's actually important for the

18   Corps.   It's part of daylighting the Corps does.

19             Okay.   This specific question I have is for

20   David.

21             David, will you look at the resolution that we

22   have today.   There was a modification of language here

23   that includes the -- this is number, I guess under 1.

24   There is a separate entitled "Technical Studies."       We've

25   heard a lot about the technical studies.

26             The last sentence says, "The tools and models of

27   the appendices will not be used until they are updated,

28   considering the best available information, including


 1   information based on the expertise and experience of local

 2   stakeholders."        What I found through this process that

 3   does concern me about that language is this can be an

 4   endless duel; and, that is, if stakeholders aren't

 5   satisfied with the outcome of our conclusions on the

 6   technical studies, they claim we haven't consulted them

 7   enough.

 8               Who makes the decision that we've got enough

 9   information to move forward at this point?         Who makes that

10   decision?

11               STAFF COUNSEL SANDINO:     I think that's still left

12   with the Corps and the Board.        Once you've determined that

13   you have given the stakeholders an opportunity to review

14   and provide additional information, you can say enough is

15   enough.

16               BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:     Okay.   I wondered whether

17   this legally binds us in some way that we should consider.

18               Thanks.     I'm satisfied with that then.

19               And then, finally, my last comment.      I'm going to

20   say what everybody else said.

21               But actually I could beat Tim Ramirez, by the

22   way.   On January 1st after a spectacular hangover from a

23   great New Years Eve party I was up on the north fork of

24   the American River standing on the bridge when the passage

25   of that peek flood came through.        And get hit by a large

26   Cypress which smashed into the bridge.         Boy, it was great.

27               (Laughter.)

28               BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:     So, yeah, I too then six


 1   years later now am in fact a little disappointed that we

 2   didn't come up with a plan.        But I also now understand how

 3   this -- I understand so much more now how politics works.

 4               Here is my thing.     And I'm so glad Tim Washburn

 5   spoke.     But that's got to be the first time I said that,

 6   right, Tim.

 7               Because what Tim articulated was a regional

 8   condition.     And I think what this does for us is, yes,

 9   local projects have always come forward, but this allows

10   us the opportunity to take a regional vision and actually

11   begin to do it.     And I congratulate you, Tim.       And you've

12   got to work with Butte County to get this resolved.          You

13   have to.

14               So I am looking forward to it.     And I hope that

15   the Rec Board will be very aggressive about promoting

16   regional solutions to flood management in the system.

17               With that, thanks.     Thanks to the Army Corps,

18   thanks to the Rec Board staff.        And I say this is an

19   historic document.     You have no idea how it -- well, maybe

20   you do because you put a historic herculean amount of work

21   into it, which is a historic event.        I'm really pleased to

22   be a member who will happily vote yes in favor of it.

23               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you, Jeff.

24               I'm not going to make too many comments.

25   Everybody said a lot.     But I do want to say that this is

26   indeed a cup half full, and I think that's very important

27   because we need to be positive about it and we need to

28   look to the future.


 1               But in the future, there are going to be

 2   diminished resources.     And I think that we all better just

 3   think about that real good.       There's going to be, as we

 4   have this wonderful opportunity presented to us, a time of

 5   diminished resources, which will challenge us all very

 6   much to be a little bit better than we have been in the

 7   past as far as working together, stop grinding axes and

 8   start thinking of positive solutions, and trying to make

 9   the system work that we now have before us.

10               And I'm really sincere about that.    I think

11   everybody on this Board is willing to work very hard.          We

12   know our staff is.     But we also have to be cognizant that

13   our attitude may have to change in the future just because

14   there are just so many diminished resources, both with the

15   State and the federal and the local levels.

16               So I hate to throw a damper on this, but I do

17   think we need to be aware that we need to really think

18   about that and really strive harder for working together,

19   partnering, and not axe grinding but making a positive

20   solution.

21               I also would like to thank the Colonel.    It's

22   been a real pleasure to work with this Colonel.        And I'm

23   very glad that you are there.       And if there's anything

24   that we can do to help you advance our cause, or actually

25   the cause of the Corps, please call on us.

26               COLONEL CONRAD:   I will.

27               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    With that, I would like to

28   have a motion.     And the motion would be to endorse the


 1   comp study.    And I'm going to ask Pete to make any

 2   comments that he may wish, because in many ways he's a

 3   hero in this whole process.      And I'm going to sound really

 4   corny because he is our staff, but he is a hero.

 5              So why don't you say a few heroic words.

 6              (Laughter.)

 7              GENERAL Manager RABBON:    Well, my name has been

 8   mentioned a couple of times.      And I truly want to say it

 9   has been mentioned in terms of representing the literally

10   dozens of staff people that have been working on this,

11   people that I know I can be calling up late at night, that

12   I know will be at the office on weekends.      I have their

13   cell phone numbers.

14              It is hard to describe how much effort has gone

15   into this from the public service people.      And so I want

16   to congratulate all those people that have worked on this

17   and thank them very much for that effort they have put in.

18   And also warn them for the effort that will be expected

19   next year on this.

20              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    You hear that down there,

21   you two?

22              (Laughter.)

23              All right.    I would like to ask Peter about this

24   resolution.    Should that not be included in the motion,

25   Resolution Number 02-25?

26              GENERAL MANAGER RABBON:    If the Board was to pass

27   Resolution 02-25, that would make the changes as we have

28   discussed with the San Joaquin Valley Group.      It would


 1   endorse the report with those changes.        It also would

 2   direct the staff to work with CALFED and the Corps of

 3   Engineers on a memorandum of understanding to properly

 4   coordinate the comprehensive study and the CALFED program.

 5   It would direct staff to continue identifying and

 6   developing solutions for implementation of the program.

 7   And it would also direct staff to work with agencies in

 8   terms of identifying and advancing local and regional

 9   level activities.

10            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     All right.     We need a motion

11   to approve.

12            BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     Madam Chair, I move that

13   we accept Resolution 02-25, and we accept the comp study

14   as presented -- endorse it.

15            VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:     Second.

16            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     It's been moved by Tony,

17   seconded by Gloria to approve Resolution Number 02-25 and

18   to endorse the comp study.

19            Is there any further discussion on this motion?

20            All those in favor say aye.

21            (Ayes.)

22            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Opposed?

23            Motion passes unanimously.

24            (Applause.)

25            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     I want to thank you all for

26   coming and for your participation and for staying in there

27   and hanging in with us.

28            Thank you.


 1               And we have one more item on this agenda before

 2   lunch.     And I'd like to ask the Board their pleasure.

 3               Do you wish to have lunch now or do you wish to

 4   do Item Number 10?

 5               We have a lot of stakeholders on 10?

 6               I think we should do it --

 7               SECRETARY BUNDY:    I would prefer eating myself.

 8               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Well, we have one vote to

 9   eat.     But I'm informed that there are a lot of

10   stakeholders on this one that are interested in this one

11   as well.

12               So do you want to do it then?

13               All right.   I think that I'm hearing that it

14   would be better to do it now.

15               Sergio, do you think we're going to do it now?

16   That's what I'm hearing.

17               I think I'm going to say let's do it now.     Okay?

18               BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     We owe it to the

19   stakeholders to do it now.

20               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Yeah, I think so.

21               All right.   We're going to hear Item Number 10

22   before lunch, which is the Floodplain Management Task

23   Force report.     So let's do that one right now.

24               All right.   Before Sergio makes his report in

25   just a minute, I'd like to ask Bill Edgar to just make a

26   couple of comments because he was our representative on

27   your task force, Sergio.       And then we'll go into your

28   staff report.


 1               Bill.

 2               BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:   Thank you, Betsy.

 3               This is also a historic document, in my opinion.

 4   Governor's floodplain management task force is a very

 5   important document.     It also as going through the process

 6   went through a very difficult process, and it's probably

 7   not resulted in recommendations that some of us would have

 8   envisioned in the beginning.      But it's a step forward, and

 9   I think it's positive.     There are 38 recommendations in

10   the report itself.     There are two specifically that relate

11   to the Reclamation Board, Recommendation 31 on designated

12   floodways and Recommendation 36 on environmental

13   restoration authority.

14               On both of those issues Pete and I worked very

15   hard, and with Tony.     And we went down to a meeting in

16   Stockton and back and forth with the stakeholders and so

17   on.     And I think in your revised report we have some

18   language that we probably can be criticized for watering

19   down a little bit.     But the bottom line is we need more

20   outreach with the folks particularly in the San Joaquin

21   area.     We need more connection with them.   And the Rec

22   Board needs to be connected to them in a better way so

23   that we build up a trust.     And that's really what we're

24   doing here.

25               There's three categories of recommendations.      One

26   is information provided to a whole series of things.         And

27   then the essence of the report is really we are employing

28   a multi-objective management approach to what we do.         And


 1   there is some concern about that that was expressed on the

 2   comprehensive study about, you know, having restoration

 3   authority, environmental restoration authority vested with

 4   the Reclamation Board.      They believe -- some believe that

 5   will dilute our authority rather than really realign the

 6   responsibilities of the Rec Board with our partner, the

 7   Corps, which I think is important.          But we have to make

 8   our case to those folks.      And we have to come to an

 9   agreement.    And we haven't done that yet.

10              So the thrust of the recommendations is to do

11   that, to sit down and talk and see if we can work

12   something out.

13              And, anyway, it was a long hustle.        But staff did

14   a tremendous job.     We had the facilitators.       Lisa Buehler

15   really did a yeoman's work in trying to get these folks

16   together and so on.       So it was -- I think it was a good

17   effort.    And my recommendation is that we move forward on

18   it.

19              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Great.     Thank you, Bill.

20              Sergio, you've got to get on time too.        How about

21   that?

22              MR. GUILLAN:    Yes.   Well, thank you for your

23   remarks, Bill.

24              For the record, my name's Sergio Guillan from the

25   Department of Water Resources and the Executive Division,

26   and former Floodplain Management Task Force Executive

27   Officer.

28              (Laughter.)


 1             MR. GUILLAN:   I will not go into the details that

 2   I went last time since -- you know, for the interest of

 3   time.   And, however, I would like to emphasize that the

 4   floodplain management task force along with the

 5   comprehensive study are two items that were recommended in

 6   the flood emergency action team report.

 7             I would also say that Assembly Bill 1147 is the

 8   one that authorized and recommended the establishment of

 9   the floodplain management task force.     And in response to

10   that is that the Department of Water Resources decided to

11   go ahead and go forward with the task force.

12             The task force, just a refresher, was a group of

13   statewide representation from multi-agency,

14   multi-disciplinary and multi-interest persons.

15             I'm going to go directly to the recommendations

16   since I already talked before about the background and the

17   funding and all the other issues.

18             As Bill mentioned, there were three areas of

19   recommendations.   And I'm going to actually read them

20   since they were carefully crafted, and I don't want to

21   give my personal interpretation.

22             The first one was for the better understanding of

23   a reducing risks for reasonably foreseeable flooding.

24   What this mandates is for local, state and federal

25   agencies -- what this recommendations is for local, state,

26   and federal agencies should consider the risk to life and

27   property from reasonable and foreseeable floods when

28   making their land use and floodplain management decisions.


 1            Of particular interest in this group of

 2   recommendations are two examples that I can mention.      The

 3   first one is Recommendation Number 2, which is a future

 4   build-out for mapping.     That's very important and is very

 5   significant recommendation as we discussed last time.

 6            The other one is number 10, which is exceeding

 7   the National Flood Insurance Program management

 8   requirements.     Just with those two I think this makes this

 9   report a very worthwhile effort, like Bill said.

10            The second group of recommendations is the

11   multi-objective management approach for floodplains.      It

12   reads, "The state, local, and federal agencies should

13   implement multi-objectives floodplain management on the

14   watershed basins."     Also a very significant

15   recommendation.

16            And the last group of -- with the recommendations

17   is the local assistance funding and legislation, says,

18   "DWR should identify and actively pursue funding

19   opportunities, technical assistance to local governments

20   and other organizations and legislative proposals to

21   implement task force recommendations and insure successful

22   floodplain management, recognizing that local governments

23   have the primary responsibility and authority to land use

24   decisions."

25            This also is very important since the -- pretty

26   much states that the authority is still remains with the

27   local governments.     The Department is already moving

28   forward towards trying to identify ways to start


 1   implementing these recommendations, like Director Hannegan

 2   stated in his opening remarks in the last meeting, we met

 3   with the League of California Cities to start thinking

 4   about funding sources to implement these recommendations.

 5               As a closing statement, I would like to say that

 6   we met six times in public forums.      And we held about --

 7   well, more than 35 work group meetings that led to this 38

 8   recommendations.

 9               And at this time I would like to either answer

10   questions or just move forward with the Board approving

11   this report.

12               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Do you want to zero in on

13   the Rec Board's recommendations for the Rec Board.        I

14   think there are two that really apply to the Rec Board.

15               MR. GUILLAN:   There are two that are specific for

16   the Reclamation Board and there is one that also involves

17   the Reclamation Board.

18               I would like to talk about Recommendation Number

19   29.   It says the task force recommendations priorities.

20   This is a very important one.      And it reads -- And, again,

21   I'm going to read it to make sure that I capture exactly

22   what it says.     "DWR and the Reclamation Board should lead

23   the development of consensus process involving appropriate

24   stakeholders, identify criteria and prioritize the

25   implementation of task force recommendations given the

26   expected expenditures using existing and new funding

27   sources."     That's recommendation number 29.

28               Recommendation Number 31, which was already


 1   described before, is the designated floodways.        And it

 2   reads, "DWR and the Reclamation Board should include in

 3   the community assistance workshops information on the

 4   Reclamation Board's current authority to adopt and update

 5   the designated flow ways in the Central Valley.        The

 6   Reclamation Board should work with stakeholders to

 7   identify any list of Reclamation Board regulations that

 8   are impediments to flood compatible uses within the

 9   floodway and recommend specific revisions."

10            And the last one, which is Recommendation Number

11   36, which also involved the Reclamation Board, reads,

12   "Interagency barriers.    The reclamation Board should work

13   with the Corps of Engineers, state agencies, local

14   sponsors, and interested parties to identify interagency

15   barriers to efficient implementation of multiple objective

16   flood management projects and to develop options to

17   overcome those interagency barriers."

18            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you, Sergio.

19            And I wasn't getting, I think is -- you're to be

20   complimented on getting this report done in the timeframe

21   that it was actually supposed to be done in.     And it's a

22   good report and it's complete.     And so, you know, take a

23   little credit too.

24            MR. GUILLAN:    I would like to take some credit.

25   But, really, most of the credit goes to the task force

26   members who are the ones who participated in the very

27   intensive way during all these meetings.     And They were

28   the ones who moved this forward.


 1             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Thank you.

 2             Are there questions of Sergio?

 3             BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:   Sergio, when I looked at

 4   this -- that's right, this is one of those microphones

 5   that chases you around.   When I looked at this I came to

 6   two words, "wimp out."

 7             I think the task force wimped out on the

 8   designated floodways side of the equation.      I found this

 9   very disappointing.   There's no recommendation.     It says

10   think about.   And that's too bad, because this is one of

11   the most critical issues, particularly for the Board, is

12   how we deal with the designated floodways program.      That

13   one actually is probably my biggest complaint.

14             The second one is, the other wimp out in this was

15   on environmental restoration authority.      And I gather I

16   was in the bathroom while Bill was explaining some of

17   that.   I apologize for being tardy on that.

18             And, you know, people worked pretty hard on it in

19   a really, really short timeline.    And I'm going to sound

20   like this is just repeating what the comp study came up

21   with.   There was nothing that really just knocked me out

22   in this report.   I'm sorry to make you feel badly about

23   that.   But I was waiting to see something really

24   innovative and exciting and new, strong recommendations

25   that we might actually go to pursue a legislative agenda.

26   And I don't see any of them here.

27             So I personally recognize that this was a

28   consensus document.   When Mark Risener was alive he gave a


 1   great talk that -- the title of the talk was "California

 2   water, what to do about it and why we won't."

 3            (Laughter.)

 4            BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:   He started it out by saying

 5   we're a bunch of consensus wimps.    And this is what

 6   happens during consensus-building documents.

 7            So I would    have liked to seen stronger, more

 8   bold language, even with the identification of, "We really

 9   disagree about the following," and state it so that those

10   of us who are forced with making policy could evaluate it.

11            So that's my complaint, my gripe about the way it

12   turned out.   I was hoping for something more bold.      But,

13   frankly, you didn't have the time to do that.     Your

14   timeframe was so short to do this.     I mean this is about,

15   I guess, as much as we could hope for.

16            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   And they got it done.

17            BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:   So other than that, it's

18   nice.

19            (Laughter.)

20            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Well, it's hard to make

21   changes when -- well, the timeframe is so short.      But

22   also -- we used to have this marriage counselor who worked

23   for the county who said, "You know, Betsy, always

24   remember, people change but rarely."

25            (Laughter.)

26            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   I think there's been enough

27   change in attitude about how we're really going to deal

28   with this stuff.   And I don't know how you do it, but we


 1   got to just figure it out somehow.

 2               BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:      Well, Betsy, I think it

 3   takes time.     It takes time.      The water forum in Sacramento

 4   county, which I was involved in, took 13 years to get that

 5   going.     And Jeff's right, there isn't -- we just started a

 6   discussion.     We just had time to start the discussion.

 7               Pete and I went down to Stockton and to the Farm

 8   Bureau to talk about designated floodways and

 9   environmental restoration and being an authority for the

10   Board.     And folks just weren't ready to discuss those

11   issues.     They were ready to discuss them.         They're not

12   anywhere near coming to a solution.           And it's going to

13   take -- and we got to keep pushing.           We got to keep

14   talking and we got to keep pushing and we got to keep

15   getting people together.         But it's going to take a long

16   time.     We can't do this kind of stuff in nine months.           It

17   just doesn't work that way.

18               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:      Right.    But you got it

19   started.

20               Okay.   Thank you.

21               Are there any more questions or comments?

22               I don't have any cards from anyone in the

23   audience who wishes to speak on this matter.

24               Jonas, do you wish to speak?

25               DEPUTY DIRECTOR MINTON:      If I may.

26               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:      You certainly may, since

27   you're -- no I won't say.

28               MR. GUILLAN:   Thank you.


 1               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   All right.    Thank you,

 2   Sergio.

 3               DEPUTY DIRECTOR MINTON:   President Marchand,

 4   members of the Board.     Jonas Minton, Deputy Director of

 5   California Department of Water Resources.

 6               I would also extend my congratulations to the

 7   staff.     There was an excellent mediator, a consulting

 8   team, and in particular the stakeholders.        They were

 9   earnest discussions.

10               I would perhaps expand a little bit on Dr.

11   Mount's comments.     I think there actually are some very

12   significant specific recommendations included.        When the

13   representative of the Building Industry Association said,

14   "Yeah, it seems to make sense to map future build-out in

15   100 year floodplain designations."      That will make a

16   difference.     And when he went further, based upon

17   interest-based discussions and good factual science, and

18   he said, "Yeah, and we think it's appropriate to recommend

19   to cities and counties, try and show them the benefits of

20   requiring finish floor elevations to be one foot above the

21   base flood 100 year elevation after you include future

22   build-out," that's something fairly significant.

23               I would also add the update -- the recommended

24   updating of the State general plan guidelines, calling for

25   cities and counties to look at flood-prone areas in a new

26   way.     Move away from the so-called hundred year floodplain

27   to a reasonable foreseeable flood, which is not precisely

28   defined.     It's going to be an evolving concept.     But it


 1   moves it along beyond something that was developed for

 2   federal insurance purposes, to look at what kinds of

 3   protections do urban areas expect to be provided.

 4            And so that's another one.

 5            The updating of the Governor's executive order

 6   that controls state facilities and what we do ourselves in

 7   placing office buildings and other structures potentially

 8   in floodplains.   Updating that to be more current I think

 9   is significant.

10            It is correct to say that on two recommendations

11   important to the Reclamation Board, closure was not

12   achieved, that is correct.   It would have been possible to

13   very specifically state the differences an say, okay,

14   these people are in this corner and these people are in

15   that corner.

16            We consciously chose not to do that.     It was not

17   an accident.

18            And it is in part due to the expressions of

19   interest that were held in those very heartfelt

20   discussions by the different stakeholders.   In that case I

21   think we could look at the flood control folks, the

22   environmentalists, and the agricultural community, who

23   didn't say this is a totally bad idea to have ecosystems

24   done.   They said "Jeez, we're worried about diluting the

25   Rec Board's authority.   Maybe there are other ways to

26   accomplish it."

27            And what might some of those other ways be?     And

28   we did not have time to explore that as fully as we wanted


 1   to.     But I am very, very impressed by the commitment of

 2   all of the stakeholders to keep talking and working it

 3   through.     And I believe those are good faith -- there's my

 4   nephew.

 5               It's the holiday season.     He's coming up to visit

 6   me.

 7               And I believe -- I know that those are good faith

 8   representations.     And instead of saying, "Okay, this is

 9   where we differed.        And we're going to take a vote."    And

10   some win and some lose.        Under that scenario, I think we

11   perhaps all would have lost some.        And what I've been

12   impressed by in the last couple of weeks, literally --

13   months and weeks, is how people are starting to get

14   together.     As Ms. Moralez said, that's something that's

15   sort of a -- almost a forcing function that these have

16   done.     And I'm heartened when I see the good folks in the

17   agricultural community sitting by the environmentalist.

18   Now, they're not exactly in the same row yet, but they are

19   on the same side of the room.

20               (Laughter.)

21               DEPUTY DIRECTOR MINTON:     So with that, the

22   Department of Water Resources, Tom Hannigan, who chaired

23   the task force, thank you and your staff for -- the

24   members for participating.        And we viewed this as a

25   significant step.        It is progress, not perfection.

26               Thank you.

27               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Thank you, Jonas.   Thanks

28   for coming by also.


 1              All right.     Is there anyone else who wishes to

 2   speak on this matter?

 3              SECRETARY BUNDY:     At the risk of probably just

 4   extending what we're talking about, I have to agree with

 5   Jeff down at the farther end, as far as I was disappointed

 6   in the designated floodway portion of it.         You know -- and

 7   I'm not sure.    Pete, can you tell me when the designated

 8   floodway authorization was put in place as far as -- it's

 9   been a long time anyway.       I'm not sure when.    And we

10   haven't made as much progress on that as we should have.

11              It's there and it should be -- and it should be

12   used more than it has been.       I understand the concerns

13   with it.    And I also congratulate the task force in, you

14   know, coming together with something that is acceptable

15   with everyone.    And so it is a big step.        And I think

16   Jonas hit it right on the nose.

17              So I will support it very strongly.       But, like I

18   said, I think we need to work harder on the designated

19   floodway portion.

20              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Anyone else?

21              If not, we'll have a motion to approve the

22   floodplain management.

23              Oh, Tim was that why you were coming down here?

24   Okay.

25              MR. RAMIREZ:     I'm sorry.   I will not extend it

26   any longer than necessary.

27              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     I thought you just wanted to

28   talk to Jonas.


 1             MR. RAMIREZ:   I did.   I wanted to ask him if I

 2   could speak in support of the comments that he made just

 3   very briefly.

 4             Which is to make the point that I think it's

 5   obvious to the Board that these things are connected.        I

 6   mean the comprehensive study, the floodplain task force.

 7   I think I've covered different forums as well.     The San

 8   Joaquin Urban Management Program.    We had a pretty good

 9   discussion earlier this month, with all the same people

10   who have been involved with those forums as well.     And my

11   point to the Board is that some of those things are coming

12   to a close, at least in different stages.     And we need to

13   continue to have those discussions with those people.        And

14   I don't know yet of all the places that's going to happen.

15   I think SAFCA has don't an excellent job of getting the

16   ball rolling in the right direction on the lower

17   Sacramento.

18             There are other areas that need to have a very

19   similar dialogue with those same interests.     And I would

20   ask the Board to consider those things and to think about

21   what makes the most sense, given our limited resources and

22   the fact that you guys all spend a lot of time on this as

23   well individually.   You guys have a good spread

24   geographically on the Board and you put a lot of time into

25   this.   And I think -- I've been involved in some of those

26   forums to the extent that I can be myself.     But I found

27   them to be tremendously useful for people to have a place

28   to go and have the discussion.


 1               And I'm a little fearful of the fact that we will

 2   lose some of those forums because these things necessarily

 3   are changing and evolving over time.      And I think there's

 4   a way for you guys to think as a group about how we go

 5   forward from here.     That would be really important because

 6   as other people have said, taking the State perspective,

 7   which is your perspective, is critical.        And things are

 8   evolving regionally, not just locally but at very large

 9   scales.     This is a huge geographic footprint you guys have

10   responsibility for.     And to say that we're going to go

11   regionally is no less of a challenge necessarily.         And

12   there are many counties and many interests involved in

13   each of those regions.     It's not a simple, you know,

14   one-stop shopping effort.

15               But the point I wanted to impress upon you was to

16   give consideration to how we continue to have that

17   dialogue, because I think to some extent it needs to

18   involve the Board and the members of the Board.        And I

19   think the things that we have wimped out on for now, as

20   Jeff said, will continue in those kinds of forums.         And if

21   we don't have a forum to continue the debate and the

22   discussion, we're not going to move forward.

23               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Well, I would suggest that

24   you and Pete get together about you making -- about what

25   you would want to see.

26               BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:   Can I ask Tim a quick

27   question?

28               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Of course.


 1               BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:   Tim, so what next?   I mean,

 2   okay, so this document got produced and you guys

 3   strategically said you left out consideration of

 4   floodwater management, floodwater storage, map levee flood

 5   risk, disclosure of map availability, actions to conserve

 6   rural floodplains, urbanization of the floodplains,

 7   benefits and risks to floodplains from structural flood

 8   control.     So it strikes me that this -- you guys left a

 9   whole bunch out.     So now what happens?   Do we package this

10   up and it goes into that giant box of gray literature in

11   the Governor's office and we all forget about it?       What

12   happens next and how do we fund what would come next and

13   who's -- this is your job.

14               (Laughter.)

15               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   That's why I said make a

16   proposal.

17               MR. RAMIREZ:   I think he's hungry.   He's got to

18   go back out and figure it, come back in, tell us.       Which

19   I'd be happy to work with Pete and John and other people

20   who are in the room on those things, because I think

21   they're different in each area.      I think, as Jonas, said

22   there are some very encouraging specific recommendations

23   that are part of the task force report.      And I think John

24   and Sergio in particular are to be credited with having

25   work that hard to reach resolution on those things.

26               I don't know for certain where all these things

27   are going.     I would suspect some where there are specific

28   recommendations might end up in discussions to hold those


 1   kinds of forums or -- I'm not quite sure where.        I'm not

 2   the expert on the urban discussion.        We had very, very

 3   sharp people from the federal side who advised the task

 4   force.    The building industry people themselves.      Bill and

 5   his background.     The counties that were there.     I was

 6   really, really impressed and to some extent surprised by

 7   the level of progress that they made.

 8               On the issue of Central Valley where there are

 9   urban considerations but there's also this debate about

10   agriculture and the environment, we didn't make as much

11   progress, I don't think, as the urban folks did.        And

12   that's where I'm going to try to focus my attention in

13   terms of moving forward.

14               I'd be happy to come back at the next meeting and

15   maybe elaborate on things that might be done.        I think

16   there's a long list.     And I don't want to take the time

17   now unless the Board would like to do that, to work from

18   the top of my head.     But I could prepare some things and

19   come back at your next meeting.

20               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     That would be very good.

21               VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:     May I make a quick

22   comment please?

23               You know, you have a very good client.     And I saw

24   the list.     It's excellent.     You've got a great group of

25   people.     However, we don't have too many representatives

26   from the valley.     But I will tell you, I'm committing them

27   without even asking their permission.        That as long as you

28   have representation from the valley, if you want forums


 1   put together so we can have input, you can count on it.

 2   We'll put it together.     Because we're very committed.     We

 3   realize this is very, very crucial to everybody in

 4   California, and we want to make sure that the economic

 5   base of the Central Valley is very well protected.        So we

 6   appreciate your work.

 7              MR. RAMIREZ:   Thank you.

 8              And I want to point out, I'm responsible or take

 9   credit for none of this.     I was a member of the task

10   force.    DWR really led the effort with their team of

11   people.    And they deserve a lot of the credit.   But I

12   thank you for making that observation.     And we will

13   continue to do that in the finalist forums.     And I made

14   the same comment last night at a meeting in Willows, where

15   Burt and Pete were both as well in another forum --

16   another regional forum where Russell Young was also in

17   attendance.    And he was a member of the task force.      And I

18   think -- my comment to him and the people as well who are

19   here today is that we would have been there any way.        I

20   mean agencies, you know, get paid to run around and talk

21   to each other and to do our thing.     And the task force

22   would not of been success if people who aren't in a state

23   or federal category, local agencies, local government,

24   interest groups, if they had not set the time aside to do

25   this, it would not have gotten as far as it did.     And they

26   made a very big commitment of their time, and it was very

27   encouraging.    And I think that you're right, I think a lot

28   of them -- all of them would continue to do it if we could


 1   create forums that were effective for them and a good use

 2   of their time and ours.

 3              BOARD MEMBER MORALEZ:     With that, I'd like to

 4   make a motion.

 5              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Well, I think we have one

 6   more person that wants to speak, Gloria.

 7              BOARD MEMBER MORALEZ:     I apologize.

 8              Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. White.

 9              MR. WHITE:    This is Chris White, General Manager

10   of Central California Irrigation District.       I wanted to

11   thank the Board and the staff for the hard work that went

12   into this plan and supporting our participation in that

13   process.     I'm one of the signers of that document, which

14   is the good news and the bad news.       The good news, I had

15   the opportunity to participate in this and sign a document

16   that I think has a lot of vision to it.       The bad news, I

17   had to tell these guys that I signed that document.

18              (Laughter.)

19              MR. WHITE:    And I would tell you that I don't

20   agree with the "wimp" word used along with this report.          I

21   mean there was a recognition that not everybody is at the

22   same place on this issue.      So let's work together and

23   figure out how we can get to where we need to be.

24              That's all I had.     And I just wanted to thank you

25   very much.

26              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     I think that's good to say.

27   But I also think there needs to be one other little part

28   added to that, is that we have to move forward.       We have


 1   to move forward.

 2             MR. WHITE:     Yes, ma'am.

 3             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     All right.     Now, Gloria, did

 4   you want to make a motion?

 5             VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:        Yes.   I make a motion

 6   that we accept this document as presented.

 7             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     And is that actually approve

 8   the final report?      Is that the motion?

 9             VICE PRESIDENT MORALEZ:        Yes, to approve it.

10             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     All right.      Do we have a

11   second?

12             BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:     I'll second.

13             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Moved by Gloria, seconded by

14   Bill to approve the final report of the Statewide

15   floodplain management task force.

16             Is there any further discussion on this motion?

17             All those in favor say aye.

18             (Ayes.)

19             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Opposed?

20             Motion carried.

21             And I think we also should thank Bill and Pete

22   for their -- they really participated a lot and spent a

23   lot of time.   I understand that, Tony, you went to some of

24   those too.

25             BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:        Yeah, but the stakeholders

26   had an awful lot to do with it too.

27             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Okay.     Well, I think that

28   we're going to break for lunch.         How's that?


 1            We'll be back at 2:30.

 2            Thank you.

 3            (Thereupon a lunch break was taken.)



























 1                         AFTERNOON SESSION

 2             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Okay.   Ladies and gentlemen,

 3   we'll call the meeting to order.

 4             I have to apologize for the tardiness of our

 5   return.   It was unavoidable because there was somewhat of

 6   a mix-up at the restaurant.     But we finally did get

 7   something to eat.   So I do apologize and I note many of

 8   you -- not many -- some of you have been waiting for

 9   awhile.

10             We are down to Item Number 11 on the agenda.      And

11   this is the urban levee encroachment standards.

12             And Mr. Bradley is making this presentation.

13             Steve.

14             CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:    Good afternoon.   For the

15   record, Steve Bradley, Chief Engineer of the Reclamation

16   Board.

17             We've had several meetings -- the Board staff has

18   had several meetings with American River Flood Control

19   District on urban levee standards.      This is something they

20   strongly in.   And on a personal view I think as chief

21   engineer I feel fairly strongly that urban levees pose

22   significant encroachment challenges to Board staff.      And

23   so American River has graciously agreed to present their

24   views on this.

25             And with that I'm going to turn it over to Paul

26   Devereux, General Manager of the American River Flood

27   Control District, and also David Aladjem, the counsel for

28   the counsel for the American River Flood Control District.


 1            Paul.

 2            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    Welcome, Paul.   Merry

 3   Christmas.

 4            MR. DEVEREUX:     Merry Christmas.

 5            For the record, I'm Paul Devereux, General

 6   Manager for American River Flood Control.

 7            I hope you guys had a nice Christmas luncheon.

 8   You had a tough meeting this morning.

 9            Anyway, the president of my Board of Trustees,

10   Carolyn Simon, she was with us earlier -- I don't know If

11   you got to see her.   But she had another appointment this

12   afternoon, so she apologizes for not being able to stay.

13   But I'll summarize at least some of the remarks she was

14   going to make.

15            And basically what I think she wanted to relate

16   to the Board is that she became one of the trustees back

17   in about 1994, and her goal has been to try to improve

18   flood protection in Sacramento as best she can.     And as a

19   General Manager, she has gone a long way with the other

20   board members towards helping to modernize our equipment.

21   We now have materials, flood fight materials stockpiled.

22   And we've come a long way towards trying to advance and we

23   try to help make sure that we're ready if there's ever a

24   big flood in Sacramento.

25            And one of the areas where we'd like to try to

26   put a little more emphasis on now is trying to get our

27   system -- we've got the work that's being done by the

28   Corps to help stabilize the levees, improvements at Folsom


 1   Dam.     So now, kind of the next goal is let's make sure

 2   we're ready to respond if there is a flood and that we

 3   have the ability to respond if there is a flood.     And so

 4   that's kind of what spawned this idea of these urban levee

 5   encroachment standards.

 6               Because I don't know if many of you have been out

 7   on some of our district levees, but we have some areas

 8   where we have -- I know Bill knows -- some very

 9   significant encroachments that people have either put

10   things next to our levee or on the levee.     And, you know,

11   that's an issue that we're going to have to over time try

12   to address.     But at least one of our goals right now is

13   let's make sure the problem certainly doesn't get any

14   worse.     And so in part what we're talking about today is

15   some standards that I think will allow us not to let the

16   problem get any worse.

17               First of all, I think with any kind of levee

18   system, trying to control the encroachments is certainly

19   beneficial.     And I think it -- you know, from a long

20   stand, it makes good public policy.     It helps our levee

21   patrollers as far as visibility.     The less encroachments

22   there are, the better you could see.     And obviously if you

23   have to get in there and do any kind of a flood fight, you

24   need access; and sometimes some of these encroachments

25   that have come through time, you know, present a problem

26   as far as being able to get into a response.

27               I understand that at Title 23, which are the

28   standards that apply -- I mean those apply throughout the


 1   valley.    And many of the levees that you deal with here at

 2   the Reclamation Board are agricultural levees, they're

 3   rural levees.     We think in an urban area that perhaps

 4   different standards should apply.     And basically what

 5   we're looking at is the standards that perhaps are a

 6   little bit more strict than what Title 23 is.

 7              But by saying that I don't want you to think that

 8   we're looking at a significant deviation from what Title

 9   23 says.    It's really taking the concept that's in there

10   and I think tightening it down a little bit; being a

11   little bit more strict and being a little more clear as to

12   what you do and you don't allow.

13              And part of the reason why we think in urban

14   areas these kind of standards would apply, as opposed to

15   an ag, in an urban area, one of the things obviously is we

16   just simply can't afford to lose a levee here in

17   Sacramento.     The potential for the loss of life and the

18   damage that would occur are just, you know, catastrophic.

19   So from our standpoint we got to make sure that we're

20   prepared to do whatever we have to to save a levee.

21              Secondly is -- you know, in dealing with property

22   owners and dealing with encroachments, if you're talking

23   about an agricultural type of an environment where you

24   have a handful of landowners, I mean reclamation districts

25   can deal with them.     You know, if there are encroachments

26   that need to be done in order to facilitate agricultural

27   operations, you know, I think a reclamation district can

28   deal with an individual property owner here and there.


 1               In our area, in the urban area, I mean we have

 2   hundreds of different property owners.     And we just -- you

 3   know, it's just -- we can't deal with hundreds of people

 4   in trying to make accommodations that suit their needs and

 5   can allow us to do our operation and maintenance.     And,

 6   plus, if you start down the path of doing a lot of

 7   individual encroachments, I mean the O&M just becomes a

 8   nightmare, trying to deal with hundreds of property

 9   owners.     I mean we're doing -- we're mowing one piece of

10   levee, and then next to it the next guy wants to plant it,

11   the next person doesn't want to do any planting on the

12   levee, the next person does.     And so we're mowing one,

13   skipping one, mowing one.     I mean it just doesn't work for

14   us.   So we're looking at things that will allow us to

15   facilitate our operations and maintenance, but still

16   trying to be a good neighbor.

17               The other thing I think in an urban area that we

18   need to look at is making sure that encroachments consider

19   and don't foreclose future options.     You know, if you're

20   talking about an agricultural area and you need to raise a

21   levee by two feet and you need to buy a swath of a

22   farmer's field in order to do that, I think that's very

23   feasible.     In an urban setting to try to come in and raise

24   the levee by two feet and clip off 10 feet of 500

25   parcels -- the backyards of 500 parcels, that's just not

26   feasible.     So I think in dictating how we allow

27   encroachments, we've got to consider and not foreclose

28   future options.


 1              Let's see.     With that I think I'd like to have

 2   David come up and perhaps summarize what we're asking your

 3   Board to consider today.       Like I say, I do apologize again

 4   for Carolyn Simon not being able to stay.        But I think you

 5   can -- by her being here, I think she was simply trying to

 6   send a message that our board is firmly committed to what

 7   we're asking you here in terms of trying to develop these

 8   urban encroachments.

 9              MR. ALADJEM:     Good afternoon.   Again, for the

10   record, I'm David Aladjem, Downey Brand, and counsel to

11   American River Flood Control District.

12              As Paul was saying, our board is very committed

13   to providing flood protection in Sacramento.        And in order

14   to try to figure out what we could do, consistent with

15   your regulations, we met with staff on several occasions.

16   And the problem that we encountered and we worked through

17   with staff is, if we propose our own set of regulations

18   that are inconsistent with yours, we run into a real

19   problem.    Lose control.

20              David and I have had some good suggestions about

21   underground regulations.       We don't want to go there.      And

22   so what we would like to do is to talk with you about

23   getting approval to amend your regulations to allow us

24   through a noticed process, through OAL, et cetera, to

25   adopt more stringent standards.       And in fact you would be

26   adopting the standards; we would then be the implementing

27   agency for those standards.       We understand your being

28   extremely tight from a budgetary standpoint, that you


 1   don't have the staff or the resources to do that.      We took

 2   it to our board at their last meeting and said, "We think

 3   it will cost a significant amount of money to do this.

 4   Are you, the American River Flood Control Board of

 5   Trustees, willing to fund this out of your own pockets, to

 6   work with the Reclamation Board staff to draw up at least

 7   the first draft, and let the Board have oversight as

 8   opposed to the initial task of drafting the regs?"        Our

 9   board said, I believe unanimously, "Let's go do it.        We

10   think this is important.    We think it's in the public

11   interest."

12            And so our proposal today is not to adopt any

13   regulations or do anything of that nature, but simply to

14   say, conceptually, should we be working with your staff to

15   develop a set of regulations that would be your

16   regulations, you would have control, and that we could use

17   to, as Paul said, tighten up the protection for the City

18   and County of Sacramento.

19            And both Paul and I are here to answer any

20   questions.   Thank you very much.

21            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    Are there questions?

22            BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:    So explain to me, David, or

23   one of you, why it is that the Reclamation District can't

24   have more stringent controls while still remaining

25   consistent with our guidelines?     I mean this is like

26   federal and state relationships, between federal and

27   state government.   Why can't they be more stringent as

28   long as it meets the minimum standards we have?


 1               MR. ALADJEM:   We actually explored that.   And the

 2   problem is the regs that's written right now are

 3   mandatory.     They don't say, as the FEMA regs, for example,

 4   that you could have more stringent standards.      And we

 5   didn't want to get into saying simply, "You can more

 6   stringent standards," and then have the standards be

 7   amorphous -- where do you find them.

 8               The discussion we had with your counsel is, if

 9   that's the case, there are cases out there that have said

10   that's an underground regulation, it's prohibited, because

11   you're enforcing something that's not actually in your

12   regulations.     And so we thought, all things considered,

13   the best thing to do would be to adopt new regulations

14   that would very clearly say, "These are for urban levees."

15   And in order for them to apply, we thought a district has

16   to opt in.     So there's not really mandatory on anyone.    In

17   fact initially we would think they would only apply to our

18   district.

19               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Mr. Sandino, do you wish to

20   comment on that legal question?

21               STAFF COUNSEL SANDINO:   Yeah, I would add to that

22   too that there's also a question as to whether or not the

23   RD's have regulatory authority.      And one easy solution to

24   this problem would have been, okay, Reclamation Board,

25   doing what you suggest, adopt a general regulation that

26   says that local districts, if they want, they can adopt

27   more stringent standards, and everyone would be happy with

28   that.


 1             However, as far as it goes in interpretation of

 2   the authority that these RD's have, I think it's the

 3   conventional wisdom that they don't have regulatory

 4   authority.    Now, if David wanted to disagree and assert

 5   that, I wouldn't find it.    But I think the property owners

 6   would fight it.

 7             So it's clear that the Reclamation Board has that

 8   regulatory authority.    And his proposal then as he's

 9   suggesting would be to use a modification of our

10   regulations just in his district to strengthen up their

11   flood control protection.

12             Did that answer your question, Jeff?     I'm not --

13             BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:   Yes, It did.

14             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Let me ask a question.

15             More and more we're dealing with levees in

16   urbanized areas.    So it's not just in Sacramento.    And as

17   other areas are urbanizing, and will with the increased

18   population protracted for the future, it would seem to me

19   to cause a problem to have different rules in different

20   areas.   If we were going to have an urban levee standard,

21   it should be applied with some uniformity.

22             Have you guys thought of that?

23             STAFF COUNSEL SANDINO:   Yeah, we have thought

24   about that.    And of course we have a precedent for that

25   for our own regulations right now, RD 1000.      Although it's

26   a more liberal standard than a stricter standard.

27             But the theory for this urban area would be this

28   could be perhaps our first shot at tightening the


 1   standards in an urban area.     We would draw a ring around

 2   that district and we would have these separate

 3   regulations.     And I think we can justify that legally, to

 4   have stricter regulations.     Usually you want to have

 5   uniform rules.     But if you have special needs in a special

 6   area, you can have I think stricter rules.     That if we set

 7   this -- and this is the argument now -- if we set these

 8   rules within this area, this would be a pattern that would

 9   be in our regulations; and then maybe in future dates we

10   could extend those to other urban areas depending on the

11   will of the Board and local input.

12            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     And what about urbanizing

13   areas, areas that are going to be urban but aren't yet,

14   but will because of land use, general plans, annexations,

15   that sort of thing that happens?     In other words get ahead

16   of the problem.

17            STAFF COUNSEL SANDINO:     It's possible -- it's

18   possible to extend.     I think what we're thinking here is

19   you would see a map attached to our regulations just for

20   this district.     But if the Board wanted to look at some

21   options to extend things wide -- Central Valley wide for

22   urbanizing areas, we possibly could do that, sure.

23            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Well, I don't think any of

24   those thoughts should be taken off the table during this

25   discussion.

26            Bill.

27            BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:     I'm kind of a little

28   concerned with this fragmented approach, to be honest with


 1   you, because where I see this going is ultimately we're

 2   going to have a series of regulations for each different

 3   area, you know, one for Modesto and one for Merced and one

 4   for Fresno and here's one for Sacramento.     And, oh, by the

 5   way, in RD 1000 it's different than -- and it seems to me

 6   that's going to be very confusing.     And I think this kind

 7   of an approach is going to result in that.     So I would

 8   have a concern about that.

 9              We have talked -- oh, on the other hand -- I

10   sound like a lawyer here.     But on the other hand --

11              (Laughter.)

12              BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:   -- we've talked about our

13   regulations, trying to update our regulations, because I

14   think everyone acknowledges they really need updating and

15   very confusing and so on.     We don't have any money to do

16   that.   So they have come in and they have offered to do

17   this, and that's great.     I mean we talked before about

18   using local government to help us do that.     And SAFCA's

19   helping us, other areas are doing that.     That's probably

20   what's going to happen.     But it really is bothersome to be

21   looking down the road and seeing about 16 different sets

22   of regulations to find with maps.     And I'm not sure that's

23   in the public interest necessarily.

24              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Pete, did you have a

25   comment?

26              GENERAL MANAGER RABBON:   Yeah, to respond to

27   that.   Because we did put together a cost estimate for

28   Bill, and we actually did not show him that cost estimate,


 1   to have staff go through the process to modify the regs,

 2   because it was very expensive.

 3               And this is what we've looked at, especially

 4   based upon the current fiscal situation as our

 5   alternative.     And it is unfortunately a piecemeal

 6   approach.     And another concern we do have with -- we still

 7   believe it's an acceptable approach because it may be the

 8   only alternative.     But we are concerned that if we start

 9   this, as soon as we hold our first hearing, that everybody

10   else that wants the regs modified are going to ask, "How

11   come you're not modifying these other sections that we've

12   expressed concern about?"

13               BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:   Right.

14               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Is modifying the regs the

15   only way to get this problem solved?       Have you looked at

16   other vehicles, such as memorandums of understanding?

17               STAFF COUNSEL SANDINO:   It's the only way to give

18   us the legal assurity, assuming we're going through the

19   Reclamation Board.     We have urban regulations now.    We're

20   having somebody that would like proposing for us to look

21   at stricter standards.     By law we're required to go

22   through this formal process to adopt regulations so the

23   public, people can see them.      Those are the things that

24   we're able to enforce.     And brainstorming other ideas that

25   we explored would be perhaps to clarify -- or give these

26   local districts the authority to adopt regulations.        But

27   that would require statutory changes or maybe some case

28   law development.     So the only tool that we really have to


 1   make us as legally defensible as possible is through a

 2   revision of the regulations.

 3             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   What if it were seen as a

 4   pilot project or something like that so that it had more

 5   of a tentative nature to it, so that it might develop

 6   something that could be applied?    I'm trying to get away

 7   from the fragmentation of the thing.

 8             BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:   Well, I --

 9             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   Something with the language

10   of what we're doing here.

11             BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:   I think the bottomline is --

12   Pete's right -- I mean it's the alternative to what we

13   have to do, and probably our only alternative.      So we're

14   going to have to try to make it work.     And, you know, good

15   for the American River Flood Control District.      At least

16   they're doing something.    So good for them.

17             I'm just worried about the fragmented approach.

18   Maybe the pilot does a little bit more.      I don't know.

19             BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:   David, so -- maybe I'm

20   missing something here, and --

21             STAFF COUNSEL SANDINO:   Makes it easy for us.

22             BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:   One of you lawyers answer

23   this.   So I'm rolling forward because I think we're headed

24   toward this fragmentation whether we want it or not, with

25   one exception, that we do a careful job and actually write

26   this so that we can make a blanket application and we can

27   do it to all urban -- so this is Yuba City, Marysville --

28   everybody.   I mean what's wrong with having everybody live


 1   to the standard that's being proposed by American River?

 2   Why couldn't we just adopt it as is for urban.     Let them

 3   pay for it and, you know, then adopt it for all urban

 4   areas.

 5            STAFF COUNSEL SANDINO:    Legally we could avoid

 6   the fragmentation by having urban regulations apply in

 7   urban areas.   The reason that this proposal's coming

 8   forward -- and I'm not advocating it one way or the

 9   other -- but the reason that it came forward in this

10   manner is because this will be highly controversial,

11   highly controversial.   And we had a district that was

12   willing to protect their own needs and put up the money to

13   fund the process, which is fairly expensive to have

14   lawyers and public meetings and everything else.

15            So we felt that if you were going to do it

16   statewide -- of course I don't think it would be fair to

17   them to fund the bill statewide.    And the chances of

18   success at the end, I think it's fair to say, would be

19   much less likely.   I mean as it is right now, my legal

20   assessment -- and I'm pretty sure David would concur --

21   that this is something that will be very controversial.

22   Going to be a lot of input and a lot of problems with it

23   and a lot of debate and perhaps even litigation.    And this

24   is the part at the end, just to give you -- so you can see

25   your full picture before you, this is where of course then

26   we're on our own.   And once we get sued, it's the Board

27   that will be sued for adopting the regulations.    It won't

28   be the district because it will be our regulations.


 1            They'll help us in the preparation if they

 2   volunteer to do that.     But they can't of course be the

 3   party that takes the hit in litigation.

 4            SECRETARY BUNDY:     Might I suggest that -- Bill

 5   and Betsy are more urban-oriented than the rest of us and

 6   seem to be pretty up to speed on this -- that the two of

 7   you work with this group as an ad hoc committee to see if

 8   you can come up -- I kind of like the idea of the pilot

 9   program really -- and see what you can bring back to the

10   Board for us to consider.

11            STAFF COUNSEL SANDINO:     I think the plan

12   was for -- and see if this fits in with your thinking,

13   Burt -- the plan was for the districts now to, assuming

14   you like the idea in a general concept, to give it some

15   more thought, come back at the next Board meeting in

16   February or soon thereafter with some more concrete

17   details, tell you what kind of regulations they're

18   thinking about and how they will be stricter than our

19   regulations that are existing.     Have you look at that.    If

20   that gives you some comfort level, we'll also have as part

21   of the package to explain how the regulation amendment

22   process would work.     If you looked at it and like it, then

23   we could perhaps maybe get the ball rolling.

24            So we're just giving you the basics right now.

25   There's more to come if you like this general concept.       Or

26   you could certainly opt out of it after the next

27   presentation if it doesn't suit your fancy.

28            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     I would like to make sure


 1   that I'm conveying what I'm really -- if we do this as a

 2   pilot -- that two things are included in there.       One, that

 3   it would be applicable -- would be applicable statewide if

 4   that opportunity presented itself in urban areas; and,

 5   secondly, that it would be applicable to urbanizing areas

 6   to get ahead of the problem.      If we're going to do this

 7   and put this amount of effort into it, it should have --

 8   and, you know, it should have some broader use, the word I

 9   would use.

10               I think that it's not asking too much of you guys

11   to just consider those things in your -- we're not asking

12   you to carry the burden of a statewide approach, but to

13   consider that.

14               Other comments?

15               You're asking for our willingness to go ahead and

16   engage with you to work up something to bring back in

17   February?

18               MR. ALADJEM:   That's correct.

19               One point on the pilot project.    I think our

20   board has always understood that we are trying to break

21   some new ground, and that everything we would do could be

22   generalizable.      So I don't think that there's going to be

23   a big problem with that.

24               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   I think that's wonderful.

25               Okay.   I think -- we probably need a motion.

26               I don't know, do we need a motion?

27               CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:   This was not agendized

28   as an action item.      It was informational briefing as to


 1   what we're proposing to do.      And we will bring information

 2   back at a future meeting.

 3              My own views on this was that -- I kind of agreed

 4   with what you said regarding fragmentation of the regs and

 5   we'd have a been of these.       But I also view it as -- you

 6   called it a pilot project.       But it was the ability to make

 7   the first test.     We all know how our regs, which are

 8   really our first set of regs, our formal regs, and that

 9   there's problems with them.      I think that we could use

10   this reclamation district, with their ability to fund

11   this, to start the process; we can see where the problems

12   lie before we go out and make it Central Valley wide or

13   applicable to all our regs.      We might find out that that

14   can't be done with the regs that we initially developed.

15              So I think it's a good way to take on a problem.

16   The Sacramento area is the largest metropolitan in the

17   valley.    It's one of the most at-risk flood areas in the

18   country.     I think that it certainly deserves to be

19   protected.     If that's the only one we do, we can justify

20   it just on that basis alone.

21              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    Well, we have some other

22   ones that are coming along.      Yuba City and Marysville.

23   And down in the valley, I don't know what's going on down

24   there, but I hear that it's developing fast.

25              CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:    Well, urbanization of

26   the Central Valley is a major problem, not just

27   flood-wise, but all sorts of problems with that.

28              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Well, it seems me if you


 1   don't want to -- or don't need a motion, that's okay, just

 2   so staff knows it's okay to spend time on that.

 3             CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:        And I'd like to thank

 4   Paul and David for coming today.

 5             Thank you.

 6             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     For stepping forward.      It's

 7   really great.

 8             Okay.   That concludes that item.

 9             Now we're going to go to report of activities of

10   the General Manager.      He's been very busy.

11             Did you really have time to write a report?         No,

12   you don't actually --

13             GENERAL MANAGER RABBON:        Well, I do have some

14   notes.   And because I have been busy, I also have some

15   assistance on this.

16             And the first thing I'd like to do is spend just

17   a very short, two or three minutes with Mr. Dave Mraz and

18   his staff to -- and if you could come up here please -- to

19   help remind you that what we do is real and that there are

20   floods out there and there are issues as of today that

21   we're dealing with that are under the Board's

22   jurisdiction.

23             Burt talked to you and brought us up to speed on

24   the J Levee incident.      I'd like to spent again just a very

25   few moments here on Empire Tract in the Delta, and the

26   flood issues they're having with that.

27             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Fine.

28             MR. BURKHARD:     Thank you.     My name is Bill


 1   Burkhard.     I work for Mr. Mraz here in the Delta levees

 2   program.

 3               December 6th we were notified that MBK Engineers

 4   was working on the leak that they had -- they'd known

 5   about for about 12 years.       But it escalated, and

 6   Thanksgiving week they excavated the leek.        And when they

 7   were excavating they came across a soil pipe about 23 feet

 8   below the ground level, and which is about 30 feet below

 9   the level of the top of the levee.        So when they were

10   excavating they pulled excavator up and they looked down

11   and a 6-inch catfish had been drawn through the levee.

12               So they got a little worried.     They put in 500 --

13   sorry -- 75 tons of 6-inch minus, built a french drain

14   around it and thought, well, it was going to hold.         But on

15   December 6th it broke through.       So they started to work on

16   the repair.

17               Now, here's a picture of the boil that was there.

18   That's about two feet across.       It's clear.   You can't

19   quite see it, but there are little spots where the water

20   was leaking up.     And this is -- Let's see, I'll go real

21   quickly here.

22                                   --o0o--

23               MR. BURKHARD:    So what they did was they -- one

24   of the things they did was to drive in some piles.         Here

25   are the piles.     They are 31-foot-long piles.     They

26   excavated down five feet below the surface of the levee,

27   and they tried to hit where they thought the pipe would

28   be -- the soil pipe.        They drove in three of them.   And


 1   the third one hit something hard, so they kept driving.

 2   Then they tried to pull it back to get a running start.

 3   They couldn't lift it up, which means they probably either

 4   split it or bent it down deep.       And they figured it was

 5   right about 30 feet, where they expected to find it.

 6               So they drove in the next one and the same thing

 7   happened.     They couldn't pull it back up.     So they got the

 8   fifth one in.     It went down.    The flow was not reduced.

 9               So what they did was they excavated down slightly

10   and they brought in some what they hoped would be granular

11   material.     But it wasn't as clean as I would like to have

12   seen it.

13               There you see on top is the new pipe.     And down

14   below you can see the old pipe that was draining the

15   original french drain they built.

16               So they put this material in here.     And then they

17   put on top of it 600 tons of ballast.       Here, you can see

18   it.   They're standing on top of it.

19               Is that clear?    Can you guys make out what's

20   going on there?     Good.    They're standing right there.

21               This was on Friday they completed it.     On

22   Sunday -- this past Sunday a boil sprung up on top of it.

23   There you can see.     They sandbagged the boil.     And a

24   couple of PVC pipes to take the liquid off the top of the

25   berm and around the side.       Total leakage through that area

26   is somewhere between 50 and 75 gallons per minute,

27   depending on tides.     It was the high tides that first

28   exacerbated the situation where it broke through the cap.


 1            And here you have a better picture of this boil

 2   and the pipes that are taking the water away.

 3            Right now the area is considered stable.

 4   Although the free-added surface is real high.

 5            Let me step over here.

 6            If you were to walk over in this area right over

 7   here, you'd sink in.   And the pipes carrying the liquid

 8   off originally are over here.     So it's something we're

 9   watching closely.

10            The differential between the top of the sandbag

11   ring and the river is not that great, so we're not

12   expecting it to move material.     And all the liquid that's

13   coming through this whole system is clear.

14            Thursday -- Wednesday and Thursday divers were

15   there -- DWR divers.   They released a real concentrated

16   dive on the upstream face.

17            I forgot to mention something.     The upstream face

18   of the levee, it comes down in a 2-to-1, 3-to-1 type of

19   slope, and then all of a sudden it goes to a 1-to-1 slope,

20   down deep, levels off at about 25 feet -- 20, 25 feet.

21            The divers were able to go along that 1-to-1

22   face, which was not that high.     And it was smooth until

23   they came to a certain area that looked like, what they

24   said was like Swiss cheese.     So they thought they had

25   found the -- where this -- the intake to whatever is down

26   there was.

27            So they released dye into all the holes and never

28   saw it come through.


 1            So we're scratching our heads, the engineers

 2   scratching our heads.     We don't know what exactly is going

 3   on.   But we do know it's stable at this point -- or we do

 4   figure that it's stable at this point.

 5            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Sounds like a novel, you

 6   know, Mystery at Empire Tract.

 7            MR. BURKHARD:     Oh, I didn't mention.   This is

 8   about 3,000 feet south of Herman and Helen's on the west

 9   side of Empire Tract, RD 2029.

10            Okay.     The other issue here is, on the -- two

11   nights ago at 10:30 in the evening Silva, a farmer down in

12   the Delta, was coming back over that plug between Seven

13   Mile Slough and Three Mile Slough on the west end of Seven

14   Mile Slough.     And --

15            BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:     Can you mention the tract

16   that this is on please.

17            MR. BURKHARD:     This is between Brannan, Andrews

18   and Twitchell.

19            And what had happened was the pipe that evacuates

20   Seven Mile Slough into Three Mile Slough had broken, and

21   it washed out -- you can see it there -- an area almost

22   halfway through the levee.

23            I'll get another picture here.

24            There, we can look at the white line, is the edge

25   of the erosion underneath the overhanging of pavement.       So

26   it comes almost to the double yellow line there.

27            There you can see a little bit of the pipe down

28   underneath.    I have a better picture to show you the


 1   crack.    But you can see how much of the levee was eroded.

 2   That's Three Mile Slough in the distance.       There's the

 3   pipe itself.      Let me walk up and point to a few things.

 4             They figured that this pipe failed.      It's a

 5   two-foot diameter pipe.      And it failed right here.      Eighth

 6   inch thickness on this wall, and figured it just corroded.

 7   It failed here.      Created a void underneath the pipe.      The

 8   pipe then dropped, pivoting on probably a dresser

 9   coupling, and then broke.      If you see up in the upper left

10   corner.   When it broke up there, the water shot back

11   towards seven Mile Slough and eroded this large area.

12                                --o0o--

13             MR. BURKHARD:     That's all I got.   I thought I had

14   another one.

15             Anyway -- yeah, see, you can see the pipe here.

16   The pipe was originally, the two foot, was as high as the

17   2 1/2 to 3 foot to the left of it, but it all dropped.

18             Okay.     So what they're going to do is they're

19   going to dam off the water flow into Seven Mile Slough and

20   rebuild this area, replace the pipe with 3/8 thick wall

21   thickness -- they have some lying around -- 30 inch pipe.

22             At this point what they have done is they've done

23   is they've cut the pipe off on the Three Mile Slough side

24   and welded a plate over it so they won't get piping during

25   the high tides at 3 o'clock today back in here.       And about

26   a nine-foot tide would have flowed freely through that

27   pipe back into Seven Mile Slough.

28             So this has been capped off there.      When I left


 1   they were working on the repair, material was coming in.

 2   So it's in a stable condition also.

 3               GENERAL MANAGER RABBON:     And the reason we're

 4   bringing this to the Board is that Mr. Mraz and Mr.

 5   Burkhard both work with the Delta Levees Subventions

 6   Program, and part of this is going to be funded under the

 7   emergency funds of the Delta Levees Subventions.

 8               MR. MRAZ:     If I can speak to that just for a

 9   moment.

10               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     You have to identify

11   yourself.

12               MR. MRAZ:     Oh, I'm Dave Mraz with the Delta

13   Levees Program.

14               We do have about $200,000 that we can cost share

15   with local agencies to do emergency flood fights.           And up

16   until about two weeks ago I thought everything was looking

17   very good.     We had lots of money, nothing on the horizon.

18   But just after the last storm we started getting calls.

19   And the calls continued to come in.        Just before I left to

20   come over here we received another call from Suisun Marsh

21   just notifying us that there were a lot of people that had

22   been calling asking for sandbags an visqueen and flood

23   fight equipment.        My program can't specifically address

24   the marsh, or at least the great majority of it.           But it

25   looks like we're getting into a cycle where we're going to

26   be real busy for a long time.

27               BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:     What do you do when you run

28   out of money?


 1               MR. MRAZ:   Well, haven't crossed that bridge yet.

 2   If we expend the full $200,000 out of the subventions

 3   program, we do have special projects money that we can

 4   use.     The special projects is limited to islands that have

 5   particular public benefit.        And there's eight of them that

 6   have been identified in the western Delta that are

 7   critical to the water supply.        Areas that have water

 8   pipelines coming across transmission lines, railroads,

 9   things like that we could justify using special projects

10   funds and cost sharing there.

11               Some of the smaller ones, Fay Island.       I'm not

12   sure that Empire Tract would be a candidate for special

13   projects.

14               It would be pretty tough.     We'd have to dig a

15   little bit and scratch our heads and see if we couldn't

16   find some dollars perhaps from OES.

17               BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:     Can I ask one more question.

18               Is 200,000 what you typically have in a year

19   through emergency flood fights like this --

20               MR. MRAZ:   That's within the law.    And there's

21   two halves to the program that I run.        One half is

22   subventions, and we have a $200,000 limit on that.           The

23   other half is special projects.        And there's no legislated

24   limit.     We could spend as much money as we've got in the

25   program.

26               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     On eight islands?

27               MR. MRAZ:   On islands that have a statewide

28   benefit.     And they're principally the eight western


 1   islands, but we have used it elsewhere, as long as we can

 2   identify those benefits.

 3              Once these incidents go to completion, we get

 4   bills and we start working with the local agencies to fund

 5   them.   We will come back too and give you a complete

 6   report on each one and request your approval of that

 7   expenditure of funds.

 8              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:      You know, the thought that

 9   occurs to me is that this rainstorm was a pretty good one,

10   but it wasn't a huge one.        So there could be a lot of

11   projects down there that need money spent on them if this

12   much happened just with this storm.

13              MR. MRAZ:     Yes.   We're a little bit concerned.

14   I'm starting to get a little bit nervous.          I have the

15   phone by my bed at night.        And I've got my emergency org

16   chart set up.    So keep my fingers crossed.

17              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:      Anybody else have a comment?

18              BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:      We all go to bed at 9

19   o'clock.

20              (Laughter.)

21              MR. MRAZ:     Thank you very much.

22              BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:      We're on that list.

23              PRESIDENT MARCHAND:      Thank you very much.

24              I just want to say one thing.        I think that we

25   would very much like to have a report on this later,

26   because I'd certainly like to learn more about it.

27              GENERAL MANAGER RABBON:      Yes, if you could leave

28   the PowerPoint with us, we would appreciate that, we would


 1   appreciate that.

 2               Thank you.

 3               Now, we also -- there may be the potential the

 4   way the storms have been coming in that the flood center

 5   would open up.     And if it does open, we can arrange to

 6   take the Board members through there.      It's an interesting

 7   process to see where the center of the flood fight takes

 8   place.     And we also would at that point then take you out

 9   in the field also so you could observe some of the flood

10   fight activities.

11               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:   I'm sure we'd be interested

12   in that.

13               GENERAL MANAGER RABBON:   Regarding some of the

14   projects in the programs, just a real quick update.      I was

15   given direction to work on the lower Sac project to try to

16   come to closure or agreement with the Corps and the locals

17   on the cost-sharing agreements for RD 3 and RD 349.      That

18   is still outstanding, and I will carry that over to the

19   new year to work on.

20               Hamilton City was discussed earlier today.   But

21   also we did get the funding from Hamilton -- or from

22   CALFED.     And that study has now been initiated to look at

23   flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration in the

24   Hamilton City area.

25               We also received from CALFED a grant to do a

26   two-dimensional computer model for the Yolo Bypass to look

27   at cumulative impacts.     And the intent on this model is to

28   use it for looking at activities in the bypass such as


 1   development of the Glide Ranch, and to assure that it

 2   would be compatible with the flood control system.

 3               From an administrative perspective with the

 4   Reclamation Board, I would like to remind you our meetings

 5   are on the third Friday.     And for next year there are no

 6   special holidays on the Fridays, so if you could calendar

 7   the third Friday of every month, except for January and

 8   for August.     We will not have a meeting in January.    And

 9   we will attempt to not have a meeting in August.     We'll

10   await and see.

11               And that would then mean the next meeting is on

12   February 21st.

13               We also want to try to have -- if this is

14   agreeable to the Board, hold one of the meetings next year

15   in the Sacramento Valley and one of our meetings in the

16   San Joaquin Valley.     And if possible, try to do that on an

17   annual basis.

18               Regarding next year, just want to highlight a few

19   things that we think we're going to be involved with or

20   that we know we will be involved with.

21               We already did speak of potential regulations

22   here with American River.     The CALFED MOU, working with

23   the comp study and the Corps of Engineers.     And that we

24   expect is going to start to be a fairly high level of

25   activity.     And since that was discussed, we have already

26   heard concerns about how can we incorporate the Delta

27   Levees Subventions Program into that MOU, which is under

28   the Reclamation Board's jurisdiction, but is also -- has a


 1   potential to receive some fairly substantial funding from

 2   CALFED.

 3              There is an underseepage task force that is going

 4   to be created with the Reclamation Board, DWR, and the

 5   Corps.    And this is to look at the policies and the

 6   technical criteria that's currently in place for

 7   underseepage at the federal level.    We have been having

 8   some problems with some of our projects.    We're working

 9   with the Corps in terms of what is acceptable criteria to

10   determine that a levee is safe from underseepage.        And it

11   has turned out that for some of the projects we are

12   talking some fairly big dollars, say, in the neighborhood

13   of 30 million cost difference, depending on how you

14   analyze underseepage.

15              San Joaquin River Management Program.   And that

16   is comparable to the program that Burt manages in the

17   Sacramento valley.    You heard discussion today about the

18   need for a single location to go to to discuss issues on

19   the river.    And we are in the process of trying to make

20   the San Joaquin River Management Program that single

21   neutral focal point for the San Joaquin valley.    We have

22   just started that process.    And you are hoping we can come

23   to some kind of agreement with all the various interests

24   by the end of next year.

25              The Reclamation Board's staff has also been

26   approached very recently to consider being lead agency for

27   various projects.     The Cosumnes-Mokolumne Project, which

28   has CALFED funding.     And also a pump project in the


 1   Natomas basin, which would take five pumping plants and

 2   drop them down to three points of diversion.      We are in

 3   discussions with the organizations, and also having to

 4   determine if we would be the appropriate organization to

 5   be the lead agency.

 6            There are -- next year we're going to be very

 7   involved with the budget process, which has been a real

 8   tough one to track because it is changing constantly.        And

 9   we also are scheduling, as discussed by the Board, to

10   develop a meeting to talk about planning and strategy for

11   the Reclamation Board for the next four years.

12            I guess the last item I would like to bring up,

13   as the new year starts, we'll be having newly elected

14   officials put into office.     And I would think the

15   Reclamation Board members may want to consider an outreach

16   program to where the Board members do spend some time with

17   the local elected officials.

18            And that ends my report.

19            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Okay.   Are there any

20   comments on the report?

21            No more staff, a lot more jobs, I see.

22            (Laughter.)

23            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     I do think that there's the

24   Sacramento Forum -- Two River Forum which we're actively

25   participating in, which I'm sure you included in your

26   comments on the comp studies and stuff.      But that's a

27   biggy.

28            Do Board members agree that his last point is a


 1   good one, where we try to meet with some of the newly

 2   elected folks and sort of give them an overview of the Rec

 3   Board and what's going on?

 4             BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     Yes, very much.

 5             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Okay.   And everybody would

 6   participate as appropriate and time permits?

 7             SECRETARY BUNDY:   I think there was emphasis

 8   there.   Pete said locally elected officials.      And I think

 9   that that's an important part of it.       I think that

10   statewide elected or, you know, legislative.       But I think

11   locally elected officials are very important.         I think

12   that we need to do that.

13             GENERAL MANAGER RABBON:     Well, actually local,

14   state and federal.

15             SECRETARY BUNDY:   Yes.

16             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     You know, whatever -- I

17   think that's right, whatever we can get in appointments

18   with.

19             All right.   That was a very good report.

20             Board comments and Committee reports.

21             Tony.

22             BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     Thank you, Madam Chair.

23             I had a pretty busy December.      December 9th I

24   toured the Brown Sand & Gravel Pit.       It's around 270 acres

25   on the east side of Highway 5, right across the street,

26   would you believe, from River Islands.

27             The gist of the meeting to show us what they

28   considered shortcomings in the levee design and the


 1   paradise cut which goes through there.     And they were

 2   hoping for a new levee -- a new larger levee, which they

 3   felt was necessary for public safety.

 4            In effect, my personal thought was that the new

 5   levee would provide for future development, as it would

 6   protect that land for the flooding.

 7            As we all know, the indentation of this type of

 8   land is a natural method of reducing flood flow down the

 9   river when we have flood-type of -- high-water-type of

10   conditions.

11            Interesting, they didn't have enough maps for me

12   to really get a picture of where they were and where River

13   Islands was.   So River Islands was right down the road.       I

14   went down to their office to take a look at their maps,

15   and was talking to one of the officials there.     And,

16   golly, Moses, they've got options on all that land that

17   we're talking about.   And in the process of showing me and

18   I showing them where I'd been, they thought that it would

19   be nice if they'd build another big levee on the river and

20   have these large homes again just like they have

21   considered for River Islands.

22            So it was interesting that they haven't even

23   finished with River Islands, it hasn't even been approved,

24   before they're looking ahead.

25            On December 17th --

26            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    Before you skip to the next

27   one, Tony, I was reading somewhere.     And what about water

28   quality issues with River Islands?    Has there been any


 1   interaction there with the State Water Resources Control

 2   Board and water quality issues?

 3            SECRETARY BUNDY:     Steve.

 4            CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:        What's that?

 5            BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:        Water quality issues for

 6   River Islands.     State Water Control Board, have they

 7   considered that aspect?     I know they're --

 8            CHIEF ENGINEER BRADLEY:        Their EIR is out now.

 9   So I don't know what the State Water Quality Control Board

10   is doing about their review of it.        We are providing

11   comments on the flood control issues.        There are some

12   issues with increased water surface downstream of the

13   project and loss of flood storage that's historically

14   flooded that area.     And so it impacts other areas, and

15   we're seeing that by the flooding of that area.

16            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:        All right.     Thank you.

17            BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:        By the way, the entire

18   tract -- because there's the Stewart track.          The entire

19   tract is pretty large.     And if that gets inundated -- and,

20   by the way, there's water that flows under Highway 5 to go

21   into what would be considered River Islands.           If that

22   tract was fully inundated, boy, what a relief it would be

23   to the river at a bad time.        So I just don't know how

24   they're going to mitigate that.

25            On December 17th, I was invited to go up to

26   Knights Landing.     And I didn't know where Knights Landing

27   was, but I found it.     RD 108.     And it was a very, very

28   interesting tour.     I'll be honest with you, I was going to


 1   beg off because of weather conditions.      And I couldn't get

 2   ahold of Pete.     He was at another meeting.   I couldn't get

 3   ahold of Pete to see if I could get away.       And inasmuch as

 4   I didn't get ahold of Pete, I said, well, I'll go.      And I

 5   left my home at 3:30 in the morning to find Knights

 6   Landing.     I found it.   And I was very well received by the

 7   locals.     They thought it was great that we would travel --

 8   we, a representative of the Board would be there and

 9   travel there.

10               We turned to Fremont Weir -- this morning someone

11   mentioned.     It's discouraging to see the work that our

12   people have to do to clear the weir so that water can flow

13   freely and yet not touch some of the trees because of the

14   natural habitat aspect.

15               That picture was not the same in the Sacramento

16   Weir.     The Sacramento Weir was cleaned out beautiful, and

17   water could flow through there with no obstruction.      But

18   that is an antique weir.      I have never seen -- if you talk

19   about horse and buggy, horse and buggy is a new invention

20   compared to that weir.

21               Oh, the tour ended down in Rio Vista.    And all

22   along the tour they had movies going, showing aerial views

23   of where we had been and what was happening.      And there

24   were people speaking, especially locals, who gave their

25   personal opinion or personal views on flood events that

26   they had lived through.

27               I met many of the local RD managers and their

28   personal experience.


 1             We viewed Liberty Island, which Fish & Wildlife

 2   along with Nature Conservancy want to develop into a huge

 3   wildlife habitat refuge, something like three islands and

 4   4500 acres.

 5             It's interesting.    The landowners had given the

 6   land to Nature Conservancy.     Nature Conservancy did not

 7   have the money to develop it, so they turned it over to

 8   Fish & Wildlife.    And Fish & Wildlife's budget is down, so

 9   everything's sitting there.

10             But in the meantime somebody in their wisdom

11   built a beautiful $4.5 million stone and steal bridge.        It

12   is elegant.    The bus stopped right in the middle of that

13   bridge.   The bridge goes from the levee on one side to

14   nowhere, absolutely nowhere.     It comes down the other side

15   and there's nothing there.

16             There is nothing there, folks.

17             Butch gave an extremely educational presentation

18   on the flows of the Sacramento and it's tributaries, the

19   bypass action, the bottlenecks, and the effects of the

20   flooding of the American River, forcing the Sacramento

21   River water up into the Yolo Bypass.

22             George Bates, he was very -- at his best telling

23   us about historical gems, and made the trip equally more

24   interesting.    Such as a riverboat which exploded on the

25   river here somewhere around 1860 and 250 people were

26   killed.

27             Also, the Sacramento River bottleneck -- Oh,

28   here's one.    The Sacramento River bottleneck at Rio Vista,


 1   which was dredged out to allow the river to flow.         The

 2   amount of soil that was taken out of that river was more

 3   than the amount of soil taken out when they built the

 4   Panama Canal.     It's hard to believe.    Then they took that

 5   soil and trucked it up into the foothills on the west side

 6   of the valley and they dumped it into different ravines

 7   just to get rid of it.     And when they showed us the

 8   movies, you can still see where that different soil is up

 9   there.     You know, it just boggles the mind.

10               Butt, anyway, I had two very nice days for you,

11   and I enjoyed every bit of it.        And I'm certainly glad I

12   did go to that RD 108 tour.

13               That's my report, Madam Chair.

14               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    Well, that was good.

15               If you ever find out where that bridge is going,

16   let us know.

17               Does anyone else have a report they'd like to

18   give at this time?

19               I've been pretty busy, but it's mostly with stuff

20   that everybody knows about.       So I think I'll sort of pass

21   that by.     Mine weren't quite as unique as Tony's there.

22               (Laughter.)

23               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    The next thing is election

24   of officers.

25               And Pete wanted to speak first on this.

26               GENERAL MANAGER RABBON:    Yeah, this will be the

27   first time that this Board will elect officers for a full

28   term.    And I would like to clarify that this is for a term


 1   of two years.    And the two years is the same term that is

 2   used for the Legislature for their session and for

 3   Congress for their session.    We have found that having the

 4   officers be consistent with elected officials at the State

 5   federal level works much better in terms of communication

 6   with them.

 7            And, additionally, this Board has not had any

 8   type of policy in terms of, for example, having the

 9   members work up through the different offices or serving

10   more than one term in a particular office.       There is no

11   policy that this Board has in that regard.

12            BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:    Madam Chair, if I may have

13   the floor.

14            I guess I'd like to start off by congratulating

15   you on your term.    This was a brand new board that was --

16   you brought us through some difficult times and got us

17   organized and established the political leadership of -- a

18   lot of things that we're doing in addition to

19   encroachments and applications and permitting.      Comp

20   study, floodplain management task force, and a whole bunch

21   of other things.

22            And as a reward --

23            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    Here it comes.

24            BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:    -- we would like, and I

25   think I speak on behalf of the Board -- again congratulate

26   you -- but as a reward would like you to consider taking a

27   second term.    And with that I would like to nominate you

28   for a second term for this Board.


 1            BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:     I'll second.

 2            BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:       Second.

 3            Did we all second?

 4            SECRETARY BUNDY:     Yes.

 5            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Well, thank you all.       I

 6   guess we better vote.

 7            All those in favor of Bill's motion, seconded by

 8   the rest of the Board, say aye.

 9            (Ayes.)

10            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Opposed?

11            Motion carried.

12            I want to thank you.        I have enjoyed it.

13            And I've served on a lot of boards, and this is

14   best board in truth that I've ever served on.          And I enjoy

15   it very much.   And I enjoy the staff.         And it's been a

16   most enjoyable experience.     And it's not always enjoyable

17   serving on those boards.    And sometime in private I'll

18   tell you about some of the ones I have served on.

19            But I want to thank you also for all of your help

20   and cooperation.   And everybody comes to the meetings and

21   you read the agenda packets and you all participate.             And,

22   you know, that's very rewarding when you're trying to run

23   a meeting.

24            So thank you very much.

25            SECRETARY BUNDY:     Well, you provided some

26   valuable leadership.    And thank you very much.

27            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Well, you can't be a leader

28   unless you have people that are willing to help you.


 1   That's true.

 2             SECRETARY BUNDY:    You know, even with his most

 3   recent report on his travels to northern California where

 4   he didn't know where Knights Landing was, I think --

 5             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    Well, that's no big deal.

 6             (Laughter.)

 7             SECRETARY BUNDY:    I think Tony has shown a

 8   willingness to step forward and work very hard and get

 9   involved in the issues and put in that extra time that is

10   needed.   And I would actually like to nominate him for

11   Vice President of this Board.     I think he's shown, you

12   know, the fortitude and the commitment to move forward, a

13   lot of different things.     And I would nominate Tony for

14   vice president.

15             BOARD MEMBER EDGAR:    I'll second that.

16             PRESIDENT MARCHAND:    It's been moved by Burt and

17   seconded by Bill to appoint Tony as our Vice Chair.

18             I think that's very good and I think he also has

19   spent a great deal of time and has contributed a lot and

20   knows a lot of the people that we deal with.

21             Gloria did speak to me and said that she would be

22   willing to serve another term as Vice Chair.     And I told

23   her that I would bring that up and inform other Board

24   members of that fact.   And I'm doing that at this time.

25             And so we have it moved by Burt and seconded by

26   Bill to appoint Tony as the Vice Chair.

27             Any further discussion?

28             All those in favor say aye.


 1            (Ayes.)

 2            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Opposed?

 3            Motion carried.

 4            SECRETARY BUNDY:    And on the Secretary position,

 5   I've held it for this last year.     And I have found that

 6   I'm not really close enough here to be able to serve that

 7   position, I don't believe, as I should.       And besides that,

 8   I've got so many different other things going.       I would

 9   ask that somebody else take that position.       I would -- I

10   think it's time.

11            BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:     I think Bill should do this.

12            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Yeah, I'm going to say Bill

13   because he's right here in Sacramento, and it does involve

14   signing papers.    Is that okay with you, Jeff?

15            BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:     And he's got a great

16   signature.

17            (Laughter.)

18            BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     Jeff, you want to nominate

19   or a second?

20            BOARD MEMBER MOUNT:     I would like to nominate

21   Bill as the Secretary of the Board.

22            BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     And I would like to second

23   that nomination.

24            PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     All right.    It's been moved

25   by Jeff and seconded by Tony to nominate Bill as the

26   Secretary for the Reclamation Board.

27            All those in favor say aye.

28            (Ayes.)


 1               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Opposed?

 2               Motion carried.

 3               And thank you to Burt because we all know that

 4   Burt does a really great job.        It's just you're too far

 5   north.

 6               And, Burt, you're a very valuable asset to this

 7   Board.

 8               SECRETARY BUNDY:   Thank you.

 9               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     And you're on that salary

10   committee for the Mayor.       See what you can do for us.

11               (Laughter.)

12               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     I think that we're about

13   worn out.     And this has been a very good meeting.      And

14   it's a good way to end the year.        And so I feel really

15   good about it.

16               Do we have a motion to adjourn?

17               SECRETARY BUNDY:   So moved.

18               BOARD MEMBER CUSENZA:     Second.

19               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Moved by Burt, seconded by

20   Tony to adjourn.

21               All those in favor say aye.

22               (Ayes.)

23               PRESIDENT MARCHAND:     Opposed?

24               The meeting is adjourned.

25               Thank you.

26               (Thereupon the Reclamation Board meeting

27               adjourned at 4:10 p.m.)



 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 meetring 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 9th day of January, 2003.












26                              JAMES F. PETERS, CSR, RPR

27                              Certified Shorthand Reporter

28                              License No. 10063


Shared By: