SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
49–739 CC
1998
FIELD HEARING ON PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF FOLSOM DAM
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MAY 27, 1998, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Serial No. 105–93
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California, Chairman
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
GEORGE MILLER, California
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
SAM FARR, California
ADAM SMITH, Washington
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
————— —————
————— —————
ROBERT FABER, Staff Director/Counsel
JOSHUA JOHNSON, Professional Staff
STEVE LANICH, Minority Staff
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held May 27, 1998
Statement of Members:
Fazio, Hon. Vic, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Prepared statement of
Matsui, Hon. Robert T., a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prepared statement of
Statement of Witnesses:
Barber, George, San Joaquin Supervisor
Prepared statement of
Costa, Ray, Soils Engineer, Sacramento
Prepared statement of
Countryman, Joe, Consultant, Murray, Burns, & Kienlen
Prepared statement of
Enson, Carl F., Director of Engineering and Technical Services, South Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers, accompanied by Colonel Dorothy F. Klasse, Sacramento District Commander, Sacramento
Prepared statement of
Johnson, Muriel, Chairperson, SAFCA
Meral, Dr. Jerry, Executive Director, Planning and Conservation League, American River Coalition
Miklos, Hon. Steve, Mayor of Folsom
Montemayor, Hon. Mark, Councilmember, City of West Sacramento
Prepared statement of
Patterson, Roger, Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region, Bureau of Reclamation
Prepared statement of
Pineda, Ricardo, Chief Engineer, California State Board of Reclamation
Prepared statement of
Rabbon, Peter, Executive Director, California State Board of Reclamation
Serna, Hon. Joe, Mayor of Sacramento
Prepared statement of
Steffani, Ed, General Manager, Stockton East Water District
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Uhler, Lew, President, National Tax Limitation Committee
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
Sacramento Flooding, a Region at Risk, submitted by Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
The California Reclamation Board, prepared statement of
HEARING ON PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF FOLSOM DAM
WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Resources, Sacramento, California.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 4202, State Capitol Building, Sacramento, California, Hon. John Doolittle (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am pleased to have the Water and Power Subcommittee meet in Sacramento this morning to consider the proposed modification of Folsom Dam.
Can we get some order here?
I would like to say that the balcony is open for people who wish to sit up there.
We are meeting to consider the proposed modifications to Folsom Dam and the related downstream levee modifications. Our Committee is responsible for the Bureau of Reclamation, which operates Folsom Dam.
My No. 1 priority in the years I have represented Sacramento and surrounding areas is to find a solution for adequate flood protection.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The purpose of today's hearing is to evaluate a proposal that would modify Folsom Dam to provide a new level of flood protection. Unfortunately, it not only promises a multipurpose mission for Folsom but fails to give the city of Sacramento the flood protection it needs and deserves. It does so at tremendous cost to the region, and Sacramento getting the protection it needs.
Folsom Dam is operated as an integral part of the Central Valley project. Two of the primary purposes for which Sacramento dams are to supply water supplies and hydropower from the Folsom reservoir for the city of Roseville, suburb of Sacramento, the city of Folsom, and throughout the Central Valley to many of the state's agriculture districts.
The cities Sacramento and Roseville also supply hydroelectric power from the Folsom power plant to the Western Area Administration.
If we are going to compromise those functions, it should be for a plan that will give Sacramento adequate flood protection.
H.R. 3698 was introduced, which would authorize the Corps a stepped release plan, as identified in the Corps' 1996 American River watershed project. Such a plan would make several modifications to Folsom Dam.
The Corps estimates these modifications, along with the plant's proposed improvements to existing American River levees downstream Folsom Dam would increase Sacramento's flood protection from seventy-seven-year protection up to a level of a hundred-and-forty-five to a hundred-and-sixty-year protection.
This level of protection is, however, far below the minimum two-hundred-fifty-year flood event predicted by the Corps or the five-hundred-year level of protection recommended by the inner agency floodplain management review committee, which most other comparable flood protection centers enjoy.
As you know, my preference for that is to complete the construction of Auburn Dam, a project that would provide Sacramento in protection of four hundred years instead of a hundred-forty-five-year level being proposed.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is important for everyone to realize that Auburn is not under construction right now because of actions in Sacramento, not Washington, DC.
Don't get me wrong, it is not the responsibility of the people of Sacramento. They have repeatedly stated their support for Auburn Dam.
The failure to build Auburn lies in substantial part with elected officials who represent the people in Sacramento and so-called public interest groups which purport to represent people in Sacramento. Most of them appear to be interested in white water and environmental rehabilitation.
The capital of the state of California could have Auburn built and could enjoy both flood protection as well as water supply and recreation if there were a clear voice from Sacramento demanding such a facility.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and shedding light on the current proposal, and I would like to recognize my colleague from the Monterey Bay area, Mr. Farr.
Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a pleasure to be back here in this building we both served.
We are in the capitol, which I recall in the museum downstairs has pictures of the legislature getting to work in rowboats. It is a city that does flood, and today's discussion is more about floods than it is about dams.
It has certainly a place I love being back in. It is dear to me. I purchased my first home in Sacramento. I worked here in this building and served here as a member of the legislature.
I was here as a young child when my father was elected to the state senate in 1955; not from Sacramento, but Yuba City, showing these 1955 newspapers that the Feather River broke, and we are living with floods.
I now represent an area, the Salinas Valley and Pajaro Valley, which has been flooded. I am concerned about the issues we are going to hear today.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I might say from where I come from I think the issue, Mr. Chairman, on the Auburn Dam was first authorized thirty-six years ago. It hasn't been built, never will be built. I think the issue is dead, dead, dead. So I think that this is not a discussion about dams, but a discussion about how we prepare for floods.
I happen to believe that members of the Resource Committee also have an opportunity to preserve resources for various purposes and the big debate in Congress right now is management of those resources, management of our forests, whether they ought to be managed or sold, our timber sales, our mining activities.
I mean, there is some way of looking at it where everything the Federal Government owns or invests should be sold at the highest price.
Best recreational value, I think Members of Congress have as much duty to represent the white water interest as well as those interests that don't have white water.
I look forward to this hearing. I am glad you brought the hearing to Sacramento, and I think you have a very strong witness list.
Those of us that are here today are all Californians. We serve in Congress. We have a special interest in making sure that our system of river management flood control works well, and I appreciate the fact that you brought the Committee back to the state capitol for that purpose.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. We would like to welcome our two colleagues, Mr. Matsui and Mr. Fazio, representatives of the area here concerned, and recognize them for their testimony. We will begin with the author of the bill I oppose, Mr. Matsui.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT T. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. MATSUI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity very much. I would like to, first of all, commend you and your staff for holding these hearings today, and Mr. Farr for coming from Monterey and being with us this morning, and obviously Mr. Pombo, and Mr. Radanovich.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Fazio is leaving at the end of this year. I have to tell you, I certainly am going to miss him very dearly. I appreciate the help and assistance he has given to our region and the state of California and the Nation over the past twenty years.
Mr. Chairman, 1986, as you know, we had a potentially catastrophic—we were twenty-four hours away from a major catastrophic flood where the levees would have collapsed.
At that time approximately a hundred and forty thousand cubic feet per second went down from the American River down into the Sacramento and beyond.
For the last twelve years we have been trying to get adequate flood control for Sacramento County.
Just to put this in perspective, if a child is born today, that child, if it has a normal life span of seventy-seven years, will suffer a catastrophic flood in Sacramento.
What we are really talking about here is that there is a one-third chance every thirty years that we are going to have that catastrophic flood.
There are right now of the nine regional hospitals in Northern California, which includes Placer, El Dorado, Stockton, Yolo County—use it has a theater—of the nine regional hospitals, seven are within the floodplain and in dire danger, if, in fact, we have a catastrophic flood; thirty nursing homes, some of which residents are from the up-lying northern counties.
You have over a hundred and twenty public schools and private schools within the floodplain with all these young children that obviously would be in jeopardy.
We have thirty-seven billion dollars of assets and over four hundred thousand people in the floodplains and over four hundred thousand people in the AR zone and six hundred thousand people in the floodplains itself.
This is a matter not of politics. This is a matter not of technicalities. This is a matter of public safety, dire public safety.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If we have a levee break in a huge flood, this would be could be equivalent to the 1906 earthquake. We all know the consequences of this. I don't think this is one region versus another region.
If a flood hits Sacramento County and creates the kind of damage anticipated, it would hit the entire Sacramento region including San Francisco. This is not a matter to be taken lightly. This is a serious matter.
Even in Stockton, Mr. Radanovich, I am happy he is here today, Sacramento was the lifeblood of the entire Northern California region and entire Central Valley.
Now, what kind of protection do we need? You asked for the Auburn Dam. Mr. Farr said it would never be built. Two years ago Mr. Herger and you supported the Auburn Dam. We were very vigorous in our efforts to fight for the Auburn Dam.
We lost on a twenty-eight to fourteen vote, and we worked that bill for probably 3 months, and I have to tell you, and you know this, and I never question my colleagues motives, but of the twenty-eight members that voted with us to move the bill out of Committee, I would say a third to half of them said this is a courtesy vote. When it gets to the floor of the House, they were going to vote against this bill.
I have to also tell you this isn't people in Sacramento that oppose this legislation. The mayor supported it. SAFCA supported it, and the entire county board of supervisors supported it.
What you have is opposition from the national environmental group, but you have opposition from the major taxpayer groups as well.
So the issue really isn't whether we have the Auburn Dam or a level of flood protection that is adequate for Sacramento, it is whether you have an adequate level of flood protection or nothing. This is what we are talking about here.
You talked about the planned transfer—I hope you give me a little more time since this is my legislation.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have done a CRS land transfer. If you move a railroad right-of-way, that takes anywhere from 3 to 5 years because surveying has to be done, the whole issue of evaluation has to be done.
We have right now three hundred and eighty million dollars invested in the Auburn Dam site. Three hundred and eighty million dollars. Who is going to pay those costs——
Mr. DOOLITTLE. We have got to have the audience to restrain themselves.
Mr. MATSUI. Is Placer County going to pay for it? State of California? Is the Federal Government going to seek reimbursement?
Surveying has to be done. We are talking probably about fifteen years, ten to fifteen years before that can be transferred, if you use a normal legislative process. You can't put this on an appropriations bill.
What we are talking about here is nothing versus adequate flood control protection. Right now we don't have adequate flood control protection.
What does my legislation do? It would basically deal with the modification of Folsom Dam, and in addition to that, as you know, it would strengthen and raise the levees, not just in Sacramento but for sixty-six miles. We want to provide adequate protection for the downstream interests as well.
I know you are going to raise today the whole issue of the Folsom Dam Road and obviously whether or not there is going to be enough water while this construction is going on.
My legislation allows a modification of the stepped release plan, which essentially would allow Mr. Countryman's plan, who you will be hearing from later this morning, to be part of our legislative process as long as the cost is about the same and the benefits are about the same.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Countryman's plan will shorten time of construction and also mitigate some of the concerns that you have, legitimate concerns like whether or not Folsom Dam Road will be closed, and some of these other issues as well.
What we are talking about here, Mr. Chairman, is an issue of whether or not we want to double the level of protection from seventy-seven years to a hundred and sixty years.
Now, let me talk because you raised this issue a number of times, the whole issue of levees. Right now we have a hundred-and-fifteen-thousand cubic feet per second that can go through the American River.
Our bill would put it so it could go, in times of stress, up to a hundred-eighty-five-thousand cubic feet per second, but a hundred-forty-five-thousand cubic feet per second.
Take a look at this chart that is prepared. This is a Corps of Engineers chart—in New Orleans we are talking about one-point-two-five-million cubic feet per second.
Mr. Herger went before Mr. Fazio's committee in 1993 and sought a level of protection in modifying his levee system.
To get to and all the way down to the end here you have a hundred-fifteen-thousand cubic feet. We want to get to a maximum one eighty-five under my plan.
And so we are not talking really about an issue of safety. It is really interesting because what I find is that you become an environmentalist. You really don't believe in the levee system, but all of Northern California, including the Central Valley, is built on levees.
Maybe a hundred and fifty years ago we wouldn't have built the floodplain, but we have to do something about it. We can't let this situation go unmet.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I might just want to say in terms of downstream issue, the Corps will take care of that. The Corps has been building levees for two hundred years. The Corps will testify they can do this safely. They have to do more studies and more technical information has to be given. No reason to hold this up at this particular time.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me just say the January 1997 flood that happened in Yuba City and hit the Feather River, if that flood were seventy miles south, that would have hit Sacramento at a hundred-seventy-five-thousand cubic feet per second. That would have been the earthquake of 1906. Seventy miles would have created that position for all of Northern California. Instead of testifying today, we would still be digging ourselves out.
We are talking about public safety. We are talking about concerns of the people of Northern California. Mr. Chairman, I just hope that you and your members of the Committee and the Congress as a whole, the House and Senate, will look upon this as an issue that is for all Northern California and not just for some regional issue. This is too serious to handle on a regional basis. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Matsui follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT T. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Thank you for this opportunity to testify regarding Sacramento flood control.
I think all of us here are well aware of the perilous situation Sacramento finds itself in as a result of insufficient flood protection. I cannot emphasize enough how inadequate our 77-year level of flood protection truly is. It means that Sacramento has greater than a 1 in 3 chance of flooding every 30 years. In real terms, a person born in Sacramento, who lives the normal life span of an average American, is statistically guaranteed to see a catastrophic flood event.
In a study completed by the Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento was found to have less flood protection than any other metropolitan area. Omaha, Tacoma, Kansas City, and St. Louis all have at least 500 year protection—yet we are left with protection of only 77-years. To make matters worse, beginning in July the annual flood insurance rates that my constituents pay for a $100,000 premium will increase approximately $280 per year to almost $600.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What we all need to understand is that a flood would devastate not only the Sacramento flood plain, but the entire region. If Sacramento flooded, more than half-a-million people and $37 billion in property would be at risk. In a catastrophic flood, this very building would be under water. Clearly, a flood would shatter not only Sacramento, but as the center of economic activity in Northern California, the surrounding counties and the entire State of California.
Given the facts, how can we not work toward a realistic solution that would provide the most flood protection possible now? The centerpiece of the plan I support would authorize modifications to Folsom Dam and raise and strengthen levees along the American River. This would double our level of protection from 77 to 160 years. I recognize that 160 year protection is not enough and want to secure at least 200 year protection for our community—but I will not stand by hoping that the inevitable floods will not come while we wait for Auburn Dam to be built. I, along with Congressmen Fazio, Doolittle and Pombo, fought for Auburn Dam in 1996 and it failed before it even left Subcommittee by a vote of 35 to 28. It wasn't even close. Auburn Dam suffered a similar fate in 1992 when it was defeated nearly two to one on the floor of the House of Representatives. I still believe Auburn Dam is the only flood control solution to solve our problems, but the political and budgetary considerations that defeated Auburn Dam in previous years still exist today. I will not abandon my constituents and leave them with dangerously low levels of flood protection while we wait 20, 30, 40 years or more until a means of building Auburn Dam is found. Everybody knows the Congress is not going to consider Auburn Dam this year or for many years to come. I cannot—and will not—stand by and wait while my constituents flood.
There are those who falsely argue that raising levees will somehow put Sacramento at greater risk. If you look at the chart, you will note that the proposed levee design of 180,000 cfs is nowhere near the levee design capacity of other major metropolitan areas. This proposal, like any other flood control plan, has undergone the required studies and technical analysis needed before the Corps will allow a project to be authorized. That is why the feasibility of this project is without question and also why this project has the strong support of those officials responsible for making this decision including—President Clinton, Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, Mayor Joe Serna, the Sacramento City Council and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also want to clear up any misunderstandings concerning the objective flood water releases of this proposal. Under this proposal, the maximum objective release under flood conditions would increase from the current level of 115,000 cfs to no more than 145,000 cfs. A release of 180,000 cfs is used only in case of emergency—when evacuation procedures are merited—and it is important to recognize that our current emergency release is 160,000 cfs.
It appears that opponents of this plan believe that if the levees are not strengthened, the water will not come. Make no mistake, once Folsom Reservoir is full, Dam operators will send high flows down the river regardless of the designed levee capacity. During the record storm of 1986, Folsom Dam operators were forced to release 130,000 cfs flows, despite the fact that such releases exceeded the designed capacity of 115,000 cfs. Clearly, it would be foolish not to raise levees given the opportunity.
I would like to close with a very sobering thought. In 1997, winter storms ravaged Northern California communities. Two weeks ago, the Army Corps of Engineers reported that if the worst portion of the storm, located just 70 miles north of Sacramento, had hit Sacramento, not only would our current flood control system have failed, but modifications to Folsom Dam only would have failed as well. The Corps also noted that American River flows would have reached 175,000 cfs.
The flood waters will come. The choice is simple, we can either implement a plan to control floods we know are likely or we can ignore this opportunity to secure 160 year protection. I will not compromise on public safety and challenge anyone who would ask for less.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. I recognize that—let me just—ladies and gentlemen, we have a lengthy hearing today, and in order to complete the business, we are going to have to minimize—in fact, the demonstrations are just inappropriate from either side. I would ask that they not occur.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to tell you that anybody who wishes to submit testimony to the Committee, we would be eager to have it, and if you will contact our clerk or one of the Committee staff, we will receive your testimony and include it in the record.
This hearing, I think, will be very informational, but there are far too many people to accommodate all of those who wanted to testify. We did the best we could under the circumstances.
I would now like to recognize the gentleman from our neighboring congressional district, Mr. Fazio, for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. VIC FAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. FAZIO. Thank you, John. Let me express the appreciation of all of us to you and your Subcommittee to provide opportunities for a variety of points of view to be expressed.
I hope this won't be a hearing that turns into competing applause meters because frankly, I will stipulate to the passion and commitment that both you and Congressman Matsui feel about your contrasting positions. It is held, and very sincerely held, and I think the audience is probably equally divided and equally committed.
What we need in this community is a lot more light and a lot less heat, frankly.
What I am hoping this hearing will do, once everybody gets their frustrations out, is start the process of getting consensus.
I think we have all learned on almost any issue that affects a region, if you are not together, you don't get anything. You don't get it in Sacramento, and you certainly don't get it in Washington.
It strikes me that in 1986 you and I, John, and a number of other members sat right in this room. We sat on these tiered podiums listening to the Corps of Engineers as they described what happened in the 1986 flood.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You were a state senator then. There were a number of representatives of the legislature and the Congress, and we had what was the first hearing devoted to determining what we would do as a result of the clear threat that that winter rain produced to the region.
The Corps of Engineers went to work and produced a number of proposals, one of which was brought to the Congress in the early nineties. I think you remember well the frustration Bob and I felt at that time.
We had what was derided as a flow-through dam, which was deemed inadequate for purposes of people in the Placer and El Dorado Counties' perspective, but it did provide flood protection for Sacramento, and it would have maximized water in Folsom Dam, so we could have provided it more for the region and for the state.
That alliance of opposition that you involved yourself in, along with environmental groups, provided an inadequate number of votes for us to pass that proposal, but at the same time, out of those 1986 hearings did come forward a very positive approach to levee reconstruction on the Sacramento River. While we tend to focus on what we haven't gotten done, I think we can all take pride on the work that was done to shore up those levees. While we haven't finished it, I think we are well on our way of doing it. I think that is one of the successes we obtained because we worked together on something that was less controversial than how we dam the American River south of Folsom Dam.
But that continues to be the unaccomplished task, the things that bring us together this morning.
I think everyone on the Committee knows that it has been my history in Congress to be involved in water issues. I have served for nineteen years on the Appropriations Subcommittee that deals with the issues of the Bureau and the Corps and flooding and water supply and everything else that some people like to deride as wasteful pork barrel spending.
Of course, unless it is in your district when it takes on the term ''infrastructure'' and we are all for it.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have supported the LACDA project in Los Angeles, the city of Stockton's efforts. I have worked with Wally Herger in Yuba and Sutter Counties, even the permanent pumps in Placer County in your district, Mr. Chairman, because I thought it was important for us to work together for anything that would benefit any part of our state that could emerge from consensus.
And that is why when Bob Matsui urged me to support him and you in the position you took in the last Congress to build the Auburn Dam, at least a version of it, it was similar to that authorized years ago through the efforts of Ms. Johnson, I agreed to do it because I felt that consensus was required.
We were unsuccessful. We did not get the votes in committee, and I think it is fair to say that some we did get in Committee would not have been there on the floor, as Bob said. Some of us weathered severe criticism for that.
I find it ironic in my impending retirement I agree with you on many things, except Auburn Dam, and I discovered subsequently in conversations with these people, half of them opposed Auburn and half of them supported Auburn.
They all concluded they didn't agree with me but I have worked to try to find common ground to try to find a way to give Sacramento more flood protection because we all agree we need it.
What we discovered after the floods of 1986 made it very clear we simply don't have anywhere near the kind of protection we need.
But also I think there will be legitimate needs in your region for additional water supply. There has to be some way to bring about a further commitment to the people of Placer, and to some degree, El Dorado and other parts of Sacramento County that have counted on water supply.
But I think we all have reached a conclusion that maybe the Federal Government is not going to take responsibility, as it did in all those communities, for the level of protection we deserve and need in this area. I regret that fact, but I find it hard to refute.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We don't have an ethic in Congress today that allows you to build projects on faith and then worry about how they get paid for later. That was the ethic in this country well into the seventies.
Ronald Reagan was frankly proud of the fact that, on behalf of many taxpayer organizations, we did away with building projects, many by the Bureau, in advance of knowing how we would pay for them through water supply hookups and irrigation districts coming together.
New Melones was struggling, until very recently, to find a home for all the water it provided. So more and more our projects are based on flood protection, and yet I find many of our colleagues would rather turn their back on our community than fight alongside us.
They have their flood protection projects. They would rather assume the risks on behalf of Federal taxpayers or FEMA because they don't want to stand up to the taxpayer groups and environmental groups that decided the Auburn Dam was first going to be built.
I don't think there is any way in our history during the time any of us are going to serve that that project can be provided for at the Federal level.
And as I remember B.T. Collins' efforts here with a Republican legislature and Republican Governor. I am willing to let that issue be resolved at the state level when a Federal Government won't take responsibility.
As I struggle with the Cal-Fed process, I know you just had hearings of that in Washington, and in my conversations with Lester Snow and other statewide water agencies, we will hear from some of them this morning, when they talk about water supply and they move away from underground storage and aquifer.
But if any surface supply is to be part of this statewide agreement on water, I hear little, if any, reference to Auburn, but intellectually I can't disagree that perhaps the state is the cockpit where any action should occur.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It seems to me as we think about what the Federal responsibility ought to be, we ought to find consensus once again, the way we attempted to in the last Congress. And that is why I support what Bob Matsui is proposing. That is why I think what Bob is saying is let's get the best we can get. Let's reop Folsom.
And I am willing to be flexible, as I believe you are, on how that is done, how that is designed, but also let's strengthen and shore up the levees on the lower American to guarantee the people living adjacent to it get the protection they need. That is the best we can do in our lifetime. It may be all the Federal Government ever does.
We will work together on the common elements we agreed on in the last Congress—we will try to get the additional funding. The President's funding doesn't do it—I think we need to go beyond that. We need to find a way to resolve those issues that make this more complex.
And I will be very straightforward about my concerns about Yolo County. I think there are problems with the higher flows down the American River bypass. All of that has to be included in whatever fix is authorized. We can't export Sacramento's problems to Yolo County. We all know that.
We are facing a tremendous bill statewide for flood protection. In Richard's district tremendous investment has to be made on levees. In my area to the north that I share with Wally Herger, additional investments have to be made. George's as well.
We are not in a position to have funds spent on things we can't all agree on, whether it be in a statewide bond act or in an enactment in Congress. There has to have the broadest support from our entire delegation.
We have to concentrate on those things we can agree on because we will be fortunate to get them, let alone the things we remain divided on.
I would conclude simply by saying to you, Mr. Chairman, we worked together in the past, and we didn't succeed. We now ought to work together again and succeed, however modestly, in giving the Sacramento region for our lifetime, for our tenure in public service, the best flood protection we can, leaving for others, future generations, the continuing debate about values and priorities, which I think are legitimate and important to hold.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We can argue about white water versus flood protection and storage for Delta water quality, for Los Angeles or for whoever can make the best case. We can argue about it at a state level and find out if it is part of the package that goes before the voters.
But now, at the Federal level, let's do what we can do to move the ball a little bit further down the road to a hundred-and-sixty-year protection, not two hundred, not the four hundred we could have had in 1992 when we would have built the fourth largest dam in the country, but something better than when we came.
I know this is not easy for anybody to compromise on. It wasn't easy when we supported Auburn, and I know it has not easy for you, but that is what leadership is about, and I hope that we can all step up to the challenge and work, once again, to provide that kind of leadership for the community, explaining to our constituents why we must do it and agreeing together on compromises that they expect us to make. Like it or not that is our job. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fazio follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. VIC FAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
I appreciate the opportunity to testify. Flood protection is a topic of enormous importance to the people of Sacramento and its surrounding counties.
For many years, I have worked with elected officials throughout the Sacramento area on the problems that confront us, and we have developed strategies that assist the people of this area in improving the quality of life.
But on one of the most important issues—flood protection for Sacramento—we have come up short and have made little progress in nearly a decade.
I certainly have the credentials to comment on this issue and the controversy surrounding it for many reasons, chief among them that since I'm retiring I don't have to worry about the political consequences of what I say.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But perhaps more importantly, I think I have the credentials of support for flood control. As a member of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee for some 18 years, I have taken a back seat to no one in support of California flood control projects. In fact, some have accused me of never having met a dam or a levee I didn't like.
That's because I've always recognized the importance of these projects not to just the local economies here in California and around the country, but to the well-being of the national economy. I believe that keeping our cities safe from natural disasters, as well as ensuring that our ports and waterways are maintained and operating optimally, is well worth the investment.
It's often been a fight with those who portray investments in infrastructure as wasteful spending or pork. And it's a fight we are continuing to wage each year with fewer and fewer supporters who recognize the value of these projects.
Here in California, my support for projects has come without regard for partisanship. I've supported the Santa Ana project in Orange County, the LACDA project in Los Angeles County, the City of Stockton's project, flood control projects benefiting Yuba County in Wally Herger's district and placement of permanent pumps in Placer County in the chairman's own district. I've not just supported these projects passively, but I have pushed actively for funding that would expedite work on them.
So my credentials are solid.
One of the common factors of those successful projects was the ability of disparate local groups and local officials with different views to work through issues and adopt a common strategy.
That's a methodology I've tried to support locally. I've supported the strategies developed by our local officials, and I worked vigorously in the House in both 1992 and 1996 to authorize Auburn Dam. The simple fact is, we were defeated.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would remind the chairman that he opposed our effort in 1992 on the floor of the House when we fought for a flood control dam based on studies developed after the disastrous floods of 1986. In hindsight, 1992 was the best chance we had to procure the Federal funding we needed. The cost-share on Auburn Dam at that time would have had the Federal Government paying for 75 percent of the costs.
In 1996, I weathered severe criticism from environmentalists and others to support a multi-purpose Auburn Dam in conjunction with our local strategy, but we were defeated in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Perhaps the Chairman knows something I don't about a change in heart by all the Members of that committee who voted against us in 1996. No matter how much we may wish it, that simple fact we can't win—won't go away.
What I do know is that seven years after our initial efforts to bring significant flood protection to the City of Sacramento, we are not only no further along, in fact, we appear to be recreating the same errors we made in the past by refusing to reach consensus and pursue a common strategy.
I contrast that with the effort we have made on the Sacramento River where the 5-phase project that was indicated by the same 1986 flooding is nearing completion. That project has not moved as quickly as I would have liked at times, but by working from year to year, first on the studies and then on the construction increments, we have moved forward and are within sight of that project's completion.
I can't say we are wholly without progress on the American River. Nearly $10 million was provided last year to move forward on the ''common elements'' component of that project.
But the bottom line is: we can't get our act together. And until we do, we merely create problems for ourselves in a time of tightening budgets and a changing Washington mentality about the Federal responsibility to states for expensive projects.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I've served on my subcommittee for 18 years now, and we've met the needs of communities throughout the United States while facing the realities of budgets in both Republican and Democratic Administrations, and in both Democratic-controlled and Republican-controlled Congresses.
We cannot ignore such budget realities. At my subcommittee this year, we face more than $1 billion in requests above the level we funded just last year. All of these projects are authorized by law. Now, Bob Matsui and I are asking that the Transportation and lnfrastructure Committee include the flood control project endorsed by SAFCA and the City Council in a new Water Resources Development Act.
At best, our project will then compete against the demand from projects and the needs of communities across the country embodied in the new authorization. To lose this authorization this year will only delay further the needed improvements that won't be completed for a decade even under ideal circumstances. By then, I suspect even the chairman will have announced retirement. But if he is successful in opposition, his legacy will leave the City of Sacramento without adequate flood protection.
I know that some arguments may be made today about the damage of increased flows, and there may be other technical arguments raised about the operation of Folsom Dam. First, I believe those arguments are without merit: they are contradicted in large part by the professionals from the Corps of Engineers, and they are contradicted by the provisions of the Matsui bill requiring that this project be consistent with the Sacramento River Flood Control Project.
But second and more important is whether our intention is to work the process to resolve these issues and others that will surely arise over the life of this project, or whether we are just using them to create additional obstacles.
Certainly, we do not want changes in the American River levee system to undermine what we've accomplished in West Sacramento, or to encroach on the effectiveness and function of the Yolo Bypass. But I sit here as the Representative of the people of those areas, and I would not support a project that does harm to my constituents.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The officials from West Sacramento and Yolo County know that too, and they are committed to working through the process to meet their needs while providing flood protection to their neighbors in Sacramento.
In closing, I know that I will not be in office as these events play out. Others will have to step up in the years ahead to lead the movement to reach consensus in order to determine our solutions and to acquire the funding in an increasingly hostile environment.
During my career, I have done my best to be a conciliator and to find middle ground. And I've been willing to take my share of slings and arrows as a result. I believe that's what leadership is all about.
We need leadership to help solve the flood threat to the City of Sacramento. We need leadership to keep our region and our nation strong and prosperous and to keep our citizens safe from the threat of natural disasters. Only leadership will get the job done.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Bob, let me ask you: Your proposal encompasses a couple of approaches to Folsom. I am not clear which one you are advancing.
Can you shed some light on whether we are talking about the Corps proposal or the Countryman proposal?
Mr. MATSUI. As you know, Mr. Chairman, our proposal is a stepped release proposal. That is where the SIR has been completed on, but our proposal does allow for Mr. Countryman's proposal as well.
As I mentioned the four criteria: As long as the cost is the same, benefits comparable, the certainty about if the project can be completed at the same or sooner time that is in our legislation, so I believe the Countryman legislation or the Countryman proposal will be the one the Corps will market on, certainly if we all work together in terms of mitigation of Folsom Dam Road and the water issue in Placer County.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
All these things need to be brought in the discussion, but certainly we want to mitigate damage to any other region of the Northern California area as much as possible, and I believe Mr. Countryman's proposal is the most logical one to do that.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, the reason I ask about that is it has an effect on the level of flood protection we get, and sounds like I hear you sympathetic to the Countryman proposal.
But the Countryman proposal, as I understand it, provides a level of protection that is a hundred and forty-five years, not the hundred and sixty that would be the full Corps proposal with auxiliary spillways; is that your understanding?
Mr. MATSUI. Instead of building new outlets in the auxiliary spillway, a level of protection, whether that is a hundred forty-five or a hundred and fifty years, I couldn't tell you at this time because we need to do more work on that. There will be a reduction in the level of protection.
It certainly will be much more than the seventy-seven, or if you just do the modifications alone without the levees, which would be about a hundred-and-five-year protection.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. So I think what we are really talking about, though, is not the hundred-and-sixty-year protection, which I believe is inadequate, but the hundred-and-forty-five year or whatever studies determined the level of protection to be.
Since the studies haven't been done, it is just an estimate at this point, you would acknowledge the problem with downstream communities, and I think you made it clear you don't believe we ought to solve Sacramento's problems at the expense of Yolo County and downstream communities; right?
Mr. FAZIO. I have worked very hard to get west Sacramento four-hundred-year protection. They are in a bathtub.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am concerned with people north of the city and the area protecting the city who could have flooding as water backs up the Sacramento.
We don't know whether the flows down the river would be potential problems. Those are rural levees. I think all of us, particularly this group, know that rural levees are harder to maintain and rebuild and increase, given the assessed valuation behind them. It is one of the issues we struggled with, the levee fix we enacted in the eighties.
We have to keep in mind whatever protection needs to be provided for the river levees and the bypass, what additional water is delivered down the levee, that has to be factored into whatever legislation we can all agree to.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I think, as you indicated in your answer, I am glad you acknowledge the impact even on the up-stream communities, but the fact of the matter is that impact really is unclear at this point both upstream and downstream what it might be.
Do you agree with that?
Mr. FAZIO. We need to understand the full impact. We can all assume with our rudimentary knowledge of this problem that has to be studied, determined, and some sort of fix needs to be proposed and funded as part of the package. We are going to be spending 4, 5, 6 years preparing to do this. I think that is ample time to assure the Yolo County that we will factor their concerns in.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Farr for his questions.
Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a question for Mr. Matsui.
In your bill where you authorize a study of the stepped release program and the new river outlets below, enlarging the existing river outlets, do you also include the—as I understand it would require thirteen miles of American River levee raising and about five point eight miles of levee erosion protection, and in that bill also includes the new levees and flood walls——
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MATSUI. All that is in the——
Mr. FARR. [continuing] modification to the bridges, including the pump and drainage facilities for the cities would need.
The study includes the entire package of all the things that would have to be done to reach—and then with that you reach the hundred, and is it—I am a little bit confused. You reach the hundred and eighty thousand cubic feet per second level.
Mr. MATSUI. Under our proposal we can do all that you have stated, including Mr. Countryman's proposal that Mr. Doolittle agreed to as an option.
Other than the stepped release plan, in addition—the Corps will be doing additional work and studies and analysis of the downstream effect on about sixty-six miles of levees, obviously the Yolo Bypass, and throughout the entire Northern California region, and so this will allow all of that to occur.
Mr. FARR. I am going to be very interested in understanding why anybody would be opposed to this. Every other place in California we are dealing with flood problems. We are dealing with levees. Santa Cruz or the Pajaro River in Watsonville.
I mean, even in the coastal communities that are not part of the Central Valley Water Project are trying to deal with flood protection. It all deals were levee improvements, and yours is a study and an authorization that once the study is completed, pending appropriations to do the necessary work——
Mr. MATSUI. Exactly. It would complete the entire project, pending the study obviously, but you are absolutely right.
As I said in my opening remarks, the entire region basically is supported by levee systems. Obviously you want dams and levees. New Orleans there are dams and levees. In St. Louis there are dams and levees.
It is a combination of both, you want the highest level of protection you can get, what is politically and what is possible.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And as I said, I think Mr. Fazio stated as well, that we did support the Auburn Dam 2 years ago and we made a vigorous effort for it. We were not successful in that effort. Now we need to get the highest level of protection that is practical.
Mr. FAZIO. Sam, if I could quibble for a moment, there are a lot of communities that are looking for meander belts down in the San Joaquin and areas where the kind of adequate levees that we would need are unaffordable in this area with the assessed valuation as high as it is, with the urbanization as high to the levees as possible.
We have no alternative but to do levees. That is the only solution we can come to, although increasingly we will be turning away from them in some rural areas.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I think what is overlooked in Sacramento, and people that don't live here don't understand it, but this city is really the key critical point, not only in north/south traffic.
I mean, everything that goes north essentially goes right through here, historically it always was. That is why the city is here. It is probably the most vital transition point in California.
There is no other region that is so dependent on flow of traffic and people, that is so dependent also on the elements of big rivers running through it, both the Sacramento and the American.
I really support your legislation, and I hope we can get testimony today to prove that it is essential.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Pombo is recognized for his questions.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we move ahead in trying to develop some kind of increased flood protection for this region, I look at the both of you and you guys have both spent over twenty years trying to build alliances and work to find the best solution that you can.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And when I look at what is in front of us at this point, I think you both have to admit that there is no consensus that this is the way to proceed, that there is further work that needs to be done.
And in getting there from where we are right now, I don't think any one of us wants to adopt legislation that is shortsighted in terms of let's take care of this one specific problem at the expense of everyone else and you both have talked about that in your testimony here this morning.
In my district I have concerns about the impact of this particular plan on the rest of my district. I have people who live along the American River who have deep concerns about what this would mean. I have people that are out in the Delta that are looking at the Cal-Fed plan that you are both very well aware of and combining this particular proposal with the Cal-Fed plan, they don't know what it means to them.
They don't know if that means their ability to continue to farm and produce out in the Delta is going to continue. They don't know if all of a sudden they become a lower priority because of this.
And I guess the point I would like to make to both of you is that we all know the only way this is going to proceed and the only way we are going to get this is if we develop a flood control plan that everybody can sign off on and everybody, on a much larger scale than just Sacramento, but everybody in a much larger scale can look at and say this takes care of our flood control problems that we have. This takes care of surface water problems that we have, and a stepped plan that says this is where we are going to start. This is the goal. This is where we are going to end up, and we are not going to do anything between here and our goal that is going to stop us from getting there.
There is a lot of concerns about this, and I think, as we look at this, we really do need to sit down and come to some kind of consensus. That is just not there right now. I think we have a long ways to go before we get there, Bob.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MATSUI. Thank you. Richard, let me say this: I think the consensus would be very, very helpful. Certainly I would love to see it go back to the consensus.
The problem is if the consensus requires the Auburn Dam, which I support, Mr. Fazio supports, you support, Mr. Doolittle supports. Our colleagues will not support the Auburn Dam.
And if there is all of that, somebody has to explain to me how do we double our level of protection, which is—I don't believe is adequate, but it will get us by a hundred forty, a hundred sixty years.
If somebody can come up with—if John or you or anybody else would introduce a bill for the Auburn Dam today, I will support it. But we obviously know it is not going to happen, and as a result of that, tell me how we get a consensus if we take the Auburn Dam out of it.
The SAFCA, the Corps of Engineers, the Reclamation Board, city of West Sacramento, Reclamation District one thousand nine hundred sixty-eight, city and county of Sacramento, they signed off on a statement that said the Corps represented the lower American River project and determine the impact each plan will have on the Yolo Bypass, both upstream and downstream of the lower American River.
If this shows that the levee, by the proposed alternative mitigation plan to restore the level of protection, the hydraulic will include, but may not, levees' construction of additional bypass capabilities by widening, setting back levees, or an accommodation of the above. We want to take into——
Mr. POMBO. Bob, what you just described is what everybody is afraid of. When you talk about mitigation downstreams, you are not talking about fixing their levees because the money is not there to support that.
So what you are talking about is saying ''Well, if those levees blow out down there, we just—we are going to buy them out some day,'' or we will like what they are doing with the Cal-Fed process. We will retire those lands out of production, and that becomes the mitigation for it.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MATSUI. That is not true, Richard. We have a hundred and thirty-two million dollars in our bill, maybe more that will take care of the levee work. That means not only here but sixty-six miles beyond that. This is not only a study but also the construction and improving the levees all the way down where the water will flow from the American River down and out. We are talking about making sure we take care of those downstream communities.
The Corps will not build a project that will leave that open. That is why that money is in there and in the authorization.
Mr. FAZIO. Richard, if I can comment?
Your comment about the need for consensus is well taken, but it is also indicative of the thinking of your district. For example, I think it would be hard for you, reading some of the things you have already said, to accept any of the cross Delta facilities, alternative facilities coming out of the Cal-Fed. You fear the loss of farmland and have a number of concerns.
When we went to people statewide in the eighties and asked them whether they would support an Auburn Dam as originally authorized, the people south of you in Los Angeles and Southern California were particularly discouraging.
Their view was ''Well, there is no conveyance. How do we get the water? Why would we want to support a project that is not going to allow us to take our share of the water?''
And so you know, what we need here is to come to reality about what it is going to take to get out-of-area support, even in the state, for a project of this size.
Auburn doesn't yield on an annual basis anywhere near as much as some of the other proposals that are in themselves controversial for surface water development, if any, it is going to be over whether it should be put on the ballot this fall.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It will probably be one that yields farm or water, and at the same time is politically far less controversial, one would hope. We are in a box. That would be possible.
For example, for Los Angeles to get excited about whatever increment of Auburn water would be available to them may be unacceptable to you. That is why we need a statewide fix.
Mr. POMBO. You are absolutely right. We need a statewide fix, and I am afraid if we proceed in a manner that is designed to take care of one specific problem, not only will we not reach consensus among the Sacramento delegation, but our chances of getting support outside of this region diminish greatly.
George is here, and George and I have our fights over water all the time because of where his district is versus where mine is, and I know my district is a little bit different because I have all the elements in California within my district but unless you develop a statewide plan that takes care of consumer flood control, that takes care of water availability, you are not going to be able to proceed with any of this.
You are talking about spending several hundred thousand dollars on this one particular fix. Unless we look at this from a statewide basis, we are never going anywhere with this.
Mr. FAZIO. Let me argue: We can look at this from a statewide basis, from the statewide cost of flood insurance. We ought to do the best we can, and then let the state resolve the various issues about what it wants to do with its money.
I think that is the responsible thing to do, and as I have already indicated, I think we have a pretty good understanding of what the state will or will not want to do vis-a-vis Auburn.
But I can't intellectually argue that we should prevent it from being put on the table. That land shouldn't be an impediment from the state taking whatever action it wants to take. Let's not punt on protecting Sacramento to the extent we can where we have responsibility at the Federal level.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That doesn't preclude some day down the road doing something else that might relate to water supply for the region or the state, but let's not leave the people of Sacramento hanging out there year after year wondering whether they are going to get inundated because we can't agree on what sort of water supply solution the state needs.
I think that would be unfair. Let's take an incremental step here and now.
Mr. POMBO. I don't think anybody is proposing that we punt at this point. The argument or the debate is what the best way to proceed is. It is—no one has come forward yet and said that we should punt.
Mr. FAZIO. If we can't reach agreement and we go back squabbling how we do levee fixes south of the American, we might be accused of punting because the Congress is not going to respond for another 2 years.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Radanovich is recognized.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Boy, I thought we had problems in Fresno. Thank you very much for the opportunity to come up and speak and testify or at least participate in this hearing.
I do have a couple of questions and perhaps some observation as somewhat of an outsider, although water in California is tied intricately to the state.
I represent the area of the picture up there of Yosemite and into the San Francisco Bay, but I got a new appreciation of the problems you are going through here in the Sacramento Valley and in this area in trying to solve the problem that is going to basically protect the lives of four or five hundred thousand people in the area.
I have got some numbers here, and I am not so much a—I have been a supporter of the development of Auburn Dam for the sake of John Doolittle, who is my colleague, and other members of the delegation, but I think I have come to a new awareness how important it is as the final solution to the flooding problems in this basin.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am not sure of—although I very much in appreciation of your efforts, Bob, and your efforts, Vic, to do something. We have a problem out there that needs a solution.
If my numbers are correct, though, I understand that Auburn Dam is projected to cost something in the area of eight hundred eighty-eight million dollars.
With your stepped release program, correct me if I am wrong, Bob, is a total of five hundred twenty-eight million for the cost of the bill.
Auburn Dam gets you a hundred-sixty-years protection at about 95 percent certainty. The stepped release plan gets you a 140 to a 160 percent certainty, and the cost of doing that is five hundred twenty-eight million.
What you get from the stepped release program, in addition to a little less certainty is unknown regional consequences or the price of fixing those levees you mentioned to the tune of three hundred million dollars on top of five hundred and twenty-eight as a means of protecting downstream users like Richard Pombo and Vic's area in West Sacramento in appreciation of the problems you are all going through or try to solve the problem.
Unfortunately it looks like building a dam is the best solution.
Is there any way the legislation you are offering can be at least dovetailed into what might be the event solution of building a dam?
Mr. MATSUI. Thank you, George. We attempted to look at that—John, Richard, Vic, and myself—and we all attempted to see if we can come up with something to move forward. We did that with the common elements that were passed in 1996, obviously only fifty-eight million dollars, but it was to preserve the option to build Auburn at the same time, do enough work on our levee system to get us over a hundred-year protection.
Since new hydrology systems have been done with that fifty-eight million dollars, we are now down to a hundred, then seventy-seven years. We can't seem to catch up.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have attempted several times to get a consensus. The problem with the premises of your question—and I appreciate the fact that you are here and you are looking at this issue—is the fact that we have tried Auburn on the floor of the House, which we lost in a two to one, and most recently in 1996, and we lost twenty-eight to thirty-five.
Now, I agree with you that the highest level of protection to both reliability is a dam, the dam in Auburn, and I agree with you that a levee system does not anywhere near reach the level of protection that a dam would reach.
Right now we have a reliability of 20 percent. We would double that with a 60 percent reliability if we have a hundred eighty thousand cubic feet per second going through the American River.
We are trying to improve a very, very dangerous and bad situation for six hundred thousand people. If I were at least given some reasonable assurance we can build Auburn in the next 5, 10, 7 years, I would say ''Well, maybe the community should wait and do something that is temporary.''
But you know, as I said, we did a CRS study, a lot of work on this. We don't see Auburn Dam. You are not going to get it at the Federal level. You try to at the state of California.
As I said, it is going to take years in order to figure out who is going to pay what cost and who is going to pay maintenance cost, who is going to pay for it statewide, bond issue, local community folks, two-thirds vote on a property tax. That is pretty tough for an entire region.
Somebody has to give me assurance that Auburn Dam will be built. I agree with what John is saying, ultimately we are going to need a structure in Auburn to provide protection for Sacramento and the downstream communities as well.
The problem is it is not going to happen, as Vic said, in our lifetime, and we can't wait.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. And just closing up my comments is you are looking at a, you know, a plan, bottom line to protect about a half million people in this area.
Those that object to the Auburn Dam or people recording this issue need to understand that this plan is only getting you 60 percent and you are going to end up spending just as much money you would on the Auburn Dam or any dam.
Mr. MATSUI. George, if I can comment on that?
In my opening comments, right now we can get a hundred fifteen thousand cubic feet per second in a normal situation. On my bill we can get up to a hundred forty-five thousand cubic feet per second, a 100 percent reliability on that.
We are talking worst case scenario, then it is at a 65 percent reliability. That is under the worse scenario under our bill.
And so when you and I say 60 percent, we are not talking under the normal situation where it is a hundred and twenty, hundred-thirty, hundred-thirty year occurrence.
We are talking only if you get the worst case, hundred eighty-five thousand cubic feet per second going down that river it becomes a 60 percent reliability issue.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Isn't the goal to send that up to two hundred fifty years?
Mr. MATSUI. New Orleans one point twenty-five million cubic feet per second. I can assure you it doesn't have more than a 50, 60 percent reliability, maybe less than that. All dams, it is based on the probabilities you get. The higher level of flow you get as you reach the threshold you get less percentage of protection.
Sixty percent is a number you use. What we are really talking about is a hundred forty-five cubic feet per second, which is a normal situation under emergency.
Mr. RADANOVICH. But when you are protecting for floods, you use flood history totals, like with the hundred-fifty-year floods. Most of what the bureau or regulators recommend is anywhere between two-hundred to two-hundred-fifty-year floods out to be the goal with some degree of certainty.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MATSUI. That is what Herger, Fazio, Pombo wanted to do with the Auburn Dam. We don't see that in the foreseeable future. Right now we have a 30 percent under the current situation. Getting up to 60 percent would double that.
Mr. RADANOVICH. I think what also needs to occur within this community is an acceptance that a dam in the future is a reality if you want to solve this problem.
Mr. FAZIO. Getting a hundred year protection is our immediate need. We are going to be seeing the Federal remapping process statewide. It is going to drive insurance rates for everyone.
Maybe that will at some point help get the two-thirds vote requirement that is so difficult for us to attain in the short run to get over a hundred year protection, as Bob's bill will do, which is imperative for us.
We are about to see on the 1st of July our current protection run out and flood insurance rates jump up. I would say one more thing to you, and Richard, I appreciate you being here today as Bob does.
This year our Subcommittee was asked to provide a billion dollars more than the President's budget for water projects across the country. We are all aware of the reality that that is simply impossible to provide. We have had two El Niño years in a row. We have created a demand. We have to be practical with what we can accomplish for your districts, as well as ours.
I am hoping Sam Farr will succeed me on the Appropriations Committee. If we really get lucky we will find him on this Subcommittee so we can keep working for California on a bipartisan basis.
But we can't ask for things that are beyond anybody's ability to obtain, not only in the authorizing process but more importantly in the appropriating process or we are going to end up with way less than the hundred-year figure statewide and nationally.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am hoping we will be practical, realistic, and once again cooperative in the way we go about attacking this problem with the scarce resources we have.
Mr. RADANOVICH. The numbers—in appreciation for all you are doing here, you all have a tough job, but we are spending about eight hundred million dollars to not solve or at least get closer to solving the problem when spending the same money to build the dam—it is just worthy of mentioning.
Mr. FAZIO. I wish it were as obvious to our colleagues.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me ask both of you: Do you accept the figures of the Corps that the standard project flood protection for the American River floodplain is two-hundred-fifty-year event?
Mr. MATSUI. That I couldn't tell you, but I can tell you that is a concern. That is why I think we should have had the Auburn Dam because I would say that it is quite possible that a two-hundred-fifty-year event could occur in Northern California.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. That is what the Corps actually——
Mr. MATSUI. I am not disputing that.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Do you dispute that, Vic?
Mr. FAZIO. I can't say I dispute it. It is an evolving situation. As we know, the last decade has produced a lot of data that contradicts what, certainly, the people who built Folsom Dam thought they were accomplishing.
I think we ought not to err on the side of being cautious. I think we all understand to be cautious.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, do you yield on that?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield.
Mr. FARR. You have to ask that question for the whole state. There is not many places in California that have that standard of two hundred fifty years.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me reclaim my time on that.
That is, in fact, what the Corps study said, that the largest storm that could reasonably be predicted to dower is a two-hundred-fifty-year event. We are for Auburn, but it is not going to be built in my lifetime, which Sacramento floods, which it will eventually do, could be this year, could be next year, could be the year after.
If we have another warm storm off there that melts the snow pack, when that happens and the city does flood, and let me say I agree, you cannot paint too negative a picture of what will happen to our region certainly, but it will have an impact on the entire state when it floods.
That is why, frankly, those of us that right there in the floodplain are concerned because we will be severely impacted because Sacramento, in addition to being a state capitol which is a flood region, and you will bring down on our heads an artificial depression like the Great Depression, only it will be in Sacramento.
The rest of the country will be doing great, but we will have dire consequences when the city floods, which will happen eventually if we do not protect against the standard flood.
Then, in your opinion, will we have an Auburn Dam?
Mr. MATSUI. I would hope, John, it wouldn't get to that point. Certainly let me say it wouldn't be Sacramento city or the county. It would be the entire region.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I meant that it is not just the city and county.
Mr. MATSUI. That we get the level of protection that would get us by a hundred and forty-five, hundred fifty, hundred sixty year level of protection for Sacramento County, and obviously the entire floodplain area.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I want you to tell me what happens when it floods.
Mr. MATSUI. And then we hope that beyond that that over the next twenty or so years that we can start working and continue to work, as we have been working, on making sure that eventually we get a dam up in Auburn because we need this level of protection.
As this Northern California community grows, this is an incremental step that needs to be taken back in Washington, DC right now on getting the Auburn Dam. Maybe over time we will. It will take time.
In the meantime, we can't let this region be open to a major catastrophic event.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let's say next year it is going to flood and we know that somehow now.
When it does flood, at that point do you believe Auburn Dam will be built?
Mr. MATSUI. John, I think at that point we will be in such dire straights it will take us twenty years to get us out of where we are. People won't be thinking about Auburn Dam. They are going to be thinking how they are going to get by week to week, day to day, year to year.
If this thing hits, it will be something we haven't seen before equivalent to the 1906 earthquake. We are not going to be thinking of floods. We are not going to be thinking of dams. We are going to be thinking of food.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am trying to get a yes or no.
Mr. FAZIO. In 1992 we had four-hundred-year protection, and we would have yielded a lot more water out of Folsom almost to the brim because we had the backup protection of the facility.
We were prepared to build in Auburn. You didn't support it because you had another valid, from your perspective, priority, which you wanted to have a reservoir in Auburn. We have all had to make compromises. We have all had to live with the reality of that.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You didn't choose to compromise then, and we could have been through this potentially without any concern for flood protection and two-hundred-year less level in Sacramento.
What we are saying is ''Please, help us find a consensus,'' and we will then, I think, at least have done the best we can do given the circumstances at the turn of the millennium.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Since you have brought this ancient history up twice now, let me just say that I am not the one who failed to compromise. You were the one who refused.
You gave us a national recreation area. You gave us a dry dam, and I went to you and Bob both before that vote, indeed the morning of that vote, and said ''Please, let's work together.''
I have always believed in the flood control, but you didn't concede to my request, so I want to set the record straight on that.
Mr. FAZIO. We can continue on this. I offered a number of amendments in the Rules Committee that were helpful to you, but you already made up your mind; you wanted an up or down vote on your Auburn Dam, which we gave you in the last Congress. I understand why you didn't want to compromise any further. Then I understand you wanted to get ultimately the vote you thought you deserved.
We are back where we started from. That is why I am saying let's find common ground and finish, for this generation of elected officials, the jobs we have been given.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. When the city floods, do you believe we will then get an Auburn Dam?
Let me pose the same question to you that I did to Bob.
Mr. FAZIO. I don't think it is going to be something any of us are going to be judged by, but I think we will be judged if we get a flood in a few years that exceeds the hundred-year level that we could have mitigated against and chose not to.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Farr?
Mr. FARR. Let me give you experience from my district. We are on the opposite side, not talking so much of Carmel Valley, Monterey, peninsula water. We don't have any—our question is: What do you do when you have a drought? The issue at that time was ''Let's build a dam.''
The regions rejected the dam, and even though they have the most severe water rationing in the state of California and probably the highest priced water in California, just the opposite.
Just because there is a disaster, whether it be a drought or flood, doesn't mean the taxpayers want to go and build on a river in California. Since the New Melones, that is not the way the world is going. It is now looking at offsite storage.
The problem I think we have here, and I really appreciate both of my colleagues pointing out to those who are newer to Congress, that Congress has been there, done that, and when you first authorized the dam thirty-six years ago after the 1975 earthquake, everything was abandoned on the site. No work has been done on the dam for the last twenty-three years.
Congress refused to approve the dam in 1992 and again in 1996. I don't think the dam is an option, and I appreciate the concern of the Chair, but if you can't have the dam, what do you do?
Politics is the art of compromise. This is now discussing flood protection, levee protection. I assume you retrofitting of Folsom, and I presume that what this hearing gets down to is essentially the money to be committed for levee repair.
Is that kind of where we are? Are you opposed to the Folsom retrofits?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Direct your questions to our witnesses.
Mr. MATSUI. I tell you why, John, to—Sam, but to respond somewhat to John, the reason the Folsom reop is not an option, we can get a hundred-ten-year Countryman plan that you suggest. Maybe reached just a hundred years. The problem with the hydrology studies being done, we have had recent floods, heavy rainfall.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the last 10 years there is been two, since 1986, two hydrology studies that keep dropping our level of protection.
I am afraid if you do the reop of Folsom, we have heavy rainfalls with years in construction. All of a sudden we are going to be doing the same thing all over again. We can't afford to do this time and time again.
What we have to do, our job, is get to a hundred fifty years, hundred sixty years, hundred forty-five, whatever that number is, and then work on a higher level of protection.
You have a lot of interest. You have levees you need to have built. You have obvious water issues, recreation issues. Instead we spend all our time fighting, getting Sacramento County a level of protection that makes us feel like we have go to sleep at night right now for seventy-seven years. It is too dangerous.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Will you yield?
If we know the threat is a two hundred fifty year, whether we provide a hundred year protection and a hundred fifty year and by you both saying you are not going to ever see the dam which provides that level in our lifetime, you are both admitting we are going to flood, aren't you?
Mr. MATSUI. John, if I can answer?
Like I said, the January 1997 flood put a hundred—would have put a hundred seventy-five thousand cubic feet per second through the American River. That would have been adequate under the bill I have.
Under your proposal, or no proposal, we would have had that catastrophic flood. Not only is there a two-hundred-fifty-year occurrence, hundred-ten-year occurrence as well. We need to protect from seventy-seven years all the way up to——
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Assuming the levees held. But as you alluded to, there is a 40 percent chance the levees will fail under the circumstance even with the five hundred twenty million dollars we put into them.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MATSUI. If you hit the highest level of protection, if you get, let's say, the Countryman plan gives a hundred-forty-five. You get to that level, yes, you may be at a sixty year, anything less than that the——
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The five largest storms of record—Folsom Dam was a two-hundred-fifty-year event dam when it was authorized, and before construction had even started, they dropped that figure down because the five largest storms of history happened before.
And 1997 you mentioned, but next year it could be even worse. Well, our point is not to sit here and debate with each other, but these issues are important.
If there are no further questions, we will thank both of you.
And let me just ask: Is there objection to our colleagues joining us up here on the dais?
Hearing none, then I will extend the invitation to both of you to come up here and join us in the questions that will be directed to other witnesses.
[Pause in proceeding.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. With that, let me invite our first panel of witnesses now, an hour and a half into the agenda, to come forward.
We have as our witnesses Roger Patterson, Pete Rabbon, and Carl Enson. Let me ask the three of you if you will please rise and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury the responses made and the statements given will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Let the record reflect that each answered in the affirmative. Thank you, gentlemen—ladies and gentlemen, and we thank you for being here.
And Colonel Klasse, I understand you will be accompanying Mr. Enson, and we are appreciative of you being here as well.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We haven't been very good about the 5-minute rule, and these red lights. I guess we will try and be better of that in interest to not being here until 6 o'clock at night. We can always go to a second round of questions.
Our first witness is Mr. Roger Patterson, the regional director of Mid-Pacific Region of the Bureau of Reclamation.
STATEMENT OF ROGER PATTERSON, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MID-PACIFIC REGION, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Matsui, Mr. Fazio, thank you for the invitation to attend the hearing today. I have with me Tom Akin, who is hiding in the front row of the audience. He's the area manager out in Folsom, if you need to call on him.
The Bureau of Reclamation believes that flood protection for the Sacramento area, and efforts to protect Folsom Dam in an emergency are extremely important. In response to that concern, Reclamation entered into an interim reoperation agreement with SAFCA in an effort to provide hundred-year flood protection until a final decision could be made on flood control for the city and county of Sacramento.
Our recent hydrologic analysis to date has shown, based on the 1997 flood, that that level of protection cannot be provided by reoperation alone.
It is primarily for this reason that the administration in the Water Resources Development Act of 1998 sent to Congress last month a provision to address flood control concerns in Sacramento. Section 3 of that legislation would authorize modifications to Folsom Dam.
The Bureau of Reclamation believes there are engineering and logistical issues created with the stepped release plan developed by the Corps of Engineers.
We would continue to work very closely with the Corps of Engineers and local flood control to determine the flood capabilities of various proposals. For example, we believe that a design that would incorporate new or enlarged outlets, discussed earlier by Mr. Countryman, may be a more workable conclusion.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Constructing emergency repairs at Folsom gate number 3 sheds some light on the potential. Totally sealing and waterproofing that area for construction proved to be very difficult.
If modifications to Folsom Dam are approved, we would make every attempt to proceed with minimal disruptions. We realize the importance of working closely with state and local officials to minimize the disruption of commuter traffic and businesses in the local area. Closures of Folsom Dam should and would be kept to a minimum.
These considerations, notwithstanding, it is clear to us from flood operations in 1997 that modifications to Folsom Dam are necessary. The limited ability to make adequate releases from the reservoir in advance of an upcoming storm is a concern of Reclamation and a concern we feel should be addressed.
That will conclude my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Patterson may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Next witness is Peter Rabbon, executive director of the California State Board of Reclamation.
STATEMENT OF PETER RABBON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF RECLAMATION
Mr. RABBON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members.
The purpose for me today is to hopefully have you better understand the State Reclamation Board, and in the process—before I get into that, I would like to thank in your help and support for the Reclamation Board in providing many flood control projects throughout the Central Valley all for improvement of the public here.
The Reclamation Board is a seven-person Governor-appointed board. We were established in 1911, and our responsibility is flood control in the Central Valley.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Some of the authorities we have to go along with that that I want to speak to for the American River project is our authority to act as a nonFederal sponsor to federally sponsored projects.
In that role we share with the Corps of Engineers and the local agencies the cost sharing that—cost sharing is generally, using the new rules: 65 percent Federal, 25 percent state, 10 percent local.
We also have authority over plans of flood control including modifications to Federal projects such as what we are discussing today, if there is a nonFederal participant.
Let me briefly cover the Reclamation Board's decisionmaking authority in two arenas: One is nonFederal sponsor for federally sponsored projects and two, when we are not the nonFederal sponsor for federally sponsored flood control project. The Corps of Engineers traditionally, before they move forward with recommending authorization of any flood control project, have, per their policy, requested a nonFederal or letter of intent, and that is the role the Reclamation Board generally provides.
Additionally, if the Reclamation Board submits their letter of intent to act as a nonFederal sponsor, we will also seek state project authorization and state funding. We also are placed to act as lead agency for the California Environmental Quality Act.
Let me now cover the board's decisionmaking authority if we are not the nonFederal sponsor. First, the Federal Government would have to find for the American River project—I will refer to that one as an example—a legally eligible entity that meets all the criteria required of the Federal Government to be a local sponsor or a nonFederal sponsor.
Based on the knowledge I have right now, I am not aware of any other entity that could sponsor the Stepped Release Plan today except the state of California, the Reclamation Board.
Putting that aside, the legal entity would act as nonFederal sponsor. We believe the Federal project would still have to come before the Reclamation Board for approval by the Board because of our permit authority, and we believe that that is the case.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We understand the Federal supremacy; however, the project will have nonFederal dollars involved with it, very similar to the CEQA process, that—essentially will go through the CEQA process through California.
So regardless of who acts as nonFederal sponsor, the Reclamation sponsor will have a major decisionmaking role in what project is placed here for the protection of the greater Sacramento area.
The Reclamation Board has stated its position for providing the Sacramento area improved flood protection. We did that on March 20th, when we passed our resolution 98–04. We again stated our position on April 20th in a letter to congressional representatives, and then clarified that position again on May 22nd.
The board's position is basically we are seeking, as a goal, a minimum of two-hundred-year level of dependable protection for the Sacramento area. We do support modifying Folsom Dam; however, we have serious concerns about raising levees for the sole purpose of passing additional water through the levees system in an urban area. For that reason we are supporting studying the levees at this point.
We do have technical concerns on the idea of raising levees, and I would like to go through those briefly. We would like to know that the Stepped Release Plan is dependable, as we currently understand, it would require a waiver in order for that plan to receive FEMA certification by the Corps.
The storms of 1997 and 1998 have shown us that you can experience levee failures at or near design stages.
Engineering concerns: The Stepped Release Plan must be thoroughly developed to the technical level that is normally done for the Corps and the state to consider authorization. The work that has currently been done on the Stepped Release Plan is not to that level.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mitigation issues, environmental and hydraulic: Again, there are substantial work that needs to be done to clarify what the engineering and environmental impacts are, but more importantly to establish what the environmental and hydraulic mitigation will be.
The project scope and estimated cost, we believe, will have to be completely reevaluated after they have addressed the dependability, the engineering, and the mitigation issues.
I would like to reiterate we are, at this point, prepared to submit our letter of intent to act as a nonFederal sponsor for modifying Folsom. At this point we do not support cost sharing of the levee raising portion.
We would like to point out that there is common ground in terms of issues that have been discussed; that is, modifying Folsom.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Our next witness is Mr. Carl F. Enson, Director of Engineering and Technical Services, South Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Enson is accompanied by Colonel Dorothy F. Klasse, Sacramento District Commander Sacramento.
Mr. Enson?
STATEMENT OF CARL F. ENSON, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES, SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ACCOMPANIED BY COLONEL DOROTHY F. KLASSE, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT COMMANDER, SACRAMENTO
Mr. ENSON. Mr. Chairman, members, and Congressman Matsui and Congressman Fazio. Thank you for inviting us here this morning. I am representing Dr. John Zirschky, the accounting secretary of Army of Civil Works, and we are here to respond to the issues that you have raised in your letter of invitation to us.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also have with us Mr. Bob Childs, the project manager for the American River projects. He sits with us in the audience, should there be any detailed questions to be directed to him.
The following comments are intended to respond to each of the five issues and concerns identified in your letter of invitation.
The first issue is traffic on the dam road. Alternative flood control plans for American River, including the stepped release plan, were formulated and evaluated in the Supplemental Information Report, commonly referred to as SIR. It was produced by the Corps of Engineers in 1996.
The stepped release plan as identified in that report includes lowering the spillway to allow a greater amount of flood storage space behind Folsom Dam.
Although the SIR reported no major impacts to traffic through the closure of Folsom Dam Road during construction, we learned that lesson during the repair of the gates out at Folsom Dam in the last year or so.
An alternative is to increase the number of low level outlets through the dam. This outlets option is slightly less effective than spillway lowering, but would result in only occasional closure during the construction.
The Corps is working closely with the Bureau of Reclamation on this and other dam modifications issue. This issue would be addressed during the design of any Folsom Dam modifications.
The second issue is the impact of the proposal on local water supply. The stepped release plan would not adversely affect water supply. The Folsom Dam is currently operated using a variable maximum flood control space between four hundred thousand and six hundred seventy thousand acre feet.
The flood control space is set depending on flood control storage space available at five other reservoirs upstream. Folsom Reservoir had a fixed value of four hundred thousand acre feet.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The current operation reduces the space available for water supply compared with the original operation. The current operation was the result of an agreement between SAFCA and the Bureau of Reclamation to increase flood control storage space available to Folsom Dam. Continuation of this operation was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
The stepped release plan is based on continuation of this operation for variable flood control storage in Folsom Dam.
The third issue is reliability of the safety concerns caused by releasing a hundred eighty thousand cfs from Folsom Dam.
The stepped release plan includes modification to the flood control outlet facilities at Folsom Dam, increased use of surcharge storage space in Folsom Reservoir, and increasing the objective release to the lower American River from a hundred fifteen thousand cfs to a maximum of a hundred and eighty thousand cfs.
The higher objective release requires significant modifications to the existing levee and channel system along the lower American River and Sacramento and Yolo Bypasses. The plan would result in a decrease in the likelihood of flooding from about one in seventy-seven to about one in one hundred sixty in any given year.
Based on information known to the Corps today, we believe the existing system can be modified to reliably pass a system of a hundred eighty thousand cfs. Additional studies are required to design specific project features. We will have to consider factors such as hydrology, river stage, estimated levee stability, and operation of facilities.
The fourth issue is effects of proposal on downstream and upstream communities. The stepped release plan includes the objective release for flood control from Folsom Dam to a maximum of one hundred eighty thousand cfs.
A fundamental conclusion regarding this plan in the 1996 SIR was that without increasing the flow capacity at the Sacramento Weir and Bypass and modifying some of the levees along the Yolo Bypass, the increased flows existing—I am sorry—exiting the American River would reduce the level of flood protection along the lower Sacramento and elsewhere.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Accordingly, to mitigate this impact, the stepped release plan included widening the Sacramento Weir and Bypass by a thousand feet and constructing improvements to about fifty-two miles of existing levees along the Yolo Bypass and downstream sloughs.
It is the intent of these modifications to not increase the water surface elevations during design events upstream along the American River or Sacramento River.
Whether or not these features will ultimately be defined as all those necessary to fully mitigate for any increased river stages and/or flows will need to be determined in more detailed evaluations conducted prior to the project construction. It is our intent to fully mitigate for any effect the stepped release plan would have on downstream areas.
The last issue is the environmental consequences of the proposal. The levee work as described in the 1996 SIR would have impacts including the expected loss of about forty acres of riparian vegetation and oak woodland along the lower American River and approximately a hundred twenty acres of riparian and oak woodland cover and wetlands would be lost due to construction in the Sacramento and Yolo Bypass areas downstream of the American River. Those losses would be mitigated as a project activity at sites in the project area.
As with the other elements of this plan, environmental impacts and potential mitigation features would need to be reevaluated as part of any future studies.
The Folsom Dam modifications primary impacts during the construction period would be to air quality, local traffic patterns, and noise levels. Dam operation with the modifications would result in occasional changes to flows in the lower American River and changes to the reservoir's water surface elevations. These changes would have little effect on the environmental resources.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I can assure you that the Corps of Engineers will work with our Federal, state, and local partners and affected parties to address the issues raised and undertake expedited efforts to assure reliable flood protection along the American River and in the Sacramento area. Thank you very much.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Enson may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Mr. Enson. It has been represented that in the event of a hundred-and-sixty year flood event in Sacramento that there would be a 40 percent chance of levee failure; is that correct?
Mr. ENSON. Sir, I don't believe that I can explain risk and uncertainty as well as Congressman Matsui did, but the answer to your question is we have placed a 60 percent probability on the one hundred eighty thousand cfs discharge having a return interval of a hundred and sixty years.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. And therefore, does that mean that there is a 40 percent chance of failure?
Mr. ENSON. No, sir. It means there is a 40 percent chance that the hundred eighty cfs will not have a return. It is a complexed relationship here that——
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me just stop you for a minute. In a letter I received this morning from Colonel Klasse, it says, quote, ''Using information under the Corps today in applying our risk and uncertainty, the stepped release plan has about a 60 percent probability of passing the hundred-sixty year event.''
Now, that seems to be different than what you are telling me.
Mr. ENSON. Certainly it didn't. That is exactly what I am saying is that we can—we have a level of confidence that the hundred and eighty thousand cfs discharge, which is the release that we are looking at with a stepped release plan, we can, with confidence, build a levee system that will contain that discharge.
When we try to apply a frequency to the hundred and eighty thousand cfs is where you get great difficulty in predicting the reliability of that being the right discharge.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And just as we have seen since 1997, we originally thought we had a hundred-year frequency protection with the existing system. Well, after we had those floods, we added those floods to our frequency curve, and those floods changed the existing level of protection down to a seventy-seven year protection.
That is essentially what we are talking about, the degree of difficulty in predicting what a discharge frequency is for any specific discharge.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Rabbon, you alluded to this.
What is your understanding of that figure?
Mr. RABBON. Let me try to respond to that primarily because of the Reclamation letter that is up here behind me.
And the letter says we understand there is only 60 percent reliability for passing the increased flows. It is our understanding that there is a 60 percent reliability for passing a hundred-and-sixty year storm.
Mr. ENSON. That is correct.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Passing meaning the water gets through without something breaking and causing a flood; is that what that means?
Mr. RABBON. That is my understanding.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. That was the plain reading then. I was getting some unusual explanation that didn't make sense.
Do I now have the correct understanding that there is a 60 percent chance that the flows get through the levees without a flood occurring?
Mr. ENSON. Sir, I am at great difficulty to explain this. Because of its complexity for me to explain for someone to understand, but the hundred and eighty thousand cfs discharge, the objective release we are planning for, we have high confidence that we can design a system that will pass that flow.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLITTLE. But you said ''high confidence.'' You said there is a 60 percent chance.
Is that high?
Mr. ENSON. That the frequency related to that hundred eighty thousand cfs is, in fact, a hundred sixty year event.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. That extra language—maybe we should direct this to Colonel Klasse.
Colonel Klasse, if you are going to testify, will you raise your right hand. We will go through this.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury the responses made and the statements given will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Colonel KLASSE. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Colonel Klasse, you wrote this in your letter?
Colonel KLASSE. Yes, sir. I have the letter in front of me. I will read the sentence and see if I can't clarify.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
Colonel KLASSE. ''Using our risk and uncertainty procedures, the stepped release plan has about a 60 percent probability of passing the one hundred and sixty year event.''
So if we are talking about the one hundred and sixty year event, we are saying that we have a 60 percent probability of passing the one hundred and eighty thousand cfs.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. And if I may, then, to just further confirm my understanding, that would mean there is a 40 percent possibility or probability—40 percent probability that you may not pass the hundred and sixty year event.
And my question is: In the event that—let me use another term. In the situation where we don't pass the event, does that then mean that there is a flood? That the levee has broken? That somewhere in the system something has broken and there is, therefore, a flood?
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ENSON. Sir, you are absolutely right. The 160 percent frequency has a probability of—has a 60 percent probability of having a hundred and eighty thousand cfs discharge associated with it.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Excuse me, but that gobbledegook is not in this letter. I can understand what is in this letter.
Is what you are telling me right, or what is in this letter right?
Mr. ENSON. Sir, if you would like me to have Mr. Childs explain it in detail——
Mr. DOOLITTLE. We can assume Mr. Rabbon understands it, as I have understood it. And I think we are entitled right now to understand what you mean rather than come up here and start throwing in words that aren't in this letter.
Does the Corps stand by this letter?
Mr. ENSON. Yes, sir. The letter is accurate.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The letter says, ''The stepped release plan has a''—I will put a period after that because the next thing is related to a lesser event.
Mr. ENSON. That is correct, sir.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, the plain meaning of that is, to me, that there is a 60 percent chance the levees hold. There is a 40 percent chance they fail.
Do you disagree with that characterization?
Mr. ENSON. For the hundred and sixty year event.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Why did we just spend twenty minutes haggling over what is the plain meaning of this letter?
Mr. ENSON. We are talking about two different things. When we are talking about the level of protection, we are talking about a discharge and a frequency.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. What we are talking about is in the hundred and sixty year event, there is a 40 percent chance the levees break and we flood Sacramento or someplace.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ENSON. That is correct.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. That is correct. Thank you. All right.
Mr. Enson, you flew out here, didn't you, to come to this hearing?
Mr. ENSON. Sir. I am from San Francisco.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. You drove then. Would you fly on a plane that had a 40 percent chance of crashing?
Mr. ENSON. No, sir.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I wouldn't either.
Mr. Patterson, are you happy with the Corps of Engineers doing work on your dam?
Mr. PATTERSON. We work pretty well with the Corps.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Work well enough that you would stand by and let them fix the dam?
Mr. PATTERSON. We would work out a joint plan like we did when the gate failed. Both Corps and we had our designers do the redesign on the gate. We administered the construction contract. We had people from Corps of Engineers out from time to time looking at how it was working. So I mean, that we can work through, if we use this to authorize a modification. The Bureau and the Corps will be able to figure out how to do that.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Farr.
Mr. FARR. My question really goes to Mr. Rabbon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In your testimony you indicated that the Reclamation Board reviews the Federal projects and you can deny a permit.
Have you ever denied a permit of the Corps of Engineers and recommendations to repair levees?
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. RABBON. We have not denied a permit. Every activity where this type of instance has come up, we have been able to work jointly together.
Mr. FARR. And you indicated you are now—the Board is now studying the levees.
And how much are you studying the same levees that is being proposed in the stepped program?
Mr. RABBON. I may have misspoke. We are not studying the levees. We are recommending that the Corps study the levees.
Mr. FARR. That is not what you said. You said you are studying the levees right now. I wrote that down when you spoke.
Mr. RABBON. Then I misspoke, excuse me.
Mr. FARR. The Board is not pursuing a study, as your testimony indicates, to obtain a goal and to further study the levee raising. You are not pursuing that at all. That is your position, but you are not pursuing it.
Mr. RABBON. That is incorrect. Let me clarify because I was focusing just on the Stepped Release Plan.
We cu