[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2301, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONSTRUCT A
BRIDGE ON FEDERAL LAND WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO FOLSOM DAM IN
CALIFORNIA
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
April 10, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-100
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-630 WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
ADAM SMITH, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
Richard W. Pombo, California George Miller, California
George Radanovich, California Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Greg Walden, Oregon, Calvin M. Dooley, California
Vice Chairman Grace F. Napolitano, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Hilda L. Solis, California
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 10, 2002................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Doolittle, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Limbaugh, Mark A, Director, External and Intergovernmental
Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Miklos, Hon. Steve, Councilmember, Sacramento Area Council of
Governments, State of California........................... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Niello, Hon. Roger, Supervisor, County of Sacramento, State
of California.............................................. 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Roder, Aileen, California Water Project Coordinator,
Taxpayers for Common Sense................................. 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Starsky, Hon. Jeffrey M., Mayor, City of Folsom, State of
California................................................. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Additional materials supplied:
Keys, John, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 29
H.R. 2301, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONSTRUCT A
BRIDGE ON FEDERAL LAND WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO FOLSOM DAM IN
CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Wednesday, April 10, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert,
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on Water and
Power will come to order.
If there is no objection, Mr. Doolittle will join us for
this hearing.
[No response.]
Mr. Calvert. Hearing none, welcome.
The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R.
2301 to authorize the Secretary of Interior to construct a
bridge on Federal land west of and adjacent to Folsom Dam in
California, and for other purposes. Under Rule 4(b) of the
Committee Rules, any oral opening statements at hearings are
limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member. But in
this case--Mr. Doolittle's bill--I am sure we will allow him
for his opening statement. If other members have statements,
they can be included in the hearing record, under unanimous
consent. I will start my statement.
Since the events of September 11th, 2001, we have all had
to take a careful look at the way we conduct our business. This
hearing provides an opportunity to look at a new American River
crossing downstream of Folsom Dam to remove public traffic from
the existing roadway which crosses the top of Folsom Dam.
This is not the first situation where a roadway on the
crest of a dam has to be moved to an alternate crossing. A
public roadway on top of a dam makes it difficult for the
operating agency to perform regular operation and maintenance
activities on the facility while having to manage traffic. A
roadway on top of a dam also raises concern for the security of
that facility. However, we must consider these situations
carefully, and use fiscal responsibility in providing authority
for construction of alternative roadway facilities to remove
public traffic from the dam crest.
What is proposed by this legislation is the authorization
of a new crossing below Folsom Dam, with major improvements to
be paid for using Federal funds appropriated for the Bureau of
Reclamation. Then, upon completion of construction, the entire
new crossing and appropriate access easements are to be turned
over to the city of Folsom.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water
and Power
Since the events of September 11, 2001, we have all had to take a
careful look at the way we conduct our business. This hearing provides
an opportunity to look at a new American River crossing downstream of
Folsom Dam to remove public traffic from the existing roadway which
crosses the top of Folsom Dam.
This is not the first situation where a roadway on the crest of a
dam has to be moved to an alternate crossing. A public roadway on top
of a dam makes it difficult for the operating agency to perform regular
operation and maintenance activities on the facility while having to
manage traffic. A roadway on top of a dam also raises concern for
facility security. However, we must consider these situations carefully
and use fiscal responsibility in providing authority for construction
of alternative roadway facilities to remove public traffic from the dam
crest.
What is proposed by this legislation is the authorization of a new
crossing below Folsom Dam, with major improvements to be paid using
Federal funds appropriated for the Bureau of Reclamation. Then, upon
completion of construction, the entire new crossing and appropriate
access easements are to be turned over to the City of Folsom.
______
Mr. Calvert. So with that, I would like to introduce
Congressman Doolittle, who is the former Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Water and Power, and who introduced this
legislation. And as I indicated before, we ask unanimous
consent that the Congressman be permitted to sit on the dais,
and that is allowed. And with that, I will recognize Mr.
Doolittle for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I must
say it is always a pleasure to come back to my old turf here.
And I thank you for the courtesy you have extended to me to
present this bill in this hearing; and furthermore, to join you
up here on the dais.
In this particular situation over this dam, as you know,
Folsom Dam is one of the major dams in the state of California,
and it is located in pretty much what you would have to
describe as a suburban area now. And at the time it was built,
that would have been somewhat true then; but dramatically more
so now, as our area, which is said to be the fastest growing
region in the state, continues.
We have a number of cars moving each day--thousands of
cars--across that bridge. And beginning in 1995, with the
Oklahoma City bombing, that triggered a review of Federal
facilities by the Government. And that review resulted in the
recommendation that the traffic be taken off the bridge, just
for the safety of the dam, since this dam is a major power
generator for the region. It is the major flood control on the
American River, protecting the downstream residents of
Sacramento, hundreds of thousands of people. And it was just
felt by the Government that it was too sensitive a facility to
allow the traffic to remain.
Then, of course, we had September 11th, when the
significance of potential terrorist threats was dramatically
hammered home to us again. The Director of Homeland Security as
recently as last October, speaking to the National Conference
of Cities here in Washington, listed this as one of their top
dams that needed to be looked at and needed to have a separate
bridge created so that the traffic could be taken off of it.
This bill, as you pointed out, authorizes the construction
of such a bridge. I feel very strongly that it should be the
Federal Government. After all, it is a Federal dam. It is the
protection of the dam that is of concern here. It is a facility
that is nearly 50 years old, I believe.
And prior to the construction of this dam, why, there were
four river crossings, two-lane river crossings--four of them,
over the river. Those are all under water now. So it would seem
perfectly appropriate for me that if we are not going to be
able to continue to move traffic across the dam, that the
Federal Government owes us then the responsibility to provide a
new bridge which could accommodate that traffic, relieve the
security concerns on the dam, and generally enhance the region.
I can't help but note that in addition to providing, of
course, the flood control and the power, this dam and the
900,000-acre-foot reservoir behind it is a vital component of
the vast Central Valley Project authorized by Congress back in
the 1930's. And therefore, there is a great deal of water at
risk to provide the needs of the contractors throughout the
Central Valley; to meet the environmental concerns downstream
and through the Sacramento-San Joachim Delta; and, in general,
to be available for the perpetuation of various species,
endangered and otherwise.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. And I
see you have assembled before you several of my constituents as
witnesses. And I appreciate your giving them the opportunity to
come here and share their views.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doolittle follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John T. Doolittle, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, today I ask for your
support of H.R. 2301. This bill would authorize the Bureau of
Reclamation (Bureau) to construct a new bridge and related connecting
structures on federal land west of and adjacent to the Folsom Dam,
which is located in my district.
The project is essential to the people of Northern California for
two main reasons: 1) Most importantly; it would greatly improve the
safety and security of the entire region. 2) It would enhance the
efficiency and convenience of the regional transportation system.
Following its completion in 1956, the Folsom Dam included a two-
lane maintenance road on its top intended for the use of the Bureau. As
a service to local drivers, over the years, the Bureau has allowed
restricted use of the Folsom Dam Road to the public. In the decades
since its construction, however, the growing communities both north and
south of the crossing have come to depend on the dam road as an
important transportation route. This has created numerous problems for
both the Bureau and the public.
THREAT TO SECURITY
In the aftermath of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the federal
government expressed increased concern for the security of important
structures such as dams, bridges, and power plants. Since that time,
the Bureau has been particularly wary of the Folsom Dam's appeal as a
potential terrorist target. As you know, the dam is the Sacramento
area's primary defense against the intense flooding that the American
River has generated historically. Furthermore, the Folsom Dam and
Reservoir serve as a vital part of the Central Valley Project. They
control the flow of water that is critical to farmers, families, and
fish not only in the Sacramento Region, but also in the Bay-Delta and
Southern California. Finally, Folsom's hydroelectric plant provides a
significant amount of the energy consumed in the area. Given how
crucial this facility is to the safety and vitality of California's
capital, we must ensure that it remains secure from the efforts of
those who seek to harm our well-being. Allowing public access to the
dam is a dangerous situation that we must remedy as soon as possible.
IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITY
Beyond the public safety factor, the current arrangement also
causes numerous other problems. The eastern portion of the Sacramento
region, which I represent, is the fastest growing area in California.
Traffic congestion is a growing concern for the City of Folsom and its
neighboring communities. The demands placed on the Folsom Dam Road by
the thriving commercial centers and neighborhoods that have developed
nearby have exceeded the structure's capacity. A small road designed to
accommodate maintenance crews now handles 17,000 cars per day, despite
local efforts to relieve congestion. Just a few years ago, the City of
Folsom self-funded a $75 million bridge downstream from the dam to
improve the flow of traffic. Nevertheless, the dam road remains one of
the area's most important traffic arteries and is the most convenient
link between South Placer County, Folsom, and Western El Dorado County.
It is a key route for workers commuting to and from the major job
centers in the vicinity. Besides commuters, it also serves local
shoppers, students, and visitors enjoying Folsom Lake's popular
recreational opportunities.
Because the Bureau must occasionally do maintenance work on the
dam, the road is closed from time to time. The Bureau, as well as the
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), has effectively worked with city
officials to minimize the inconvenience for local drivers, often by
performing repairs at night or other off-peak hours. However, in cases
of emergency, such as when the dam gates failed in 1997, and following
the attacks of September 11th, the road may close completely for
undetermined periods of time. This unpredictability has snarled
traffic, impeded local commerce, and generally caused great
frustration. At the same time, the Bureau's ability to manage the
facility is constrained or compromised by accommodating the community's
needs.
THE SOLUTION
The solution to these traffic problems, as well as the severe
security concerns, is the same--to replace reliance on the Folsom Dam
Road by building a new bridge. This is the only way to protect against
terrorism without unfairly harming the community. H.R. 2301 would
authorize the construction of a four lane structure just downstream of
the dam. It also calls for the construction of necessary linkages from
the bridge to existing roadways and provides for reestablishment of
administrative facilities located at the dam that will be affected by
the construction work. Upon completion, the Bureau would transfer
ownership of the facilities to the City of Folsom.
You may ask, ``Why should the federal government be responsible for
building this bridge?'' The first reason is that Folsom Dam, the
reservoir, and surrounding land are owned and operated by the Bureau.
Second, the federal government has primary responsibility for the
security of federal facilities. Additionally, when the dam was first
created, the reservoir inundated four existing two-lane river
crossings. This is just partial compensation for that loss. Finally,
the City of Folsom has acted in good faith to address both the security
and transportation problems. Since September 11th, its police
department has cooperated with the Bureau to improve security measures.
In terms of addressing the traffic issues, as I stated earlier, the
city recently built a $75 million bridge further downstream without any
federal assistance.
H.R. 2301 has the endorsement and support of the Bureau, local
governments, the business community, and local transportation
advocates. In fact, today you will hear favorable testimony from the
City of Folsom, the County of Sacramento, and the Sacramento Area
Council of Governments. They will explain in greater detail the
precariousness of the current situation and the great need for this
bill.
While the people of Folsom and neighboring locales will see the
most tangible benefit from the passage of this legislation, clearly,
every person in the surrounding region would owe you a debt of
gratitude for protecting them from serious danger.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. As you noticed, lights
and buzzers went off. We have one vote. So Mr. Doolittle and I
will run down and vote very quickly, and then we will introduce
our guests so they can start their testimony, where we will not
have to leave in the middle of your testimony. So if you will
excuse us here for about 5 minutes, we will be right back.
[Recess.]
Mr. Calvert. The hearing will please come to order.
Our first panel is Mark A. Limbaugh, Director of External
and Intergovernmental Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Department of the Interior. And our second witness is the
Honorable Jeffrey M. Starsky, Mayor of the city of Folsom in
the State of California.
Mr. Limbaugh, you may begin. We are under a 5-minute rule
here. If you more or less can stay within that 5 minutes, that
would be appreciated. You have those little lights there;
yellow meaning 1 minute is left, and the red meaning that the
time has expired. And with that, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF MARK A. LIMBAUGH, DIRECTOR, EXTERNAL AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Limbaugh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Doolittle. My name is Mark Limbaugh, and I am the
Director of External and Intergovernmental Affairs for the
Bureau of Reclamation here in Washington. I will be making some
general remarks, and would like to ask that my written
testimony be entered into the record in its entirety.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
Mr. Limbaugh. I would like to start off by reading a brief
statement from John Keys, Commissioner of Reclamation. In his
statement, Mr. Keys apologizes for not being here today to
comment on H.R. 2301, but recognizes the importance of the
construct of a new bridge at Folsom Dam, as well as closure of
the roadway on the dam.
Mr. Keys wanted me to take a moment to commend Congressman
Doolittle for his foresight and leadership in addressing these
concerns. And he looks forward to working with the Congressman,
the Subcommittee, the city of Folsom, and other agencies, to
find innovative solutions for the construction of the new
bridge.
When construction of Folsom Dam was completed in 1956, the
narrow two-lane road built on the top of the dam was intended
to serve as an access road for maintenance and incidental
access to the other side of the lake. In the ensuing years, as
the population of Placer and El Dorado Counties has grown, and
since the area adjacent to the dam is within the city limits of
Folsom, California, this road has become a major transportation
artery between these two counties. Currently, over 18,000 cars
cross the dam daily.
More recently, three events have highlighted the need for a
new bridge to bypass Folsom Dam:
In 1995, a spillway gate at Folsom Dam failed, making it
necessary to close the road for an extended period of time to
repair this gate. This road closure resulted in severe traffic
congestion, adversely impacting the city of Folsom and severely
impacting emergency traffic from reaching one side to the
other.
Also, the Oklahoma City bombing resulted in the Federal
Government closely examining the vulnerability of all of its
structures. Reclamation completed several security assessments
of Folsom Dam documenting the risks associated with public
crossing of the dam.
And finally, after the events of September 11th,
Reclamation closed the road to traffic. That again resulted in
severe traffic congestion, impacting the community.
Subsequently, the road was reopened during daylight hours only
for cars and pickups, but remains closed to large vehicles.
Further, the road is closed nightly, and patrolled by armed
guards during this time.
Reclamation continues to have concerns over security and
safety at the dam and supports construction of the new bridge
at Folsom Dam, as well as the closure of the road to public
traffic across the dam. Although we have budgetary concerns
with the funding levels sought for construction of this bridge
and cannot support the bill as written, Reclamation in no way
intends that this statement diminishes the importance of
traffic and security issues surrounding Folsom Dam roadway.
Reclamation is committed to step up our efforts to work
with this Subcommittee, with Congressman Doolittle, with the
city of Folsom, the Sacramento area Council of Governments, the
State of California, and any other appropriate Federal and
state agencies, to search for a solution that will allow this
project to move forward.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral testimony, and I would
certainly stand for questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Limbaugh follows:]
Statement of Mark A. Limbaugh, Director, External and Intergovernmental
Affairs, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior
My name is Mark A. Limbaugh, I am Director External &
Intergovernmental Affairs for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. I am
pleased to provide the Administration's views on H.R.2301, to authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to construct a bridge adjacent to the
Folsom Dam in California.
H.R. 2301 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to design
and construct a bridge on Federal land west and adjacent to Folsom Dam
in California which would, upon completion, be transferred to the City
of Folsom. H.R. 2301 authorizes that $85,000,000 be appropriated for
this purpose.
While the Department of the Interior strongly supports closure of
the current roadway across the top of Folsom Dam and construction of a
new bridge to ease traffic problems, this is not a Federal
responsibility and therefore the Administration cannot support H.R.
2301.
Background
When construction of Folsom Dam was completed in the mid-1950's,
the narrow two lane road built on the top of the dam was intended to
serve as an access road for maintenance and for incidental recreational
access to the lake. In the ensuing years, as the population of Placer
and El Dorado counties has grown (Placer County has been listed as the
fastest growing county in the nation), and since the area adjacent to
the dam is within the city limits of Folsom, California--which is one
of the fastest growing cities in the state--the road over Folsom Dam
has become a major transportation artery between these two counties.
Over the last 20 years, traffic on this road has grown exponentially to
the point that up to 18,000 cars cross the dam each day.
However, two events in 1995 and more recent events on September 11,
2001 have highlighted the need for a bridge to bypass Folsom Dam.
Spillway Failure. In 1995, a spillway gate at Folsom Dam failed
which necessitated closing the road for an extended period for both
immediate safety reasons and then to accommodate repairs to the
spillway. As a result, traffic congestion adversely impacted the city
of Folsom and severely restricted emergency traffic (police, fire and
ambulance) from reaching one side from the other.
Oklahoma City Bombing: After the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma was bombed, the Government closely examined the vulnerability
of all its structures. Reclamation completed security assessments at
Folsom Dam in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2001 and clearly documented the
risks associated with open public access across this dam. Further,
Folsom Dam will undergo an in-depth security review in the upcoming
months.
9/11/01: After the events of September, 11, 2001, Reclamation
closed the road across Folsom Dam which again resulted in serious
traffic congestion in the community. Subsequently, the road was
reopened during daylight hours to cars and pickups, but is closed to
large vehicles at all hours. Further, between the hours of 8:00 pm and
6:00 am, the road is closed altogether and patrolled by armed guards.
We continue to have security concerns about this road and will keep
these restrictions in place until a full security assessment is
complete.
Reclamation's Recent Activities
Over the last several years, Reclamation, who manages Folsom Dam,
and the City of Folsom, have been working together to look for a
solution.
Recently, Reclamation completed an appraisal level report, dated
March 1, 2000 (and updated in November, 2001) which estimated that a
replacement road (two lanes) and bridge would cost approximately $49.6
million. A four lane bridge and road was estimated to cost $66.5
million and would include the relocation of Reclamation buildings
within the road alignments. In addition to Reclamation's work, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), which originally built Folsom Dam,
included this appraisal level information in its American River
Watershed Long Term Study on flood control options for Sacramento,
which includes the option of raising the height of Folsom Dam--
requiring a temporary (or permanent) bridge during construction.
Concerns With H.R. 2301
Funding Sources and Priority: While the Administration recognizes
and appreciates the safety and security concerns associated with the
current situation at Folsom Dam and the importance of this road as a
major transportation artery, this is a transportation issue.
Reclamation operates and maintains Folsom Dam and is primarily involved
in only water management and operational issues at Folsom.
H.R. 2301 is not consistent with current budget priorities.
Further, the addition of this extremely large obligation would severely
strain Reclamation's budgetary capacity, and limit our ability to help
meet other project and water management obligations and needs in
California and throughout the west.
Overall Cost and Adjustments for Inflation: H.R. 2301 proposes to
authorize $85,000,000 in appropriations for the design and construction
of this bridge. This far exceeds Reclamation's appraisal-level
estimates of $49.6 and $66.5 million for a two and a four lane road and
bridge respectively. Further, H.R. 2301 has no provisions for adjusting
the ceiling due to inflation, which is standard practice for a
Reclamation construction project. To more accurately budget for this
project and provide greater accountability, we recommend that the
amount authorized in HR 2301 reflect current estimates and that it
authorize adjustments based on existing engineering and construction
cost indexes applicable to this type of construction.
Cost Share: An additional concern with H.R. 2301 is the lack of any
cost sharing; any Federal involvement in construction of this bridge
should have state and local cost sharing arrangements consistent with
Reclamation policy. It is my understanding that the City of Folsom and
the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) have expressed a
willingness to cost share such a project. The legislation should
require an appropriate, up-front, non-Federal cost share for the entire
project, including the cost of replacing the buildings that will have
to be relocated.
Conclusion: Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate that the Administration
shares the concern of the sponsors of H.R. 2301 about the safety in
this community. However, we believe that this bridge, while important
is a non-Federal responsibility more appropriate for the state of
California, which, if it deems appropriate, may use its own Federal
highway funds for the construction.
That concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer
any questions.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Starsky, you may begin your testimony. I should say,
Mayor Starsky.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY M. STARSKY, MAYOR, CITY OF FOLSOM, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Starsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Doolittle.
Good afternoon. My name is Jeff Starsky. I am the Mayor of the
city of Folsom, California. And let me begin by thanking you
both for holding this hearing. And I do wish to express the
appreciation of the 56,000 residents of the city of Folsom for
the opportunity to be here to present our case.
The very proud Americans who reside in Folsom, California,
share the very legitimate concerns of our nation with security,
and specifically with regard to the Bureau of Reclamation's
facilities at Folsom Dam. The threat to the security of the dam
is real. We agree with Director of Homeland Security Tom
Ridge's assessment that Folsom Dam ranks as one of the five
highest security issues in the State of California. We
appreciate the comments of Mr. Limbaugh, and we appreciate the
recognition of the security concerns at that dam.
And I do need to add, Mr. Chairman, that the city of Folsom
has enjoyed a nearly 50-year relationship with the Bureau of
Reclamation. It has been a very good relationship. We, as a
city, value that relationship, and we look forward to working
with the Bureau in the future.
But what brings me here today, and some of my colleagues
who will speak on the next panel, are the concerns we have
about mitigation in the event that the road that currently
traverses Folsom Dam is closed. The impacts to the city of
Folsom will be substantial. And I will briefly discuss those in
a moment.
We believe that H.R. 2301 addresses those concerns and
responds to the issues that we have in the city. As Mr.
Limbaugh indicated, approximately 18,000 vehicles per day
travel across the Folsom Dam. If you needed a little bit of an
understanding of where this dam sits in relationship to the
region, to the immediate north and west is Placer County; to
the immediate north and east is El Dorado County; and the city
of Folsom sits in the county that is immediately adjacent to
the south.
The dam serves as a major regional traffic connection which
provides access between those three counties for jobs and
housing. Employees of Hewlett-Packard in Placer County, Blue
Cross in El Dorado County, and a large share of the 6,000
employees of the Intel Corporation, which is within our own
city, use Folsom Dam on a daily basis. In addition, nearly one
and a half million people annually visit the adjacent Folsom
Lake recreation area, many of whom use the dam road for access.
I think it is without question that the closing of this dam
without a replacement would force this traffic through the
center of our city, and the impacts would be clearly
substantial.
Unfortunately, we have a miniature case study of what will
occur if this road is closed without a replacement. And it
happened in 1995, as Congressman Doolittle alluded to, when the
gate broke at Folsom Dam. It resulted in a closure of the dam
road for approximately a 6-week period. The cost to commerce in
our region for that 6-week period is still being determined,
but I can give you some information regarding impacts on the
city of Folsom. Thirty percent of the businesses in our
historic district, which is the downtown ``Old Folsom'' area,
closed as a result of that 6-week closure. Now, I know that is
somewhat unusual, but you have to remember the types of small
businesses that are down there. These are antique and tourism-
related businesses that rely heavily upon this transportation
method. Probably more of a concern is that 50 percent of the
businesses immediately adjacent to the dam access roads
suffered failures. As you can see, 1995 was a dark time for
commerce in the city of Folsom.
Mr. Doolittle commented on the recognition by Congress of
that 1995 closure. And in fact, Congress appropriated $100,000
in funding to assist the city of Folsom to meet some of the
fire and police protection costs that were incurred as a result
of that 6-week closure. We certainly appreciate that, to this
day. But I think it points to an important issue, and that is
that the Congress recognized that this facility was in fact a
Federal facility, and felt it had some obligations. And we do
appreciate that.
I think Mr. Doolittle's point was also with regard to when
this facility was built, nearly 50 years ago, there was an
intent to replace existing river crossings. Four crossings, two
lanes each--so basically, eight lanes of traffic--have been
eliminated by this facility. So we believe that there is some
obligation on the part of the Federal Government to assist us
in providing those connections.
The city of Folsom urges the Subcommittee on Water and
Power to report favorably on H.R. 2301 as quickly as possible.
As Mr. Limbaugh indicated, the dam road is currently under some
restrictions. Truck traffic has been diverted, and it is
traveling through our city. It is causing increased wear and
tear on our roadways, and we are feeling some of the effects
immediately.
And Mr. Chairman, if you will indulge me another 20
seconds, I will complete my remarks. I just needed to make one
brief comment with regard to Congressman John Doolittle. I
wanted to come here, again, on behalf of the city of Folsom to
thank Congressman John Doolittle. Congressman Doolittle has
served in Congress with distinction and honor for six terms.
The residents of Folsom deeply appreciate his hard work,
dedication, and commitment to all of us, as well as all of the
constituents in his Fourth Congressional District. And although
we will fall in a different congressional district beginning
next year, the residents of Folsom will continue to value his
friendship and his counsel, and we will always consider him a
great friend and a citizen of Folsom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Starsky follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jeffrey Starsky, Mayor, City of Folsom,
State of California
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is
Jeffrey Starsky and I am the Mayor of the City of Folsom, California. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak today regarding H.R. 2301, a bill
to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct a bridge on
Federal land west of and adjacent to Folsom Dam in California.
I wish to begin by thanking you and the members of the Subcommittee
on Water and Power for holding this hearing this afternoon. The
citizens of the City of Folsom, Sacramento County, El Dorado County,
and Placer County need your assistance in helping us adjust to new
risks made clear by the terrorist acts of September 11th. This hearing
today is a critical step in the life of H.R. 2301, and demonstrates
your concern and commitment to ensuring the physical safety and
economic security of our city, our region, and the State of California.
Also, on behalf of the City of Folsom, I wish to thank Congressman
John Doolittle. Congressman Doolittle has served in Congress with
distinction and honor for six terms. We value deeply his hard work,
dedication, and commitment to his constituents in Folsom and throughout
the entire Fourth Congressional District. Although Folsom falls within
a different congressional district beginning next year, our City will
continue to value his friendship and his counsel, and we will always
consider him a great friend and citizen of Folsom.
At issue is the security of one of the most important Bureau of
Reclamation facilities in the nation. The purpose of H.R. 2301 is to
ensure the security of the dam.
The Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to build a dam on the lower American River. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers completed construction on Folsom Dam in 1956. The
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation now owns and operates the dam. The reservoir
holds just under one million acre feet of water when filled to
operational capacity. The dam's power plant has three penstocks
delivering 6900 cubic feet per second to turbines producing
approximately 10% of the power used in Sacramento each year.
The passage of H.R. 2301 is urgently needed to ensure the security
of Folsom Dam and Folsom Reservoir. The new bridge is essential for the
physical safety and economic stability of our City and the entire
Sacramento metropolitan region. By removing automobile traffic from
Folsom Dam, we will prevent the possibility of a catastrophic failure
and flood caused by a terrorist act. Mr. Chairman, the City of Folsom
strongly supports this legislation and urges you and your colleagues to
act expeditiously on H.R. 2301 to make certain the bill is passed and
signed into law as soon as possible.
As the Committee is aware, Folsom Dam is a key subject in the
ongoing debate regarding Northern California flood control, water
storage, and power production. For many years the subject of the debate
focused on averting a disaster resulting from events in nature--rain
and snow. The focus was on anticipating and controlling large flows of
water through the American River and Sacramento River watersheds. And
the debate revolved around the type and location of physical barriers--
dams and levees--and how best to operate the existing and new systems
to manage waterflow safely. The debate also focused on the
environmental impacts of decisions regarding those dams, levees, and
waterflows.
The physical security of the dam from terrorist attack lurked
around the edges of the debate. We should point out that the federal
government and others recognized the security risks posed by traffic on
Folsom Dam Road, but the matter never seemed urgent until September
11th changed America's way of thinking about security within the United
States. In one morning, the issue of traffic atop the dam was
transformed into a distinct and critical issue of national
significance.
The new bridge at Folsom probably would never have been the subject
of its own congressional hearing without the tragedy of September 11th.
It is likely the project would have continued to play a minor role in
the flood control debate. I believe this is an important point to
remember--the need for the new bridge transcends flood control now. And
I believe the introduction of H.R. 2301 confirms this point.
While it is certain that Sacramento's flood control debate will
continue, I believe it is important to clarify that H.R. 2301 is not a
part of that debate even if it implicates flood control. For example,
we recognize there are plans and ongoing work to make the dam function
better and more reliably as a flood control facility. Congress recently
passed legislation providing for modifications to the existing facility
to allow earlier water evacuation to provide a more even waterflow
downstream and more storage capacity at the reservoir when it is most
needed. H.R. 2301 will undoubtedly make it easier for these dam
modifications to occur. And if Congress decides to raise the Folsom
Dam, having a new bridge will facilitate new construction.
But H.R. 2301 cannot be viewed as part of the flood control debate.
H.R. 2301 addresses a grave national security risk. The bill should be
passed now--it cannot wait for flood control actions. A major breech
caused by a terrorist act would result in a titanic flood--hundreds of
thousands of lives would be at immediate risk, as would the capitol of
the fifth largest economy in the world. But we are not talking about
controlling acts of nature anymore. We are talking about terrorism,
about people who have demonstrated the capability and the mindset to
cause devastation previously unimagined.
We also recognize that the new bridge would provide other extremely
important and direct benefits to our region. For years our City and our
region have attempted to address traffic congestion and air pollution.
In fact, Folsom recently completed a new bridge across the American
River at a total project cost of $75 million. This new bridge, which
was built without federal funds, dramatically improved automobile
circulation in our city and regionally. It would be disingenuous for me
to downplay our interest in securing construction of the new bridge to
help improve our regional traffic and air quality problems. There are
other positive outcomes of going forward with the new bridge that are
unrelated to security and are also critically important to our City and
our region. A new four-lane bridge at Folsom Dam is an indispensable
component of the six-county Sacramento Region's Metropolitan
Transportation Plan, the area's federally-mandated regional
transportation plan for the next twenty years. The new bridge
authorized by H.R. 2301 will provide great benefits beyond security.
However, just as with flood control, H.R. 2301 cannot be viewed as a
congestion mitigation bill.
It is vitally important to get traffic off the dam as quickly as
possible. That is the reason we are all here today. National security
requires this action. However, we must also ensure that our goal is
achieved in a responsible manner. We must work together to ensure that
local and regional economic stability is maintained and traffic flow is
managed as best as possible while the new bridge is under construction.
Specifically, we cannot remove traffic from the dam until the new
bridge is in place.
Prior to September 11th, approximately 17,000 vehicles a day
crossed the dam. Following events in New York City, recognition of the
security risks associated with unlimited access to the dam has resulted
in overnight closures of the road and restrictions on use of the road
by trucks and larger vehicles. The City supports these controls, but we
also have to accept the fact that this road serves as a major regional
traffic connector providing access between jobs and housing in three
different counties. Some of the larger industrial and commercial
enterprises that benefit from this connection include Intel, Hewlett-
Packard, Blue Cross and a number of other major employment centers.
The people using the dam road are traveling to and from work and
school. They are conducting business and going shopping. They are
enjoying the Folsom Lake Recreation Area, one of the most popular state
recreational facilities in the nation with over one and a half million
visitors annually. While the overriding concern is one of security, it
is also clear that closing Folsom Dam Road without a replacement would
be devastating to the local and regional economy.
We learned the impact of closure several years ago when repair work
required lengthy Folsom Dam Road closures. Several businesses were
forced to close and others were deeply hurt economically. Traffic was
horrible, police, fire, and medical response times increased, and the
situation aggravated an already dire air quality situation locally and
regionally. In fact, Congress recognized the cost of limited closures
and authorized up to $100,000 in reimbursement to the City of Folsom
for its costs.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of having the new bridge
in place prior to the closure of Folsom Dam Road. We must move forward
to get traffic off the bridge as expeditiously as possible, but we must
also recognize the economic, traffic circulation, and air quality needs
and realities in our region. It is important to note that these three
matters are also points of national significance and federal
involvement. We can put controls in place to minimize risks to dam
security while maintaining access in the interim. I should point out
again that overnight closures and restrictions on larger vehicles using
the dam road are already in place. It is a difficult balance to strike
and one that carries risks, but we must recognize that our economic
security and our national security are absolutely intertwined.
The Committee should be aware of the remarkable growth of
communities adjacent to Folsom Lake over the past decade. The City of
Folsom's population grew from 15,000 to our current 56,000 in a few
short years. Eastern Sacramento County, the City of Roseville and
southern portions of Placer County, and El Dorado County can also
report exponential growth levels.
Earlier in my testimony I outlined flood control related
modifications authorized by Congress. There is another point related to
government efficiency to be made in favor of going forward with the new
bridge as presented in H.R. 2301. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
previously recommended the construction of a temporary bridge to handle
redirected traffic while the dam is modified. While the Corps' interest
in minimizing the impact of closure is well-placed, it does not make
fiscal sense to put $20 million into a temporary structure when that
amount covers almost one third the cost of a permanent, full-service
structure. Congressman Doolittle's legislation recognizes the
importance of spending our limited federal resources prudently as well
as the value of doing something right the first time around. Simple
math demonstrates the fiscally responsible approach of foregoing the
temporary fix and applying those funds to a permanent, four-lane
replacement bridge.
We would like the Subcommittee to know that we have endeavored to
meet with other local interests regarding H.R. 2301. Through those
efforts, we feel we have covered enough bases to feel comfortable in
fully supporting Congressman Doolittle's legislation. We met with the
Bureau of Reclamation, our other regional congressional
representatives, and our representatives in the Senate. We have talked
with other local and regional governments as well as state officials.
While we believe there is consensus that H.R. 2301 is the best approach
to achieve our goals, several questions were raised fairly consistently
during our review. I believe those questions have been addressed in my
earlier remarks, but I believe it is worthwhile to call them out
separately to ensure the Subcommittee is aware of those questions.
First, some have asked whether the Bureau of Reclamation is the
appropriate federal agency to build the bridge. We direct the
Subcommittee to a recent letter to the Sacramento Bee from Bureau
Commissioner John Keys, wherein he wrote, in part:
...the reference to the Bureau of Reclamation not having bridge
building capabilities is simply not correct. Reclamation has
designed and built many large bridges throughout the West. The
beautiful arch bridge that spans the depths of Glen Canyon in
Arizona is one example...Reclamation designed and built the
Foresthill Bridge that spans the American River at Auburn...The
property where the new bridge would be located is Reclamation
land, and Reclamation is quite capable of building the bridge
we'll design. Rep. John Doolittle is quite right in authorizing
Reclamation to build this much-needed bridge.
This project replaces a federal facility owned and operated by the
Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau has the capability to design and
build the new bridge. The Commissioner is in support of the new bridge.
We believe this question has been addressed.
Second, we looked at whether the new bridge should be designed and
constructed with two or four lanes. Applying the same government
efficiency logic to this question, it is clear that the bridge should
be a full-service, four-lane bridge. It would be extraordinarily
wasteful to build a two-lane bridge when we know that two-lanes were
wholly inadequate years ago. Congressman Doolittle's legislation
properly requires that the bridge be designed and constructed with
appropriate sizing and linkages to support present and future traffic
flow requirements for the City of Folsom. We believe this is the
correct tack. I should also note that the City of Folsom and its
regional partners have undertaken significant infrastructure
investment, often without federal participation as in the case of the
recently opened bridge I mentioned some moments ago. We believe this
question has also been addressed.
Finally, we looked at whether this legislation would have any
prejudicial effect on the flood control debate. We believe not. In
fact, the new bridge would assist in already authorized flood control
efforts without unduly aiding or damaging the positions of major
players in the flood control debate. The legislation accomplishes as
efficiently as possible the primary goal of securing the facility,
provides additional benefits, and does so without biasing the flood
control debate or outcome. We believe this question has been answered.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I would once again like to thank you and
your colleagues for holding this hearing today. We understand that your
committee is extraordinarily busy, and the fact that this hearing has
occurred underscores both your commitment to ensuring the safety and
security of Americans as well as the clearly established need for the
passage of H.R. 2301. We also again wish to thank Congressman Doolittle
for all his work on this legislation and on behalf of the City of
Folsom over the past decade.
The City of Folsom urges the Subcommittee on Water and Power to
report favorably on H.R. 2301 as soon as possible. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today, and this concludes my formal
statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Again, thank you.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the Mayor. And we certainly share that
high opinion of our colleague, Mr. Doolittle.
Mayor Starsky, one of your comments I thought was somewhat
compelling. You mentioned that eight lanes of road were there
prior to the construction of the Folsom Dam, which I assume was
paid for with local funds, and removed by the direction of then
the Federal Government in order to put the new dam facility in.
Is that correct?
Mr. Starsky. I can only testify as to my understanding of
that, Mr. Chairman, since I had not yet been born when this
facility was constructed. But from what I read in the
congressional discussion that was held in the 1995 hearings,
that is my understanding, that eight lanes of crossings were
eliminated when the facility was constructed.
Mr. Calvert. Well, it is certainly part of the record of
today's conversation, anyway.
Mr. Starsky. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. So we can certainly go back and look at that
time. So today when you ask for a four-lane facility to replace
the two lanes that would be closed on the dam, you think that
that is certainly necessary, not only to replace the two lanes
that are presently there, but to help offset what was lost in
past years?
Mr. Starsky. That is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. And then, obviously, the security issue. I am
on the Taskforce on Terrorism, and let me ask a question. Do
you still have people posted nearby the dam, just observing
traffic and people or suspicious behavior?
Mr. Starsky. Well, certainly, my police department will
respond to that. We patrol the area periodically. There is some
confusion between the California Highway Patrol and our
department, as to who has the primary responsibility, but we
continue to respond to every call, every event. And we
certainly consider it a threat.
Mr. Calvert. Is the Federal Government helping you offset
any of those costs? Or are you having to bear those costs on
your own, to have the additional security in that region?
Mr. Starsky. We are bearing those costs ourselves.
Mr. Calvert. As a matter of fact, I should say, as a matter
of representation here, that the police chief of Folsom is one
of my best friends. We went to kindergarten together. So he's
passed that along to me.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Starsky. He supports this bill, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. He has indicated to me the traffic problems
along that stretch of road, also.
Mr. Limbaugh, I am trying to ask a question from a positive
light. How can you help coordinate efforts amongst the Federal,
state, and local interests, in providing assistance in building
this bridge? In your testimony, you don't deny the fact that
the bridge should be built. But it seems to me that you just
don't believe that the Federal Government should have to pay
for it.
Mr. Limbaugh. Well, Mr. Chairman, we can certainly step up
our efforts, as I said in my oral testimony, through more
involvement from our regional office perspective, and also from
our Washington office perspective. I think some of the lines of
communication have been opened up with the advent of this bill
being introduced. And we certainly look to providing additional
resources to try to find some solution.
Mr. Calvert. Well, based upon the Mayor's testimony, if in
fact that roadway was closed, if there was an alert, an
unfortunate circumstance where we had to close that road
permanently, and that road was put in replacement of other
roads that you heard by previous testimony, to replace existing
roads that were there, don't you believe the Federal Government
has a responsibility not only to help facilitate this, but to
help pay for it?
Mr. Limbaugh. We certainly want to look into that with this
effort. That is certainly something that I think our agency can
assist in looking at, in terms of what the Federal
responsibility is. We are currently going through site security
reviews on some of our dams, and we certainly hope that those
bring to light some additional facts that we may have to fold
into the equation here, in terms of what is going to resolve
this issue.
Mr. Calvert. Because based upon the Mayor's testimony, just
the economic hardship that was felt in 1995 would just be a
small amount of the hardship that would be felt if it was
closed permanently. And as you well know, building a road today
is not an immediate thing. We have to design it; do
environmental documentation; build it. And so even if we made a
determination today, it would probably be at least 5 years
before that road would be fully operable. So we would need to
get to work on this as soon as possible.
Mr. Limbaugh. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. One thing, just to
reiterate my testimony, is that the road was never denied for
this kind of traffic, either. And so we need to take that into
consideration, as well.
Mr. Calvert. The gentleman from California.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Mr. Limbaugh, I appreciate your
appearance here today. And I just wondered, some have asserted
that it is not the function of the Bureau of Reclamation to
build bridges. That plainly flies in what is obvious, in terms
of the fact. And I wonder if you could just offer your opinion
as to the role of the Bureau in building bridges, and maybe
cite a few examples.
Mr. Limbaugh. Well, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Doolittle, we have
built bridges in the past. As far as our capabilities are
concerned, we do have the capability to design and build
bridges. For the most part, the bridges that I am aware of--
obviously, I wasn't around either when many of them were
built--but there was a bridge at Davis Dam; obviously, the
Forest Hills Bridge at Auburn; and the Glen Canyon Bridge; and
then several bridges on the Salt River project, some of which,
or most of which, were built in conjunction with the
construction--but some were not--of water related facilities.
But as far as our capabilities go, that is one thing.
Obviously, our concerns basically lie in the budgetary impacts.
And we certainly are willing to discuss those with the other
folks that depend on this traffic artery for their livelihoods
in their communities. And that is something that we want to
move forward with and open the lines of communication on.
Mr. Doolittle. So would it be safe to say we could count
upon a proactive stance on the part of the Department, to
aggressively work with us to provide a solution here?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Doolittle, that is what
we are offering up. We are as an agency concerned, obviously,
about the security and safety issues. We do not doubt the very
important need for this facility. And we want to work with your
staff and you and the other folks in this room to try to find a
solution to move this project forward.
Mr. Doolittle. Could I just ask, too, just for the record,
since I am sure you won't have that list with you today, but
could you provide for the record the list of bridges that have
been built by the Bureau of Reclamation? Designed and/or
constructed by them.
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Doolittle, I will do that
for the Committee.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I would request one other thing, too. I would
look into--and maybe you can get back to the Committee on
this--what legal obligation, if any. And I believe I ran into
this before. If in fact roadways are removed in order to
accommodate construction of this dam, what legal
responsibilities does the Federal Government have in order to
replace that roadway? If the Department can get back to me on
that, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, we will do that.
Mr. Calvert. OK. Any other questions for this panel?
[No response.]
Mr. Calvert. If none, I would ask the panel to stay here,
in case we have some additional questions after this next
panel.
And the next panel I will introduce: The Honorable Roger
Niello, the Supervisor of the County of Sacramento, State of
California; Ms. Aileen Roder, the California Water Project
Coordinator, Taxpayers for Common Sense; and the Honorable
Steve Miklos, a board member of the Sacramento Area Council of
Governments, State of California.
With that, again, I would explain the 5-minute rule. Please
try to keep your testimony within 5 minutes. The yellow light
will come on when you have 1 minute remaining. The red light
will come on when the time has expired. And with that, I will
recognize the supervisor from Sacramento, Roger Niello. You are
recognized.
STATEMENT OF ROGER NIELLO, SUPERVISOR, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Niello. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Doolittle, members of the Committee. I will give remarks to
summarize my written testimony. I would like to request that it
be submitted into the record.
I am Roger Niello, member of the Sacramento County Board of
Supervisors. And I am here in support of H.R. 2301. I join
everyone here in thanking you very much for holding this
hearing and allowing us this opportunity. Also, on behalf of
Sacramento County, I too want to recognize the hard work and
dedication exhibited by Congressman John Doolittle on this
issue. And we very much appreciate, John, your taking the
leadership on this project.
We urgently need the bridge authorized by H.R. 2301, to
ensure the security of Folsom Dam. The Chair already spoke to
the necessity, as did the gentleman from the Bureau, of getting
automobile traffic off the dam. I would like to provide you
with a county and regional perspective, if I could.
As a long-time local businessman, I know a lot about our
regional economy. As a county supervisor and as a member of the
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, I am painfully familiar
with the vulnerability to flooding and the devastating impact
that a major flood would have on the businesses and
neighborhoods of our region. As members of this Subcommittee
are aware, flood control is certainly something of a
contentious issue in our region. And by the way, I want to
stress that this legislation has absolutely no prejudicial
effect on that flood control debate. And while we may disagree
on means, we nonetheless all agree about the risks of a major
flood.
For perspective, Folsom Reservoir holds almost a million
acre-feet of water, which is enough to cover the entire State
of Rhode Island to a depth of 1-1/2 feet. With a failure of
Folsom Dam, this much water would put at risk 300,000
residents, about 5,000 businesses, and about $25 billion in
property. Simply put, the impact of a catastrophic failure of
Folsom Dam would be beyond devastation.
In addition to flood control, of course, the reservoir
provides drinking water to several communities in our region.
The dam and the reservoir are key components of the Central
Valley Project, and they help to ensure water supplies are
available to agriculture and municipalities throughout the
state. The loss of this crucial reservoir would dry up the
residential and business faucets of much of the Sacramento area
overnight, and it could rock the entire north state's domestic
and agriculture water supply to its very core.
Now, with our major metropolitan area submerged under
several feet of water and its primary water reservoir empty,
the added impact of a loss of a critical energy source would
seem perhaps unimaginable, but it would be all too real. The
generators at Folsom Dam generate enough power for nearly 70
[sic] homes each day. So we are under dirty water; we are out
of clean water; we have no air conditioning, heat, or lights.
That truly is beyond devastation.
Now, obviously, my primary message to you today is
security. Additionally, I want to highlight two points that are
being made by my community colleagues. This transportation
corridor is absolutely crucial to the mobility of this rapidly
growing northeast sector of our region. And the proposed four-
lane configuration is owed, if you will, as has been explained
by others; but it is the only option that makes good
transportation planning sense. Further, the essential nature of
this transportation link requires that it remain open, with
whatever prudent security measures are necessary, while an
alternative facility is in the making.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, once more, I want to thank you
for holding this hearing. And once more, I want to emphasize,
as a local elected official, but frankly, more importantly, on
a personal basis, because John Doolittle has been a friend of
mine since before I was elected, I wish to thank him very much
for all of his good work, not just on this legislation, but in
so aptly representing our communities for these many years.
H.R. 2301 is the right legislation at the right time. And I
would urge this Subcommittee to report favorably on this
legislation as very soon as possible. That concludes my
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Niello follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Roger Niello, Sacramento County Board of
Supervisors
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is
Roger Niello, and I am a member of the Sacramento County Board of
Supervisors. I am here in support of H.R. 2301, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to construct a bridge on Federal land west
of, and adjacent to, Folsom Dam in California.
I join my friends and colleagues invited to testify today in
thanking you and the members of the Subcommittee on Water and Power for
holding this hearing this afternoon. This is truly a critical project,
and we cannot do what needs to be done without federal involvement.
Sacramento County also recognizes the hard work and dedication
exhibited by Congressman John Doolittle on this issue. We truly
appreciate Congressman Doolittle's commitment to securing the new
bridge and doing so in a fiscally responsible manner. His legislation
recognizes the realities of dam security as well as regional
transportation and air quality issues, and we appreciate his leadership
in taking on this necessary project.
We urgently need the bridge authorized by H.R. 2301 to ensure
security at Folsom Dam and Folsom Reservoir. This new bridge is
essential for the physical safety and economic stability of our region
and the State of California. By removing automobile traffic from Folsom
Dam, we will prevent the possibility of a catastrophic failure and
flood that could be caused by a terrorist act. Mr. Chairman, I strongly
support this legislation and I urge you and your colleagues to act
speedily on H.R. 2301 to make certain the bill is passed and signed
into law as soon as possible.
I am here to provide a regional perspective on the importance of
securing Folsom Dam from a terrorist attack. As a local businessman, I
know quite a bit about the power of our regional economy. As a public
official I have learned the importance to our public safety and economy
of a viable water supply, a reliable energy grid, and a functioning
transportation system. I also serve on the Sacramento Area Flood
Control Agency, so I am painfully familiar with our vulnerability to
flooding and the devastating impact a major flood would have on
Sacramento and on California. I do not believe it is hyperbole to
suggest that a major flood in Sacramento coupled with the immediate
loss of a major water and power supply, would have a damaging impact on
our national economy. Simply put, the impact of a catastrophic failure
of Folsom Dam would be beyond devastation.
As members of this subcommittee are aware, flood control is a
contentious issue in our region. Nonetheless, we all agree about the
risks of a major flood. For perspective, Folsom Reservoir holds 976,955
acre feet of water. According to the Bureau of Reclamation--the owner /
operator of the dam ``this is enough to cover the state of Rhode Island
to a depth of one-and-one-half feet. According to the Sacramento Area
Flood Control Agency, the failure of the Folsom Dam would put at risk
approximately 300,000 residents, 5,000 businesses and $25 billion in
property, including major highways, schools, our State Capitol and a
multitude of other public institutions. I know our region has rebounded
from flooding before, and I know we are capable of overcoming
significant obstacles of many types. But I wonder whether we could ever
fully recover from such an event.
In addition to flood control, Folsom Reservoir provides drinking
water to the City of Folsom, portions of Sacramento County, the City of
Roseville, and other local and regional water authorities. Folsom Dam
and Reservoir are key components of the Central Valley Project and help
ensure water supplies are available to agriculture and municipalities
throughout the state. I need not remind this subcommittee of the
paramount importance of ensuring a reliable supply of clean water in
our state. Our water supply and delivery system would be severely
rocked by the sudden loss of Folsom Dam and Reservoir.
With the core of a major metropolitan area submerged under several
feet of water and its primary water supply reservoir empty, the added
impact of a loss of a critical electricity source would seem
unimaginable. It would, in this case, be all too real. The three
generators at Folsom Dam's power plant produce up to 210 megawatts of
electrical power and provide power for nearly 70,000 homes each day. As
you all know, our state's energy challenges are all too serious as it
is. Given the magnitude of these challenges, the citizens of our state
and our region have demonstrated an admirable capacity to conserve our
recently much more precious supply of electricity. We are left,
however, with virtually no margin for error. A loss of the power
supplied by Folsom Dam would eliminate that empty margin and surely
could result in the dreaded black-outs that we have so far largely
avoided.
We all understand that H.R. 2301 will provide benefits to our
citizens beyond the security needs I previously outlined. We have major
traffic congestion and air pollution problems locally and regionally
that are caused or aggravated by the existing, obsolete crossing at
Folsom Dam. The bridge and linkages provided by H.R. 2301 will provide
significant congestion relief upon completion and also anticipate and
address future growth in our region. The new bridge authorized by H.R.
2301 will provide great benefits beyond security.
In spite of the significant security risk, I agree with my
colleagues Mayor Starsky and Councilmember Miklos that we cannot afford
for Folsom Dam Road to be summarily closed. It is a national priority
to remove traffic from Folsom Dam Road as speedily as possible.
However, we also have a keen interest and responsibility to help ensure
the vitality of our local and regional economy by providing a workable
transportation system. To that end, we must keep Folsom Dam Road open--
with adequate security measures in place--until the new bridge is
operational.
We must recognize that closing Folsom Dam Road without a
replacement would be devastating to the local and regional economy.
H.R. 2301 is the necessary step in removing traffic from the dam, but
we must also recognize the economic, traffic circulation, and air
quality needs and realities in our region. My colleagues on this panel
and I share grave concerns regarding allowing traffic atop the dam
until the new bridge is in place. It is a difficult balance to strike
and one that carries risks, but we must recognize that our economic
security and our national security are absolutely intertwined.
I also agree with my colleagues on the panel that government
efficiency requires the new bridge to be a full-service, four-lane
bridge. Congressman Doolittle's legislation properly requires that the
bridge be designed and constructed with appropriate sizing and linkages
to support present and future traffic flow requirements for the City of
Folsom and the adjacent Sacramento County, Placer County and El Dorado
County communities.
As I said before, flood control is always controversial in our
region. It is important to point out, though, that this legislation has
absolutely no prejudicial effect on the flood control debate. The new
bridge will secure the facility, will provide additional transportation
and air quality benefits, and will do so without biasing the flood
control debate or outcome.
H.R. 2301 is the right legislation at the right time. This bill is
about ensuring the physical and economic security of our citizenry. It
accomplishes the goal by preventing terrorists access to a federal
facility identified by the Bureau of Reclamation as one of the top five
security risks within its jurisdiction. H.R. 2301 will help ensure
reliable water and energy supplies for our region and for the State of
California, so critical to our economy and our way of life in
California. H.R. 2301 also anticipates other important national and
regional priorities, including transportation congestion relief and air
quality improvement. In spite of achieving other important local,
regional, and national goals, we cannot forget that the fundamental
purpose H.R. 2301 is to ensure the security of the dam.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing and giving
my colleagues and me, from Northern California, the opportunity to
appear before you today. We also again wish to thank Congressman
Doolittle for all his work on this legislation and on behalf of our
community over the past decade. I urge the Subcommittee on Water and
Power to report favorably on H.R. 2301 as soon as possible. This
concludes my formal statement, and I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Again, thank you.
______
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. And I appreciate your testimony.
Ms. Roder, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF AILEEN RODER, CALIFORNIA WATER PROJECT
COORDINATOR, TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE
Ms. Roder. Thank you. I would ask that my full testimony
would be submitted to the record.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Roder. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Calvert,
Congressman Doolittle, Congressman Otter, and other members of
the Subcommittee. I am Aileen Roder, the California Water
Project Coordinator at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a national
non-partisan budget watchdog group. I would like to thank you
for inviting me to testify at this hearing regarding H.R. 2301,
which Congressman Doolittle introduced in June of 2001.
This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
construct a bridge on Federal land west and adjacent to the
Folsom Dam in California. Taxpayers for Common Sense strongly
opposes H.R. 2301. This bill ignores plans by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to build a temporary bridge near Folsom Dam;
contains no local cost-sharing for an enhanced bridge; makes an
end-run of the normal authorization process for bridge
building; and tries to rewrite the Bureau of Reclamation's
mission by making it into a highway construction agency.
In February the Corps released a final environmental impact
statement calling for a 7-foot raise of Folsom Dam in order to
reduce the city of Sacramento's flood risk to a one-in-213
chance in any given year. The Corps plan proposed constructing
a temporary bridge to replace the existing bridge on Folsom Dam
during the raise. The Corps estimates this bridge will cost $20
million to $30 million. The temporary bridge is slated for
removal after the raise is completed. Alternatively, the bridge
could remain in place, if a local sponsor is identified to
assume the operation and maintenance responsibilities.
H.R. 2301 disregards this Corps plan in a blatant attempt
to take advantage of legitimate security concerns and end-run
the normal authorization process for road building improvement.
Instead of involving the U.S. Department of Transportation, the
Corps, or local entities such as the city of Folsom and
Caltrans, H.R. 2301 brings in a completely unrelated agency
into the process, the Bureau of Reclamation.
Simply put, the Bureau is in the water supply business, not
the bridge-building business. Foisting responsibilities upon
the Bureau that are outside its core mission reduces the
agency's effectiveness. This bridge work will compete with, and
potentially crowd out, legitimate Bureau of Reclamation funding
in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
Taxpayers for Common Sense recognizes that a new bridge may
be justified to reduce security concerns caused by having a
bridge on the dam. However, 2301 clearly envisions much more
than just replacing the bridge that currently traverses Folsom
Dam. This bill will likely upgrade the bridge from two to four
lanes. We recognize that a wider bridge may be needed, but the
process established in this bill bypasses the very mechanisms
that are in place to evaluate those needs and address those
concerns.
If local interests want a substantially improved bridge,
then the city of Folsom and the State of California, in concert
with the Highway Trust Fund, are the proper sources for bridge
enhancement design and funding. Funding should certainly not
come from the General Treasury or Energy and Water
Appropriations.
In his June 26, 2001 press release on H.R. 2301,
Congressman Doolittle stated, ``It is clear that a permanent,
full-service bridge is needed to ensure transportation
efficiency and commuter convenience.'' Building a bridge to
replace the one traversing Folsom Dam may be potentially tied
to security concerns; but building an enhanced, four-lane
bridge cannot be attributed to those same concerns. The Federal
taxpayers should not be picking up the whole $85 million tab
for commuter convenience.
In closing, the Bureau of Reclamation should not be forced
to deviate from its core mission by becoming a highway
construction agency. Any bill authorizing construction of an
improved Folsom Bridge should strictly define Federal and non-
Federal cost sharing. Such a bill should go through the normal
highway authorization process, taking into account that the
Corps is already contemplating construction of a two-lane
bridge. Congress should not raid the coffers of the agencies
dependent on energy and water appropriations to pay for the
traffic convenience of a few local beneficiaries.
Thank you very much again for the opportunity to testify
today. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Roder follows:]
Statement of Aileen Roder, California Water Project Coordinator,
Taxpayers for Common Sense
Good afternoon, Chairman Calvert, Congressman Smith, and other
distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am Aileen Roder, the
California Water Project Coordinator at Taxpayers for Common Sense
(TCS), a national, non-partisan budget watchdog group. I would like to
thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing regarding H.R.
2301 which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct a
bridge on federal land west and adjacent to Folsom Dam in California.
Taxpayers for Common Sense strongly opposes H.R. 2301. This bill,
introduced in June 2001 by Congressman John Doolittle (R-CA), ignores
an existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plan to provide much needed
flood control to the City of Sacramento and build a temporary bridge
southeast of Folsom Dam. This bridge could be turned over to the City
of Folsom and would relieve the security concerns arising from the
tragic events of September 11th.
In February, the Corps of Engineers released a Final Supplemental
Plan Formulation Report/Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report (FEIS). This FEIS called for a 7-foot raise of Folsom Dam
in order to reduce the City of Sacramento's flood risk to a 1-in-213
chance in any given year. Recognizing the obvious impact of the raise
on the dam bridge traffic, the Corps proposed a temporary bridge
southeast of the Folsom dam. The bridge would be similarly sized to the
existing dam bridge and aligned to ensure that no conflicts occur with
existing Folsom Dam operations during the raise. After completion of
the dam, the Corps envisions routing traffic back over the dam and
removing the bridge. However, the Corps stated that the bridge could be
left in place if a local sponsor is identified to assume the operation
and maintenance responsibilities. This project is poised for
authorization in the regular process later this year. I have attached
the applicable portions of the Corps FEIS to my testimony.
H.R. 2301 ignores all of this work by the Corps, and is a blatant
attempt to take advantage of legitimate security concerns and end run
the normal process and federal-local cost sharing for building road
improvements. Instead of involving the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT), local entities such as the City of Folsom,
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), or the Army Corps
of Engineers, which has already contemplated building a bridge in the
area, H.R. 2301 brings in a completely unrelated agency into the
process, the Bureau of Reclamation.
Simply put, the Bureau of Reclamation is not in the business of
building bridges. The stated mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to
``manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an
environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the
American public.'' The Bureau is in the water supply business not the
bridge-building business. Foisting responsibilities upon the Bureau
that are outside of its core mission sets a terrible precedent and
reduces the agency's effectiveness in the increasingly critical work of
managing the West's water supply. This bridge work will compete with
and potentially crowd out legitimate Bureau of Reclamation funding in
the Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
TCS recognizes that building a new bridge may be justified to
reduce security concerns raised by having a bridge on the dam. We also
recognize that a wider bridge may be needed, but the process
established in this bill bypasses the very mechanisms that are in place
to evaluate that need and address those concerns.
Members of the Committee should know that H.R. 2301 clearly
envisions more than replacing the bridge that currently traverses
Folsom Dam. This bill would likely upgrade the bridge from two lanes to
four lanes. USDOT has a process and formula to identify situations
where the upgrade of a two-lane road to a four-lane road is justified.
We believe that if local interests want more lanes or a substantially
improved bridge, then the City of Folsom and the State of California in
concert with the Highway Trust Fund are the proper sources for bridge
enhancement design and funding. Funding should certainly not come from
the General Treasury or Energy and Water Appropriations.
Unfortunately, this bill completely avoids a discussion of non-
federal cost sharing or an analysis of traffic needs and instead foists
the entire bill on the federal taxpayer. While security concerns may be
a legitimate reason for federal funding, the bridge upgrade costs
should be borne in the normal fashion by the local beneficiaries of
bridge expansion.
According to Congressman Doolittle's June 26, 2001 press release on
H.R. 2301, ``The region's heavy reliance on the Folsom Dam Road means
that even temporary closures can snarl traffic through Folsom,
inconveniencing drivers and harming the local retail-based economy.''
Representative Doolittle added, ``It is clear that a permanent, full-
service bridge is needed to ensure greater transportation efficiency
and commuter convenience.''
Building a bridge to replace the one traversing Folsom Dam may
potentially be tied to security concerns, but building an enhanced,
four-lane bridge has never been attributed to security or safety.
Instead, this upgrade from a two to four-lane bridge is tied to local
economics and the convenience of the City of Folsom's citizens. The
federal taxpayer should not be picking up the whole $85 million tab for
``commuter convenience''.
We cannot fathom the reasoning behind building an enhanced bridge
entirely on the federal taxpayers' dime and then turning over ownership
of the bridge to the City of Folsom. The City of Folsom and Caltrans
must shoulder their portion of responsibility in this process. Instead,
H.R. 2301 demands that the federal taxpayer shell out $85 million and
then forces the government to turn the bridge over to a non-
contributing, non-federal entity.
In closing, the Bureau of Reclamation should not be forced to
deviate from its core mission by becoming a highway construction
agency. Any bill authorizing construction of an improved Folsom bridge
should strictly define federal and non-federal cost sharing. Such a
bill should go through the normal highway authorization process, taking
into account that the Army Corps of Engineers is already contemplating
construction of a two-lane bridge. The replacement bridge planned by
the Army Corps is estimated to cost $20 to $30 million compared to the
$85 million price tag of H.R. 2301. The replacement bridge will
alleviate the security concerns of having a bridge on Folsom Dam.
Congress should not raid the coffers of agencies dependent on the
energy and water appropriations to pay for the traffic convenience of a
few local beneficiaries.
Thank you again for opportunity to testify today and I would be
happy to answer any questions you might have.
______
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Steve Miklos, board member, Sacramento
Area Council of Governments, State of California, you are
recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF STEVE MIKLOS, BOARD MEMBER, SACRAMENTO AREA
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Miklos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. And again, a special thanks to Congressman Doolittle
for his leadership in our region. And I would like to speak to
you today as the former mayor and current city council member
of the city of Folsom, and the former Chair and current board
member of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.
I would also like, for the record, to be saying today that
my written testimony should be entered, as well as Mayor
Starsky's.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
Mr. Miklos. SACOG, it is affectionately known as: We are
the coordinators of transportation planning issues within the
Sacramento region. Our Sacramento region covers approximately
six counties and 18 cities, with a population of almost two
million people.
Within our jurisdiction, we are not only responsible for
planning and coordinating and funding of transportation; it
also includes air quality, access to jobs, as well as a host of
other things such as community design development and open
space.
My fellow SACOG board members share all the concerns raised
by my current colleagues on this panel today regarding the
current situation of Folsom Dam. I will limit my testimony,
briefly reviewing some of the issues that are specific to
SACOG.
H.R. 2301 will help protect our freeways, our light rail,
our local streets and regional transportation corridors, our
rolling stock, and our transportation assets, from loss and
damage due to massive flood. SACOG Resolution Number 42-2001,
adopted while I served as Chair of SACOG board, expresses full
regional support for Congressman Doolittle's legislation.
That in itself needs to be emphasized again one more time.
SACOG Resolution Number 42-2001 has the full, expressed support
of the region's SACOG board, representing those six counties
and 18 cities. That is not done on a regular basis. When you
have 19 elected members sitting on a board, to get unanimous
support for a resolution is very rare. And we accomplished that
because the region recognizes the importance of this
legislation.
The approximately one million acre-feet of water suddenly
released by a total dam failure would inundate much of Highway
50, portions of Interstate 80, and portions of Interstate 5.
And I will get to more details of that in a moment. But most
importantly--pardon the pun--but it has a ripple effect on the
rest of the region because of the reliance on those major
arterials, as well as the Sacramento core and the region
surrounding the capital.
The I-5 inundation would have inestimable impacts on
transportation statewide, given the depth of the flood waters,
as expressed by my colleague, Mr. Niello. The likelihood of
water receding is very slow, and I-5 is the main north-south
transportation corridor stretching from the Mexican border to
the Canadian border. It is important to note that there is no
alternative route to the east, and the western alternative
would be a re-route through the Bay Area. And if anyone is
familiar with the San Francisco Bay Area, that is a traffic
nightmare without any of these catastrophic failures.
This is even more disturbing, given the resources expended
over recent years to strengthen and widen some of our bridges,
such as Watt Avenue and Sunrise Boulevard. We have taken major
north-south regional transportation corridors and improved
those, such as HOV lanes on Highway 50; some further
improvements on Highway 80; additional interchanges at Sunrise
Boulevard, Folsom Boulevard, East Bidwell Street. The city of
Folsom has recently opened a $75 million bridge, that we paid
for by ourselves. We have also contributed almost $11 million
to other local improvements; knowing that the city bears a
significant amount of the share of cross-through traffic
between the four major employment centers within the SACOG
region, such as Rockland, Roseville, El Dorado Hills, Rancho
Cordova, the city of Folsom.
And so therefore, I have to disagree with the
representative from Taxpayers for Common Sense, because the
city of Folsom alone has expended almost $90 million in local
cost-sharing measures for regional transportation solutions.
It seems that also, from SACOG's perspective, which was
very apparent with the adoption of Resolution 2301 from SACOG,
was that it was felt that a $20 million temporary bridge was
certainly fiscally irresponsible, to construct a bridge and
then tear it back down; that better money spent was a permanent
solution.
Folsom Dam Road must remain open until a new bridge is in
place. I am not going to reiterate all of the things my
colleagues have previously said. I think that has been well
driven home. But what we do have to emphasize is the fact that
we will have a million people come into our region within the
next 20 years. And to put it in perspective, when the gate
failed in 1995, we had 10,000 cars a day going across that dam.
We now have 18,000 cars coming across that dam, 7 years later.
You can imagine where the million people are going to be coming
from, especially in the four employment centers.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, Mr. Doolittle, the
Sacramento Area Council of Governments is grateful for the
opportunity to testify today in support of H.R. 2301. We
believe H.R. 2301 addresses one of the most important of these
new priorities, in light of the likely consequences of the
catastrophic failure of the dam. We urge you and your
Subcommittee to support H.R. 2301 and work toward its speedy
passage. And I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miklos follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Steve Miklos, Sacramento Area Council of
Governments
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is
Steve Miklos, and I am the former mayor and current councilmember for
the City of Folsom, California. I also am past chair and currently
serve on the Board of Directors of the Sacramento Area Council of
Governments, and it is in my capacity as past chair and current on the
SACOG boardmember that I appear today in support of H.R. 2301, a bill
to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct a bridge on
Federal land west of and adjacent to Folsom Dam in California. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak today regarding this legislation.
I thank this Subcommittee for holding this hearing today. Briefly,
the Sacramento Area Council of Governments--also known as SACOG--
coordinates transportation planning and funding for the entire
Sacramento region covering six counties and eighteen cities and serving
a population of 1,936,006 (one million, nine hundred thirty-six
thousand and six) according to the 2000 Census.
SACOG appreciates your concern and commitment to ensuring our
region's safety and economic security. This is truly one of those
projects where we cannot do what needs to be done without federal
involvement, and we thank you for taking up H.R. 2301 so expeditiously.
We also appreciate Congressman John Doolittle's leadership on this
legislation. His legislation will secure the dam, our vital regional
transportation infrastructure, and will do so in an economically
efficient manner. Congressman Doolittle has courageously stood by his
principles--even while under heavy fire--for over a decade, and our
City and our region are fortunate to have him represent our interests
in Washington.
My fellow SACOG boardmembers share all of the concerns raised by my
colleagues on this panel today regarding the current situation at
Folsom Dam. I will limit my testimony to briefly reviewing some of the
major impacts to our region's transportation infrastructure of a dam
failure caused by a terrorist act. H.R. 2301 is urgently needed to
ensure the security of Folsom Dam and to protect our investment in our
transportation system.
H.R. 2301 will help ensure the physical and economic security of
our citizenry. The bill will do so, in part, by protecting our
freeways, our light rail, our local streets and regional transportation
corridors, our rolling stock, and our other transportation assets from
loss and damage due to a massive flood. I also wish to submit for the
record today a copy of SACOG Resolution Number 42-2001, adopted while I
served as chair of the SACOG board, expressing full support for
Congressman Doolittle's legislation.
Modeling and contour maps give us a notion of where the flood
waters are likely to rage, where they will flow, where they will sit
for days, weeks, or even months before receding. What modeling and maps
cannot tell us is how much the devastation will cost in terms of repair
and replacement to our transportation infrastructure, and I believe it
is fruitless to attempt to accurately quantify the impact. It is just
too big. It is clear that virtually all of our major transportation
infrastructure stands in the way of the flood waters, and it is
unlikely that much will be left standing or serviceable after such a
deluge. In spite of the foregoing, I will offer a few points for your
consideration in an attempt to put the losses and impacts into some
kind of perspective.
The 976,955 acre feet of water suddenly released by total dam
failure would inundate much of Highway 50, portions of Interstate 80,
portions of Interstate 5, as well as dozens of other regional
transportation corridors. The Interstate 5 inundation would have
inestimable impacts on transportation statewide, given the depth of the
flood waters, the likelihood of water receding very slowly, and the
fact that I-5 is the main north-south transportation corridor
stretching from the Mexican border to the Canadian border. It is
important to note that there is no alternative route to the east, and
the western alternative would re-route large amounts of traffic into
the Bay Area freeway system. The impact on that system, already in
gridlock for much of the day, is unthinkable.
All of our bridges crossing the American River downstream from the
dam are likely to be damaged or destroyed by a flood caused by a
massive failure at Folsom Dam. This is even more disturbing given the
resources expended over recent years to strengthen and widen several of
the bridges, including ongoing work at Watt Avenue, a major north-south
regional transportation corridor. In fact, the City of Folsom's
recently-opened new bridge cost over $75 million alone, and that
bridge, along with two others within City limits, are directly in the
path of what would likely be a tidal wave of water. It is a sobering
and futile exercise to attempt to add up the cost of repairing and
replacing just the bridges damaged and destroyed by such an event.
Also in the way of flood waters stand our airports, our light rail
system, our Regional Transit's rolling stock and maintenance
facilities, and private vehicles. In the interest of time I will not go
into detail regarding these facilities and assets, but the subcommittee
can surely recognize that the cost to repair, replace, and reopen these
facilities and assets too large to contemplate.
My comments thus far relate the general scope and cost of a flood
caused by a failure at Folsom Dam. In short, the scope and cost would
be enormous, and it should be a national priority to remove traffic
from Folsom Dam Road. But I also believe Folsom Dam Road must remain
open until the new bridge is in place. Folsom Dam Road is the
easternmost river crossing downstream from the major river forks. It
serves businesses and residents traveling between major employment
centers in El Dorado County, eastern Sacramento County, and Placer
County. Approximately 17,000 vehicles a day cross the dam--even with
security limitations on the types of vehicles allowed on the road. The
dam crossing is a major regional traffic connector providing access
between jobs and housing in the three different counties. Some of our
region's largest industrial and commercial employers use Folsom Dam
Road, including Intel, Hewlett-Packard, and Blue Cross. And especially
during the summer months, Folsom Dam Road is an indispensable crossing
for visitors to Folsom Lake--the most visited state park in the State
of California--and the region's parks and recreation facilities.
The crossing at Folsom Dam must be moved off the dam, but the
impact of doing so without a replacement bridge in place would be
devastating to the local and regional economy. H.R. 2301 is the
necessary step in removing traffic from the dam, but we must also
recognize the existing traffic patterns in our region. Folsom Dam Road
is an inadequate, but essential, transportation artery between the
three counties. It is extraordinarily important for local circulation.
Just as there is a balance between airport security measures and moving
people efficiently onto departing flights, so too there must be a
reasonable security system put in place to protect the dam while
allowing the public to cross the dam until the new bridge is completed.
As outlined by my colleague Mayor Starsky, government efficiency
mandates that the bridge should be a full-service, four-lane bridge. As
Mayor Starsky argued, it would be extraordinarily wasteful to build a
two-lane bridge when we know that two-lanes was wholly inadequate years
ago. H.R. 2301 requires the bridge to be designed with appropriate
sizing and linkages to support present and future traffic flow
requirements for the City of Folsom. Present and future traffic flows
require a four-lane bridge--at a minimum.
Mr. Chairman, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments is
grateful for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2301. We
understand that there are many new priorities in our nation now that we
have been awakened to new threats to our national security. We believe
H.R. 2301 addresses one of the most important of these new priorities
in light of the likely consequences of the catastrophic failure of the
dam. We urge you and your subcommittee to support H.R. 2301 and work
towards its speedy passage. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. Shortly after the
tragedy of September 11th, several of us met, decided what
needed to be done on an emergency basis throughout the United
States. And one of those things that this Committee did is pass
legislation--which, by the way, the Bureau of Reclamation is
now authorized to reimburse communities such as the Cities of
Folsom and Sacramento--for law enforcement services that are
provided to protect public facilities that are owned by the
Bureau of Reclamation and other facilities.
And the reason we passed that, in almost record time--and
around here it is difficult to pass things at a very rapid
rate; and we not only passed that, it was signed into law, I
believe, within 45 days of September 11--is because, obviously,
there was an emergency. And to my friend from the Taxpayers for
Common Sense, I would say that there is a reason that we have a
U.S. Congress, and that is to make decisions based upon special
circumstances. And if the circumstances of September 11th
aren't special, I don't know what is. And especially, I don't
know of anyone in the local communities that are elected that
are opposed to building this bridge, because it may be we may
have to close traffic on that bridge, as we have already for
truck traffic, and that bridge will need to be replaced. And
this is a special circumstance. And there is a Federal nexus
here, and we have a responsibility, in my mind, to do
something.
That is my editorial comment. And I will go on and ask a
couple of quick questions. In the prior testimony, it was
mentioned that there were a number of roadways that were in
existence prior to the construction of this dam. I know that
probably none of you were around at the time in this life, so I
would ask, don't you believe that the Federal Government has
some responsibility to provide for alternate roads, if in fact
this has to be closed permanently?
Mr. Miklos. Mr. Chairman, if I may answer that, back in
July 1995, I was on the city council, and I was appointed as
the lead, from the then-Mayor Bob Holerus, to look into the
issue when the gate failed at Folsom Dam. And with the
assistance of Congressman Doolittle, we went way back into the
records and dug up the actual authorization appropriation bills
for Folsom Dam. And in that authorization it clearly stated
that they were supposed to provide crossings equal to, or
greater than, the number that were flooded.
And in answer to your previous question, there are actually
two crossings. When the water is real low, such as it was last
year, you can actually still see two of them, when the water is
that low. The other two, it is my understanding, were actually
demolished at the time.
So in answer to your question, I absolutely believe, as I
testified in March 1996 in this exact room--and I still believe
so today--that the Federal Government is responsible for
replacing that crossing. And I agreed with the Bureau, back
even in March of '96 when I testified, that we fully support
being off the top of that dam. It is inconvenient not only to
us; it is an inconvenience for the region. We fully support the
total operation and maintenance at will for the Bureau to
construct the businesses they need to construct and maintain
that dam, so we don't have another catastrophic failure of the
gate or, worse yet, the whole entire dam.
So in response to your question, yes, we do believe they
are responsible.
Mr. Calvert. Now, let me ask, those who are elected, people
who represent the city of Folsom on the city council, do you
know of any of your city council members that are opposed to a
bridge to replace this?
Mr. Miklos. During my term of 4 years as mayor did we ever
have a resolution other than full support of a new replacement
bridge.
Mr. Calvert. The Board of Supervisors in Sacramento County?
Mr. Niello. The Board of Supervisors had no formal
resolution on the matter, but in discussions that I have had I
know of no one who is opposed to building this bridge.
Mr. Calvert. Now, maybe, Ms. Roder, do you know of any
elected officials that are opposed to this?
Ms. Roder. No, sir, I do not. And I would not say my
organization is opposed to moving a bridge off of the dam at
all. I am just saying that we need to have Federal and local
cost-sharing measures put into place to do that. And the fact
that there is an Army Corps of Engineers plan that is in place,
that they are planning on building a bridge, then if we are
going to enhance the bridge from what is currently on there,
sir, then we need to have some local cost sharing with that.
Mr. Calvert. You know, and that is certainly an appropriate
position. But from my perspective--and California is the
largest donor state in the Union--I have always strongly felt
that we are not getting the types of infrastructure
improvements within our state that we pay for. So we have a
difference of opinion here.
And with that, I will recognize Mr. Doolittle for any
questions he may ask, and ask Mr. Otter if he could Chair the
meeting for the balance of the meeting. I have to go to an
Armed Services Committee meeting that I must attend.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. And my
questions will be brief. And I appreciate, really, the courtesy
extended us here to discuss this issue.
Well, I just want to focus on a couple of things. There
were eight lanes before the reservoir was built. It was built
by the Federal Government, and the impoundment was caused by
the construction of the Folsom Dam. So we lost eight lanes
there. There are two lanes on top of Folsom Dam, and when those
are cutoff to public access that will be ten lanes. It does not
seem unreasonable to me that the Federal Government ought to at
least give us four lanes to replace the ten that were taken.
I also point out when I hear this discussion, because it
sounds so reasonable when you talk about local share, but you
have to remember that the city of Folsom very recently, within
the last--I forget when it is--couple of years, constructed at
totally non-Federal expense a new bridge across the river. So
there is certainly a local effort being made here to meet the
local transportation needs. It is not like this city is coming
hat-in-hand and asking the Federal Government to meet the local
transportation needs. But for the existence of Folsom Dam,
there wouldn't be a problem in this regard. So it seems
perfectly reasonable to me that the Federal Government should
bear this share.
And I just wanted to make that observation, and to thank
all of our witnesses who have gone to great effort to get back
here to offer this testimony.
Mr. Otter. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Doolittle.
With my apologies to the panel, I would like to ask Mr.
Limbaugh and Mr. Starsky to come back up to the table. So if
there are any additional questions, you also have an
opportunity to respond to those questions.
I have a couple of questions. Ms. Roder, you mentioned that
the potential of a flood now with the increase to the size of
the dam of 7 feet would be one in 213. Can I conclude from that
that there is one chance in 213 years that there will be a
flood?
Ms. Roder. I believe, sir, that it is in any given year
there is a one in 213 chance that the city of Sacramento would
flood.
Mr. Otter. And what is the chance now?
Ms. Roder. I believe it is, according to what the Army
Corps recently studied, a one-in-85 chance in any given year
for the city of Sacramento to experience a flood.
Mr. Otter. And in your written testimony, as well as your
verbal testimony before the Committee, you offered other
agencies that had been contacted, or other agencies that should
be responsible for this. Did your group look into the obvious
advantages for FEMA; inasmuch as their exposure would be
reduced by three times, the potential flood damage? And
couldn't FEMA then also participate in this extra 7 feet of
water protection, I guess, from flood damage?
Ms. Roder. Honestly, sir, I do not know if FEMA has been at
all involved in the flood control issues related to this. I
know that this is envisioned to be done by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
Mr. Otter. Any other member of the panel, have you reviewed
the possibility of FEMA participating in the benefits of this,
and therefore the cost?
Mr. Niello. As a member of the flood control agency board,
I am not aware of any such discussions that have taken place.
Mr. Otter. Well, let me ask you, Mr. Niello, wouldn't that
be a conclusion; that the beneficiaries ought to be engaged at
least in the cost of that from which they are going to benefit?
Mr. Niello. Well, that is very difficult logic to argue
with. But that perhaps might be modified by whatever customs
are the case with Federal bureaucracy.
Mr. Otter. Well, I have only been here a year and 3 months,
or 4 months, myself, so I am not aware. The last thing you want
to expect out of us, I suspect, is certainty, or any type of
continuity.
But I can see the need for it. I can also address, at least
in part, the Taxpayers for Common Sense, their approach to it;
and I don't disagree. The interesting thing is that I haven't
heard anything from anybody, or read anything from anybody,
that would disagree that this is needed. Does anybody disagree
that this is needed?
[No response.]
Mr. Otter. So then wouldn't the reasonable response from us
be, if not Mr. Doolittle's actual piece of legislation
verbatim, but to look for an answer to this and get the
participants and the stakeholders in this that will benefit the
most, including those that perhaps we haven't mentioned, like
potential irrigators? I don't know, my apologies to the panel.
Is this only used for flood control?
Mr. Doolittle. Well, maybe we have injected a note of
confusion in this, Mr. Chairman, because there are two separate
things. One is this bridge; but the other then is a separate
flood control proposal being advanced--and not being advanced
by this bill; in fact, I am totally opposed to it--to raise
Folsom Dam 7 feet. Folsom Dam for this purpose is not just the
concrete structure itself, but is some 21 miles of levies
surrounding the dam; by raising that 7 feet, as to provide
additional flood protection. But that issue is not addressed by
this bill, and is really totally separate.
Mr. Otter. All right. My apologies to you, Mr. Doolittle,
and then also the panel; for I did mix the two issues up. We
from Idaho have a tendency to do that once in a while.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Otter. I would like to pursue this, Mr. Limbaugh, in
your testimony. Is it a requirement when the Bureau of
Reclamation engages in the activity of construction of a dam or
something like that, to in fact replace all the roads? And were
all the roads replaced for traffic and everything when Folsom
was built?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of that. And
that was one of the questions that was asked that I get back to
the Committee on. And I would certainly defer to that answer in
this light. I think every situation is, obviously, different.
And the laws basically speak for themselves in this instance, I
would think. And so we are going to do some research and get
back to the Committee on that.
Mr. Otter. I would appreciate that. And I want to make as
part of the permanent record that that request be fulfilled,
because I think that is important.
I also would like an expression from the Bureau of
Reclamation as to whether or not the Bureau of Reclamation
feels it has a fiduciary responsibility if, in the
modifications of either the operation or anything else having
to do with the dam or the necessity for that, whether or not it
feels that it has a fiduciary responsibility in light of
previous agreements, in light of previous promises for the
construction of that facility, as to whether or not they do
enjoy an obligation to replace those transportation routes or
opportunities?
Mr. Limbaugh. Well, I guess, Mr. Chairman, I would have to
again defer to the answer that we are going to provide to the
Committee, because this facility was built by the Corps and
then given to the Bureau. And we certainly want to abide by any
laws of Congress that would put us in a position of having to
do things, but we are just not certain about that.
One other comment is that we have basically proposed to
work with all of the folks here to try to strike some kind of a
position that we can all move forward and get this project
done. And I think that is really the thrust of our testimony
today, is to work with the bill's sponsor and with everyone
concerned to find out just what those responsibilities are,
where they lie.
And again, I think I would like to fall back on the answer
that we provide this Committee, in terms of the
responsibilities inherent in the legislation that authorized
this project.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Limbaugh. My time has expired,
but I certainly would encourage all of you sitting at that
table, and any other stakeholder that you can find, to try to
settle that outside this room. And I would work hard with Mr.
Doolittle to help provide that solution outside this room.
Because I can guarantee you, it will be much easier there than
it will be here. That has been my experience.
Mr. Doolittle?
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have no further
questions.
Mr. Otter. All right. Well, thank you. And I want to thank
the witnesses, and also the members that were here. And the
members of this Subcommittee may have some additional questions
for the witnesses. And we will ask you to respond to those in
writing, besides the one that we have already asked you to
respond to on the record. The hearing record will be held open
until April 24th.
If there is no further business, this meeting has come to
an end. Thank you.
Mr. Niello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 3:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[A statement submitted for the record by John Keys
follows:]
Statement of John Keys, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2301
I regret that I cannot be in Washington, D.C., today to comment on
H.R. 2301. The Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation
recognize the importance of the construction of a new bridge at Folsom
Dam to ease traffic and security problems there and strongly support
closure of the current roadway across the top of the dam. While
Interior and Reclamation have concerns over funding and budgetary
issues related to H.R. 2301, Congressman Doolittle has done much to
seek solutions and keep this issue at the forefront.
Several incidents in recent years have contributed to the
importance of a new bridge--a 1995 spillway gate failure, the Oklahoma
City Bombing, and the September 11 terrorist attacks. Keeping our dams
safe and secure is one of Reclamation's top priorities.
I commend Congressman Doolittle's foresight and leadership in
addressing the persistent traffic problems and security issues at
Folsom Dam that are both a burden and a hindrance to the citizens of
the area. I look forward to working with Congressman Doolittle, the
Subcommittee, City of Folsom, Sacramento Area Council of Governments
and other agencies to find innovative ways to resolve the funding and
authority issues that surround the building of a new bridge at Folsom
Dam.
-