[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CALIFORNIA'S SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN
DELTA: PLANNING AND PREPARING FOR
HAZARDS AND DISASTERS
=======================================================================
(112-99)
FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
AUGUST 16, 2012 (Stockton, California)
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-571 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey Columbia
GARY G. MILLER, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri BOB FILNER, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
BILLY LONG, Missouri TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BOB GIBBS, Ohio HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York LAURA RICHARDSON, California
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
Tennessee
VACANCY
------ 7
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management
JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Columbia
Arkansas, HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
Vice Chair MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BOB GIBBS, Ohio DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania BOB FILNER, California
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, (Ex Officio)
Tennessee
JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Panel 1
Hon. John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.................................................. 5
Panel 2
Robert J. Fenton, Jr., Assistant Administrator for Response,
Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management
Agency......................................................... 7
Brendan A. Murphy, Assistant Secretary, California Emergency
Management Agency.............................................. 7
Ronald E. Baldwin, Former Director of Emergency Operations, San
Joaquin County................................................. 7
Timothy Alan Simon, Commissioner, California Public Utilities
Commission..................................................... 7
Alexander R. Coate, General Manager, East Bay Municipal Utility
District....................................................... 7
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Hon. John Garamendi.............................................. 36
Robert J. Fenton, Jr............................................. 39
Brendan A. Murphy................................................ 44
Ronald E. Baldwin................................................ 48
Timothy Alan Simon............................................... 50
Alexander R. Coate............................................... 55
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Timothy Alan Simon, Commissioner, California Public Utilities
Commission, response to request from Hon. Jeff Denham, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California and
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management, for information on utility
emergency preparedness and response plans for the Delta and the
Delta levees................................................... 24
ADDITION TO THE RECORD
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, written statement.............. 64
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CALIFORNIA'S SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN
DELTA: PLANNING AND PREPARING FOR
HAZARDS AND DISASTERS
----------
THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:36 a.m., in
the San Joaquin Council of Governments Building, 555 East Weber
Avenue, Stockton, California, Hon. Jeff Denham (Chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Denham and Shuster.
Also Present: Representative McNerney.
Mr. Denham. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
order.
I want to first start by welcoming Chairman Shuster of the
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials,
and former chairman of this subcommittee, here today. One of
the things that we are talking about today are the pipelines
that run through the Delta, so I am glad you were able to join
us.
I ask at this time unanimous consent that Representative
Shuster be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at today's
hearing to offer testimony and ask questions. Without
objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Representative McNerney
be permitted to sit with the committee at today's hearing to
offer testimony and ask questions. Without objection, so
ordered.
This is Mr. McNerney's district, and we appreciate you
playing host to us today.
As a representative from California, my constituents and I
know very well how important it is to plan and prepare for
disasters. From earthquakes to floods to wildfires, good
planning and preparedness saves lives and mitigates against
damages.
That is why, as chairman of the subcommittee with
jurisdiction over FEMA and emergency management, I have held a
number of hearings focusing on improving our emergency
management capability. This Congress, I authored H.R. 2903, the
FEMA Reauthorization Act, which was voted out of the committee
in March. That bill would not only reauthorize FEMA and key
emergency management programs such as the Urban Search and
Rescue System, but would help streamline and reduce costs to
disaster assistance programs, ensuring communities can recover
more quickly following a disaster.
Today, we are here in Stockton, California, to specifically
examine planning and preparedness in Sacramento and the San
Joaquin Delta region. It is important to ensure that all levels
of Government are working together to plan for and prepare for
any hazards and disasters.
The California Delta has more than 1,000 miles of
waterways, more than 1,100 miles of levees, barrier water
supply lines, petroleum pipelines, and two inland seaports. The
Delta is the main hub for delivering fresh water to millions of
California residents in the San Francisco Bay area and southern
coastal communities of the State, along with millions of acres
of farmland of the San Joaquin Valley.
To plan for a disaster in this region, in 2008 the
California Legislature passed legislation that created the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Multi-Hazard Coordination Task
Force to make recommendations on improving, planning, and
preparedness. The task force, led by CalEMA, issued its report
January of this year. The report included recommendations
related to establishing an interagency unified command system
framework, developing an emergency preparedness and response
strategy, and ensuring all hazards training and exercises. Many
of these recommendations require close coordination with FEMA,
the State and local communities, as well as those in charge of
our infrastructure and utilities.
That is why I am pleased to have such a diverse panel of
witnesses with us here today. I look forward to hearing from
the witnesses on how they are able to plan, prepare for hazards
and disasters here in the Delta.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today.
At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. McNerney for an
opening statement.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today we will discuss a critical issue to the Delta
communities, the ability to best prevent and respond to natural
disasters, particularly floods. As we know, the Delta is a
unique and invaluable resource for the region's farmers,
families and small businesses. Furthermore, much of California
relies on the Delta sustainability.
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Multi-Hazard Coordination
Task Force's report on emergency preparedness highlighted the
ongoing need to prepare for natural disasters. Achieving this
goal requires coordination between local, State and Federal
agencies, as well as first responders and the community at
large. I want to thank the task force for its work on this
important issue.
As the task force's report indicated, there are many
components that lead to successful emergency response plans.
Today we are focusing on preparation and prevention for the
Delta. Maintaining levee safety, sustainability and
improvements is at the core of preventing floods. Multiple
reports and studies have reinforced not only the cost-benefit
of levee improvements, a top priority for nearly every Delta
county, but also that this investment enhances the long-term
stability of water quality and water delivery for people
throughout the State.
Additionally, agriculture is a multibillion-dollar industry
that depends on the stability of the Delta. A lack of long-term
Delta levee management will result in higher flood insurance
costs for the people we represent. Disaster preparedness and
mitigation not only protects the livelihood of our region and
its residents but also benefits the State's economy.
I recognize that levee improvements are only one portion of
the issue we are discussing today. The task force also reports
on one obstacle that we all know very well, and that is the
funding. All levels of Government are battling deficits and a
lack of resources. Whether it is to develop a multiagency
coordination system, implement communication plans, or continue
existing efforts, counties are struggling to find the necessary
resources to execute these policies. We must be united in our
goal to ensure that the Delta region is able to quickly respond
to and prepare for any natural disasters. At a time when our
budgets are already stretched thin, we must prioritize.
Preventing a disaster that may devastate our families, homes,
and economic livelihood should be at the very top of our list.
We must focus our investment on strengthening our levees
and shoring up our safety, not spending money on poorly planned
new projects.
There is still much work to be done on this issue, and the
task force's report is an important step in the right
direction. I look forward to everyone's testimony today, and I
am ready to find commonsense ways for all of us to protect the
Delta and its residents.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having me here today.
Thanks, Mr. McNerney, for hosting us here in your district.
I see my colleague from the Armed Services Committee, Mr.
Garamendi, here today.
This is my first trip to Stockton. On the trip--ride over
here, I was surprised, actually shocked to see the size of the
port you have here in Stockton. When they said there was a
port, I expected to see some little boats floating around, but
it is a significant port and a significant asset for a
community 60 or 70 or 80 miles inland from the coast. That is
something that, again, surprised you had it, but as Jerry and I
spoke here a little bit, what a great asset.
You look all over this country--I am off track here a
little bit, but I am so taken with it that I just want to say
this. You have a port inland, and in this country in
California, Pennsylvania, the south and southern coast, all
those ports right on the coastline are very congested, very
difficult to get shipping products in and out of there, to get
them on the boat to the truck, to the train. So you really have
a great asset, and I would urge you to continue to develop it
and keep it open, keep that channel deep enough to bring those
big boats in here. It helps the economy of this area, but it
helps the economy of the United States.
Again, I want to thank my colleague, Chairman Denham, for
holding this important hearing, and also his great work that he
has done as the subcommittee chairman. He is leading the
fight--I think everybody by now has seen what is going on at
the GSA, and it is Jeff Denham who is the guy leading the
charge, trying to push back on that waste and abuse that is
occurring at the GSA. So he has done a great job.
If you haven't seen it on the news, you have probably seen
Chairman Denham on the news railing about it. But he is doing
absolutely the right thing.
But it is important that we have this hearing today because
of the nature of hazards that come to California--earthquakes,
floods, wildfires. You name it, California has to prepare for
it. The Chairman has assured me that none of that is going to
occur today while I am here, and I am going to hold you to
that.
But as a Californian, he knows the importance to plan and
prepare for disasters, and he has held a number of these
hearings focusing on improving emergency preparedness. As a
former chairman of this subcommittee, and I was a member also
of the special panel that we investigated the preparation and
response to Hurricane Katrina, so I am very familiar with the
critical importance of preparedness, effective emergency
management, and the consequences of when they do not work as
they should.
Our work at the time resulted in the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act, which authorized a national preparedness
system, and among many things, it authorized FEMA for the first
time in the legislation.
One of the things, as I studied the area here, there is a
lot of similarities between the Delta and the New Orleans
region, the main thing being that you have a lot of areas that
are below sea level, which can cause terrible, terrible
problems, as we saw in New Orleans.
So I am proud to be working with Mr. Denham, who is the
author of H.R. 2903, which is the FEMA Reauthorization Act. It
is out of committee. We hope to get it on the Floor in
September and pass it out of suspension, because I think it is
one of those pieces of legislation that people from the Delta,
people from New Orleans, people from all over the country can
get behind to make sure that we have a robust authorization in
place, especially as we are now in the hurricane season on the
east coast.
As Mr. Denham has pointed out here in Stockton today,
specifically we are examining planning preparedness for the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region. So I look forward to
hearing from all of our witnesses----
Mr. McNerney. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield?
Mr. Shuster. Yes, sir.
Mr. McNerney. I just wanted to thank you for your comments
on the Delta. The Delta is well known to this district as being
an economic driver, and it is important that someone from out
of State can come here and see what a resource that is for our
community, and we can work together to make sure that the Delta
continues to receive resources and gets dredged once in a
while, creates jobs for our region. So thank you for that
comment.
Mr. Shuster. Absolutely, and I think it is important that I
realize it, coming from Pennsylvania. I know the Central Valley
is the bread basket of probably the world. I was in a factory a
couple of years ago that produced tomato sauce, and I said
where do you get your tomatoes? And they said, well, everybody
gets their tomatoes from the Central Valley.
So this is important not only to California but to the
United States and to the world. So again, I appreciate it, and
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Denham. Again, I would like to welcome our witnesses
here today. Our first witness this morning is the Honorable
John Garamendi.
I ask unanimous consent that our witness' full statement be
included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
Since your written testimony has been made a part of the
record, the subcommittee would request that you limit your oral
testimony to 5 minutes.
Mr. Garamendi, you may proceed. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Chairman Denham.
Mr. Shuster, thank you for coming to California. You are
quite correct about the deep water, about the port here. I will
also remind you that we have requests for money to deepen the
channel. I am sure that since you are on both the House Armed
Services and the Transportation Committee, you will take that
into consideration and provide the opportunity for even more
ships to come not only to Stockton but to Sacramento. And some
day, we will take you on a tour of the Delta, perhaps before
you leave. You will enjoy it. It is an extraordinary place.
I have had the pleasure since 1974 of representing the
Delta in one or another forms, as a member of the California
Legislature, later as an insurance commissioner dealing with
emergencies here in the Delta, and then at the Department of
the Interior, where I had specific responsibility for the water
and the Delta here in California. More recently, I do represent
the Delta in the 10th Congressional District.
We have seen it over the years. We have seen the
emergencies. We have seen the Delta levee breaks beginning back
in, for me, 1975-1976, and it is ongoing. The importance of
this hearing cannot be underestimated. It is critical that you
carry out the recommendations, that the Federal Government
carry out its part of the recommendations that have been put
forth by the task force. They are good recommendations. They
call for coordination. They call for enhanced training and
preparation. All of that is critically important.
It also calls for money. We cannot ignore it. We are going
to pay earlier, or we are going to pay late. Paying late, you
are going to pay a lot more, which brings me to the point that
I would like to bring to the attention of this committee, since
you are the infrastructure and transportation committee.
It is critically important that we pay attention to the
infrastructure needs of the Delta. The levees in the Delta are
old. They were basically agricultural levees built over the
last century or so. They were never designed to deal with the
current pressure that is put on the levees both because of the
subsidence of the interior islands, as well as the increased
water flows.
So we need to deal with that. Otherwise, the entire Delta
could be at risk from a levee break at one of the key islands.
The State spent time, and the Federal Government through the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, have spent a
lot of time studying the Delta. They have spent precious little
time spending money on repairing the levees of the Delta,
except when a levee breaks, and then a lot of money is spent.
You mentioned lessons learned from New Orleans. Well, the
lesson, at least one of the lessons from New Orleans is prevent
the levee failure. That is, take early action, build the levee
properly, and prevent the levee failure. That same lesson needs
to be applied here in California.
We also are dealing with a very significant change in the
very nature of the Delta. This is a proposal that has been
ongoing for some time, or at least a study that has been
ongoing for some time called the Bay Delta Conservation
Planning Process, what to do with the water system in the
Delta, the dual goals of water delivery to those folks south of
the Delta pumps at Tracy, and the environment and the economy
and agriculture of the Delta itself.
A proposal hit the street a month-and-a-half ago by the
Governor and by the Department of the Interior that will have
profound effect on the Delta. It is a dual conveyance proposal,
one that calls for the creation of two tunnels, 15,000 cubic
feet per second capacity, that would take water out of the
Sacramento River north of the Delta and deliver it to the
pumps.
It is a dual system, one that would also take water from
the Delta as it presently occurs. That pumping from the Delta
has gone on for some 60 years by the Federal Government, and a
little less by the State government, using the Delta levees as
a plumbing system to deliver water from the Sacramento to the
pumps at Tracy.
That plumbing system has not been maintained. Essentially,
it has been a plumbing system that has occurred for more than
half a century with precious little maintenance of the levees,
which are the essential elements of that plumbing system. We
need to address that. It is essential that in going forward,
that the Federal Government and the State government address
the Delta levee maintenance issue. Otherwise, we are going to
spend forever dealing with emergencies.
The cost of repairing the Delta levees is thought to be
somewhere between $2 and $4 billion. The cost of an emergency
is somewhere between $8 and $16 billion. That is a catastrophic
failure. It would make sense to spend money on prevention
rather than in dealing with the emergency, another lesson from
New Orleans.
If I might take another minute, Mr. Chairman, with your
permission.
So as we move forward here with this hearing, you are
dealing essentially with how to deal with an emergency. I want
to draw your attention to how to prevent the emergency from
happening in the first place.
It is incumbent upon those who use the Delta--that is, the
farmers and communities in the Delta--to maintain their levees,
and they have. It is also incumbent upon the Federal and the
State governments who also use the Delta levees to do its share
in maintaining those levees. It is cost effective. It is wise.
Its importance on human life and economic life cannot be
understated.
So I want you to leave this hearing today with at least an
understanding, if not a commitment, to preventing an emergency,
to spend the money in prevention that is upgrading the levees
to a standard that can withstand both the pressure of a flood,
as well as the potential of an earthquake. It is the cheapest
possible investment, prevention, upgrading those levees.
It is also essential in any water system that the State
might comprehend in the future, whether it is a dual tunnel or
a continuing pumping through the Delta, that the levees must be
maintained, and it is the responsibility of those who use the
Delta levees as a plumbing system to maintain those levees.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the forbearance and
the extra minute.
Mr. Denham. Thank you for your testimony this morning.
At this time, we will call up our second panel.
On the panel is Mr. Robert Fenton, Jr., assistant
administrator for response, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FEMA; Mr. Brendan Murphy, assistant secretary,
California Emergency Management Agency, CalEMA; Ron Baldwin,
former director of emergency operations for San Joaquin County;
Timothy Alan Simon, commissioner, California Public Utilities
Commission; and Mr. Alexander Coate, general manager, East Bay
Municipal Utility District.
I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
Since your testimony has been made a part of the record, we
would ask you to keep your oral testimony to 5 minutes.
Mr. Fenton, you may proceed.
TESTIMONIES OF ROBERT J. FENTON, JR., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR RESPONSE, OFFICE OF RESPONSE AND RECOVERY, FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; BRENDAN A. MURPHY, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; RONALD E.
BALDWIN, FORMER DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY OPERATIONS, SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY; TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON, COMMISSIONER, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION; ALEXANDER R. COATE, GENERAL MANAGER, EAST
BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
Mr. Fenton. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. My name is Robert Fenton. I am the assistant
administrator for response. As a fifth generation San
Franciscan, I have spent a lot of time in the California Delta
region. I came to my current role in 2009 after 13 years of
service with FEMA's Region IX in our Oakland office, which
serves not only California but the States of Arizona, Nevada,
Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, and other U.S. interests.
During that time, I supported the response to major floods
in the California Delta in both 1997 and 1998, and I appreciate
the opportunity to return home to discuss FEMA's support of
current planning and preparedness efforts in this region.
As you know, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a region
where two of California's largest rivers meet. Over 1,100 miles
of levees created 57 leveed island tracts, some of whose
surface can be 20 feet or more below the outside water level.
Two-thirds of all Californians, about 23 million people, and
millions of acres of irrigated farmland rely on the Delta for
water. Disruption of this water flow due to a disaster would
have a devastating impact on California and would create widely
felt impacts across the Nation.
Through our FEMA Region IX Office, FEMA and our partners
are deeply engaged in addressing the long-term water-related
issues in California through a whole-community approach. This
approach to emergency management engages not only the Federal,
State, local, tribal and territorial governments, but also the
private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and the public
to collectively understand and address the community needs.
FEMA has joined with partners across this whole community to
implement cooperative policies that support adequate, safe, and
dependable water supplies for the people, businesses, and
institutions of not just California, but also Arizona, Nevada,
Hawaii, Guam, and other U.S. interests. This engagement is
achieved primarily through water-focused joint planning efforts
and exercises with our partners.
Most recently, FEMA and our partners have conducted these
planning efforts in support of Presidential Policy Directive 8,
which directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a
national preparedness system that defines the core capabilities
necessary for the Nation to prepare for incidents of greatest
risk. This system will include a series of integrated national
planning frameworks covering prevention, protection,
mitigation, response, and recovery, and will inform planning in
support of these frameworks at every level of Government
through a national planning system.
As we work to implement PPD-8, our planning assumptions for
catastrophic disasters continue to be based on worst-case
scenarios. They are designed to challenge preparedness at all
levels and force innovative, nontraditional solutions as part
of the response and recovery strategy to such events. FEMA and
our partners seek to identify the highest priority tasks
necessary to save and sustain lives and stabilize a
catastrophic incident during the critical first 72 hours, and
we work across all segments of the society to identify how we
can collectively achieve these outcomes.
FEMA also conducts regional catastrophic planning to
address area-specific disaster scenarios which present greater
likelihoods of occurrence based on location. Much of this work
is coordinated through our Regional Interagency Steering
Committees, which are senior-level entities that address issues
related to response and recovery in all of FEMA's 10 regions.
In California, the San Francisco Bay Area Earthquake
Response Plan, published in 2008, and the Southern California
Catastrophic Earthquake Response Plan, published in December
2010, are based on input from thousands of emergency management
professionals and describe the joint State and Federal response
to catastrophic earthquakes. These plans address the potential
damage to water infrastructure systems, including distribution,
treatment, and sewage systems.
In addition, the Cascadia Subduction Zone Planning Project
represents a whole-community partnership to develop a disaster
response plan based on a magnitude 9.0 earthquake along the
Cascadia Subduction Zone. This disaster response plan describes
activities, including collaborative efforts, to be implemented
in the immediate aftermath of an earthquake along the
subduction zone.
In conjunction with broad-based planning efforts like our
catastrophic and hazard-specific planning, FEMA also continues
to support the State of California in preparing for
catastrophic disasters in the densely populated Los Angeles and
San Francisco metropolitan areas. Essential to these efforts is
a shared and coherent analysis of threats to potable water
production and distribution in communities at risk for severe
ground-shaking.
In addition to our planning efforts, FEMA brings together
emergency management professionals across the whole community
to improve preparedness by exercising plans. As part of the
2008 California statewide Golden Guardian Exercise, FEMA and
the California Emergency Management Agency joined other State,
local, tribal, governmental, and nongovernmental stakeholders
exercising the San Francisco Bay Area Earthquake Plan. This
year's Golden Guardian Exercise includes a test of the Southern
California Catastrophic Earthquake Response Plan, including the
establishment of a water conveyance task force to assist in the
restoration of potable water deliveries following a magnitude
7.8 earthquake.
Finally, to further promote awareness and preparedness,
FEMA and CalEMA have established a Memorandum of Understanding
related to disaster assistance in the Delta area. The MOU
establishes eligibility for FEMA's Public Assistance program in
the special reclamation districts for the Delta area. The MOU
also identifies responsibilities of FEMA, CalEMA, and the
reclamation districts during and after an event.
FEMA's preparedness efforts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta area are exemplified by the water-focused joint planning
and exercises that occur there regularly. By engaging the whole
community in catastrophic, all-hazards, and hazard-specific
planning, and in the exercises that test and evaluate these
plans, we continue to address the long-term water-related
issues in California. Thank you.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Shuster
and Congressman McNerney. Thank you for allowing me the
opportunity to once again testify before this committee and
provide testimony today regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta.
The California Emergency Management Agency is responsible
for coordinating the State's overall preparedness efforts and
enhancing our capabilities for both intentional and natural
disasters. CalEMA coordinates homeland security and emergency
response under the mission of saving lives and reducing
property loss during times of disaster and works to expedite
recovery from the effects of disasters.
In coordination with the National Preparedness Goal,
California's overall preparedness system is comprised of five
mission areas: prevention, protection, mitigation, response,
and recovery. One of the significant lessons we have learned is
that we must focus our investments on disaster preparedness
efforts so that we can mitigate the devastation of human
suffering and financial loss for future generations. We have
learned that we must invest financial resources on the front
end to ensure that our infrastructure is secure, that early
warning systems are in place, and that the public is well-
informed about potential risks and have the tools they need to
prepare themselves and their families for when disaster
strikes.
As you are all aware, California is faced with a daunting
list of disaster risks. Much like the likelihood of a
catastrophic earthquake, the daunting threat and risk of a
catastrophic flood incident within the California Delta is not
just real, but it will happen. As our scientists warn, it is
not a matter of if it will occur, it's just a matter of when.
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Emergency Preparedness Act
of 2008 required CalEMA to establish the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta Multi-Hazard Coordination Task Force. The Task Force was
comprised of CalEMA, the Delta Protection Commission, the
California Department of Water Resources, and the five counties
within the Delta region: Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin,
Solano, and Yolo.
The mission of the task force was to develop
recommendations to improve the quality and effectiveness of an
all-hazard emergency response in the Delta region, while
maintaining a level of readiness consistent with identified
threats and our current capabilities. As a result of the
recommendations and efforts of this task force, we have worked
with our partner agencies to make significant strides towards
these efforts.
We adopted and implemented a Delta Multiagency Coordination
System which was successfully exercised during the 2011 Golden
Guardian Full-Scale Exercise to test the State's ability to
allocate scarce resources throughout the Delta region during a
catastrophic flood scenario. The exercise focused on preparing
for, responding to, and recovering from a catastrophic flood in
the northern region and included more than 5,000 local,
regional, State and Federal responders, as well as State
agencies and nonprofit emergency response and private industry
partners who participated in various events throughout the 3-
day exercise.
The Delta MACS document is in the process of being
integrated into statewide procedures to ensure maximum
efficiency and standardization for emergency response with our
key partners, including local stakeholders, the California
National Guard, and the California Department of Water
Resources.
CalEMA held a regional mass evacuation tabletop exercise on
January 11, 2012, to provide participants an opportunity to
evaluate their current response concepts, plans, policies,
procedures, and capabilities for notification, evacuation, and
mass care and sheltering in response to a flood-based scenario.
This exercise was a regional collaboration between CalEMA and
its local and State partners and will serve towards the
development of a regional mass evacuation plan in relation to
the Delta flood scenario.
The California Delta region also has an Interoperable
Communications Plan that was updated in February of 2011, and
these documents for interoperable communications resources are
available within the designated area. The plan also includes
specifics such as who controls each resource, along with the
rules of use and/or operational procedures for the activation
and deactivation of those resources.
For flood and evacuation contingency mapping, CalEMA, in
direct partnership with the California Department of Water
Resources and other State and local stakeholders, participated
in a project led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which
identified resources and facilities in the Delta, or those that
could be easily deployed to the Delta, for any emergency
response operation during a flood event. As part of this
effort, existing shelter and evacuation plans were reviewed to
recognize resources and opportunities available for response
and identify weaknesses and needs. A series of flood
contingency maps were prepared to highlight the identified
resources and outline general emergency response procedures.
We all know the work we do is faced with uncertainties and
we must continue to work together to ensure our resources are
put to the best use possible. California continues to be
recognized as a national leader in homeland security and
emergency preparedness, and with your support we will continue
to work tirelessly to advance the efforts which we believe will
provide the greatest benefit to our State and Nation.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Baldwin.
Mr. Baldwin. I'll get this turned on. Is it on now?
Mr. Denham. There we go.
Mr. Baldwin. I'm Ron Baldwin, former director of emergency
operations for San Joaquin County for nearly 30 years. I sat on
the task force and participated in all the discussions leading
to the issuance of the report. I'll just make two brief
comments to supplement my written testimony.
I believe that if the committee wants to delve into the
specific recommendations of the report, I again encourage you
to distinguish between the two key separate components of
emergency flood response. There are those activities that most
people equate with the words ``emergency response'':
evacuation, rescue, shelter, and there is the ``flood fight.''
The flood fight is those actions to prevent levee failure
during a flood, and if a levee fails it is those engineering
actions to limit the extent, the depth, and/or the duration of
the flood.
It is important to make that distinction for two reasons.
The practical reason is that there are different players and
different issues in each. The second is because if I learned
anything in 30 years and seven floods, it is that if we want to
improve flood response, our prime focus has to be on the flood
fight. If we are as efficient and effective as possible in
preventing levee failure once the flood comes, and if we are as
efficient and effective in limiting the physical extent, depth
and duration of the flood if a levee breaks, then we prevent or
physically limit the tragedy and the damage. If we do the other
functions well, that is important, but we only ameliorate the
tragedy.
I would include in the idea--I mentioned three specific
recommendations of the report that bear on that: Delta MACS, or
the idea of regional planning; flood contingency mapping or
defense indepth; and the flood fight emergency funding
mechanism. I would also include the idea of secondary defenses
behind some of our critical infrastructure that is protected by
levees in this country.
I will make a rather bold statement. In my experience--I
can do that; I am retired. In my experience in this country, we
are not as well prepared for the flood fight as we could be.
The second point I will make is we now have a strategy.
This is very unique, and I think the legislature recognized the
importance of the Delta. It isn't done for everything
everywhere. I mean, we have a strategy that was developed for
improving response in the Delta, and I am assuming that all
agencies and levels of Government accept that strategy and want
to move forward. I just mentioned two good public
administration steps that need to be taken now.
The first question is funding. I was brought up, how do we
fund the implementation of the strategy? Normally that is a
killer, right? In this case, there are actually quite a bit of
funds that are flowing down from quite a bit of different
sources that are going into flood or could go into flood
preparedness.
So the question is how is the funding going to tie in with
the strategy, and at some point we would want to see how that
is going to happen. I mean, if the Corps has money, what are
you going to do about the strategy? So we don't end up 2 or 3
years down the road with duplication of effort or, oops, we
forgot to implement something in the strategy, or whatever. So
we need to work out the implementation fiscally, and it is an
historic moment. We have the funds to do it and we have the
strategy to move ahead.
The second issue really is also good public administration.
It is a combination of standards. How do we know we got there?
The task force did its job. We have a strategy. It is very
general. It is very vague. You could interpret it 50 million
different ways while saying, well, we got there.
There needs to be a process of multiple agency review as we
move through the strategy with the State and Federal
Governments, and local governments move through the strategy,
to say, yes, we finished this, and it meets the standards that
we want, so we have something we can report back in 3 or 4
years and say, yes, we set some standards for what it means to
have a flood contingency map, we met some standards for what it
means to have a MACS, and through a multiagency process we
confirmed that that actually happened and meets the standards
that are either out there or that we developed.
So I think those are important as we move, and this is a
critical point to establish that, and I will actually finish
about a minute early on my statement.
Mr. Denham. You set an example for everybody else.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Baldwin.
Mr. Simon.
Mr. Simon. Thank you. Is my mic on? OK.
Good morning, Chairman Denham and distinguished members of
the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to speak.
The California Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC, is
responsible for the safety and security of critical utility
infrastructure for water, natural gas, electricity,
communications, and rail within the Delta and throughout the
State.
The CPUC's authority over investor-owned utility
infrastructure in the Delta includes pipelines carrying natural
gas for residential, commercial, and industrial use, as well as
electric generation. As chair of the Committee on Gas for the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and a
member of the Pipeline Safety Task Force for the U.S.
Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, I have a particular concern with
pipeline safety.
The Delta levees protect natural gas production and
pipeline facilities throughout the Delta. Many gas and oil
production wells are located here, and the region's electric
utility, Pacific Gas and Electric, or PG&E, has transmission
and distribution pipelines running throughout the Delta to
transport gas from northern California and from out of State.
PG&E also has pipelines that interconnect its own system,
diverting gas to and from underground storage facilities
located on islands in the Delta such as the McDonald Island gas
storage field.
Although some facilities are designed to withstand various
levels of irrigation and flooding for local agricultural needs,
the gas production and transportation infrastructure could be
damaged if it is not designed for floodwater levels from levee
breaks. Generally, high-pressure pipelines are not affected by
the presence of some water near the line, but unanticipated
flooding that would otherwise be averted by the levees could
cause soil erosion under the pipelines. Excess water around
pipelines could also increase the buoyancy of some of these
pipelines. These conditions, along with significant increases
in water levels above the pipeline, could create stresses which
may not have been factored into the pipeline's original
designs.
In response to the horrific pipeline rupture and explosion
in San Bruno, California, in fall 2010, the CPUC opened a
rulemaking proceeding to establish a new model of natural gas
pipeline safety regulation, including expanding our emergency
and disaster planning coordination with local officials. The
CPUC also increased the scope of PG&E's gas transmission and
storage rate case to include a safety phase on PG&E's disaster
and emergency plans, shut-off valve testing and monitoring,
changes to capital project priorities, safety procedures, and
relationships with first responders. I was the assigned
commissioner for that proceeding.
The gas storage proceeding was the first to establish
protocols requiring utilities to coordinate with first
responders during emergencies. In addition to addressing
pipeline safety, the CPUC has moved to ensure the safety
factors of electrical and telephone poles so that they are
strong enough to withstand high winds, flooding, and other
disasters.
In the Joint Pole Safety rulemaking, the commission has
adopted pole loading rules and will address pole structural
strength in the next phase, that being Phase III, of this
rulemaking.
The CPUC also has an essential role in ensuring the
reliability of emergency communications during disasters.
Inspired in large part by Hurricane Katrina and the WARN Act,
in 2006 the California Legislature adopted AB 2393, which
required the CPUC to address communication systems' backup
power needs. Unlike copper telephone wires, fiber optic cable,
coaxial cable, and other facilities do not provide warm-line
power to customer telephones. In the Backup Power proceeding,
the CPUC adopted customer education guidelines on the backup
power needs and limitations of facilities-based residential
telephone services, as well as service provider
responsibilities in power outages.
CPUC jurisdiction has been an issue in the Joint Pole
Safety proceeding and others. One of the pillars of the CPUC's
fundamental regulatory responsibility is to enforce core safety
guidelines. This commission needs the ability to protect and
insure the functioning of communication infrastructure during
emergencies. This role is clearly within the authority of the
CPUC and rooted in the historic police powers of the State.
Some may believe that the transition from the traditional
telephone system to Internet Protocol communications systems
may jeopardize the authority of State utility commissions in
this area. I urge Congress to take a close look at this issue.
States retain jurisdiction over the health, safety, and
welfare of their citizens, and it is the position of my office
that the CPUC has now and will continue to have jurisdiction
over the communications infrastructure for public safety
purposes.
With that said, I thank you for this time.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Simon.
Mr. Coate.
Mr. Coate. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I
appreciate very much the opportunity to provide testimony this
morning on the importance of emergency preparedness and
response. My name is Alexander Coate. I am the general manager
for the East Bay Municipal Utility District, and I appreciate
very much the opportunity to provide testimony on the vital
role that Government plays in emergency preparedness and
response in the Delta.
This morning I would like to focus on the real impacts of
levee failure and the actions we recommend be considered by
this committee.
Through direct experience we have learned some important
lessons on emergency preparedness that we believe can help
inform future discussions. Levees that protect the lifeline of
our water system, the Mokelumne aqueducts, have failed three
times since 1980. The most recent failure occurred on June 3rd,
2004. It was a clear day, and with no warning, the Upper Jones
Tract levee along Middle River failed. There was no
precipitating event such as an earthquake or a storm. The levee
simply gave way to the water that it held back.
Ultimately, both the Upper and Lower Jones Tract islands
were inundated with flood waters, partially submerging our
aqueducts. I have a photograph over here that shows you what
that looked like after the flood had occurred.
This was a true emergency for East Bay MUD. Over 90 percent
of the drinking water we supply to 1.3 million people is
transported through these aqueducts. They are also connected to
the San Francisco, Contra Costa and Dublin San Ramon Services
District water systems.
A failure of the aqueducts would interrupt the East Bay's
water supply and leave the region with, at most, 6 months'
worth of water under severe rationing conditions.
First responders like East Bay MUD quickly depleted their
available resources, and we were forced to stand by until
additional resources were made available.
Response times were delayed because field staff were not
empowered to act and had to wait for authorization. Aqueducts
were threatened by massive debris, and authorizations were
received only in the nick of time to prevent that debris from
hitting the aqueducts and rupturing them.
You can see after draining, there is a bus there. That bus
almost hit the aqueducts.
Once the flood waters were pumped out, the aqueducts were
found to be intact, but re-coating was necessary at a cost of
$10 million.
The key lesson that we learned from the failure of the
Jones Tract levee is the importance of having a well-
coordinated emergency action plan that includes a commitment by
State and Federal agencies to provide resources and funding to
repair the levees. Because the consequences of delaying action
after a levee break can be catastrophic, the extent of the
Federal and State commitment should be known and communicated
in advance so that local agency staff are empowered to respond.
I highlight this event because it provides a case history
of the real consequences that can result from indecision and
inadequate policy and collaboration among all levels of
Government.
The 51 miles of levees that protect East Bay MUD's
aqueducts in the Delta also protect other critical
infrastructure, some that we have discussed here today. That
includes the State and Federal export pumps, the Contra Costa
Water District intakes, State Highway 4, Kinder Morgan
Petroleum Pipeline, PG&E pipelines, and the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe rail lines. An immediate response to future levee
failures will be critical to minimize costs and prevent
significant interruptions of major services.
We know from experience that the threat of future failures
in the Delta is real, and EBMUD has taken multiple actions to
protect its facilities, including significant investments in
levee improvements, seismic retrofit of our aqueducts,
constructing interconnections between our three aqueducts to
improve resiliency, providing interties with other water
systems in our service area, implementing aggressive water
conservation and recycling to reduce our dependence on supplies
rolling through the Delta.
Despite the tremendous amount of work that we and others
have done to prepare for emergencies, much more could be done
if additional resources were available.
First, we believe a coordinated State and Federal response
plan is vital to ensure a rapid emergency response.
Second, we hope that when your committee renews the Water
Resource Development Act, you will give consideration to the
approaches that we implemented. We recommend that a Federal
program to assist such efforts be authorized. We urge you to
view emergency preparedness in the broadest sense, not only to
include levee repair and material stockpiling, but also efforts
to diversify and increase the reliability of water supplies,
and to bolster infrastructure.
WRDA funding has been very important to us in developing
alternative water supplies through recycling, and we view WRDA
as a key vehicle to develop effective Federal policy to support
local emergency preparedness efforts.
Finally, we recommend that you consider funding of levee
improvements to meet the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Public
Law 84-99 Standard, and in so doing reduce the risk of
failures, and also funding for stockpiling of emergency
response materials.
And with that, Chairman and members of the committee, I
very much appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
I thank all of our witnesses for your opening statements.
We are going to have several rounds of questioning this
morning. This is one of those topics that we could have a whole
series of hearings on, everything from the threats to the task
force process, the planning and preparedness, what the actual
role of FEMA is, the mass evacuation if there was a
catastrophic disaster, and then the flood and evacuation
contingency planning.
Here in the Delta, we have some old pipelines, oil and gas,
that could devastate our water supply. We certainly have a
water supply that not only supports our agriculture industry
but supports the water supply for the larger metropolitan areas
as well.
But the biggest issue here is you have a couple of very
large communities that are below sea level, and a break in the
levees could see something worse than what we saw with Katrina.
And so as chair of this committee, I want to make sure that
not only are we prepared and doing some of the important repair
work that needs to be done, but as we develop a new FEMA plan,
that we are actually taking into consideration the flood-type
situations that we saw in Katrina and learn from past
experiences in making sure that we are not seeing the same
challenges right here in our home State.
So I will start off this morning. Mr. Baldwin, you
mentioned the importance of immediate funding for flood
fighting. Do you think the agreement with FEMA will allow a
rapid response if such a catastrophe does arise?
Mr. Baldwin. I think there needs to be a very--the problem
is that nobody budgets for these floods. As far as the flood
fight, we have some very expensive responses. I mean, it is not
a matter of getting a few more fire engines or something. You
might have to cut a contract with an engineering firm for $1
million to buttress the levee or something.
What we end up doing is we get out there and the
reclamation district, which is naturally the one that should
respond, doesn't have the cash flow. So the agencies that do
have the funds or potentially could get the funds are farther
up the chain, State or Federal, and so it takes more time for
them to get going. Sometimes we end up out there, and Jones
Tract was great. I was the one sitting out there within an hour
of that break, and we are sort of arguing over who can fund it,
who can act. We know what we need to do, but who can actually
take the action?
There are some issues with FEMA, jurisdictional issues
about reimbursement. I could go into a lot.
So what we need to do is FEMA comes in after the disaster
and helps reimburse costs, and that is great, under the
Stafford Act. But what we need is we need to get cash flow
going at the time of the emergency for the flood fight so that
the agency's best placed act, when we know, we all jointly
agree, here is a problem and we need to deal with it, can
actually get it going.
So we have recommended, and the task force recommended, we
said we have to have that mechanism. It is not an agreement. It
is not money coming later. When that flood starts, we have to
have funds. Now, there has been talk about an emergency
response fund for the flood operation center at DWR. There is
talk about using the California Disaster Assistance Act to push
money out. It could be an independent fund, and all that could
be worked out.
But the issue is it is not money coming after in 48 hours.
It has got to be funds that can break that deadlock and we can
actually respond to the problem and get it done by the agency
best placed to do it. It could be the Corps. It could be DWR.
It could be the reclamation district.
Mr. Denham. If there was a catastrophe today, would you
anticipate delays in funding?
Mr. Baldwin. I would anticipate that I have not seen a
clear-cut, unambiguous solution that would guarantee in my mind
that we could not run into that problem again. Sometimes it
works, sometimes it doesn't, but I think it is--I mentioned in
my testimony, I think it is absolutely critical. We have got to
have--we can't have 24-hour delays waiting to respond to a
levee problem for bureaucratic reasons. We have got to have the
cash flow, and it has got to go to the agency.
It is in the task force recommendation. I haven't seen the
solution that tells me that when the flood comes tomorrow, we
will respond as promptly as possible, we will get the levee
fixed, which will save FEMA and everyone else millions of
dollars, and we will respond to that.
Can I add one last point? FEMA has a little regulation in
their reimbursement which makes sense, but it doesn't make
sense. They only reimburse you the costs for expenses incurred
within your jurisdiction. So if the county goes on a levee, the
levee is in the jurisdiction of the reclamation district. We
are endangering our ability to reclaim any reimbursement from
FEMA due to that regulation. San Joaquin County has had a
legislative platform for years saying we ought to adjust that.
If an agency goes on another jurisdiction and saves a levee and
there is $100 million in private assistance payouts, then they
shouldn't have any question in their mind that they are going
to get whatever legitimate reimbursement they should get,
because otherwise you create a disincentive for action, and
that is what we need.
Jones Tract--I'm sorry. Last thought. Jones Tract, we know
what has to be done. So we go through this 24-hour thing, and
the Corps says, OK, we are going to do this much. We will put
the levee up, but we know we have to rock it, and we are not
going to do that. So then we have another argument. OK, who is
going to put the rock on it? We need to put rock on, or this
thing will wash away. The next thing you know, CalTrans raises
their hand and says we will do it, $2 million or something like
that. Subsequently, they had a heck of a time getting
assistance because of that regulation.
I think, again, it is a regulation that makes sense on the
face of it, but it probably should be looked at to see if we
can't speed up those kinds of decisive actions and then make
sure that the funds are there so that we respond and get it
done.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Baldwin.
Mr. Murphy, thanks again for testifying in front of this
committee once again. Is CalEMA, is it ready for a flood or an
earthquake in this area?
Mr. Murphy. I think the easy answer is--it is great for me
to sit up here and say absolutely, we are absolutely ready. But
the reality is we have done a lot of planning, and there is
still more work to be done in working out the intricacies of
response, especially the point that Mr. Baldwin just made,
which is when you are looking at a natural levee failure in
this State, you have a multilayered response. Most of those
levees are owned by reclamation districts that are located
inside of counties and/or cities.
So your buildup is across many layers of Government up to
the top. We do have some regulations and some other things that
probably could be better worked out in the scenarios that we
have seen in the past.
The easy answer is yes. As far as response goes, we have
always been able to respond. But the first and foremost part is
saving lives. The second piece is saving property. And I think,
to the point of Mr. Baldwin, we could be better at saving
property if we tweaked a few criteria and moved ourselves
ahead, and I think inside the State of California we have been
working at that, and that is what you see in the task force
recommendations. Those are some of the thought processes that
we have had to move ourselves forward and to be an action-
oriented response that does save property.
Saving lives is clearly the first priority. But that
second, especially when you are talking levees and how quickly
you lose property, that has got to be and is a much higher
priority in our moving forward, in our planning going forward.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Fenton, same question. Is FEMA ready for a catastrophic
response in this area--earthquake, flooding?
Mr. Fenton. Sure.
Mr. Denham. Destroying the pipelines that go through the
Delta?
Mr. Fenton. Well, I think we are as ready as we can be. It
is a complex issue as far as the Delta and exactly what we
need. What we have done is built plans that I have spoken
about. In fact, today we are down in southern California
exercising some of those plans, and we have joined with
Federal, State, local government and the private sector to look
at capabilities across the area.
I think as we start to understand the risks to the
communities better--understand what the impacts may be--we have
been focused on looking at where the capability is required to
respond to an event like this, where those capabilities exist
at the local, State and Federal level. It is a dynamic effort,
meaning the capabilities change at every level of Government
every year based on budget.
So we continue to do that to ensure that we will have the
capabilities there. We continue to look at improving our
policies to increase the speed of our assistance to
communities, and also to make sure that communities understand
the risks within their environments. So we continue to work in
those areas.
But I think the authorities that we gained after Katrina
significantly helped FEMA to build the capability and capacity
to help the State of California. In saying that, I think there
is always more we can do. But the authorities we have now, and
the resources we have, we feel pretty comfortable in being able
to respond to this event.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Garamendi, in his testimony, referred to the Governor's
conveyance plan for the BDCP. One significant concern is that
the preferred plan, if implemented, levee maintenance will
lapse, placing our community at significant risk. On the other
hand, investing in levee repair would be an excellent solution
to the BDCP dual requirements.
So with that as a background, I am going to address the
next question to Mr. Murphy, Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Simon. How
might the Governor's preferred conveyance affect preparation
and response to a flood and/or earthquake?
Mr. Murphy. Congressman, I will be the guinea pig for the
response here.
Mr. McNerney. Sure.
Mr. Murphy. In all honesty, I think until the plan has a
bit more of a process to it as far as outside of just a
conveyance water aspect, which is really involved with the
California Department of Water Resources, I am not in a
position to answer until we get further down the road with this
initial agreement plan that was talked about a few weeks ago.
So I apologize. In the future, I would be happy to address that
question as we move forward with the broader plan.
Mr. McNerney. Well, the concern is that a significant
amount of resources are going to be going into the tunnel
system, and there won't be any more resources left to improve
and maintain the levees. So that is basically one of the
aspects that I am interested in, but you don't seem to be in a
position to answer that, so let's move on to Mr. Baldwin.
Mr. Baldwin. That is a tough one for me, too. I mean, if
you build the tunnel, then you obviously have the issues that
have been looked at closely of the security and of the
integrity of maintaining that tunnel to deal with that issue,
that transport of the water. To me, the Delta is a lot of
things besides the water. That is one issue. It is also the
people out there, and it is also the infrastructure that we
just talked about, the East Bay MUD aqueduct and everything
else.
So it doesn't change it much except that, again, if you are
going to cut off the resources to protect the Delta, then you
are going to get what you pay for. We need to have a levee--I
don't get into 100 year, 200 year, 1,000 year. I say, as an
emergency manager, give us a fighting chance. Give us levees
that basically will hold it, and we will flood fight it. We
will keep any damage to a point that is acceptable. I mean, we
are not going to save all the bridges in L.A. if we have an
earthquake, either.
So if you are going to do that, it brings up the issue of
protecting that infrastructure. At the same time, it doesn't
change anything except that you have taken one equation out and
put it into a different context. Now we have to protect this
tunnel. We still have to protect the Delta for a lot of
reasons, and we need the resources to give us that fighting
chance.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Simon, you look at this from a little bit different
perspective, so I am interested in what you might have to say.
Mr. Simon. Thank you, Congressman. Our water utilities are
somewhat dependent upon the transport of water from northern
California, particularly our southern California investor-owned
water utilities, and how that allocation occurs is somewhat
dependent upon our infrastructure.
I will say prior to coming to the commission, I was
appointments secretary in Governor Schwarzenegger's
administration, and I know this issue of levee repair and
reinforcement is not something new to this administration, and
I would simply say that it is necessary for our infrastructure
safety to have safe levees. The investor-owned utilities that
we regulate are somewhat reliant upon that levee strength in
order to maintain the adequate infrastructure in the region.
So I would hope that to whatever extent the tunneling that
is being proposed by the administration occurs at that factor
of the levees and the importance that the levees play on a
multitude of infrastructure that is webbed throughout the Delta
region is taken into consideration, and I would expect that it
is.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Simon.
Mr. Baldwin, how effective is investing in levee
maintenance and improvements in mitigating potential flood
risks?
Mr. Baldwin. That is what I am saying. It is the ongoing
debate, what is adequate. I mean, this is what this country has
argued for 50 years, what is adequate protection as far as that
primary levee for our community. There is always an element of
risk. I mean, a 100-year levee, do you maintain that?
Obviously, whatever standard you set--FEMA set the 100-year
standard 40 years ago. If you want to set 200-year or 500-year,
then we have to maintain it. I mean, that is only sensible.
Once you make that decision, then you get into the flood
fight to take care of that procedural risk, and you get into
what I consider defense indepth. We don't suddenly think that
just because we have whatever standard of levee, that we are
done. We need to then be able to limit that flood. The levee
still might breach. We want to make sure it doesn't. And you
need to have more of a defense indepth so that we can use
elevated freeways, we can use other techniques to try to limit
the damage afterwards.
So we come in. The country establishes the standard for the
depth protection, although I don't think in any case, even in
earthquakes in L.A., that there is a 100-percent guarantee that
any standard is perfect. So we have to be prepared with those
additional lines of defense.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Baldwin, again, how would you feel the
completion of the Lower San Joaquin feasibility study would
help with our preparedness?
Mr. Baldwin. I think it is very important because, although
in some sections of that river, the lower part is in pretty
good shape, other parts we haven't got a fighting chance. So
from an emergency management point of view, I consider it the
policymaker's duty to set the standard and get the levees in
place and give us a fighting chance to protect the people that
are behind them, and the infrastructure and the property. Then
give us a good flood fight response, and we will take care of
the rest, and I think we will not have perfection.
Like I said, we will not lose any bridges when L.A. has an
earthquake, but we will limit it to a level of damage that I
think is sustainable over a long period of time. That is what
we look for in our disaster response and our protective
equipment, is it sustainable over a long period of time, not
perfection.
Mr. McNerney. I guess I have another minute or so. I will
use it. Thank you.
Mr. Simon, I was kind of intrigued on one of your points,
that I think, as I understood it, you felt, or the commission
feels that it is the commission's jurisdiction to have
jurisdiction over the communications for natural disaster in
the levees. Did I understand you correctly?
Mr. Simon. Specifically backup power. As we are moving into
a more IP-enabled communication infrastructure, and this gets
into the issue of information versus voice, there are concerns
as to whether or not there is jurisdiction over equipment that
attaches to regulated assets. It is my position that it is,
quite frankly.
But I think a larger issue--the backup power decision, AB
2393, gave clear education guidelines to educate consumers on
what are the limitations of having technology that is not
connected to copper that provides warm-line services.
Going further, in listening to my distinguished panelists
here, I do believe that we need to address safety, evacuation,
saving lives, in an IP-enabled communication system. The
technologies are changing rapidly, and I have concerns as to
how in touch are we, particularly the various
telecommunications or Internet service providers, how in touch
are we with how consumers receive their information, how
effective are we in the interoperability between the agencies
that are here, as well as first responders.
This is changing rapidly, and because of the need to have a
robust market and to minimize regulation of broadband and the
Internet because of the importance that it brings to the
economy, health care, so many other areas, I do have concerns
about whether we have sufficient oversight to ensure that we
can evacuate and save lives in the case of disasters.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Murphy, would you like to comment on the
jurisdiction of interoperability in the case of natural
disaster? You have 1 minute.
Mr. Murphy. The most important part, I believe, of
interoperability, and I think Mr. Baldwin would agree, is the
actual ability to communicate, period. What Mr. Simon was
referring to was enacted a few years ago, which was really
telling the public, hey, these are some of the limitations of
your BlackBerry and your iPhone, and a lot of it has to do with
backup power after a disaster in relation to those cell sites
that we use, limited resources, limited time, limited ability.
When it comes to interoperable communications, it is the
role of the primary responding jurisdiction to be able to
communicate with other jurisdictions around them where they may
need to draw resources from. Particularly in California, we use
a system of systems approach, interoperable communications. But
number-one priority is communicate with those you are going to
need to help you respond.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Shuster?
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of
our witnesses for being here today. I appreciate you taking
your time to do this today. It is really important for us to be
able to, myself, learn what we can do in Washington to make
your jobs easier out here when you are fighting these floods
and these fires and earthquakes, whatever the problem is.
Mr. Baldwin, I especially appreciate you being here, coming
out of retirement to be back with us. But you bring really two
things that I really appreciate. One is a real grassroots, up
close and personal dealing with a catastrophe and dealing with
the Federal Government and what we do, in many cases, to make
your life more difficult. The second thing is, you being in
retirement, it gives you the freedom to be able to call it like
you see it. I know that people, when they retire from public
service, they get out there and they are able to say things
that otherwise they sometimes wouldn't. So I appreciate that.
You brought up two points that I would like to ask Mr.
Fenton about, but first the plans. I know that you locally here
in the Delta have worked with the State to--you have a task
force, but you don't have the plan in place. Mr. Fenton, how
important is that plan? Because we are talking about having a
plan in place so that money flows out to these States and these
local governments to be able to respond.
So can you talk a little bit about the importance of the
plan and what we can do to help?
Mr. Fenton. Sure. I think that plans are important to have
in place, and I think California--just from being here for a
long time and working with them through floods--they have great
systems in place. Their State Emergency Management System,
their ability to share resources and those kinds of things, are
in place and shared and utilized throughout the area. You see
that during wildfires, and they are probably better than just
about any other State in moving resources around the State.
They have a great communication system.
So then what we start to look at is do we have specific
plans that address specific threats, and I think that is one of
the areas where it is reassuring to hear there is more work
being done so that we know exactly how we are specifically
going to evacuate a community, what roads will be operable,
what roads will not, and what specific resources or assets we
need to affect that. And what that allows us to do is look at
where those capabilities are prior to an event so we know how
to use them during an event.
Planning is much bigger than just the response part or the
systems part. It goes across recovery, prevention, protection,
and mitigation. It includes looking at plans as far as what we
can mitigate prior to an event, and I know the State of
California does a good job of this. We have heard discussion
here today about infrastructure and those things, to include
exercising, to build capacity.
So we need to continue to make efforts in those areas to be
able to respond. Going back to Congressman Denham's first
question, are we prepared to respond to an earthquake, it takes
the whole community to be able to respond. It is like a sports
team. One person could be doing good, but if the other players
on the team aren't working together and it is not coming
together, we are not going to be effective.
Our plans help synchronize and integrate our collective
resources and are critical to the success of our ability to
respond to an event like this.
Mr. Shuster. Don't we have the authority at FEMA to approve
the prepositioning of assets they need? Because in a flood, a
flood typically, we know a flood is potentially coming. So you
can tell the State or a locale to get your assets in place.
Mr. Fenton. You are correct, sir. The authority that you
provided to us through the Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act and the Homeland Security Act gives us a lot of that
authority prior to events to go ahead and preposition
resources. We do have resources prepositioned in California. We
have a warehouse in the barrio, and we have the ability to task
other Federal agencies to start prepositioning resources in
anticipation of an event.
In California, I think their system does much the same as
far as moving resources prior to an event to be prepared. In
terms of prepositioning, the flood or the hurricane in the
southeast is a lot easier than the earthquake. In California, I
always say it is earthquake season. But for no-notice events,
it is a little bit more difficult to preposition. The key then
is to have plans in place and understand where resources and
capabilities are ahead of time, because a no-notice event is
more difficult to respond to.
Last week, Administrator Fugate did a Thunderbolt exercise,
which is a no-notice exercise for FEMA, that included FEMA
Region IX and simulated an earthquake here to make sure we are
ready. Doing those types of exercises with no notice really
tests your agency's ability. Are you really ready for an
earthquake? I know you don't want it to happen today, but if it
happens right now, do we know what everyone is doing, and do we
know where everyone is moving?
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Chairman, if I could have 30 more seconds
to ask one followup question of Mr. Fenton?
Can FEMA use mitigation funds or preparedness funds for
folks in the Delta region here to stockpile to fight floods? Is
that something you can utilize?
Mr. Fenton. There are different parts of the mitigation
program. There is the mitigation program that comes immediately
following disasters, and usually the State sets priorities on
how to use those projects and how that funding can be used.
There is also funding available for mitigation that we use
for helping to develop evacuation routes and those kinds of
things.
So I would have to look into it to specifically to answer
your question about whether we can stockpile resources ahead of
time and pay with those mitigation funds. I can do that and
submit it for the record, if you would like.
Mr. Shuster. I would appreciate that. Thank you.
We are going to have another round?
Mr. Denham. Yes.
Mr. Shuster. OK. Great.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Simon, I understand, as directed by the PUC,
California's natural gas transmission operators, they developed
and filed a comprehensive pipeline safety improvement plan last
year. Do the plans submitted by the gas operators establish an
effective and reliable emergency response plan, especially as
it pertains to the Delta and some of these older pipelines with
oil and gas?
Mr. Simon. Yes, Chairman Denham. That has actually been
required by a series of State and I believe actual Federal
legislation as well, that there is adequate emergency response,
including shutoff valves, exercises with first responders to
ensure the ability to have state-of-the-art response.
Specific to the Delta, that would be regional decisions. It
would be something I would strongly recommend to the utilities,
and I will look at both the rulemaking and the pipeline
enhancement plans on a forward-looking basis to ensure that
safety plans are specific to each geographical region. I have
not been briefed specifically by our Consumer Protection and
Safety Division, but I would be willing to wager that they
understand the safety risk that exists in the Delta region,
particularly in view of the levees and soil erosion and other
things I presented.
But I will make it a point, and I can also report back to
the committee for the record to ensure that the pipeline safety
enhancement plans, including testing, are specifically designed
to deal with Delta issues, as well as the urban and rural
areas.
[The information follows:]
The utility serving the Delta, PG&E, reports that it
has in development a flood-contingency plan for the
McDonald Island gas storage facility located in the
Delta, which will include a detailed plan for potential
levee failure. This plan will address specific measures
that will be taken for employee and equipment safety,
and that will provide additional operational details
for facility operators. This document is in draft form
and is not available for review at this time.
PG&E's Company Emergency Plan does not specifically
address levee breaks, but speaks to the functional
activities PG&E will undertake in any natural or
manmade disaster throughout the service territory,
including levee breaks or other issues affecting the
Sacramento Delta. This plan, and the related emergency
response plans (gas, electric, etc.) would be
operational in the event of a levee break or other
emergency in the Sacramento Delta.
PG&E reports that gas facilities situated in the
Sacramento Delta are designed to be operated even under
flood conditions. Information about this design basis
is not included in emergency plans, but can be found in
the engineering documents associated with their
construction. Similarly the footings of electric
transmission towers in the Delta are designed in such a
way as to keep the towers operational in flood
conditions.
In addition, as part of PG&E's emergency exercise
program, levee breaks are occasionally introduced in
scenarios to test PG&E's ability to respond. The 2008
Company Exercise, which was a Hayward Fault earthquake
scenario, included notional breaches to 15 levees,
resulting in simulated flooding in the Delta and
operational issues at McDonald Island. Exercise
participants addressed these notional problems
successfully. Materials from this exercise were not
published, and the brief exercise summary that was
submitted to the CPUC did not include specifics about
levees, which were a minor part of the exercise.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. And as far as the statewide pipeline
safety plan, when do you expect the PUC to issue a final
decision?
Mr. Simon. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I hate to
give dates when due process is involved, but we are expecting,
I believe, a decision on the investigation and the rulemaking
at least--well, there are two aspects of it. There is the PG&E
explosion and the proceedings that involve that, both the
investigation and the rulemaking, and that is assigned to my
fellow commissioner Mike Florio. I do expect decisions on that
going forward within 2012.
The actual pipeline enhancement and safety, which is
approximately $17 billion between SoCal Gas and PG&E over a 10-
year period, I will expect as those decisions are published
that there will be a lot of comments and other actions taken by
consumer advocates, first responders, even some of the agencies
that are represented here today.
So it would be very difficult for me to give a final date,
but I would expect in 2013.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Coate, with East Bay MUD, obviously water is a huge
issue, supplying water to the entire Bay area. In 2004 when the
Jones Tract levee broke, that wasn't weather, it wasn't an
earthquake, it was just the failure of a levee. What would
happen if we had an earthquake? What would be not only the
damage to the water supply but the Bay area receiving the
majority, if not all of its water in this area, what would be
the impacts of East Bay MUD?
Mr. Coate. Mr. Chairman, you are speaking of an earthquake
in the Delta?
Mr. Denham. In the Delta, yes.
Mr. Coate. There is a high probability if there is an
earthquake in the Delta that we would revisit inundation like
we saw at Jones Tract, and also potential to actually
compromise the aqueducts themselves. East Bay MUD has been
working to anticipate such an event, and I described in my oral
testimony a number of the things that we put into place.
But essentially we would embark, once the aqueducts were
accessible and the tract dried, in a repair effort, and we have
allowed ourselves 6 months of supply which we store west of the
Delta in order to be able to continue to provide water to our
customers. That is under severe rationing conditions. So I can
speak briefly on the economic impacts, not only the cost
associated with repairing the aqueducts, which would be to be
determined but relatively small when compared with the economic
costs to the Bay area.
In recent years we have done some long-term water supply
planning in the context of trying to understand the value of
supplies west of the Delta, such as recycling supplies that we
have actually received some funding through the Water Resource
Development Act to construct. In the context of looking at the
value of those supplies, we have done an economic study, and if
we had to ration, severe rationing for a year, it would have an
economic impact of about $1 billion, actually more than $1
billion, to the East Bay economy.
So you are looking at compromising water supply, but you
are also looking at compromising the way of life in the Bay
area.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My next two questions are going to be addressed to Mr.
Coate. Do you believe that investing in levee protection would
benefit both water flows and mitigate flood protection?
Mr. Coate. Yes. We, in fact, have been working with five
other water agencies, several of which are very focused on the
Bay Delta Conservation Plan. Those include East Bay MUD, San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Contra Costa Water
District, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Alameda County,
and the Metropolitan Water District, and together we have
identified that it is very important to protect a number of
levees. We have submitted a letter to the State, to John Laird,
and helped him appreciate where we think resources should be
expended to protect levees, and in so doing protecting the
water supply that flows through the Delta to the export pumps,
but also the water supply that flows to the East Bay and San
Francisco South Bay communities.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. You mentioned the need for clearly
defined roles within a disaster response plan. Can you
elaborate where we are with the current system? Is it adequate?
Are there well-defined roles, or is there still a little bit of
ambiguity that would cause problems in a disaster?
Mr. Coate. Well, there has been a lot of improvement over
the years and a lot of improvement since 2004. There has been
discussion here about the recent report that was prepared which
included a number of recommendations going forward. Those
recommendations are consistent with what we would like to see
happen, clearer coordination and responsibility. But as Mr.
Baldwin explained, it would be good to see some clear
commitments to providing authorization for financial resources
that would allow an immediate response when a levee failure is
being observed so that we could control the damage and protect
the infrastructure.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. That is a good answer.
Mr. Murphy, what do you think the biggest obstacles are in
implementing the task force's recommendations?
Mr. Murphy. I think the biggest obstacle is exactly what
Mr. Baldwin said and what has already been brought up. The
biggest obstacle to some of this is just pure financial. You
have the maintenance side of the levees, and this goes all the
way from very small reclamation districts all the way through
East Bay municipal district, one of the biggest utility
providers in the State. You have a clear need to maintain all
these levees at a standard--I also shy away from the 100-year
scenario, but you have to maintain whatever level you set, and
that is just a reality. It is a very difficult thing to do in
this environment. That is the biggest obstacle.
On the response side, the actual first responders on the
levee after something has happened, our biggest obstacle is
probably exactly what Mr. Baldwin said, and we are working
through it, how to figure out the best way to make sure that
everybody is on the same page, that you are going to get
reimbursed for what you are spending in that initial hour after
the event happens, and I think we are significantly further
ahead 8 years later after Jones Tract than we were in 2004.
That doesn't mean it is going to be perfect, but I think we
all, especially in the State, understand this is what we are
going to do, we are going to make these movements, and then we
are all going to stand on the same platform and say we have
done it all in good faith, and now we should be reimbursed for
that as well.
Mr. McNerney. Well, the first part of your answer, lack of
funds, is interesting because in Mr. Baldwin's testimony he
said, well, there are sufficient funds, they are just not
coordinated in a way that would benefit emergency preparedness.
Could you address that, Mr. Baldwin?
Mr. Baldwin. Well, I am just saying that it is a fact. I
mean, the Department of Water Resources has bond funds that
they are spending internally, and that is good. They just
announced the imminent release of grants to local governments
for flood preparedness projects. The last figure I heard, and I
am not an authority, is $14 million. The Corps of Engineers has
ongoing funds that they are spending on a Delta emergency
response plan. The Central Valley Flood Protection Plan program
has announced funds going down to the regional basis that could
be used for flood preparedness.
We have this historic opportunity because of the bonds.
Thanks to the people of California in 2006, there are some
funds. And thanks to the Federal Government, the Corps money I
believe is coming through CalFed, or whatever. There is quite a
bit of money.
We haven't had the two components come together. Now we
have the strategy. That was released by the Governor this year.
Now we have the funds. All I am saying is I think some kind of
high-level coordination should say, OK, these funds will cover
this aspect, these funds will cover this aspect. We will just
ensure that 3 years down the road these different funding
streams will make sure that the strategy was addressed and that
we got it done, because in a few years those bond funds are
going to be gone and then we will be back to where--we will
just stop right at, well, where are the funds?
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Shuster?
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. Back to another topic to deal with
funding that Mr. Baldwin brought up, directed to Mr. Fenton.
Mr. Baldwin mentioned that, in these different jurisdictions,
the county may be able to help one of these local reclamation
districts, but they can't do it because they are concerned they
are not going to get paid for it.
Is there a mechanism in place, or is there a process, or do
you have the authority to look at a situation and use common
sense to say, hey, they are going to fix this, we need to do
it, let's move forward with it and make sure they get their
money?
Mr. Fenton. Sure. Well, there have been a couple of changes
since the 2004 Jones Tract. One is that we signed a Delta
Memorandum of Understanding for the public assistance program
that clarifies some eligibility that existed in previous
documents, as far as requirements for maintenance of the
levees, and also how we would reimburse them.
But specifically to the question of how do you do things
immediately, essentially our program allows us to reimburse the
eligible applicant, the person who owns or is legally
responsible for that infrastructure. Typically what happens is,
through MOUs or agreements, other entities come over and
support them. As long as those agreements are in place, it
allows us to make sure that the reimbursement mechanism can
follow and we are able to support it.
Essentially, what we are not going to do is penalize
someone for responding. We just want to make sure that we are
following the law and are able to reimburse those who are the
actual owners of the facility, the eligible applicant. We
understand that in some cases, through mutual aid agreements,
that other resources come over and support, and we have the
means to reimburse when that happens.
We have the means to reimburse something within minutes of
a declared disaster. So it is not that they should be waiting--
money shouldn't be a factor. The decisionmaking a lot of times,
even on fires, is able to provide immediate funding right
upfront.
Mr. Shuster. So if one of these districts has an MOU with
the county, then----
Mr. Fenton. Yes, there are systems in place in the State,
and Brendan can probably speak to it better than I can. But
within the State of California, there is the State Emergency
Management System, the SEMSYS, in which they move resources
around. So as long as a request goes through that system and it
falls in that mutual aid system, then we reimburse upon that.
For circumstances where we would not do it, I would have to
have a specific issue and look back and see why we did not
reimburse.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Murphy, it looks like you want to say
something.
Mr. Murphy. Absolutely. Where we went between 2004 and
2010, when we signed our Memorandum of Agreement with FEMA, was
exactly on that. In 2004, there was a little bit more--even
though entities were directed inside of our system to do
specific things in relation to the response, we had that kind
of initial problem of who--the reclamation district owns it;
now you have other people doing the response work because the
reclamation district couldn't do it itself. How do we go from
there?
What our Memorandum of Agreement says is that if we are
inside the system, and the State, as well as our local
agencies, have requested the help, and we have sent the
resources, that FEMA recognizes that it is all part of the
master mutual aid agreement which was signed in 1953 in the
State, thereby allowing that work to occur.
Mr. Shuster. And one more question that has to do with
WRDA. Mr. Coate, you brought up Congress doing a WRDA bill,
which we need to do that. We were thinking we were going to get
it done, at least attempt this year. I doubt it. We don't have
enough time, but it is something we need to go after next year.
So you mentioned about WRDA. Did you have very specific
ideas, or are they sort of general, that you laid out there? I
looked through your testimony. I couldn't see that you had any
real specific ones.
Mr. Coate. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about
that. Currently, what we see in--specifically, WRDA has
provided funding for primarily recycling projects that
increases our reliability west of the Delta. We have a lot more
opportunities in that arena we would love to explore.
What we have seen in WRDA is that there are resources for
flood control, but they are focused primarily on long-term
planning, and it would be good if WRDA could acknowledge that
there is plenty of levee repair work that could be done on the
immediate, and if funding could be made for improvements today,
that would be valuable. It would also be helpful if WRDA looked
and acknowledged that, very broadly, reliability,
interconnection between water systems, which are expensive to
construct, help mitigate the impact if there is an earthquake,
as I described earlier.
So those sorts of program authorizations would be very
helpful for the water community.
Mr. Shuster. If you have any other ideas, if you could put
them in writing to us because, as I said, next year it will be
something I am sure we are going to try to tackle, and hearing
from folks in the community, sending them through Mr. Denham's
office or however you could get them, would be very helpful to
us as we move forward.
Mr. Coate. Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Shuster. I yield back.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. This will be our final round of
questioning, but this committee, as well as other committee
members that aren't here today, will be offering questions to
all of our witnesses, and we would ask you to respond to those
in an expeditious manner.
In the final round I have quite a few things I want to
cover in just wrapping up.
Mr. Murphy, this is a basic question I would like to ask
each of you. Who is responsible for paying for the maintenance
and upkeep of these levees, in your opinion?
Mr. Murphy. Each and every reclamation district that owns
them. That is the primary. Maintenance and upkeep, that is what
they are doing. They are there to control that levee and move
water through there.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Baldwin, maintenance and upkeep?
Mr. Baldwin. Right. Basically, whoever--I mean, if the
Corps or a private entity comes in and builds a levee, then
there is some agreement. If it is a Corps levee, who is going
to maintain it? In some cases it is the State, for the most
part. In the Delta, it is going to be reclamation districts.
I would only point out one thing. They get the money to do
the maintenance. They get the money to do the emergency
response from property assessments, so the farmers out there
and the property owners. But if there is a highway going
through there and that district is protecting it, they get no
additional money. I compliment East Bay MUD that actually go
through there and assist with cash flow. This is the problem.
That is why there is a lot of time when districts are
protecting a lot of very valuable infrastructure but don't have
that cash flow to maybe do the maintenance properly or to do as
well as they would like, or to do the emergency response, and
the other agencies have to come in, and we get into some of
these complications.
So I think it is the old way. A hundred years ago, that is
it. You built a levee, you are protecting your farm, you ought
to pay for the maintenance, you know? But now we have laid on
highways and aqueducts and all sorts of infrastructure. We
transport water and everything else, and we never really
updated the way that that reclamation district system works,
where they can maybe get some cash flow from some of those
other beneficiaries to maintain the levees, and also for
emergency response.
Mr. Denham. And as well on upgrades, especially in areas
where you have different jurisdictions or different types of
infrastructure, in your opinion, where should the money for
upgrades come from?
Mr. Baldwin. That I think is a shared State-Federal--I
mean, the Federal Government more or less sets, to a certain
extent, the standards, because of the flood insurance program,
of what kind of levee you need to have, and I think that is the
debate that is going on, what should be the standards for the
levees. Once that decision is made, then I think it is shared.
I mean, it is public good for the Delta, so the public, through
the Federal and State governments, should bring them up to
standard. The reclamation districts, then, should be able to
have enough cash flow to maintain them properly and at the same
time respond in an emergency, and we should fix that system to
where they will have sufficient funds from all the
beneficiaries to do that after maybe the Federal or State, a
Corps project, something comes in and actually brings the levee
up to the standard that we decide is adequate for that area.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Baldwin.
Mr. Simon, upgrades?
Mr. Simon. Yes, Mr. Chairman. For investor-owned utilities,
and it may actually apply to our public utilities as well, it
is somewhat of a mixed bag. I think to the extent that
reinforcement of properties that the utilities have been
granted through eminent domain or reverse condemnation, and for
purposes of that infrastructure, that pipeline infrastructure,
they will typically seek recovery from ratepayers by way of an
application or some type of tariff filing. Whether or not the
ratepayers pay the entire amount or it is apportioned between
ratepayers and shareholders, then that would be our
distinction, for example, in East Bay MUD, would be determined
by way of decision.
Now, I would say that if a utility had infrastructure that
sat or was laid in a reclamation district or a jurisdiction
where the resources were available by way of assessment,
Federal, State or local funding, I would think that they would
seek those resources for purposes of protecting the
infrastructure to reduce the cost to their ratepayers and
shareholders.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Coate.
Mr. Coate. Well, East Bay MUD has taken the position for
many years that we should make investments in the levees. So we
have spent over $15 million in levee improvements to protect
our aqueducts, but also to protect all of the other
infrastructure adjacent to it.
Reclamation districts, as was described, are cash limited.
So by us making the financial contributions, we have been in a
position to support the reclamation districts, obtaining money
from the State. The State typically doesn't pay 100 percent.
They would provide or expect to cost-share. So more recently,
working with our local reclamation districts and the Delta
Stewardship Council, East Bay MUD made a contribution of on the
order of $6 million, and in so doing leveraged about $33
million worth of funds. The majority of those funds have been
put in the ground, making significant levee improvements,
probably some of the most significant improvements that have
been done in recent times.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
And finally, Mr. Fenton, from a FEMA perspective?
Mr. Fenton. With regard to maintenance, sir, basically our
programs fund identification of risk, responding, recovering
and mitigating from disasters, but it does not cover costs for
maintenance. That is the responsibility of the owner or the
sub-grantee in our case.
With regard to upgrades, we do have some ability within our
regulations, within the PA program, to do improved projects and
look at some of those kinds of things. Also, there are
mitigation funds. But, generally, we don't pay for upgrades,
and that is specific to FEMA, of course. Other Federal
agencies, the Army Corps of Engineers, NRCS, have different
programs that may be applicable here.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
And finally, I have one final question. Mr. Simon, you
highlight in your testimony that ensuring the communications
and telephone service work during emergencies. As you may know,
the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Modernization
Act, it was included as part of my bill, H.R. 2903, the FEMA
Reauthorization Act. The bill authorizes IPAWS and establishes
a framework to ensure key stakeholders are at the table as FEMA
continues to develop its system.
From your experience, how important is it to ensure
information can get out to the public during a disaster,
especially one that could shut down many different roads and
could be flooding a huge area?
Mr. Simon. Mr. Chairman, I think it is critical. One of our
most fire-prone areas actually is in southern California--that
is the San Diego region--due to the Santa Ana winds, as you are
well aware. Between 2003 and 2007, there were 13 fatalities
that occurred in that region. I held workshops there in the
Riverside-San Bernardino area, which was also affected, and I
heard accounts from first responders where they had to use
their personal cell phones because the system that either the
police or fire were utilizing was not operative and/or
interoperative.
There was a case in the Inland Empire where reverse
messaging was coming from a vendor in Florida. Because
residents did not recognize the area code, they thought it was
some type of marketing call and did not answer the messaging
that was being sent for purposes of evacuation.
So I think it is critical that our emergency response
capabilities, with residents in particular, is commensurate
with the technology choices that are being made by our citizens
for purposes of communications, and that we have the type of
messaging, reverse 911, enhanced 911 capacities that can reach
our residents in a time of crisis and give them the proper
instructions to save lives and property.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. That was the answer I was looking
for. As Mr. Shuster said, we have the FEMA reauthorization bill
that has already come out of committee. IPAWS is part of that
communication piece of it, and I am looking forward to pushing
that as we go back in September and trying to get that through
both bodies, both Houses, before we adjourn in the 112th
Congress.
Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One of the interesting things that has come out, in my
opinion, is the availability of funding, and there does appear
to be money available.
Mr. Fenton, does the FEMA have sufficient jurisdiction to
be able to help direct funds where they are needed from the
appropriate sources for levee protection?
Mr. Fenton. I think the authority for the Delta area is a
combination of different Federal agencies that have the
authority and resources to do that. Some of it exists for the
levees within the Delta, some of them are Federal levees. The
Public Law program is the Army Corps of Engineers. Some of them
fall underneath NRCS's program. I know Department of Interior
has been working on plans with regard to some of the issues
they know of with regard to----
Mr. McNerney. Excuse me, but that sounds like part of the
problem. We need--and I think it is good testimony--an agency
that can direct the funds where they are needed. If we have all
these different agencies that have jurisdiction, then it is all
going to be piecemeal. We are not going to get the real work
that we need to get done.
Mr. Fenton. I understand. It is such a complex issue. When
you start looking at the expertise of the different agencies,
FEMA does not have thousands of engineers like the Army Corps
of Engineers does, and it is not a skill set that we would be
good at doing without having their experience and capability
and hundreds of years of doing flood fights and levee work
throughout the country on water conveyance-type structures.
For a problem like this, I think it is good that a task
force is coming together at the State and local level to
address it. Federal agencies have to be included in that,
because there are different capabilities through authorities at
the Federal level that need to be integrated in that. I think
integration and some mechanism to ensure consistency and
collaboration is probably better than trying to move with just
one agency, just because of what we do with our specific
missions throughout the rest of the United States.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I don't have the Corps of Engineers
here in front of me. So what I would like to ask is that either
you or Mr. Murphy give me some sort of assurance that money is
going to be there for levee protection and enhancement no
matter what happens with the BDCP, and I don't have that
feeling, and it is a concern to me and to the district, to the
region.
Mr. Murphy. Congressman, at the State level, I can tell you
right now, as Mr. Baldwin mentioned, that proposition money
that is available from 2006, we have coordinated with the
Department of Water Resources, who controls the emergency
aspects, as well as the upkeep of all of their own levee
system, and the emergency planning, especially the long-term
emergency planning, has been a priority for them and is a
priority for them.
But I think, honestly, your question is a good one, because
at the Federal level, there are multiple agencies that have a
piece of this project. It is not an easily answered question.
So at a State level, I can assure you, we actually sit with
the Department of Water Resources and review the applications
that come in, and you are going to have the highest priority,
the best value, the best bang for the buck as far as from the
reclamation districts mostly in that case.
At the Federal level, though, that is a coordination aspect
because there are so many entities involved in the process
where we probably do need some work.
Mr. McNerney. Who do we go to if we are finding the levee
money is drying up because of being directed towards the BDCP?
Mr. Murphy. You know, I think that Ron has probably had
more headaches with this than even I have. But there are--
literally, it is not a one-stop shop. It is the people who are
in this game have to go to each and every one. You have to
approach the Army Corps of Engineers. You have to approach the
Department of Interior. That is just the process that we have
had to take at a State and local level over the years.
Mr. Baldwin. Well, I think the point I was making and the
money I am speaking of--I mean, there are kind of two issues.
It is the money for the construction of the levees, and I don't
know if it is really the maintenance. I would say the
construction and the improvement of the levees, a lot of that
is coming out of the bond funds through other programs, as well
as any authorizations that Congress may have for the Corps to
assist with an upgrade of a levee.
I am really talking about the flood fight, the emergency
response. I am just saying that there are quite a bit of funds
currently coming down. We didn't have the strategy a year ago.
We do have it now, and it seems to me good public policy that
some document be issued to say, OK, there are six different
things coming down, and I have good faith in the agencies. So
to say, OK, Corps, what are you doing? How does that fit into
the strategy? Here is what they are going to address, just to
make sure we don't duplicate efforts, and at the same time make
sure that the entire strategy is implemented.
The second thing is just to have a mechanism to make sure
about quality control, that whatever we got done got done to
the standards that we all agree it should have been.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A question to Mr. Murphy and to Mr. Simon. Mr. Simon, you
mentioned that the CPUC, after the San Bruno pipeline
explosion, put some things in place. But can you sort of talk a
little bit about what have the natural gas pipeline operators,
what have they done themselves? Are they complying? Is it a
smooth process going forward, such as PG&E, to improve their
gas emergency response processes?
Mr. Simon. They are in that process now, actually. The
legislation was approved in the last session, and from all
indications I believe San Bruno was the unfortunate wake-up
call, and I believe all gas operators, if they didn't
understand before, understand now the importance of having
protocol in place to deal with a disaster when it happens.
Gas transmission infrastructure is a necessity for our
society. It has to run through densely populated areas. So my
response to that would be that I believe, again with our
Consumer Protection and Safety Division and the pipeline
operators throughout the State, that those cooperative efforts
are moving along in an effective fashion.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Murphy. I think the coordination with local first
responders, as well as the State, has absolutely been
heightened from it, without a doubt, and not just PG&E but
across the State. I am not going to discount that a lot of that
has been the public message you get when a horrific event like
that happens, and other private vendors look at that and say we
don't want that to be us.
But that has been a great benefit at this point as far as
from that local first responder and knowing what is in your
backyard. That has been one of the biggest issues, is where are
the pipelines and the disclosure of that. CPUC has been a huge
help in having that.
We have taken many steps. I think the reality, though, and
where the CPUC is working forward, is that the long-term
replacement of much older pipelines and really what has to
happen there inside California. I think where we are at,
though, is significantly light-years ahead of where we were a
few years ago, prior to the San Bruno incident.
Mr. Shuster. My second question was about the emergency
responders, and you did say they are coordinating with and
building relationships, so it is much better.
Mr. Murphy. Oh, like I said, they--and I am somewhat biased
because PG&E did hire one of our former employees on the gas
side. But the difference is light-years, and what it is,
especially those for-profit utility providers are fully engaged
in not wanting to have anything like this happen again.
I am sure, as a for-profit entity, there are some
limitations. But at least on that first responder and State and
local, here is where we are, here is what we are doing, and
here are the potential issues we could have in this area.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much.
Thank all of you for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. I thank each of you for your
testimony. Your comments have been very helpful in such a short
hearing. We will be following up as an entire committee with
further questions.
If there are no further questions from here, I would ask
unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing remain
open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to
all of our questions that have been submitted to them in
writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain open for
15 days for any additional comments and information submitted
by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank our witnesses again for their
testimony today, and if no other Members have anything to add,
the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]