[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:02] A great deal with the logistics of these meetings, and we certainly want to thank them for all being so helpful. We appreciate that very much.
[0:11] These facilities do have Wi-Fi available for those who have cell phones, laptops and tablets.
[0:19] If you wouldn't mind, we would ask you to please turn them off to the silent mode and deference to your proceedings.
[0:27] For those of you who wish to speak to the Board, we have speaker slips, the forms are in the lobby,
[0:36] prior to the entrance to the chambers, please fill out the form and give it to one of our staff members,
[0:44] and they'll get it to us so that we can hear.
[0:46] Please read the mark, the number of the item you want to address, so that we can call on you
[0:55] the meeting for when the item comes up and we can call on you on that item.
[1:03] If you are anticipating speaking to the Board, I'd suggest that you would read the notes
[1:09] on the agenda so that you're properly prepared, prior to making your presentation.
[1:17] Members, I do believe that depending on circumstances this morning, we may have a rather light
[1:24] agenda. Therefore, I'm anticipating a journey in this meeting around one o'clock or so.
[1:30] We don't have according to our council. We don't have a closed session today. However, I am mindful
[1:39] that we have several board members that have been important flood board related meetings
[1:44] in the afternoon, and I want to accommodate their needs. Also, for your information,
[1:49] And Leslie has a 11 o'clock budget subcommittee meeting at the Capitol and she'll be leaving
[1:56] and I'm assuming Michael will take her place as the staff here.
[2:05] Regarding the agenda items themselves, Vice President and Secretary Jane Dolan under
[2:12] item three will be presenting the minutes of the November 22nd regular board meeting for your
[2:19] approval. The approval of the minutes obviously is an action item that will be taken this morning.
[2:25] Next we have our consent calendar which is item five and has two items on it. To my knowledge
[2:33] these two items are in order and therefore unless someone decides to remove one of the items
[2:39] 5A or 5B from the agenda, or the public decides that the an item should be removed.
[2:46] These will be approved in one motion from the board.
[2:55] Obviously, this will be an action item for the board that's the consent calendar.
[3:00] Next item, 7, Nancy Vogel has graciously agreed to present the recently released
[3:07] Governor's water resiliency portfolio to the board, more pleased about that and having
[3:15] her at the board meeting and this meeting streamed is very helpful and we appreciate
[3:22] her doing that.
[3:24] Next under item eight, Darren Sue and we'll brief us on the proposed legislation that's
[3:30] now addressing the damaged actions to our public infrastructure, particularly our levees,
[3:38] that we've been made aware of and has been the subject of some media attention. Under
[3:44] that same item, Durham is also going to brief us on the governor's recent executive order,
[3:51] which relates to the use of surplus property, which Sacramento San Joaquin District has property,
[3:59] and we are affected by that executive order, so he will brief the board on that.
[4:05] Next under item nine, John Passes, sub-situting for Jeremy, he's going to be at the same meeting
[4:12] that Leslie is subcommittee on the budget this morning, so John has is going to be sitting in
[4:21] and John Pash and Michael Wright will be filling in
[4:26] when assuming do a great job while the first team
[4:32] for stringer over at the capital.
[4:36] Under item 9A, John is going to present
[4:38] the Division's Normal Monthly Report,
[4:41] regarding ongoing activities that have the Division
[4:46] Project Updates reach an events that have occurred
[4:49] since last month, then under Item 9B, President Schoppwell from our staff at Wade Wiley and
[4:57] Sikastah Donovan from DWR will provide the annual inspection briefing from 2019 inspection
[5:06] and LMA local meeting agency reports, and we're always interested in that trying to see how
[5:19] and maintenance of our levees system,
[5:23] which we've placed a high priority on.
[5:27] Also, under this item, John's items,
[5:30] 9C, Dave Wilden, will provide an update
[5:35] on the state and federal rehabilitation work
[5:38] resulting in the result of the storms of 2017 and 19.
[5:43] A lot of work to be done there,
[5:45] and John's done a good job of getting those
[5:47] working with the core and getting those jobs to bid and underway.
[5:54] And finally, under item 90, Kyle Bickler from DWR, who's working with in Christian
[6:02] L's area of responsibility in the department, will provide an informational briefing on
[6:08] the proposed 7-mile levies setback, project along the north bank of the Sacramento
[6:14] bypass and the East Bank of the Yellow bypass.
[6:18] This levy setback will require an encroachment permit from this board that will be on our
[6:24] agenda next month.
[6:27] In under item 10, which are the board ions, we have three items to the board's consideration
[6:31] this morning.
[6:34] If item 10A looks familiar, it is.
[6:39] This is an item that we looked at before.
[6:43] The property owner has asked that he appeared before the board and talked to the board
[6:49] about this item and the issue before the board is whether this application in its redesigned
[7:01] Configuration will make sense to proceed with staff review and new application, or the old existing application as it applies to this new application.
[7:16] Next under item 10B, we have another resolution of necessity that Joe Bartlett and Matt Degroot of the Department's Division of Engineering will present.
[7:28] And then under Item 10C, Connie Perkins of our staff, and Paul Bruner of three Rivers
[7:38] Improvement Authority will provide us with an informational briefing on the proposed 200 year
[7:43] goal fields, Levy Project, by the authority they're proceeding.
[7:48] Then under Item 11, 12, 13, we have our usual Executive Officers reports, including informational
[7:55] staff reports.
[7:56] We also will have the normal board comments, committee updates, and calendar for everyone's
[8:03] certification.
[8:04] Finally, again, we do not have a close session this morning, but notwithstanding that this
[8:11] is going to be an interesting meeting.
[8:12] A lot of interesting subjects on it.
[8:15] As I say, we should be journeying around one o'clock, so I think we'll try to go straight
[8:21] through, rather than having a recess for lunch.
[8:24] Okay, under item one, introductions and announcement, Leslie, I understand we have a new board member.
[8:34] If you wouldn't mind, please tell us about it in the background of the background.
[8:39] Yes, good morning, Mr. President.
[8:42] Good morning, everyone, for those of you who have not yet heard the governor did announced yesterday that our attorney
[8:47] Board member vacancy has been filled.
[8:50] Brian Johnson from San Francisco has been appointed to the board to fill the attorney slot.
[8:57] He has been the California Director at Trout Unlimited since 2011.
[9:02] He was the Director of the California Water Program there from 2005 to 2011.
[9:07] He was an Associate at Shoot, Mahaley, and Wineberger from 2002 to 2005, an Associate
[9:13] Director for Communications at CEQ, which is the Council on Environmental Quality with the
[9:19] in his office and that was from 93 to 97. He was the manager of energy star computers for the
[9:27] U.S. environmental protection agency and in the office of Air and Radiation from 91 to 93.
[9:34] He does hold a J.D. nurse doctorate from Stanford Law School and he will be joining our board
[9:40] probably for next month's meeting. So welcome to Brian and we'll look forward to having a full
[9:47] to board members. I also have a couple of staff announcements, Mr. President.
[9:52] We have two new staff members with us today. First of all, in our inspection section,
[9:58] we have Priscilla De LaMère. I see her out in the audience waving. She joined us. She comes to
[10:03] us from the state water project at DWR. She performed modeling analysis and has a lot of experience
[10:11] with reservoir releases, how they affect river stages, elevations. She's graduated from
[10:16] UC Berkeley has a BS in chemical engineering and does have her engineering in training certificate
[10:21] currently working to take the PE exam. So welcome to Priscilla. We also joining us in our
[10:29] enforcement section, David Ismailion. He has five years experiences he and the audience with us.
[10:35] There he is next to John. He has five years of experience as a regulator with the California
[10:39] energy commission and there he was responsible for enforcing compliance of energy efficiency regulations,
[10:47] investigating leads for potential violations and research and review of technical test reports.
[10:53] He was a project manager over saw key contracts so we are happy to have him.
[11:00] He has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from sex state and also has his EIT or engineering
[11:07] in training certificate and is working to get his P.E. so welcome to David as well.
[11:16] Those are all the announcements.
[11:17] Okay, thanks Leslie and welcome to the two new staff members. We're happy to have you aboard
[11:22] and thanks for coming to the meeting to watch this wonderful proceeding.
[11:29] Okay, we're on item number two,
[11:32] which is the roll call and establishment of a quorum. Ryan, would you read the roll and
[11:38] and determine whether or not we have more
[11:40] and if we conduct our business.
[11:42] Board Member Ramirez, Board Member Velines,
[11:45] Board Member Countryman, Board Member McDonald,
[11:49] Vice President Dolan, President Edgar.
[11:53] I'm here also, we have a full board this morning.
[11:55] Thank you, Members.
[11:57] That's great.
[11:58] We're on item three, the minutes of our November 22nd,
[12:03] regular board meeting for everyone's information.
[12:05] This is an action item.
[12:07] Mr. Dolan, our board vice president and secretary has this item.
[12:13] Mr. Dolan, the floor is yours.
[12:16] Thank you, and good morning.
[12:19] I don't know about the rest of you, but for me this year of 2020 started at 90 miles an hour.
[12:25] And I really can't believe it's nearly the end of the month.
[12:28] So that means that you all received the minutes a few days later.
[12:33] It was on the 22nd for the November.
[12:36] I know you all read them. I appreciate that. Catching anything I might have missed.
[12:41] I think they're in order, but let me just pause to see if any of you have inputs or questions.
[12:47] Or anyone else? It's been a time reading the minutes.
[12:52] I see none. So I will move approval of the meeting minutes for November 22nd, 2019.
[12:58] Okay, so you know, objections to the minutes, moved by Ms. Dolan seconded by McDonald's,
[13:07] all in favor?
[13:08] Right.
[13:09] Opposed?
[13:10] Okay, the minutes are past.
[13:11] Thank you, Jane, for doing that work so quickly.
[13:16] We're on item number four, review of the agenda, and Leslie, I've asked you to, we've
[13:22] the agenda for us and indicate any items that I may have missed.
[13:26] Thank you, Mr. President.
[13:28] We do have one request from the department.
[13:31] We received a message from Dave Wilden on item nine.
[13:41] We are putting a summary report on the board and DWR website that relates to this presentation and wanted to have it posted when the presentation is given.
[13:51] Additionally, more internal reviews have been requested that will not happen before the January meeting.
[13:57] So they are requesting that the site and be removed from the agenda.
[14:01] That item will be item 9C, the drainage report from Dave Wilson will be postponed to, I guess, next month is what he's saying.
[14:15] It's unclear.
[14:17] All right, okay, we're on to item 5, which is our consent calendar.
[14:28] As I said earlier, unless someone on the board or the public want to remove any item from
[14:35] the consent calendar, these are items 5A and 5B, we will be approving both those items in
[14:43] single vote. Does anyone on the board want to remove 5A or 5B? Okay. Michael, the staff's
[14:53] okay on both those items at this point. Yeah, both of those items are okay. Anybody from
[14:58] of the public when I remove.
[15:00] 5A or 5B for further discussion. Okay, back to the board. Mayor, please have a motion and second on the two items on the
[15:09] consent calendar.
[15:12] Okay, moved by countrymen, second by Dolan that the items 5A and 5BB approved as submitted. This is an action item, all in favor.
[15:24] Okay, the two items pass, thank you, members.
[15:28] Members were on item six, public comments, is there anyone in the audience regarding that
[15:34] wants to speak to the board of items not on the agenda?
[15:38] Not on the agenda and we have one that looks like Melinda, I think you're the only one
[15:48] wants to speak on so far on this right?
[15:53] Good morning.
[15:54] Wow, I feel so short.
[15:58] I feel like I'm an elementary school student.
[16:00] Sorry, Melinda Terry, executive director
[16:02] of the California Center Valley Flag Control Association.
[16:08] And I'm going to try and come monthly
[16:10] and just on this agenda item, just share with you,
[16:14] maybe some of the things that we're discussing in our meetings
[16:16] to kind of give you a heads up about things that we're talking about, and so that maybe in the future agendas,
[16:22] you know, they can shut up.
[16:25] One, I just wanted to make you aware, not that anyone ever has shown up to our office from here,
[16:30] but we were located downtown, we just moved our office at the end of December.
[16:34] So we're now in West Sacramento at 3050 beacon boulevard, sweet 203.
[16:43] ZIP code is 9.5, 6.9.1, but so if you want to stop by, we are there now.
[16:49] We do have the same phone number, the same email, so none of that changed, but did
[16:53] want to make you aware of our location change.
[16:57] One of the issues is, I think, you're wearing your word commented on the ISM&D negative deck
[17:05] for the Delta Drilling that is proposed, and I've talked to your staff, but one of the things
[17:14] that we really noticed, we submitted a comment letter on the negative deck as well.
[17:18] But when you looked at the map, there's hundreds of sites that they are planning on doing
[17:23] exploratory drilling for both the tunnel, as well as, I guess, other projects they have in mind.
[17:29] When you looked at it, it looked like a lot of them were going to be on levies, but the
[17:33] Failed to talk about levees, drilling in levees, encroachments on project levees or anything like that.
[17:42] So I guess one of the things we would like to see is even before they're coming to you for a far away.
[17:47] It is maybe if you could ask DWR if they'd be willing to come make a presentation and talk about, you know,
[17:53] particularly the drilling that relates to either in, you know, the pathway, you know, adjacent to both.
[17:59] because they plan on doing on the water side,
[18:00] the land side through the levees.
[18:03] So it'd be helpful so that when you are in your for a process,
[18:07] we're able to discuss that with you from an LMA perspective.
[18:12] I see the light blinking.
[18:13] Delta's prevention funding.
[18:15] We are a little bit concerned about.
[18:16] I know you guys approved for next year,
[18:20] but it's hard to say, with bond money,
[18:23] we may have to go to general fund.
[18:24] And so I hope that your board will really,
[18:26] along with us, they on top of that and really work with the administration and the legislature to make sure.
[18:33] We do get that funding for what you approve this year, because it's not as certain, I would say, as it has been in past years.
[18:40] And then finally a topic that our Delta members are going to be reaching out to you and your staff is on lookout slew project and some issues that we have there, and I will leave it at that.
[18:52] Thank you.
[18:53] Thank you, Melinda.
[18:55] I think that's a good policy to have you come before the board.
[18:59] Yeah, we just thought, you know, we just kind of let, you know, a few items and give you heads up, like I said, an opportunity to, you know, think about agenda items for the future.
[19:07] Or just talk with us, you know, outside of the meeting on some of these topics. Thank you.
[19:16] Okay, anybody else on that item?
[19:19] Okay, that's the only written slip, is there anybody else that wants to speak on matters off the agenda?
[19:28] Okay, I'll bring that back to the board and then move to
[19:33] item number seven. This is
[19:37] the water resiliency portfolio and
[19:42] or no, I'm sorry. Yes.
[19:44] Thank you.
[19:45] Thank you.
[19:50] Is Nancy Bolgo here?
[19:52] She is.
[19:53] You're going to be introduced.
[19:55] Thank you.
[19:57] Thank you.
[19:58] Good morning.
[19:58] Good morning.
[19:59] Vice President Dole and members of the board.
[20:01] Darren Seen Policy Advisor for the Board.
[20:04] Back in April, you'll recall that the Governor's Executive Order, Natural Resources Agency,
[20:12] Kelly P.A. and California Department of Food and Agriculture to conduct listening sessions.
[20:16] that would culminate in a water results in resiliency portfolio, and this morning, as you mentioned earlier,
[20:23] we have Nancy Vogel, who is the director of the Governor's water portfolio program, here to talk about the portfolio this morning.
[20:31] We're very pleased to have her with us, and Nancy, Dr. Frother, do.
[20:36] Thank you.
[20:36] Thank you.
[20:37] Thank you.
[20:38] You have to.
[20:39] Is it just this one?
[20:40] Yeah.
[20:41] Good morning.
[20:42] Good morning, Chairman.
[20:43] And it's great to see so many trusted experts from earlier phases of my career here.
[20:50] And I congratulate you on the addition of Brian Johnson.
[20:54] He and I worked briefly together on the Clemth River Renew Corporation Board.
[20:57] I think you'll find him the kind of board member that goes above and beyond.
[21:01] And he understands the importance, the transformational importance of multi-benefit floodplain projects.
[21:08] And I think he'll be a great addition.
[21:09] So I will give a little background on the portfolio.
[21:14] I want to thank the board for being one of the bodies that held a public listening session for us and gathered up input from the public and provided your own input as well.
[21:25] And helped us in the iterative process of pulling together the suite of actions.
[21:30] We released a draft on January 3rd and we're asking for public comment until February 7th.
[21:35] So, as I tick through these slides, please bear in mind, this is a draft document.
[21:40] We want to improve it, refine it, so we want to hear from you and the public and stakeholders
[21:44] on how we can go about doing that.
[21:48] Excuse me, Ms. Vogel, would you please mind stating your name for the record?
[21:51] Oh, I'm sorry.
[21:52] My name is Nancy Vogel.
[21:55] Thank you.
[21:56] In September, your board offered several points for our consideration based on the public listening
[22:02] sessions and your own expertise and your guidance to us broadly was this, strengthen collaborative
[22:08] federal state, local tribal and public private partnerships, prioritize multi-benefit projects
[22:15] that utilize natural infrastructure, improve permitting and monitoring and mitigation and
[22:20] funding processes to facilitate implementation of both traditional and multi-benefit projects,
[22:26] integrate investments, policies and programs including the floodplain, the Sustainable
[22:31] ground water management act and potentially voluntary agreements to improve conditions for
[22:36] efficient wildlife.
[22:37] Encourage regional watershed approaches and identify sustainable funding for operations
[22:42] maintenance and repair of floodplain infrastructure.
[22:46] So I hope you'll see much of that reflected in the draft document and to some degree at least.
[22:52] And if you think we're missing something important or could do a better job of articulating
[22:56] something that's a priority for you, let us know.
[22:59] Please.
[23:00] So, some background, as Darren said in April, the governor issued about a 2.5 page executive order that was jam packed with to do's.
[23:11] And the natural resources agency, Cal EPA and the California Department of Food and Agriculture were asked to, together prepare a suite of actions that would prepare California's communities, environment and economy for the conditions of the future.
[23:28] Now, many factors, there are many factors, many good reasons to step back and take a look at
[23:34] California water policy right now, a couple of the most pressing are one we demographers
[23:41] tell us we can expect another 10 million Californians in the state by 2050 going from 40 million
[23:47] people to 50 million people. And as I'm sure you are all aware, the average warmer temperatures
[23:52] that we're seeing can wreak havoc with our precipitation patterns, we're seeing, you know,
[23:57] we are expecting, shrinking snowpack intensified drought and flood.
[24:04] So we think of this document as an integrated set of actions designed to help communities be ready
[24:12] for flood and drought on a scale and intensity that we haven't seen before.
[24:17] and to if not withstand those stressors to at least recover quickly from them and then to adapt and grow from these experiences.
[24:30] The governor asked us to as we were preparing the suite of actions to emphasize projects that would offer multiple benefits, and of course you're quite familiar with that concept of finding ways to both improve habitat.
[24:46] that retards groundwater, better protect communities, et cetera.
[24:51] It's hard to quantify, but we do get incredible benefits from natural infrastructure such as wetlands and forests and floodplains.
[24:58] He asks that we emphasize that.
[25:01] He wants regional approaches, and he wants partnerships.
[25:04] He asks us to innovate and pay mind to new technology where possible.
[25:11] And to work on a watershed and regional scale with these actions.
[25:15] We, after hearing a great deal of input from the public through the public listening sessions
[25:21] through more than 61-on-one meetings with stakeholders and incredibly comprehensive and substantial
[25:30] and impressive input from more than 100 different organizations and individuals, we came up
[25:37] with 133 draft actions and all of them fit under these four major rubrics, maintain and diversify
[25:44] water supplies, protecting enhanced natural systems, build connections, whether that's human,
[25:50] physical, digital, data oriented, et cetera, and be prepared.
[25:58] So some of the themes that you'll see in the portfolio proposed actions, there are quite
[26:05] a few options that direct the administration simply to implement laws that were enacted
[26:11] than in recent years.
[26:13] Through the 2012-2016 drought complex,
[26:16] but incredibly important legislation was enacted,
[26:20] including SIGMA,
[26:23] SB 606 and AB 1668,
[26:27] which will essentially give us a new framework
[26:31] for what are use of efficiency in our cities,
[26:34] and on our forms.
[26:36] And then in July 2019,
[26:38] the Governor enacted the Safe and Affordable
[26:40] drinking water act to try to deal with the problem of more than one million California
[26:47] to lack access to safe drinking water. And then not all the efforts that are ongoing
[26:54] that we highlight in the portfolio were legislative. We are also working, obviously,
[26:59] and it's important to do so to eradicate the nutrient. The rodents introduced from South America
[27:04] have that can cause lots of levy problems as you all know.
[27:09] Some of the actions in the portfolio, many of them actually called for much greater state
[27:15] coordination among agencies.
[27:17] This governor does not want to see folks working in silos when that's counterproductive.
[27:23] We have proposed actions to coordinate grant and loan programs and permitting to try to integrate
[27:30] our models and to be essentially a help and not a hindrance when local and regional entities come to us
[27:37] with complex multiple partner, multiple benefit projects that they want to carry out.
[27:44] Some of the actions highlight the role of science and the need for better data, we learned a lot
[27:49] in the 2012 to 2016 drought that we could use a lot better real-time information about who's
[27:55] using water, where, and how, so some of the actions
[27:59] are related to that, we heard from stakeholders
[28:04] that watershed scale, climate, vulnerability,
[28:07] and adaptation analyses that use the best science
[28:10] and that are conducted by the state in a consistent way
[28:13] would be incredibly valuable for their planning efforts.
[28:16] And so that's one of our proposed actions.
[28:19] So the themes, I think, some of the broad themes
[28:24] the portfolio taken together are that water management in California is by and large a local
[28:30] effort, local and regional, the public policy institute of California tells us that of the
[28:35] estimated $33 billion a year that are spent on water management in California 85% of that
[28:42] is raised and spent at the local level. But the state does have an important role as a policy maker,
[28:48] regulator, a funder, a collector, and a disseminator of information, an incentivizer, et cetera.
[28:56] There was great progress made in the 2012 to 2016 drought with legislation that if fully implemented
[29:03] will go a long way towards helping to build regional water resilience, and we should not
[29:08] squander that momentum. And again, state agencies need to do a better job of integrating their efforts
[29:14] to support local water resilience efforts.
[29:21] All right, so I've given your interest.
[29:23] I pulled out here the actions that are in the draft
[29:25] portfolio related to flood.
[29:27] And there are quite a few actually relative
[29:30] to other aspects of water management.
[29:32] In fact, I think there's more proposed actions
[29:34] in this document related to flood
[29:36] than anything except groundwater.
[29:41] So we agreed that we've got to find more efficient ways
[29:45] to permit the operation and maintenance of flooding for structure, and his board member Tim Ramirez
[29:50] is so articulately expressed as we've got to pay attention to the San Joaquin where the peak
[29:55] flows are scary when you look at what's projected into the...
[30:00] Future. So here are some of the proposed actions. And here are more. It's worth noting that the governor's proposed budget,
[30:10] which was released earlier. This month includes a proposed $4.75 billion climate resilience bond that would go before voters in November 2020.
[30:20] Of course, that needs to be negotiated with the legislature. But that bond proposed would include $340 million for the state match on various
[30:29] US Army Corps of Engineer projects through 2024-25, and another $270 million dollars from
[30:35] all type benefit flood projects.
[30:37] In addition, the proposed budget includes $54.6 million in Prop 68 funding to enhance
[30:44] the state's flood control and prevention system through the floodplain management, Yolo Bipass,
[30:49] multi-benefit, and floodwater groundwater, or floodwater groundwater recharge programs.
[30:55] So, as you can see, the draft portfolio calls for a lot of interagency work to find ways to make permitting a flood projects and operations and maintenance easier to get and to get some synergy with environmental benefits as well.
[31:11] And the draft portfolio would commit the state to try to pursue federal funds for flood risk reduction before and after any disaster.
[31:20] So where do we go from here?
[31:22] Hopefully you'll take the time to review the draft documents and get us written feedback.
[31:27] I really appreciate written feedback.
[31:29] There's not enough time in the day to collect it all face-to-face.
[31:33] And we'll revise the document as quickly as we can.
[31:36] And get a final version to the governor.
[31:38] I can't give you an exact date as to when that would happen.
[31:42] But ideally we'll not take months.
[31:44] And I appreciate the opportunity to give you this quick overview.
[31:47] And I'm happy to try to answer any questions.
[31:51] Thank you.
[31:52] Nancy.
[31:53] I really appreciate that.
[31:56] We had a meeting or started discussion on the on the resiliency of Portfolio at the coordinating committee on Wednesday.
[32:09] the gene and Clyde kind of coordinated that for the stakeholders that and we've gotten
[32:17] some feedback and probably we'll have some feedback today.
[32:21] But I think I just like to share a couple of thoughts and then maybe gene and Clyde can jump
[32:29] in and then we have a number of speakers that we can have also come in.
[32:36] I think the bottom line is, is we think this is a great vehicle.
[32:43] This will be our really our key tool for integrating all the silos that are operating
[32:50] now.
[32:50] And that's the key here.
[32:53] We hear that from all the stakeholders that the state is actually coming at them with
[33:01] a whole bunch of restrictions, regulations, and so on that they feel and some areas are competing
[33:11] and are conflicting.
[33:13] And it's going to take something like this resiliency portfolio to pull that together.
[33:20] And we have a little bit of experience with that in the Yolo bypass, which I think we can
[33:25] look at, in order to get that group of suite of projects underway, he had to have a little
[33:38] team that he put together and it took an awful lot of work, meetings all the time to
[33:46] try to get those projects underway and some of them, you know, we still aren't started
[33:52] yet, but many of them are started and many of them, a couple of them they have been completed.
[33:59] So it's a success, but it takes a lot of work.
[34:02] There needs to be a team of people, there needs to be technical work groups that report back.
[34:10] There just everybody is, has got to get the message and at least that's what I'm thinking.
[34:16] I think in the way of background, I think, we can all agree that we're really at a really critical point in our state's history where both from a regulatory policy standpoint and also from a program implementation standpoint.
[34:36] So we've got to start getting some things done.
[34:40] We have a, you know, just looking at it from a stakeholder standpoint or a landowner's
[34:46] standpoint.
[34:46] We do have a very stringent regulatory environment, which all the landowners, all the local
[34:53] governments are facing.
[34:55] And I think the stakes have never been higher to try to have this water resiliency portfolio
[35:03] So actually pull all of these programs, these siloed programs, these siloed projects together
[35:11] and develop priorities.
[35:15] Now I think your portfolio, in my view, presents a vision.
[35:20] It's really a vision for how we integrate programs and establish priorities for funding
[35:27] In our case, $30 billion over 30 years and, you know, you had in water and all of these other things that are going on and it's a big, big number.
[35:40] And it's bigger than what is being considered as a bond issue for everything.
[35:47] The bond issue includes streets and there are, I mean, highways and all the
[35:53] Cal Transmoney and bridges and in addition to flood and flood itself as huge.
[36:01] And I imagine these others are even even bigger.
[36:05] But I'm just hoping that this tool can all mentally be the tool that brings our programs
[36:11] together.
[36:12] But I just based on our experience and you talked to Chris, I'm sure about what he's faced with just in the Yolo.
[36:22] I was going to take a lot of work and it's going to take a lot of people working hard to bring this together.
[36:33] I guess, frankly, when I read the document, I didn't see much in there on flood, to be honest,
[36:42] maybe I'm not, I'll read it again, and so on, but we all know, I think, that flood has always been kind of an afterthought,
[36:54] You know, as we're thinking about it, most people DWR and in the policy arena are thinking of water supply, water, dams, that's kind of the main focus and oh, yeah, by the way, we have flood, but it's always kind of been an afterthought.
[37:12] I believe, and maybe that's overstated, but I think, but I was hoping for a little more on the flood area in the portfolio.
[37:24] you. Well, please tell us exactly what you would add. Yeah, okay. Well, well, since you asked.
[37:32] Well, I don't mean it this moment. No, but just a couple of things. And I thank you for your invitation.
[37:44] I will probably be sorry for this invitation to give you comments and so on and it is a draft.
[37:50] But I think it is going to be dynamic document because as we go along it's going to have
[37:56] to change and so on and that's good, I think it's good.
[38:01] Well, we need to say somewhere that without the levees and channels there is no water
[38:11] advance. And the Central Valley flood protection plan, I think, is in order to both flood
[38:20] and water supply resiliency. And I should, I think it needs to be viewed more as complementary
[38:30] to water supply, and not as competitors, which it has been in the past. I think it has
[38:37] that there needs to be a greater emphasis on reducing or investing in reducing flood risk.
[38:45] And the maintenance and operations of our flood system, we have to take care of what we have.
[38:51] And the be honest, we haven't.
[38:54] If you look at the inspection reports on the levies, which we get annually, it shows the same
[39:02] folks at local maintaining agencies have not been maintaining their lobbies the way they should.
[39:10] So what have we done about it?
[39:12] Well, not much for trying, we're increasing our programs out there, here again, it's
[39:20] putting more pressure on the local governments who don't have a lot of money out there.
[39:26] We're depending upon our BCP that Leslie's going to have been not that one, but the BCP
[39:34] was already been approved to look into funding through the SSJD for kind of, we view that
[39:42] is it might be the glue that puts all these programs and projects together that the locals can't
[39:49] these rural districts, these rural areas where these
[39:53] levees are important to property and people safety.
[39:58] Public safety, these rural areas simply can't afford what
[40:03] we're asking in our area, in our area of flood protection,
[40:09] certain criteria that the core requires for operation
[40:13] maintenance.
[40:14] We spent a year on the year on the year on
[40:32] the issue of what is the criteria and we went back and forth with the Delta Stewardship Council and trying to define what we really mean.
[40:45] And I think we now have what the core means and what it's accepted, what's the correct
[40:53] area for the main, that's an operation, these levies.
[40:56] And I think there needs to be something in there about that.
[41:02] I also think there needs to be, you know, and some people are going to go crazy about this,
[41:07] but it seems to me we need the least recognized that there's going to be some continued
[41:13] investment in the Delta in the maintenance area because it's going to take 10 years to get a
[41:22] new paradigm and a you know beneficial water system there so it's going to take a decade before the
[41:35] new conveyance system is operational and I think that's you know what are we doing the mean time
[41:41] So there's going to have to be some work we need to do there.
[41:47] Obviously, the portfolio recognizes the importance of multi-benefit initiatives.
[41:59] But I think
[42:05] we can't really protect as the flood plan says through everything.
[42:13] It has to be a suite of things that we're doing, multi-benefit projects, flood maintenance
[42:18] projects, water supply projects, they all have to, they are going to have to do different
[42:24] things.
[42:25] That's what multi-benefit means, and I think flood protection is a key to some of these
[42:32] rural areas, especially where they can't afford it.
[42:36] I think the state's going to have to help out with those.
[42:38] Anyway, those are
[42:43] the one thing that we're faced with now, and I know the governor's interest in homelessness.
[42:54] There needs to be something in the portfolio. We have a lot of state surplus property.
[43:00] We have a lot of it. We're going to have to deal with public safety issue.
[43:05] But we're going to have to recognize that we're also going to have to deal with that problem and, frankly, we're just in the middle of dealing with that.
[43:13] So I'm not sure how the portfolio is going to reconcile what he wants in his executive order versus this water resiliency portfolio, whether it's going to be totally to separate things or not, but as you know we've been asked to kind of look at that.
[43:30] I was looking for, I guess, more specificity in the portfolio, more timelines, more specific outcomes,
[43:42] so that the people, so that our stakeholders would get a sense of where the state's going.
[43:49] What I feedback on getting from them is that they're getting all of these requirements.
[43:55] We're requiring more maintenance and operational attention on the levees taking care of what we have.
[44:05] Other people are requiring that other things that they're doing which are important restoring ecosystems and so on,
[44:16] but they're not getting a sense of what the state overall direction is.
[44:22] And I think that's what your portfolio is going to ultimately do, and we want to work very closely with you on that.
[44:39] Anyway, those are just some comments that for what it's worth, I think the only thing that's going to bring these together is what you're trying to do, but I really think it's going to be a lot of work, a lot of people and a lot of teams.
[44:55] So, those are just some comments that I...
[45:00] May appreciate any other questions for Nancy from the board.
[45:07] Go ahead.
[45:08] Go ahead.
[45:09] Go ahead.
[45:09] Go ahead.
[45:12] I'll be brief on this.
[45:14] As you know, I spent my career working on water policy, mostly in the legislature.
[45:20] I think one of the things that, as I kind of look back on that period for me, it was really difficult to get anything done.
[45:28] There were lots of projects proposed, but a lot of things just could not get done.
[45:33] And I really like what this, what the project that you're working on Nancy is doing and
[45:39] what it's proposing, and I think it's a very much of a shift in a direction that is really
[45:47] good.
[45:47] It's more holistic.
[45:49] It's more participatory.
[45:53] It's moving us in a better direction where we are better connected at the state level, at the local level, at the federal level.
[46:02] And I think it has lots and lots of opportunities there.
[46:07] And I hope this is successful, but I really like the direction you're going.
[46:12] I just like to make another comment on things like funding.
[46:16] We have to pay attention to the funding issue.
[46:19] I mean, we've talked in this board about wanting to do uplift of habitat values, fishery
[46:27] values, birds, things like that, but there's not funding for it.
[46:32] And if we're going to do, a lot of work gets done as mitigation, but mitigation is just mitigation.
[46:39] And we really don't have an uplift component, and we need things like that.
[46:44] We need to have, and also if we're going to build multi-benefit projects, we under
[46:54] prop to 18, districts can't go to their voters and say, hey, we want to fund birds and
[47:02] things like that, and so we need a mechanism that we, that's somehow we fund those things.
[47:08] And so I think we need to pay attention to fun, and I'm not saying you're not, but it's kind
[47:11] of the things that I see is it's really important on what we've been trying to do and also
[47:16] what your document is trying to do. So I thank you for what you're doing. Thank you, Clay.
[47:25] Hi, Nancy. We go back a little ways that I remember being interviewed by you as
[47:33] when you were a reporter. And I remember your story is about 86 and it's awesome.
[47:46] I agree with what Bill and Clyde have to say, so I'm going to get off the boat a little bit here and go into the area of actual water supply and delivery, which not necessarily, you know, directly related to flood control.
[48:02] I think the emphasis on improved efficiency
[48:10] has the greatest potential.
[48:13] In California, we have what I call a dam dream.
[48:17] Everybody feels, oh, I spilled a dam, all the problems go away.
[48:23] And if you actually look at the water supply runoff,
[48:29] you just can't get there from here.
[48:31] You can't get there from here.
[48:35] And the dams that we have provide something like three to five year water supply, something in that order.
[48:47] And we know from tree rings that we could easily have seven to ten year.
[48:53] So you can build all the surface storage you want, and if you have a seven to ten year drought,
[48:59] You're going to run out of water if that's your main emphasis on solving this problem.
[49:06] So really, we can't, we've got a really emphasized, improved efficiency.
[49:13] I don't see the other way out for California.
[49:16] I mean, we could have a huge dislocation of the population if we had experienced the
[49:23] to 10-year drought. And it would be beyond anything that's been experienced previously, an enormous
[49:30] disaster. So I encourage what you're doing the way you're thinking about this. And we all have
[49:40] to pull together because I think this in flood and this drought are the two biggest emergencies or
[49:50] We, you know, threats to our way of life in California.
[49:54] So I'm glad that we're taking some action here.
[49:58] Yeah, the only thing that I would add,
[50:01] I remember I emphasized that Nancy,
[50:03] you're gonna have to have a team of people
[50:05] that helps get this done and not just two or three.
[50:09] It's got to be a full effort out there.
[50:13] But the bottom line is we have got to bring the locals
[50:17] along with the priorities and the timelines and what they're perceiving as the restrictions
[50:27] and the edicts by the state.
[50:30] We've got to be with us on this or it's going nowhere.
[50:35] That's what we've learned or it's going to court and we don't want that either.
[50:41] But that's what we learned in the flood plan.
[50:43] we've got to start with them and hear them and understand them and work to get this resiliency
[50:52] portfolio to a point where we all are on the same page and that's that's really a key
[51:00] to do. I think they're wanting to do that. So maybe the outreach we can help with the outreach
[51:07] it automatically meetings or whatever you want were available for that, because it did work
[51:17] with the flood plan anyway. Tim or Maris?
[51:28] Yeah, thank you.
[51:30] Oh, you got it.
[51:31] That's okay. There's an order here and it's sort of mixed down a little bit. First, thank
[51:35] you for coming today and for doing this. I want to echo up Clyde said,
[51:39] I watched the last several plans from a governor get developed and this is, I think, by far, the most comprehensive thorough and open to participation.
[51:50] The process by itself is a challenge and to put it all in one place, I'm sure, as you know, is a big accomplishment and just to have a draft.
[51:58] So, thank you for doing that. It's really nice to have a place to focus our comments and we'll do that.
[52:04] And I want also, like what Bill said about whatever we can do to help, I'm sure we would do that, so please lean on us and whatever way you think we can be useful.
[52:13] Just two quick comments as well about the details.
[52:18] I think the story you gave at the beginning looks just like our Central Valley Floor Protection Plan, the DWR help prepare.
[52:25] All of those themes, regional and integrated in multi-benefit, which is great because it's very totally in sync, which is going to be,
[52:31] I think it really important because, right after this gets done, we're going to launch into our five
[52:35] replicators, you know, so I think it's going to dovetail really well. It's going to be a great opportunity.
[52:40] And I love that the SoundMaking part is in build connections because I can't think of a better way to
[52:46] describe that story. All the things that are in the document, you could put under build connections
[52:51] in the SoundMaking, you know, quality water for people to drink,
[52:58] precreation, fish, protecting communities that are behind levees, and there's good stories
[53:02] in pieces in the valley, but I think what we're really lacking is the stage role to knit
[53:08] that together. And the board, I think, has a really great opportunity to do that because the footprint
[53:14] of our responsibilities, structures throughout the land and higher system, all the way from
[53:18] Brian down, and GDPR was just here with the Bureau of Aspons,
[53:21] as you probably know talking about the San Joaquin Restoration Program.
[53:25] So that's where I'm going to try to focus our comments.
[53:27] Just to try to think about how we can really try to help connect those dots.
[53:31] And then maybe through the plan and through the words of the 30 help bring
[53:36] life to those things.
[53:37] I think it's been a long time coming and hopefully we can help
[53:41] provide some of that insight.
[53:42] So I appreciate that.
[53:43] Thank you.
[53:45] Thank you.
[53:45] Yeah, that's a good point.
[53:48] We are successful, we have been successful with putting a plan together that's been accepted
[53:56] by our local stakeholders and all the players and we need to build on that.
[54:05] We don't need to start over, we need to build on something that's successful and move that
[54:11] forward and that needs to be part of our thinking too.
[54:15] We have some people in the audience that'd like to...
[54:18] You also have a group.
[54:22] You can do that.
[54:24] I'm sorry.
[54:26] I know.
[54:28] I think that the draft is excellent.
[54:32] And that it came together in government timelines so quickly and comprehensively.
[54:39] Not as quickly as I'd have liked.
[54:40] Thank you.
[54:41] So how the team took what I thought was probably was extensive input into something that's
[54:47] so cogent, like, graduations to that.
[54:50] I think that our job, and I think you've heard this here, so I'm going to associate myself
[54:54] with my board members, what they said is clear what we all tried to work on.
[54:59] The needs are pretty well known.
[55:01] We've talked about them for a long time, even way back in my days is county supervisor.
[55:06] We've talked about that.
[55:07] We have systems, all kinds of systems built for a population that is much less than what we
[55:14] have right now, let alone what is coming forward.
[55:17] And our work in creating first, the first, the first, the center of the Lifeblood Protection
[55:22] Plan and the update in 2017, clearly identifies that multi-benefit is what the plan and
[55:31] our systems have fled due.
[55:32] we just don't understand that or take advantage of it
[55:35] or know how to make that better.
[55:37] So I identified many ways in the plan to work forward.
[55:40] And I don't think it's you.
[55:42] I think it's a we.
[55:44] And I really believe that the blood board and its staff
[55:47] are ready to actively work on collaboration,
[55:51] not to say we support it.
[55:52] Because it takes effort and it takes time.
[55:55] It takes initiative, not to say, oh yeah, I'm on board,
[55:58] but to be present.
[55:59] And so we're there to do that.
[56:01] And it just inputs we get from our stakeholders and we have lots of stakeholder meetings because
[56:07] we think that's important to get folks knowledgeable and on board is how to look at
[56:13] recrafting all the systems we have and we're fled, but there's contains and all the others
[56:20] to build ways that they can be recrafted to meet future needs because future is upon us.
[56:28] And we talk about things like, oh, I'll use excess flood waters to recharge ground water.
[56:33] Well, that's an excellent concept, very difficult to achieve, and we'll be at the table to help
[56:39] help work that out.
[56:40] So thank you for being here today.
[56:42] Thank you.
[56:42] Thank you very much.
[56:44] Any other board members?
[56:47] Okay.
[56:49] Thank you, Nancy.
[56:51] Thank you.
[56:51] Okay.
[56:51] We have a work where I know it.
[57:03] Thank you, President Eger.
[57:05] Members of the Board, Executive Officer Gallagher.
[57:07] Rick Reinhardt, I'm here on behalf of the Central Valley
[57:10] Flood Control Association today.
[57:12] We greatly appreciate the New Smith Administration's
[57:14] leadership and Nancy in particular for leading authoring
[57:18] this document.
[57:21] It lays out a plan for how we do what we're doing on the
[57:25] Central Valley protection plan in the Central Valley
[57:27] really to statewide scale and emphasizing the importance
[57:31] of how these programs that so far have been implemented
[57:34] silos can be more effective if done as in an integrated fashion. I want to touch on a
[57:43] a couple of things that the board members have said and was really pleased to hear that
[57:47] and building on our discussion at the coordinating committee meeting on Wednesday. We were
[57:53] pleasantly surprised to see there are quite a few things and flood management listed in the
[57:57] water resiliency portfolio. But there's a few areas that we want to see highlighted.
[58:02] I'm not going to go into detail today, but we are going to provide some comments and some suggestions for some very small edits that we think will make a meaningful impact in emphasizing flood management.
[58:14] In particular, is the need for structural investment. The plan lays out and identifies and stresses multi-benefit opportunities, floodplain restoration.
[58:24] And the Flood Control Association has absolutely supported that and supported as it played out in the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan.
[58:31] But as the water resiliency portfolio points out, we need many tools in our toolbox.
[58:35] Those are two tools.
[58:36] You're not going to do a multi-benefit project or a Flood Plan restoration project in the middle of downtown Stockton or in the middle of downtown Stockton.
[58:44] We're still going to need to make traditional structural investments.
[58:48] And that is highlighted in the Governor's budget as Ms. Vogel identified with funding the Army
[58:54] Corps of Engineers programs.
[58:56] But the problem we're seeing is the problem that's identified in the Governor's budget
[59:01] proposal.
[59:02] We have two programs.
[59:03] If you're an urban area and have an Army Corps of Engineers project, states going to step up
[59:06] and make that cost share.
[59:08] If you do a multi-benefit project, the state's going to step up and make that cost share.
[59:12] But if you're a small community, if you're a disadvantaged community, if you're a rural
[59:17] area, there's no money in this budget.
[59:18] And the Central via flood protection plan has identified significant need and deficiencies in
[59:23] these rural areas, these small communities, and we need to have that as a priority in the
[59:28] water resiliency portfolio as well to make sure that we're getting investment in those.
[59:35] On Wednesday, coincidentally, I was on a conference call with Bay Area flood interest and
[59:41] California flood interest, and we're looking for areas where we can find alignment
[59:47] throughout local agencies and California on flood issues. And two issues in particular
[59:51] were highlighted in that call. The first is homelessness.
[59:55] In the water quality section of the
[59:59] Water Resonancy Portfolio.
[1:00:00] So, homelessness in the rivers in floodways needs to be highlighted. I can't think of a greater environmental disaster that's happening right now than the solid waste, untreated waste and hazardous waste. It's in our rivers and streams. And while it acts absolutely is a public crisis and the governor's made it quite dealing with homelessness, we don't have five or ten years of that continued environmental degradation in our streams and rivers while we're trying to do these restoration projects.
[1:00:27] We've got to get people out of our rivers and streams.
[1:00:32] What was interesting to hear from the Bay Area flood interest and a southern California flood interest is,
[1:00:37] in many cases, it's the land use agency that has the flood control responsibility,
[1:00:41] and so they're also having the deal with the cleanup aspect of that,
[1:00:46] and it's affecting their maintenance budgets.
[1:00:49] Here in the central valley, our local maintaining agencies generally don't have their responsibility
[1:00:53] for dealing with homelessness except as they're affecting the flood control infrastructure.
[1:00:58] And the board has provided a leadership role with that, which was previously AB 137 and now AB
[1:01:03] 1958. We hope that moves forward and helps us, but clearly there's a greater need across the state
[1:01:10] for dealing with the homelessness as part of our flood management strategies. The other item that came
[1:01:15] up in that call that is identified in the Water Residency portfolio, but we want to see the
[1:01:20] leaders detail on is operation maintenance and the ongoing challenges we have, especially with
[1:01:28] these resource agencies requiring compensatory mitigation for ongoing operation maintenance.
[1:01:36] As we see at the state level with the maintenance responsibilities that the board has under water
[1:01:45] The administration and the legislature's budget isn't always a reflection of what the department says needs to be done.
[1:01:51] What their maintenance need is.
[1:01:53] We've done really good over the past couple of years in getting funding for deferred maintenance.
[1:01:58] Getting our maintenance budget better matching what the demand is.
[1:02:03] But what we've seen in the passes when we have an economic downturn that budget for own insurance.
[1:02:08] a deferred maintenance backlog builds and now there's compensatory mitigation required for that deferred backlog and the additional budget is not proposed to deal with both those things that deferred maintenance and the mitigation goes with it.
[1:02:23] So we appreciate the board providing leadership in the stakeholder outreach to provide input to the plan.
[1:02:30] We are going to come back to you with some very specific edits in fact for meeting this afternoon.
[1:02:33] And we look forward to working with the administration to finalize this plan and have it be something that has the same broad support, but the center of our flood protection has from the flood control community, environmental community and the farming community. Thank you.
[1:02:46] Thank you.
[1:02:47] Thank you.
[1:02:51] Guilcasio.
[1:02:56] Good morning, Guil.
[1:02:56] Good morning, Mr. President.
[1:02:58] What's that?
[1:02:59] I thought you were retiring.
[1:03:01] You know, I'm never going to retire.
[1:03:03] I'm going to be like a countryman to call back.
[1:03:05] I'm working full-time now, but next year could be a different story.
[1:03:09] I thought, you know, 36 years ago when I started, I'd have this problem resolved.
[1:03:14] You know, we had bulletin one, 92, we're going to get money from a levy program.
[1:03:17] I could put in 30 years retire and the Delta would be fixed while we're not there.
[1:03:22] And we won't be there for a while.
[1:03:26] Yeah.
[1:03:26] I could still dream, but it's getting a short time here.
[1:03:30] I echo Mr. Reinhardt's comments and also appreciate the fact that the board is understanding
[1:03:37] what the plan shows, which is a comprehensive, but then what it doesn't show also,
[1:03:42] which does affect us directly.
[1:03:44] I want to focus my comments on specifically in the Delta, because I think we've got some
[1:03:49] momentum going in the Delta, and it doesn't recognize that, and it doesn't recognize that
[1:03:54] need to keep things going in order to keep the water plan in place.
[1:04:00] First of all, we state your name for the record.
[1:04:02] I'm Sergeant Gilbert Kosio and B.K. Engineers.
[1:04:08] So one of the things in the water priorities section it talks about the
[1:04:12] levy conveyances to right now is a single conveyance system utilizing the
[1:04:17] levy's and that possible earthquake has a probability of 66%
[1:04:22] happening in the next 30 years that could disable the levy system. What it fails to acknowledge
[1:04:29] that even after a tunnel is built, it's going to be a dual conveyance system, so you still
[1:04:33] have to rely on the levees. That single tunnel is not going to resolve the problems. And then
[1:04:39] also like President Eger mentioned, until we get to that tunnel, it's got to rely on levees. Now,
[1:04:44] you said 10 years, I think, based on some of the design and permitting that has to go on
[1:04:50] you're on a couple of lots of these poor construction.
[1:04:53] You're talking probably 20 years before you see a tunnel.
[1:04:56] So these loveies have to stay up another 20 years,
[1:05:00] which is essentially those 30 years
[1:05:03] that that probability was thrown out
[1:05:04] because that probability came out in the dreams
[1:05:06] to study in 2008.
[1:05:07] So we're going to be at 30 years before any tunnels in place.
[1:05:10] So I hope these loveies stay up to all then.
[1:05:12] But I'll be retired, so maybe I won't care.
[1:05:17] So what I'm concerned about is that the verbiage
[1:05:19] they're using is 2008 based on 2005 levy data.
[1:05:25] Since 2005, the Delta Levy program,
[1:05:28] which includes your Seventions program,
[1:05:30] is spent a tremendous amount of energy and money
[1:05:33] on making these levy better.
[1:05:36] I estimated that there's about $650 million invested
[1:05:39] since 2005 by 200 millions come from the Seventions program
[1:05:44] and about 450 from a special projects program.
[1:05:49] And also since that time, one of the concerns we had about dreams when it discussed the
[1:05:56] susceptibility to seismic action in the Delta was that they overwhelmingly conservative
[1:06:02] in some of the parameters they used.
[1:06:03] In 2016, the independent science board of the stewardship council held a workshop on seismicity
[1:06:08] in the Delta.
[1:06:09] And the USGS presented some interesting data because they've set up some motion sensors in
[1:06:14] the Delta and happened to have them in place when the NAPA earthquake hit.
[1:06:17] And what they found is that instead of amplifying the motion that the delta levees and their
[1:06:24] foundation actually attenuated the motion, and they estimated that the dream's overestimated
[1:06:30] the force of seismicity and the delta by four times, and then was ever gone back to check
[1:06:36] what that would mean to the statement about the levees crumbling during earthquake.
[1:06:44] And also, it's been known for a long time by DWR and others, at least 40 years, that when you construct
[1:06:52] toberms and widen the base of the levy, you don't totally make them earthquake resistant,
[1:07:00] but you do make a more stable after a seismic event, and so you have more material to work
[1:07:04] on to rebuild levy.
[1:07:06] And a lot of our work we've been doing in the last 15 years has been building toberms.
[1:07:10] Our first priority was to get the elevations raised,
[1:07:14] which we did in the 90s,
[1:07:15] and then now we're doing more stability type work.
[1:07:19] So that should be recognized,
[1:07:20] and the fact that we've got this momentum
[1:07:22] going with the Loveys program should be recognized.
[1:07:25] It's something that's that's been beneficial
[1:07:26] and can continue if it's explicitly
[1:07:30] outlined as one of the priorities for the plan.
[1:07:34] And then the next comment on
[1:07:37] Delta levies and how they do or aren't included in the plan is the section that talks about regional networks and state support.
[1:07:44] These multi-benefit projects, getting stakeholders and partners together, and the Delta levies program is kind of the poster child for that if you don't realize that back in 1988 when it really got kickstarted with SB 34, the plan was we needed to have a program that not only provided the flood benefit,
[1:08:04] It focused money on levies that protected water quality and water supply, and it also improved
[1:08:10] the habitat.
[1:08:11] So for many years, we've had an enhancement requirement, and to this day, we're on the
[1:08:16] positive, we've enhanced the environment.
[1:08:18] Now, it isn't multi-benefit project by project, but it's multi-benefit on a program, and I
[1:08:25] know Rick mentioned earlier that it's hard to get these multi-benefit projects, but if you
[1:08:29] look at it programmatically, I think we can work things out a little easier.
[1:08:34] And if you look at the beneficiaries, like I said, there's a habitat enhancement, we've
[1:08:37] got the water supply, we've got flood control in egg and small communities in the Delta,
[1:08:43] but we're at the bottom of the barrel for the state plant and flood control.
[1:08:46] So we're also providing the last conveyance of flood waters out of the reaches of the valley.
[1:08:55] So the beneficiaries of working on Delta Lovies, you know, stretch the entire valley.
[1:08:59] And so it's not just a few farmers that are benefiting its entire state.
[1:09:03] So the portfolio should recognize that the Dutleti program was important, can be important,
[1:09:10] and should be continued to get funded.
[1:09:13] Thank you.
[1:09:14] Thank you, Bill.
[1:09:16] Joe?
[1:09:18] Joe?
[1:09:21] Thank you for that.
[1:09:22] I wasn't aware of the information about that map earthquake seems like that's very critical information.
[1:09:30] information, do you know of any attempt to integrate or absorb that data and make another
[1:09:37] evaluation?
[1:09:38] Not that I know what I've been on my list of things to do is to try to contact the authors
[1:09:42] to see if they've done any more work and improved on it, but certainly the independent
[1:09:46] science board hasn't taken on responsibility of expanding the science to figure out what
[1:09:51] that means.
[1:09:52] Yeah, I could have a big impact on the whole way we look at things in the dull time, so
[1:09:56] thank you.
[1:09:58] Thank you, go.
[1:10:02] I'm a Linda.
[1:10:10] I'm a Linda Terry, Central Valley Flood Control Association.
[1:10:12] Obviously, Rick did a good job.
[1:10:15] Just wanted to add in a couple of things.
[1:10:18] Obviously, we're very appreciative.
[1:10:20] The administration didn't get just early on and they're providing an opportunity
[1:10:23] to come in on a draft.
[1:10:25] So that is very nice.
[1:10:27] But just high, you know, big picture looking at it too.
[1:10:30] We were just really worse surprised to not see a little bit more
[1:10:34] focus on your board specifically in light of the
[1:10:38] Sunshine Valley Fled Protection Plan.
[1:10:40] So for instance, on page 42, prior to that, they've
[1:10:43] listed different departments and agencies and actions
[1:10:47] that fall underneath them.
[1:10:49] And so what we'd like to see is an added in there, if you
[1:10:52] will, for a Fled Board.
[1:10:54] It may be pull out some of those actions from the Fled Plan
[1:10:57] that works so well with what they've already put together.
[1:11:00] And I think with the direction that they're headed,
[1:11:02] that would really be complimentary, but at this point it's kind of a missed opportunity
[1:11:07] unless that gets added in, you know, the definition of resiliency is acknowledging
[1:11:13] that bad things are going to happen and being prepared and then being able to recover quickly
[1:11:19] and so as was said earlier as the key to both being prepared and recovering quickly is maintenance.
[1:11:26] And for the recovery side, having federal funding come in is really important, and it doesn't
[1:11:35] matter if you're a project levy that you're responsible for, the Army Corps is going
[1:11:39] to require maintenance, but also for those non-project levy's 700 miles in the Delta
[1:11:44] non-project FEMA requires maintenance.
[1:11:48] So that's it.
[1:11:49] I'll just end with, I would really agree with President Edgar, it'd be nice.
[1:11:54] I was maybe just a little disappointed that the plan wasn't providing more of the vision of
[1:11:58] the outcomes.
[1:12:00] Like, where were we headed?
[1:12:01] What do we want to try to achieve?
[1:12:02] And, of course, the flood plan has some ideas that could help build upon that.
[1:12:08] And then just on a personal note, I would say I really agree with Mr. Countryman's comment
[1:12:12] about the efficiency after having read it.
[1:12:15] And then he said, I'm like, wow, that was something I really saw missing.
[1:12:18] And as he said, it's 70-year, 10-year drought, you know, from my personal experience and
[1:12:23] working back on the records, there's a drop happens every 10 years.
[1:12:26] The question is, you know, how frequently and it's not a matter of, you know,
[1:12:30] if it's just when and so.
[1:12:32] Thank you.
[1:12:33] Thank you, Melinda.
[1:12:35] Any other comments from the public on the resiliency portfolio?
[1:12:42] Okay.
[1:12:42] Thank you.
[1:12:43] For Darren.
[1:12:45] Okay.
[1:12:45] Nancy, thanks very much for being here today.
[1:12:48] Appreciate it.
[1:12:52] Members were on item eight public safety information item.
[1:12:57] And we have, as I indicated before, two items before the board under item 8A, an update on the proposed legislation, and under 8B or overview of the governor's recent executive order, Darren's going to handle both of them.
[1:13:16] But one overarching question, Darren.
[1:13:21] So with regard to the damage that's being happening on the lovis itself, American River
[1:13:34] Flood Control District told me that there's, I believe, 38 miles of lovis in which there
[1:13:43] are 148 encampments, is that about right, is that what you are?
[1:13:50] I haven't spoken with Mr. Kerr as of late.
[1:13:54] I trust what he told you.
[1:13:57] Okay, that that was really a surprise.
[1:14:00] 148 key encampments.
[1:14:03] I don't like that.
[1:14:04] Do you remember that, Leslie?
[1:14:06] Or is that you were at the same meeting as I was?
[1:14:10] Yeah.
[1:14:11] Is that a bad way?
[1:14:12] It was a lot.
[1:14:13] I don't recall the exact number.
[1:14:14] Yeah, but that was just unbelievable the amount of issued encampments that he has.
[1:14:24] The question is for me is, I know you have the legislation going and the governor's
[1:14:30] executive orders pretty clear, he wants an inventory of all the surplus state property
[1:14:36] with an eye that may be using some parts of it as a way to place shelters for these
[1:14:47] folks. And we're obviously going to comply with supplying, I guess, GSA with that
[1:14:55] information because they're the ones who are responsible for putting it together.
[1:15:00] But is there something else that we can do now to assist these local areas, giving them more assistance
[1:15:14] or working with the locals to attempt to solve this problem? Now, for example, I know in city parks,
[1:15:24] and you're on the electricity council, you know, we have hours on, you know, the parks are closed after
[1:15:35] nine o'clock and if you're in the park you gotta get out. Is there something we could do with hours on the
[1:15:42] levies, daylight hours? After seven o'clock at night these levies are closed, can't be on a period.
[1:15:49] Can't we do something like that as an immediate issue or, or so, I think, you know,
[1:15:58] legislation is going to take a while and we need that and we want to do that.
[1:16:02] But it seems to me that there's some things that we could do now to help if the police
[1:16:11] and the local officials need that assistance or where they could do it themselves.
[1:16:15] I mean, we don't establish the hours on part, but maybe we have to unleave these, I don't know.
[1:16:23] But it seems to me, as part of your efforts to resolve this problem, we need a little analysis of what can be done now.
[1:16:35] And if we can assist in any way, or whether this is simply a local government city or county issue, that's fine.
[1:16:43] But if we have to do something, we need to deal with this right now, not 30 days from now on, and so on, but right now it has to be dealt with.
[1:16:55] Thank you, President Egra.
[1:16:56] I appreciate your sense of urgency and your question.
[1:17:01] I think we'll talk more about that in the next item in terms of urgency and your point about park hours.
[1:17:09] We have a stakeholder group that meets in discussion regarding this proposed legislation.
[1:17:17] The last meeting we brought up park hours, the response was that it didn't seem helpful
[1:17:25] to them because the perception was that this could imply it would be okay to be on the
[1:17:37] So it's that was initial reactions, but we continue to meet regularly and I can bring that back and then
[1:17:45] pose a more general question about what they think could be done now.
[1:17:51] That would be great.
[1:17:52] I'll report that back.
[1:17:53] And if we can assist in any way, I'm sure the board wants to do that.
[1:17:59] This is one of our main priorities.
[1:18:02] taking care of what you have, and obviously we're not, so we need to do something.
[1:18:10] All right.
[1:18:11] So under 8A, which is the update on the proposed legislation?
[1:18:17] Yes.
[1:18:18] Thank you.
[1:18:18] Again, I'd warm down soon with the Flood Board.
[1:18:21] So it's a principal civil engineering policy advisor.
[1:18:25] With the lead in President Eger, you gave, you know,
[1:18:27] last year, we noticed through the media and brought to our attention by the local, some of the
[1:18:36] local maintain agencies around here, the illegal actions that were occurring on our
[1:18:43] levee system and damaging the significant damaging levee that was happening.
[1:18:49] With that, we proceeded to take action, some remember Jim Cooper at that time, also saw the
[1:18:57] media and wanted to assist, put forth a, it got in the men bill, and known as AB 137.
[1:19:04] That bill failed in committee, but as they say, try, if you don't see it first, see,
[1:19:09] try, try again.
[1:19:11] So here we are in the next session.
[1:19:13] And before I, you move in, I just want to remind folks that there was the need for this,
[1:19:22] still remains, as President Agar articulated, the concealing, defacing and destroying of our
[1:19:29] levees continue to occur from the last piece of legislation, these entities issued letters
[1:19:38] of support to these other members' office. This was a very quick timeline.
[1:19:49] The government
[1:19:50] to the policy committee very quickly, but did not get out of the appropriations committee
[1:19:57] of fiscal committee.
[1:20:00] There are some folks that were opposed to the legislation as well as it was written.
[1:20:08] And these folks are listed here.
[1:20:11] So fast forward and on January 17th, we need focus, we had a little more time to coordinate
[1:20:19] our efforts, proud to say that others joined in to introduce, so this is a piece of legislation
[1:20:26] now known as AB 1958, and it is a joint authored by some of the members Cooper and Kevin McCarty,
[1:20:40] and I apologize I had one to read the, oh there it is of there. Levy maintenance inspection
[1:20:48] and protection bill AB-1958.
[1:20:53] So we introduced that in the Assembly of the Office to
[1:20:56] do that on January 17th.
[1:20:58] A couple of minor edits that were done, the words used in
[1:21:03] occupy were removed from the language that did cause some
[1:21:07] angst, but I wanted to clarify that as a state, we gave
[1:21:12] assurances to the federal government to maintain the
[1:21:16] state plant flood control system within the federal code, these terms were used in there.
[1:21:23] The intent was to only mirror the federal language, but understandingly that it costs some
[1:21:31] concerns.
[1:21:32] So, when I had to just remove that up front with this new introduction, also added an urgency
[1:21:37] statute, which means it'll go on an effect right away if the governor were to sign it,
[1:21:46] if it
[1:21:46] greater threshold for approval, two-thirds threshold, some additional co-authors were added
[1:21:55] on or joined on in this initial introduction, including other some members Gallagher and
[1:22:02] Flora and Senators Richard Pan and Dodd. So I think it's a great start. We've got both houses.
[1:22:11] We've got by partisan and we've got a representation in the north and the southern parts of the system in the San Joaquin system and the Sacramento area.
[1:22:25] I think we'll have more legislators to join on as we continue our outreach process.
[1:22:33] Local agency support, so we're continuing to ask local agencies and we appreciate they help
[1:22:40] and assistance from the SITRI flight control association on their outreach efforts, and
[1:22:45] we're going to continue to seek more support to come in and send letters in support,
[1:22:54] and encourage their legislators to join on as well.
[1:22:57] that will continue on. We'll wait for it. It's in the 30-day process so we'll wait for it
[1:23:04] to go to Rose Committee and then within the 30 days and be assigned to A or multiple committees
[1:23:14] as a possibility. We hope and anticipate that it will be assigned to one committee but we'll see
[1:23:22] that process goes. And then the flood caucus members as well, I wanted to say that the ad hoc
[1:23:30] flood caucus we were out reaching doing outreach to them as well. And continuing our dialogue
[1:23:38] with the housing advocates that had concerns in the first place. So we'll be holding meetings
[1:23:44] with them and continuing that dialogue seeing that we can find some common ground. And that's it.
[1:23:51] So I have for a right now, there's, we'll wait and see how things progress.
[1:23:58] Before any questions, if there are any.
[1:24:03] Let's see.
[1:24:07] Gather.
[1:24:09] And that says, what are Garcia?
[1:24:11] Yeah, I was wondering where the truth is.
[1:24:14] So I would, one, we will be receiving the bill in Assembly Water Park some while I've
[1:24:20] review it as a committee. I do think that it may end up in two committees, at least in one
[1:24:27] house or another. The thing that I would suggest is continue with what you're doing, but
[1:24:32] maybe use your outreach group as an opportunity to think of what those current actions are that
[1:24:38] the board can do with its existing authority. This is something that has to be addressed. It is going
[1:24:45] be very sensitive. It's going to be very difficult. And since we have that the governor
[1:24:50] as the homelessness are, we probably should have this moving with the governor's proposals
[1:24:57] as they go forward. This is something that is going to be challenging in the folks that
[1:25:04] are working so hard on that front need to know about this as well. It's not that different
[1:25:10] than what local, any local agency is dealing with,
[1:25:14] except that it's protecting our assets in the state.
[1:25:19] I would strongly suggest looking at your current authorities
[1:25:22] and seeing how much you can do.
[1:25:24] The legislation is always fraught with peril,
[1:25:27] as I like to say.
[1:25:28] There are a lot of committees to get through.
[1:25:30] There's a lot of, even though the two-thirds vote,
[1:25:32] it's a very difficult, still difficult threshold.
[1:25:35] So I would just suggest sort of all in figure
[1:25:39] about everything you can do and move forward.
[1:25:43] And we're, our staff are always willing to sit down
[1:25:47] in any of the groups to help rainstorm
[1:25:50] or try to figure out other ways to work.
[1:25:53] Thank you, Kevin.
[1:25:54] Appreciate that.
[1:25:55] Clyde?
[1:26:03] Do you remember the fire bill?
[1:26:06] I really didn't like the prior bill at all.
[1:26:10] I spoke against it when we discussed it.
[1:26:14] I think so that point, just point number one,
[1:26:16] point number two, I think this is much better, and I think if this board wants to move
[1:26:26] this long, it is already an urgency statute, kind of going to bills comment, we want to
[1:26:30] get something going. This is an urgency statute, so it goes into effect when it's passed
[1:26:36] by the legislature signed by the governor. If this board wants to move this along on the
[1:26:42] The board could become the sponsor of the legislation and put the weight of the board behind
[1:26:48] the bill and we'd have to go through agency, we'd have to go through the governor's office
[1:26:54] if that's to do that process, but that would allow us to push harder on the bill.
[1:27:04] Next point, I'm not really convinced this, the language of the way it's written now in
[1:27:10] AB-1958, really accomplishes what it needs to be accomplished.
[1:27:16] Current law makes it illegal to cut and alter the levy.
[1:27:22] The bill adds a number of additional things that you can't do to the levy, one of which
[1:27:27] is de-face the levy, and all these and that the same is alter, it's de-face, current law,
[1:27:35] can't alter it, now you can't de-face it.
[1:27:37] Okay, so that word, in my opinion, an add-in-e-thing.
[1:27:44] Next word, new word that's added, is destroy.
[1:27:49] Well, you can't, cut it, you can't alter it.
[1:27:51] Under existing law, so what does destroy out,
[1:27:54] I don't think destroy out is anything.
[1:27:58] And then the next one is, can't modify it.
[1:28:00] Well, once again, that's the same as cutting alter,
[1:28:03] which is existing law, so it doesn't add anything.
[1:28:06] The words that are added are, you can't conceal it.
[1:28:11] Now let's see, let's say, how do you conceal a levee?
[1:28:14] Do you bring a blimp in or what do you do?
[1:28:17] I think it's pretty vague there.
[1:28:21] The other thing you're not allowed to do is physically obstruct the levee.
[1:28:26] And then the next one is you cannot visually obstruct the levee.
[1:28:30] And I don't not sure exactly what that means.
[1:28:33] And I think when we talked about this legislation and at least in my concept of what the problem is,
[1:28:43] is that the water level comes up and people move out of the floodplain because it's wet,
[1:28:52] and they excavate, they make cuts in the levees so they can have sleeping pads.
[1:28:57] That is illegal under current law.
[1:29:01] Can't cut and alter.
[1:29:02] Existing law.
[1:29:03] Can't cut.
[1:29:04] You can't alter.
[1:29:06] Making that cut is already illegal.
[1:29:09] The problem is that we don't find people cutting and altering the levy.
[1:29:15] You don't find the guy with the shovel.
[1:29:16] You find the guy with the shovel.
[1:29:18] You got him.
[1:29:19] The problem is that it's been cut and there's somebody sleeping there.
[1:29:25] Now, did that, that's when we find it because we don't have people there all the time.
[1:29:30] So, you don't have people right there.
[1:29:33] So, you've got somebody sleeping, what can you do with it?
[1:29:37] Is that person he's got a sleeping bag out there or maybe a little tent?
[1:29:42] Is that, can we, you know, do we get it?
[1:29:44] You're visually obstructing a levy?
[1:29:47] Is that what he's doing?
[1:29:48] Or physically obstructing or concealing?
[1:29:51] I think those are.
[1:29:52] I mean, I think the issue here is you can't camp on the levee.
[1:29:57] You can't camp and you can't build structures on the levee.
[1:30:00] Unless you have permission, that's what we really need to do. Then we've got, then you've got some teeth. You can, then we can go out and put up signs that say, you can't camp on the levy. If you use this law, you could go in there and you could put a big sign up on the American Reparkway out there that says, you cannot, it is against a lot of physically obstruct the levy. People are going to walk by that sign and go, huh?
[1:30:28] So I think, you know, my suggestion is take, you know,
[1:30:31] that we ought to take a look at what the words mean to people.
[1:30:37] What does it mean to the judicial system?
[1:30:39] What does it mean to the policemen who's out there
[1:30:41] or the park ranger or something?
[1:30:44] All right, thank you.
[1:30:46] I think the salt gets back to the point that Catherine made, Darren.
[1:30:54] We'll stick with the legislation, see how it goes.
[1:30:57] But if you're interested in doing something right away,
[1:30:59] we need to really look at the existing authority.
[1:31:03] That's where we need to focus, because we can't wait any longer for this, especially in the winter.
[1:31:10] Right, we'll keep doing that.
[1:31:11] You know, just as a reminder, so this stakeholder group consisting of representatives from the Central
[1:31:21] flood control association, R-D-1,000,
[1:31:24] a micro-reflect control district,
[1:31:27] Sacramento City,
[1:31:30] and the attorneys were involved as well,
[1:31:32] and so that these words to,
[1:31:36] whatever McDonald's point were,
[1:31:39] the group proposed this for to the assembly member.
[1:31:44] I'm happy to take this back to that group
[1:31:47] and the assembly member and see if they'd be willing to,
[1:31:50] If they want to alter it, if that's the sports desire, or, so I'm guessing I'm seeking direction
[1:31:56] from this board, if to keep going with the current, because there will be opportunity to change
[1:32:03] or I'm sure things, you know, I do the process, things will change anyway, but I wanted
[1:32:08] to make sure I understand this board's direction clearly about the language, about reaffirming
[1:32:16] Our last time we spoke, there was the board's desire to submit a letter of support because
[1:32:24] it felt in committee.
[1:32:25] We did not proceed with that letter, but I want to reaffirm that the board's desire to
[1:32:29] submit that.
[1:32:29] I think the board wants you to proceed with the changes that have been accepted, but I think
[1:32:38] we're based on what Katherine said.
[1:32:40] This is going to be a long, hard effort and, you know, it's not going to be any time soon.
[1:32:49] But this other fork, this other avenue, is where I think she's recommending,
[1:32:56] and I am too, that we focus on what we can do under our existing authorities.
[1:33:03] And, you know, I think we can do something. We ought to be able to do something.
[1:33:11] I
[1:33:15] think board member Rick Donald has raised my consciousness considerably with his comments
[1:33:23] today and I sincerely appreciate what you had to say.
[1:33:29] It's true that mutilating or damaging the levees is already against the law.
[1:33:37] It's the campaign that's a problem because you can find the people that are there
[1:33:45] camping and you can do something about it and maybe you know in the legislation we
[1:33:52] just need to say already it's against a lot to do this and this and to assure
[1:34:01] that that can be managed or whatever that right legal words are. We need to make it clear that
[1:34:10] camping is prohibited on the levees are within 10 feet of the base of the levee and that would
[1:34:17] give us something that could actually be enforced and I appreciate what he had to say about that.
[1:34:25] I hadn't thought about it like that before and I support what he had to say there.
[1:34:31] Thank you, Jewel. Okay, Darren. Okay. Now under item four. Yeah, eight be that fourth. Okay, so item eight beats and on the top leg of of homelessness.
[1:34:48] The governor issued an executive order and desk 23 dash 20 back in January and thank
[1:35:25] you, Wendy.
[1:35:27] Okay, executive index 23-20, it noted that the new point in time count, from HUD, that the
[1:35:39] approximate number of homelessness have gone up to over 151,000 from 130,000 back in 2017,
[1:35:48] and over 108 of those are unsheltered.
[1:35:51] 200 counties the cities have declared a shelter crisis, and there's been already 2.7 billion dollars in new funding these last couple years that the government has issued for safety net services and limiting barriers to get navigation centers and temporary housing bill.
[1:36:13] And they acknowledge that requires innovation, solutions require innovation, cooperation, and
[1:36:18] the sense of urgency as President Eger articulated, and that this is a matter of state-wide
[1:36:23] importance.
[1:36:25] I just want to note, you know, back in October of last year, P.P.I.C. as Paul noted that homelessness
[1:36:31] is one of the top issues facing the state in addition to the economy.
[1:36:40] it. So to respond to that as executive order, I think it's very innovative in and of
[1:36:50] the self and employees, current state resources, getting back to the comments we heard earlier
[1:36:57] about what existing authorities this board has and what can we do now. I think I want to
[1:37:04] commend the governor's office, I think that's exactly what they're doing here with this executive
[1:37:09] order. They're requiring all state agencies to develop accountability metrics by the end of
[1:37:15] next month, February 28th, by 2020, that include Department of Finance, Department of General
[1:37:21] Services, Department of Transportation, Office of State White Health Planning and Development,
[1:37:27] and California Department of Food and Agriculture. They are ordering a establishment of
[1:37:36] access and housing and services fund within the Department of Social Services.
[1:37:42] This fund will be able to receive state appropriations and donations from nonprofits
[1:37:47] and private entities, some encouraging public private partnerships.
[1:37:52] They want to rapidly increase housing options by the end of this month.
[1:37:57] So to that end, President Eger, you referred to this earlier too.
[1:38:00] The Department of Journal Services, DGS, they've been tasked to identify excess state
[1:38:04] and the state facilities that can be used by our local partners today, for housing which includes
[1:38:11] our own land management authorities, they're looking at our inventory as well that they'll
[1:38:18] then provide back to us so we can assess whether they would be feasible to provide shelter.
[1:38:25] They're ordering the Department of Transportation to develop a model lease template to allow
[1:38:30] cities and counties to use cow trans property for shelter.
[1:38:36] And they're also asking an ospada of the state-wide health planning development to look
[1:38:42] at any decommissioned hospitals as an opportunity for shelter to be utilized as shelters
[1:38:50] as well.
[1:38:51] And then finally, let me ask a question there.
[1:38:55] Disage pod have authority over decommissioned hospitals like a county hospital, or would that be the county board?
[1:39:06] I don't know the exact answer that I could tell you theage pod though, as their charge is to oversee permitting for hospitals.
[1:39:15] You know, a lot of the county hospitals are decommissioned or operating on their own now,
[1:39:26] because they can't comply with Auspots.
[1:39:29] What about those?
[1:39:31] That's a good question.
[1:39:32] I can we can do that.
[1:39:33] Jane, you probably know more about that than I do.
[1:39:39] I wish that I did.
[1:39:42] Beard County closed decommission and provides no county hospital services since 1972.
[1:39:49] Oh, wow.
[1:39:50] So, there you are.
[1:39:53] Yeah, there you are.
[1:39:53] Stake money to place in.
[1:39:55] But what happened to the building?
[1:39:57] Did they tear it on the building?
[1:39:59] Um, part of it.
[1:40:00] Um, it's always been county owned.
[1:40:03] That I know because my mother was born there.
[1:40:05] Yeah.
[1:40:05] In the 20s, I, I wasn't there.
[1:40:10] And over decades converted to other offices, completely altered.
[1:40:17] Good.
[1:40:18] The orts for incarceration.
[1:40:20] I don't go.
[1:40:23] I certainly can do that, President.
[1:40:24] I can do that.
[1:40:24] Not every county has a county hospital.
[1:40:29] There's also orders for many agencies, food and agriculture, general services, housing
[1:40:34] community development, department social services, office and emergency services
[1:40:38] to look at fairgrounds where shelter crisis has been, in effect, and see if those would be opportunities to house or shelter people.
[1:40:52] So, a lot of inventorying going on, what have we got, and what can we use to, as shelters for folks.
[1:41:00] Also, by the immediately, it's kind of a triage response until at least until September 30th.
[1:41:10] DGS is to supply 100 travel trailers from the state fleet.
[1:41:15] They're the emergency medical services authorities to supply complimentary modular tank structures and temporary emergency housing and deliver health and social services to communities throughout the state.
[1:41:26] There's some qualifications for that.
[1:41:30] You had to have declared a shelter crisis under government code and local partners have
[1:41:36] to have to pass these deploy and operate and maintain those facilities.
[1:41:41] They also need to make support services available and they need to report back their data
[1:41:46] that they've obtained based on metrics that need to be determined as stated earlier.
[1:41:54] And then finally, a multi-agency state strike team is being ordered from the agencies listed
[1:42:04] above here.
[1:42:06] They would be coordinated by the homeless and coordinating financing council and they provide
[1:42:11] technical assistance and targeted direct support to county cities and public transit agencies.
[1:42:18] Lastly, the water also asks local governments, transit agencies, non-profits, school districts,
[1:42:24] faith-based organizations to assess their own resources and abilities to provide shelter.
[1:42:31] So, this is all hands on deck.
[1:42:35] What if you got from state all the way down to the local level?
[1:42:40] So, how do we employ private help from donations to the fund I mentioned earlier?
[1:42:49] So it's really trying to, I feel, make, have the state lead the way in utilizing its
[1:42:57] current resources and also demanding, asking, pleading, local agencies to do everything that
[1:43:05] they can as well, to really address this issue, this crisis that we have right now.
[1:43:13] With that, I'll take any.
[1:43:15] Are you going to follow up with the Andrea and provide a list of properties to the general services?
[1:43:24] Yes, Andrea, if you have any direct questions for her, but she and I spoke, so DGS is looking
[1:43:31] at our inventory as well.
[1:43:32] They will provide us a list of our inventory properties, and then we'll assess it whether
[1:43:38] it's feasible, for instance, I think you have a call
[1:43:41] of one that we saw.
[1:43:43] They will provide us with the list of our properties,
[1:43:47] because they have a list?
[1:43:49] It's their inventory, it's in their database.
[1:43:54] OK.
[1:43:55] And that's it.
[1:43:56] Well, in ours is better.
[1:43:58] You can look at a map and you can see 30 acres.
[1:44:01] And those structures on there, and you
[1:44:03] say this will that.
[1:44:04] And you go see it, and it's underwater.
[1:44:06] Yeah.
[1:44:07] That's right.
[1:44:07] So it means some refinement.
[1:44:13] So when they give us, they're going to provide us
[1:44:16] with the list and we're going to correct it.
[1:44:18] We're going to use your knowledge.
[1:44:19] We're going to evaluate whether, OK.
[1:44:22] So you'll remember there was one.
[1:44:24] We, and I want to end the location.
[1:44:26] But when we went out there, it looked great on a map.
[1:44:28] But when you went out there, it was in a detention basin.
[1:44:32] So that needs to be followed up by the way.
[1:44:34] Well, we, uh, and it needs to be a contract. I mean, we, we on the property, right?
[1:44:40] Yes. Well, whoever is doing what they're doing on that property, it looks like a detention
[1:44:45] basin, which is fine. We got to find out whether we have a contract with them.
[1:44:53] We'll definitely take
[1:44:53] it. Yeah. Yeah. So when we, we see that, we'll, we'll evaluate this property, and then we'll provide
[1:45:00] I'd feed back to DGS, which ones are feasible.
[1:45:04] Okay, could we run that by the board just as an informational item?
[1:45:11] Absolutely.
[1:45:12] Some of us have been through the NIMB wars a little bit.
[1:45:16] And I think we could provide some input here.
[1:45:26] Oh, Jane. Okay, sure.
[1:45:31] A lot of this that you're talking about in executive order is not directly related to our responsibilities,
[1:45:36] but we're on board.
[1:45:39] We are citizens in live in this state.
[1:45:43] So we know what the issue is.
[1:45:46] I don't, I'm not an A and A in these task forces,
[1:45:48] and I don't know if people from Buc County are part of them,
[1:45:50] but they ought to be in our county, 50,000 people
[1:45:54] became homeless on November 8th, 2018,
[1:45:59] with the campfire that destroyed a town.
[1:46:02] So we've been living with that in our communities,
[1:46:05] our backyards, our parks, and everything since then.
[1:46:08] So there's a cute need for shelter.
[1:46:13] And it's just compounded at, so I can, the fact that the point in time went up,
[1:46:18] the lot of that was attributed to the fires that occurred in people's homes were destroyed.
[1:46:23] And so there's a lot that needs to be done.
[1:46:25] I think this executive order is exactly what needed to be done.
[1:46:28] The governor said, this is a crisis.
[1:46:30] Start acting, quit saying what the problem is.
[1:46:32] We all know, and speaking with people, where we don't want homelessness to be, we gotta change that conversation to, where can we place them?
[1:46:41] This is not like housing is available. It's not, so we've got to figure it out, and so we'll do what we can.
[1:46:48] But people in a dangerous situation, a floodpour in land, it's not the answer.
[1:46:54] We're only once that, so we'll step forward and do what we can.
[1:46:59] So it's it's a big deal. Yeah, it is. You haven't already said quit talking about do something
[1:47:05] You may have seen the article today in the paper where several mayors in the state are meeting with the the
[1:47:11] Present administration. I believe today as well to talk about this this issue
[1:47:17] So we all talk it's time to do something people are in need.
[1:47:24] Okay, they
[1:47:29] The action item, then, Andrea, if you could, is when we get that list of properties boarded
[1:47:39] like to look at it, just as an information item before that submitted.
[1:47:45] But I guess what the Department of General Services is, they have a list, they want our analysis
[1:47:52] of it.
[1:47:53] And then we cement it back, but before we cement it back, we'd like to see that.
[1:48:06] Any questions, other questions from the ward?
[1:48:08] Anything from the audience on this issue?
[1:48:14] Okay.
[1:48:14] Thank you.
[1:48:15] Thank you, Darren.
[1:48:17] Okay, at this time, we're going to take a little break, John,
[1:48:20] apologize for this, but we need a break for our court reporter.
[1:48:27] We'll be back at, what is it, 10th?
[1:48:43] Thank
[1:49:29] you very much, President Neger, Vice President Dolan, and Chief Engineer, right.
[1:49:36] My name is John Passch. I'm Chief of Hydrology and Flood Operations with the Department of Water Resources,
[1:49:41] and I appreciate the opportunity to deliver the departments update on our activities.
[1:49:46] First thing I want to do is just, you know, call out the written report of activities that we provide to the board every month,
[1:49:54] and just comment on the substantial body of work
[1:49:58] that's identified in there as the Department Finist
[1:50:02] that the Department Finist off in 2019.
[1:50:09] But moving forward, what you have to look forward
[1:50:11] to in February is the beginning of our issuance
[1:50:14] of bullets in 120.
[1:50:17] Bulletin 120 is the publication issued four times a year
[1:50:19] in the second week of February, March, April and May
[1:50:22] by the Department of Water Resources,
[1:50:25] initially dating back to February 1st, 1930. Our California cooperative snow survey program
[1:50:31] forecast seasonal in water year runoff for the major snow bearing watersheds in California.
[1:50:37] It's bulletin 120 provides seasonal in water year forecast or runoff volume for each of the major
[1:50:43] watersheds. It is qualitative. I want to contrast this with one of the items on page 6 of our written report.
[1:50:52] You'll see that the staff issued a water supply index forecast for conditions is of December 1, 2019.
[1:51:00] The Sacramento Valley Index was forecast at 7.3, based on the 50% exceedants, and is classified as below normal.
[1:51:08] The Samuel King Valley Index was forecast at 2.2, based on the 75% exceedant level, and is classified as dry.
[1:51:14] That water supply index is qualitative, falling into 105 categories, what above normal, below normal and dry and critical.
[1:51:24] So you'll look forward to that bullet at 120, starting next month.
[1:51:30] You're going to receive some project updates that are already identified later in your agenda.
[1:51:34] Did you want to mention that item number two there.
[1:51:38] The storm damage, emergency rehabilitation program summary.
[1:51:41] We anticipate that showing up on your February agenda.
[1:51:45] But immediately after me, you'll hear from the date, John.
[1:51:48] That's what we're targeting is to be worried.
[1:51:50] I know there were some questions about when that'll show up.
[1:51:52] I don't think you'll have to wait long.
[1:51:54] Okay, great.
[1:51:58] But you will hear from, from Wade Wiley and his team on our,
[1:52:02] we deliver our 2019 Lib in Spectre Report,
[1:52:04] and you'll hear also from Kyle Bickler and his team
[1:52:07] on the lower L-Corn Basin Libby setback project.
[1:52:14] I had a chance to speak with our state climatologist,
[1:52:16] Dr. Anderson, who could not be here today,
[1:52:19] yet had some information that he wanted to share regarding
[1:52:21] the weather outlook, December 3, February is historically our wetest period with half of the
[1:52:26] annual average precipitation expected in these three months. This has also historically been
[1:52:32] when our major flood events have occurred. December through the Climate Prediction Center still
[1:52:37] favors the drier than average winter for California. This will likely manifest itself in
[1:52:41] extended dried periods between an active week or two, iterably, through the winter. And please note
[1:52:47] that in an active pattern, any unusually large atmospheric river can bring flooding conditions
[1:52:52] to the Central Valley.
[1:52:56] John, just on Mike's prior presentations with the board, he indicated
[1:53:04] that he and his team are working on a new methodology for predicting the extent of flooding
[1:53:15] essentially the most probable flood in particularly the San Joaquin and light of climate
[1:53:21] change. He's working on another methodology to include in the plan. The next update of
[1:53:28] the flood plan. And at some point when he's ready to come before the board, I think some
[1:53:34] of us would like to hear what that new method ought to let you probably don't understand what
[1:53:42] talking about half the time,
[1:53:46] but maybe Joe does, but he said that he's working on that would
[1:53:52] be interested in an update when he gets a chance and has a time.
[1:53:56] Sure.
[1:53:57] I'm sure that could be scheduled and worked out either, either.
[1:54:00] Well, when he's meeting or one of the coordinating meetings that you have, and we can work
[1:54:03] that out with Mary Jimenez, Eric Sy and the Eric who's involved in the planning team.
[1:54:09] Yeah, there's some language in the flood plan, and it came in right at the end where we were finalizing the recent update about that issue, climate change, the effects on the sandwalking, and so on, but that needs to be really fleshed out a little bit in the new update, and part of the work we're going to be doing depends on his analysis and his projection, so.
[1:54:37] Just let you know that I asked to meet with Mike, and we've spent about an hour going over different ways of analyzing the climate change impacts from north to south through the basin and ways to describe it better.
[1:54:56] And so I think we found some things that will look good
[1:55:01] and I'm pretty sure he'll be coming in with some more information on that.
[1:55:06] But I wanted you to know that I did meet with them and we did discuss this.
[1:55:10] Okay, that'd be great if he's at a point where he's ready to kind of lay out
[1:55:19] based off on your input.
[1:55:20] What he wants to do, that would be a good time to brief the board.
[1:55:24] Okay. Thanks. That's great, Joe.
[1:55:30] Sure. I'll continue then with a while we're at so far, water year 2020, precipitation is below average.
[1:55:39] For most of the state with 64% of average in the Sacramento, 58% in the San Joaquin, and 63% for the Telerian decks.
[1:55:48] Our statewide snow pack is also below average, 81% in northern Sierra, 73% for the central
[1:55:55] Sierra, and 75% for the southern Sierra, and those numbers were pulled off of C-deck
[1:56:00] yesterday.
[1:56:02] Temperatures have generally been above average.
[1:56:05] However, our statewide reservoir storage is above average, with most flood control reservoirs
[1:56:10] near their top of conservation.
[1:56:15] Looking ahead, multiple sources suggest a dryer than average outcome for the winter and
[1:56:19] year of 2020. The figure on the left is a product by Noah's
[1:56:25] Climate Prediction Center. They're a national multi-model and
[1:56:28] ensemble global forecast model generates 90-day precipitation
[1:56:31] outlooks with January 2020 initializations. This forecast is for the
[1:56:37] period of February, March, and April. Red indicates that a significant
[1:56:41] dry anomaly is forecast. The figure on the right is a product by a center
[1:56:47] for Western weather and water extremes,
[1:56:50] so affiliated with scripts at UCC and Diego,
[1:56:52] with data courtesy of the Plurprism Climate Group
[1:56:55] in Oregon State University,
[1:56:57] and that this figure on the right is not a forecast,
[1:56:59] it's just an overlay of historical outcomes
[1:57:01] and current year's initial conditions.
[1:57:05] CW-3E took prisons monthly observed precipitation grid
[1:57:08] as it is initial condition,
[1:57:10] and then applied historical outcomes
[1:57:12] for the remainder of the water year
[1:57:13] to determine a likelihood of reaching average conditions.
[1:57:17] Red indicates less than a 30% chance of historical outcomes will reach or exceed that average condition.
[1:57:25] Green means that 50% of historical outcomes will reach that average condition.
[1:57:30] And dark blue means either that average has already been reached,
[1:57:34] or that all historical outcomes would result in average conditions.
[1:57:39] That's what we have in store for us for the remainder of the winter.
[1:57:47] Looking ahead in next month, as I mentioned before,
[1:57:49] will look forward to hearing from Dave Wilden and his group on the Storm Damage emergency rehab program,
[1:57:56] some raising that work, and I'm happy to entertain any questions before I introduce the next speaker.
[1:58:10] You mentioned the reservoir storage.
[1:58:15] I thought the oreville was quite a bit below its conservation storage.
[1:58:20] Am I wrong about that?
[1:58:21] Nope.
[1:58:22] You are right, Joe.
[1:58:23] What's up?
[1:58:24] What's up?
[1:58:24] What's up?
[1:58:25] What's up?
[1:58:28] What's up?
[1:58:30] within enhanced flood control pool this winter.
[1:58:33] And so, as expected,
[1:58:38] they're gonna be running, probably be a little lower
[1:58:41] during the beginning of the winter than they historically would.
[1:58:44] Is there safety concerns still,
[1:58:47] or what's causing that?
[1:58:49] Nothing, nothing new this year.
[1:58:51] They ran with an enhanced flood control pool last year as well.
[1:58:55] Well, you say enhanced flood control pool,
[1:58:57] That means reduced conservation storage.
[1:59:02] So I'm just, you know, is this going to be a permanent thing
[1:59:06] or what's going on here?
[1:59:09] I'm really hesitant to speak on behalf of how
[1:59:13] the operating or a reservoir, but Mr. Conchman,
[1:59:16] but for a week and a, okay, it seems to me,
[1:59:22] it's been a billion dollars fixing or a bill,
[1:59:26] And it's hard to understand why we would be operating it below its capacity, but in the information you have on that, I'd appreciate.
[1:59:38] Okay, anything else?
[1:59:40] Okay, John, let's proceed.
[1:59:42] All right, thank you very much.
[1:59:44] That concludes my remarks.
[1:59:46] Okay.
[1:59:47] I think for the opportunity.
[1:59:48] At this point, we're on item members, we're on item 9B and Wade Wiley and Preston Shopfell has this report.
[2:00:00] For the board,
[2:00:16] Mr. Donovan, I forgot to recognize you, you are also here, part of the team.
[2:00:33] Good morning, President Edgar. Members of the board, I'm President Schoppel.
[2:00:37] Chief of the inspection sector, section at the board.
[2:00:42] Before Wade and Saskia give their results of the annual report,
[2:00:46] wanted to give a high-level, very basic overview of inspections that are completed on the state plan of buck control.
[2:00:55] The question we get asked from time to time is why are there so many different inspections
[2:01:00] than on my levy?
[2:01:02] This question is asked to us by a lot of landowners, maintaining agencies, and sometimes
[2:01:07] our regulators.
[2:01:10] So this is a big overview that's just kind of breakdown in the basics of what's out there,
[2:01:15] who looks at what and why they do it.
[2:01:21] So let's start with what gets inspected.
[2:01:24] And in no particular order, we have levy improvement projects, or levy repair projects.
[2:01:31] Projects such as West Safe and Southport projects, Trilia, ones you all know very well.
[2:01:40] There's those system features that are subject to those operations and maintenance activities,
[2:01:44] mowing things that are the day-to-day activities of the LMAs, includes levy structures,
[2:01:50] which is pump stations and wears and channels.
[2:01:55] This efforts the focus of DABR's annual inspection report.
[2:02:01] And of course encroachments.
[2:02:03] That's permitted or otherwise.
[2:02:05] Anything that's not there for the functioning of the system,
[2:02:08] but have been allowed to remain there by permit.
[2:02:13] And also designated floodways.
[2:02:14] Typically non-levy areas within our jurisdiction.
[2:02:17] They're subject to flooding.
[2:02:20] Okay, person on those various breakdowns, the lovey repairs, for example, who does that?
[2:02:29] Is that the core, and DWR, or just the core?
[2:02:33] For inspections, there can be inspectors for the core with the contractor,
[2:02:40] but on the state side, there's a inspector from DWR's division of engineering.
[2:02:46] Okay. And we'll get to the who's coming up.
[2:02:54] All right.
[2:02:55] So why? Let's take a second and think about why we're doing this.
[2:03:00] I mean, I think we'd all agree it's probably a good idea.
[2:03:04] We have 1,600 miles of levees that California has given insurance
[2:03:07] assurances to the federal government that will maintain in accordance with
[2:03:11] those operations and maintenance manuals.
[2:03:14] You add in designated floodways and regulate streams.
[2:03:16] that means there's a lot to keep track about there.
[2:03:20] And I'm not too distant second, it's also the flaw.
[2:03:24] The code of federal regulations title 33, Section 20810,
[2:03:28] that's promulgated through those operations
[2:03:30] and maintenance manuals, that's one of the main
[2:03:33] matters of how we have agreed to maintain
[2:03:37] these levees and SPFC.
[2:03:40] And then state law, of course, there's
[2:03:42] various sections of water code and the California
[2:03:44] and the code of regulations,
[2:03:46] out of 23 to 21 that were all so familiar with.
[2:03:51] Also it provides a presence that can be a deterrence
[2:03:54] to potentially damaging our legal activities
[2:03:55] as was talked about earlier in the previous presentations.
[2:04:01] And then finally, and most basically,
[2:04:03] it helps identify those possible issues
[2:04:05] unless it's take action before they become emergencies.
[2:04:12] It's all under who inspects, who does this work?
[2:04:16] At the federal level,
[2:04:18] U.S. Army Corps, conducts PL-84-99, continuing eligibility inspections, as well as periodic and routine inspections.
[2:04:27] They do their inspections annually.
[2:04:29] They choose different systems in which to take a look at, and then are reported those, their findings to the state.
[2:04:36] At the local level, those local agencies are constantly monitoring their system while doing maintenance,
[2:04:41] and then reporting the results as required by WaterCode 9141.
[2:04:46] And Sasuke will talk to you more about that coming up.
[2:04:54] And at the state level, we have many inspection programs and efforts to meet our obligations
[2:04:59] to the federal government and to comply with those state laws and regulations.
[2:05:04] Some of these responsibilities are shared between DWR and the board.
[2:05:08] They include encroachment construction inspections handled by our inspection section at the board.
[2:05:15] with the support of DWR, system alteration and project inspections.
[2:05:21] I interchange those with lovely repair projects, the large ones that we all know about.
[2:05:26] That's taken care of by DWR as Division of Engineering.
[2:05:30] Routine encroachments, inspections, permitting, and enforcement are all handled by Board staff.
[2:05:40] And here are the types of inspections that are handling.
[2:05:42] on these inspections that have more than one agency, do they attempt to do it together or
[2:05:51] are they inspecting different things?
[2:05:53] It's usually, it's usually coverage, so maybe not both agencies there at the same time,
[2:05:59] but ensuring that someone is covering that that needed inspection.
[2:06:03] So for instance, I have three inspectors that can't get to every encroachment all the time.
[2:06:08] We partner with Wade's group to make sure there's coverage for construction of an encroachment.
[2:06:15] Right?
[2:06:16] Okay.
[2:06:21] So.
[2:06:23] But it is in the situation where we go out one day and Wade's group goes out another day.
[2:06:28] No, typically if that's the case.
[2:06:31] Wade might be going out for a completely different reason for his annual inspections.
[2:06:35] But we may be looking at a specific pipe that they may seem that's a problem.
[2:06:39] But it's up to us to follow through and with the owner or whoever that is, and they may inform us of what that is if we didn't already see it.
[2:06:53] So I left this table as itself because you can see how much is really performed by the flood projects project inspection and assessment branch.
[2:07:01] These are going to be detailed in the report that Wade and Sasuke are going to provide, but I just
[2:07:07] want to list that to kind of emphasize how much work it is just to observe and report and
[2:07:12] produce that every year so that we can make informed decisions about what to do next.
[2:07:20] Just quickly, there are work includes spring and fall heavy maintenance inspections, channel
[2:07:24] instruction maintenance inspections, the San Joaquin River erosion survey, the utility
[2:07:29] crossing inspection program and levy log updates.
[2:07:34] These efforts are ones that are going on every year, and in this list doesn't include
[2:07:37] those singular efforts like the Uly newly programs that deep dive into one specific
[2:07:44] subject matter, or for instance the levy tree assessment program that kind of have a beginning
[2:07:49] and end and go with the funding that they came with.
[2:07:53] These are ongoing works every year.
[2:07:58] So, seeing that graphically, let's look at an example of a stretch of levee, in just one area we can find a lot of elements that deserve attention and monitoring.
[2:08:09] Up at the top, you've got a potential channel maintenance issue, encroachments like that boat dock, levy operations and maintenance, mowing, vegetation management, tree surveys, the periodic inspections and PLA-499 inspections and by the core.
[2:08:27] This could be an area where there's a living improvement project.
[2:08:30] Maybe there's a cut-off wall that's installed,
[2:08:32] such as in the Sacramento River area.
[2:08:39] And then also there could be enforcement cases,
[2:08:41] not saying that is one, but just as an example.
[2:08:50] So our group are relatively new in humble inspection
[2:08:52] section focuses on our efforts on the following areas.
[2:08:57] The construction of new encroachments and encroachments that
[2:09:00] repair that are beyond their useful design life, we look for continued compliance of existing
[2:09:09] encroachments through our routine inspections and we're constantly updating our records
[2:09:14] and our databases to be smart about what areas need more attention.
[2:09:20] Like I said before, we coordinate these inspection efforts with DWR and the Army Corps, and
[2:09:25] assist with the enforcement cases and, as you know, is to comply to folks in the field and we provide support as requested by our management, real estate branch and environmental branch.
[2:09:44] As you all know, very well, coordination is plays a huge role in maintaining the awareness and efficient of our inspection oversight.
[2:09:52] We're in constant communication with board staff and DWR inspectors to ensure construction activities are adequately monitored.
[2:10:01] And I wanted to talk specifically about this inspection compliance work group.
[2:10:06] President Edgar, you would ask us at the end of the year in the December workshop about how our inspection
[2:10:11] section relates to the efforts of that inspection compliance work group.
[2:10:17] So as I mentioned previously in the presentation,
[2:10:20] we focus on those construction of new encroachments, repair, existing encroachments to make sure things get built.
[2:10:27] according to the 23 standards, the permit conditions, that kind of thing.
[2:10:31] That's a piece of the larger puzzle.
[2:10:34] Just like O&M inspections is a piece of the puzzle,
[2:10:37] just like the system improvement projects are a large piece,
[2:10:41] and those channel maintenance inspections.
[2:10:43] That's all pieces of that.
[2:10:46] A subgroup of that, I see WG as we call it,
[2:10:52] is a data management team.
[2:10:54] And we're currently discussing how to manage all the data that comes from all those inspections at different levels, local reporting, state reporting, federal reporting,
[2:11:05] with the ultimate goal of helping LMAs streamline their reporting to the state and onward to the Army Corps.
[2:11:14] That's for PLD-489, continuing eligibility, the annual SWIFT reports, and state reporting
[2:11:21] requirements, which must dawn of an old detail later.
[2:11:27] As much as much of this type of work, the devil's sort of in the details.
[2:11:31] And so the data is a challenge.
[2:11:35] We need to streamline and efficiently communicate what those bits of data are, so that the
[2:11:42] are going to be receiving from the state. We know receiving from the locals and back and forth.
[2:11:51] So this data management team is currently meeting. We just met yesterday or two days ago.
[2:11:58] We're in the office to, we met this Tuesday,
[2:12:06] and this upcoming money will meeting,
[2:12:09] be meeting in the field to go over some of the tools that Army Corps has, one of their
[2:12:14] new mobile inspection apps, in order to get ideas of how the state and local partners
[2:12:19] can better transmit back into the reporting system.
[2:12:23] So the Corps has been fantastic in letting us know the new system that they're moving to,
[2:12:28] giving us an opportunity to present our challenges with the old way of reporting and having
[2:12:35] going to inspect around the field, it has a book that's three inches wide with reports and
[2:12:40] how to really communicate back correctly the most efficient way.
[2:12:48] So with that, I'll take your questions, but before I do, I just wanted to congratulate Wade
[2:12:52] Wiley on his recent promotion to Chief of DBR's flag project inspection and assessment
[2:12:57] branch.
[2:12:59] There he is.
[2:13:00] It's well deserved and we're looking forward to working with you in your role.
[2:13:05] Question on the work that I've sat in on that inspection, or yeah, inspection compliance
[2:13:14] work group, we looked at ways to try to reduce the time for permitting, because that's
[2:13:25] a concern of the governor right, and it's part of his resiliency plan that he wants
[2:13:31] the promote and it seems to me just for listening to what Ryan Larson was saying and the
[2:13:43] folks from DWR and you were saying that the best we can do on those permits.
[2:13:51] If everything was perfect and you know went through and there weren't any big problems which
[2:13:59] unbelievable, but assuming the best three months is the best the core could do. And then it
[2:14:08] comes over to us and there's another three months. So it looks like to me that if
[2:14:13] you had just a perfect permit that was going through and nothing was it still take you
[2:14:21] because of the statutory requirements and all of this it still take you about six months
[2:14:26] to get a permit. Is that right?
[2:14:29] I defer to Gary Lemon on some of that, but I believe that sounds about right.
[2:14:34] Yeah, okay. So I think the feedback we're getting, I just want to make sure that the
[2:14:42] message is clear to the locals, because the feedback we get is, you know, if I have to
[2:14:47] get a permit from a city or a county, it's the most it'll be 30 days. I have to get one
[2:14:54] from the state, and it's partners, the core, and...
[2:15:20] I don't know how we look into that system, and I know everybody is doing this, but I don't
[2:15:29] best to kind of re-engineer that system, but that still seems like a long time to me.
[2:15:38] But it is what it is, so we will move from there, but at least we have an answer.
[2:15:48] I think that group has got good participation from the core of the core of doing a great
[2:15:54] job and sharing data with us now.
[2:15:57] haven't done that in the past and it's really very helpful and of course DWR is doing a great
[2:16:04] job in helping us.
[2:16:07] That seems to be working well and the database if you can get that new database
[2:16:15] that the core talked about the other last meeting that would be fantastic.
[2:16:21] Right, it looked pretty good, we're still looking at what options there are, and what works
[2:16:27] best for state and locals, you know, but it's a good idea of what the endpoint of where
[2:16:33] that data might end up, so that we can get an efficient way to report it without bogging
[2:16:38] people down with a lot of paperwork.
[2:16:41] A lot of paperwork and thou shalt only use this thing, we want to provide that flexibility
[2:16:46] as well.
[2:16:47] And people like Chris Newdack and Gil-Kazio, they're helping with that group still.
[2:16:58] Chris Newdack for sure.
[2:17:01] Yeah.
[2:17:01] Some of them.
[2:17:02] I mean partners.
[2:17:03] And Barry is there.
[2:17:05] Very, very good.
[2:17:08] All right.
[2:17:09] Thank you.
[2:17:10] Thank you.
[2:17:12] Give it over to Wade.
[2:17:15] Thanks, Preston.
[2:17:21] Good morning.
[2:17:22] President Edgar, ladies.
[2:17:23] and gentlemen of the board. My name, as president, is Wade Wiley and I'm the chief of the
[2:17:28] flood project inspection and assessment branch. Today with the help of Saskia Donovan,
[2:17:34] an engineer with the local maintaining agency reporting section. We will be presenting the 2019
[2:17:40] inspection and local maintaining agency report.
[2:17:52] Today I will be given a brief overview of the contents
[2:17:54] of the report. Then I will highlight some of the differences between this year's summary profiles
[2:18:00] and previous summary profiles, then I'll talk about the 2019 inspection results.
[2:18:07] At that point I'll hand it off to Saskia who will talk about the LMA reporting results.
[2:18:14] And when Saskia is finished with that, I'll provide an update on our programs,
[2:18:19] tools, activities, and achievements.
[2:18:22] Then I'll finish with a discussion of the inspection and assessment branches goals looking forward.
[2:18:31] This year, this year's report combines the results of programs from both DWR and the Army Corps of Engineers.
[2:18:39] Some of the programs included in this report are the utility crossing inspection program,
[2:18:46] the Sacramento River Bank Erosion Survey, DWR's flood system repair project,
[2:18:53] and the Army Corps PL-8499 eligibility.
[2:18:57] together with our inspections, our maintenance inspections, the information provided by these programs,
[2:19:04] helps the inspection determine, inspection section, determine the quality of maintenance,
[2:19:09] the levy maintaining agencies are providing.
[2:19:13] In the report are the maintenance inspection
[2:19:15] results for the levy's, channels, structures, the results of the DWR Samwakeen River erosion
[2:19:22] survey and the LMA annual reporting results.
[2:19:27] New this year are the results from the designated
[2:19:29] floodway inspections.
[2:19:32] And as an previous reports, the flood project inspection
[2:19:35] and assessment branch activities and accomplishments
[2:19:38] are listed as are the LMA summary profiles in Appinix's AVNC.
[2:19:47] The LMA summary profiles in Appinix AVNC provide one location
[2:19:51] for each LMA to review all the data gathered
[2:19:55] from the many programs that contribute to the results of this inspection report.
[2:20:01] This includes data and results from the inspection branch, the flood projects office and the Army Corps of Engineers.
[2:20:09] There are some differences in this year's summary reports when compared to last year's.
[2:20:14] This year there was an update to the erosion inspection from the Army Corps Sacramento River Bank Protection Program.
[2:20:20] The core provided vinyl inspection results from their 2017 inspection, which we were previously
[2:20:27] showing is draft.
[2:20:30] Another item to note is the DWR flood system repair projects points of interest.
[2:20:37] Because of the 2017 storm damage repair efforts that are ongoing, the flood system repair
[2:20:41] project points of interest data was not updated in 2019, so in these reports you'll see
[2:20:48] the 2018 FSRP data shown.
[2:20:53] And when viewing these points on the summary profile maps,
[2:20:57] that there's overlap between the FSRP points
[2:20:59] and the 2017 storm damage, the 2017 storm damage sites
[2:21:05] are shown.
[2:21:10] It's important to note that only storm damage sites
[2:21:12] identified as critical or serious were shown
[2:21:14] in our LMA summary maps.
[2:21:17] Sites rated as area of concern were not shown.
[2:21:20] I would also like to point out that this is the last inspection where the 2017 storm damage
[2:21:27] sites will not be included in the calculation of the LMAs overall rating.
[2:21:33] As the three year grace period that we were providing for repairs has come to an end.
[2:21:40] Starting in spring of 2020 sites that are not repaired and do not have a plan and place
[2:21:44] for repair will again be counted in that overall calculation.
[2:21:48] So
[2:21:54] here we have the overall ratings for the different elements of the flood protection system for 2019.
[2:22:01] The table shows results for the levees, channels, structures, and pumping plants within the state plan of flood control.
[2:22:16] On the, when we look at that previous chart, when we
[2:22:26] say acceptable and linearly acceptable,
[2:22:30] Do we, are those the ones that qualify for PL-84-99?
[2:22:35] These are our state ratings.
[2:22:38] Not the state.
[2:22:39] This is not PL-84-99.
[2:22:48] Looking at just the levian inspection results,
[2:22:51] you can see this year's ratings declined somewhat from last year,
[2:22:55] but they're pretty similar to what we had in 2017.
[2:23:00] We think that this year's decline may have been related to a late spring rainfall
[2:23:03] that contributed to vegetation growth after herbicides were applied by some of the
[2:23:08] LMAs.
[2:23:10] Of the 48 LMAs receiving unacceptable ratings, 29 of them, or 60% have received the same
[2:23:18] unacceptable rating for five years or more.
[2:23:23] Of the 23 LMAs receiving minimally acceptable ratings, 16 of them were rated minimally
[2:23:31] acceptable or better for each of the last five years.
[2:23:36] And many of those same 16 would have received an acceptable rating.
[2:23:39] This year had the inspection not noted one or more unacceptable item in those areas.
[2:23:46] Of the 35 LMAs receiving an acceptable rating, only nine have received the same acceptable
[2:23:52] rating for each of the last five years.
[2:23:58] As of previous years, the most common, maintenance deficiency identified by inspectors
[2:24:05] has to do with vegetation management.
[2:24:08] This year's results show that 19 of the LMAs receiving unacceptable ratings
[2:24:13] could improve to an acceptable rating if their LMAs just performed thorough vegetation management.
[2:24:21] An additional eight of the LMAs receiving unacceptable ratings
[2:24:24] could also improve their current ratings if their LMAs performed a combination of vegetation management
[2:24:30] with efforts in either animal control, erosion maintenance, or crown surface maintenance.
[2:24:42] The 2019 channel inspection results are very similar to last years with only one channel being rated as unacceptable.
[2:24:50] These channels, these 26 channels that we report on, are non-lebbied project channels,
[2:24:57] specifically called out in the water code and the Army Corps O&M manuals.
[2:25:01] our inspectors evaluate the channels at specific locations
[2:25:05] where there are restrictions to the channel like bridges or road crossings.
[2:25:11] Excessive vegetation,
[2:25:13] Sholing, erosion, or other factors that may impact the capacity of the channel,
[2:25:17] are noted and used in the rating analysis for each channel.
[2:25:22] And the main issue driving the channel ratings this year, like the levees, is the vegetation.
[2:25:32] Structure maintenance appears to be pretty consistent for the last five years
[2:25:36] with some fluctuation between minimally acceptable and acceptable.
[2:25:41] And the slight increase you can see between 2016 and 2018 is a result of splitting up various structures that we previously treated as one,
[2:25:51] so it's not like we added any new structures to this report.
[2:25:57] Moving on to pumping plant inspections, the results are pretty similar over the last several years, with 11 rated as acceptable and 2 is minimally acceptable.
[2:26:10] So, new to the report this year are the results of the designated floodway inspection.
[2:26:16] We began a new inspection process in 2018 and we created a baseline inspection for 31 floodways within the central valley.
[2:26:25] Inspectors use readily available aerial imagery to perform floodway inspections from the office.
[2:26:32] They identify encroachments within the floodways that might impact the capacity of the floodway or require a board permit.
[2:26:39] Identified encroachments are delineated and geo-referenced and then documented in the database.
[2:26:46] The 2018 baseline assessment identified nearly 6,700 encroachments.
[2:26:52] And an additional 860 encroachments were identified during our 2019 inspection.
[2:26:58] But we think that those are mostly items that were probably existed before 2019.
[2:27:03] We just had better imagery in 2019.
[2:27:05] So
[2:27:09] the results of the designated floodway inspection indicate that much is being done in the floodways without proper board permits.
[2:27:17] Of the 7,500 encroachments that we identified,
[2:27:20] 7,200 of those require permits, but only 13% had permits.
[2:27:28] So nearly 50% of all the encroachments that we identified were a structure of some sort.
[2:27:33] The rest in order of magnitude were crops, utilities, and other items like fences, equipment, and debris piles.
[2:27:45] Bridges were the most, were the encroachment that were the most likely to have a board permit,
[2:27:50] with about a 50% compliance rate.
[2:27:53] All other categories of encroachments had a much lower compliance rate.
[2:27:58] Of the 31 floodways inspected, all had unauthorized encroachments.
[2:28:03] And as a result of our findings and seeing the scale of this issue, we're eager to help find approaches to dealing with it.
[2:28:11] We've shared our findings with Board staff and are ready to assist however we can.
[2:28:17] Are there any questions for me before I turn it over to Saskia, who will be talking about the LMA reporting program?
[2:28:21] Okay, what,
[2:28:26] what has to be done here in terms of compliance?
[2:28:32] Let's assume, for example, of the 80% of the non-compliance structure in the designated floodways.
[2:28:48] Are we at a point where we go out and talk to these people or do we set up some sort of another
[2:28:58] system or how does that work?
[2:29:02] Well, I think what we need to do is have some sort of outreach to public agencies that
[2:29:08] are controlling development in their areas and make sure that they understand the requirements
[2:29:13] to apply for board permits and do more of an educational outreach?
[2:29:22] Well, a lot of these are structures in agricultural zone areas, right?
[2:29:32] I wouldn't be able to speak to that.
[2:29:34] I mean, they're in the floodway that the board is delineated.
[2:29:38] Right.
[2:29:39] I'm thinking whether or not the county would require a permit on a agricultural
[2:29:46] your cultural how building do they do that Jane yes they do all
[2:29:53] That's all structures.
[2:29:56] With some...
[2:30:00] Yes, with some exemption for small structures. So that, and small, pretty small. I was just wondering, you
[2:30:14] don't go the inspections, folks don't go on to see if there was a county building permit or a county requirement.
[2:30:22] Not at this point.
[2:30:25] No, if there's in a local bill's taking care of it.
[2:30:31] So you don't know if there's been a local approval, but not a flood board permit.
[2:30:36] That's something to be investigated.
[2:30:38] Correct.
[2:30:38] We do not know if the local floodplain manager has authorized that development.
[2:30:43] And does this report indicate some more examples than a bridge as to what is identified in
[2:30:53] Are you talking about buildings?
[2:30:55] We're talking about buildings, pole barns, garages, out structures, houses, lots of
[2:31:03] lots of structures.
[2:31:04] But you wouldn't know the date the house was built?
[2:31:08] No.
[2:31:10] And that's why we did the baseline survey.
[2:31:13] And our focus is really trying to capture new, recent activity.
[2:31:19] And I think, you know, working with the board staff and enforcement, if necessary, we would
[2:31:25] be able to identify that sort of activity and highlight that for the board.
[2:31:32] Okay, because I think that matters.
[2:31:34] I don't know about all counties, but in the North there was building permits for not required
[2:31:38] for homes until about World War II.
[2:31:40] So you would have, there's a lot of them understood the train by looking at and built their
[2:31:46] on a null and not a hundred feet before the water level or the river. But it'd be hard to get a
[2:31:54] permit for something that was built without requiring that. But yeah, there are things there's
[2:31:58] some work to do with local government.
[2:32:04] We had, you
[2:32:09] know, in terms of our local committee that's
[2:32:13] looking into local compliance to inspections, we had actually the focus of that group was to
[2:32:22] try and eliminate this,
[2:32:27] try and get everybody into the PL-84-99 program. So it didn't
[2:32:31] focus on all these, you know, the nature of your particular inspection program and all
[2:32:39] the deficiencies. But I'm kind of wondering if we're going out and talking to these
[2:32:45] landowners, they've got a number of deficiencies probably on their property one that they
[2:32:53] don't have a swift, the other is, is the compliance problems of all these different kinds
[2:33:00] of inspections. It seems to me there ought to be a way to talk to the property on a one-time.
[2:33:07] And, you know, and, you know, by the way, we want to fix these things. We want to fix the
[2:33:12] deficiencies in DWR. That's pointing out. We want to, we want to make sure you've got a swift going
[2:33:20] on here, so that we don't lose money at the state level.
[2:33:24] And there may be other things that we're talking about.
[2:33:28] But I think maybe as we get into refining this enforcement
[2:33:33] program, now that we have beginning to really bubble up
[2:33:38] this specific data, we're going to need some sort of a way
[2:33:43] to talk to the owners about all the problems,
[2:33:47] rather than have different meetings on different things.
[2:33:51] I don't know if that's possible or not.
[2:33:53] But how you do that?
[2:33:54] I don't know.
[2:33:58] Joe.
[2:34:08] I'm concerned about the designated floodway issue.
[2:34:14] Do you have some sort of breakdown between San Joaquin Valley
[2:34:19] and Sacramento Valley as far as a designated floodway
[2:34:24] and encroachments?
[2:34:26] We could certainly look at the data and mine it for, you know, as separation of the reason that I bring this up is I'm aware in the San Joaquin, especially in the Tolerary Basin.
[2:34:42] There's like entire county practically in the designated floodway.
[2:34:49] I mean, literally, you know, it's a foot deep in its forever.
[2:34:55] And it seems to me that our board should somehow hand that responsibility off to the county to administer.
[2:35:08] I mean, the designated floodway maps weren't published until the 70s, I believe.
[2:35:17] You know, that's my recollection at least.
[2:35:19] So, there had to be a lot of structures in the 70s that already were in the designated floodways.
[2:35:27] How do we know what's new and what's all certainly the designated floodway program didn't require removal of existing structures?
[2:35:38] So, it's impossible, and might, well, nothing's impossible, I guess, but it's extremely difficult
[2:35:45] to administer a program of that breadth and width that covers like entire counties and
[2:35:52] goes for miles.
[2:35:56] I don't know what your thoughts about that, how would you even start to enforce?
[2:36:03] Well, I think the process and the tool that we developed with the help of Oleg Yakima in
[2:36:09] our branch has really provided us a way to do inspections from the office where previously
[2:36:18] it would have been very difficult to get out there and do that kind of leg work to do inspections
[2:36:22] on all the floodways that we have.
[2:36:25] So the process basically we delineate these items on a map and then we come back and re-inspect them when new imagery is available and it helps us identify new encroachments.
[2:36:40] And I think that's where our focus would be, would be, new new encroachments that we identify active stuff that's happening.
[2:36:47] I think you have to accept that these floodways have been developed in places to some extent.
[2:36:57] And I don't have an answer for what you would want to do with all the encroachments that 70, 200 or so that we've identified,
[2:37:07] but certainly moving forward, I think education where we can would be helpful in making sure that our development
[2:37:16] practices aren't impacting the capacity of those floodways, and that somebody at a state
[2:37:23] level is monitoring how locals are managing their floodways.
[2:37:28] I know at one time we were looking into could the FEMA flood map program replace they both
[2:37:36] had the hundred-year floodplain criteria if we could just say,
[2:37:44] let's adopt FEMA's flood maps and let the counties administer it.
[2:37:49] I just don't see how this is such a wide breadth how we should be trying
[2:37:56] to administer this land use in these huge areas.
[2:38:00] I mean, that's a, you know, personal opinion, but to the extent that we could rely more on the counties,
[2:38:09] we should definitely try to go in that direction, I think.
[2:38:14] Just give that responsibility to the floodplain manager of the county of the city and let him deal with it.
[2:38:21] They deal with it anyway. I would think.
[2:38:27] Okay. Tim.
[2:38:33] Thanks. As a reminder, let me ask the first question, which appendix is the designated floodway
[2:38:39] in the report, because I can't find it. Do you know, I'll top your head?
[2:38:42] Only included a high level.
[2:38:45] Okay. Summary of the data behind what's in the body of the report.
[2:38:51] Okay, so that helps. So it's not there. So that can't find. It's just not in the report.
[2:38:55] Okay. Well, I think that I feel a little better about my ability to find information in the report.
[2:38:59] So thanks for that.
[2:39:02] As a reminder for us, we asked for this.
[2:39:06] So this is not something that should be surprised to anybody.
[2:39:09] And this surprised me at all, the numbers don't.
[2:39:12] And I'm glad you guys did it.
[2:39:14] And I know it was done efficiently, not from the field.
[2:39:19] And I recall from the flowway program.
[2:39:23] I think this is probably pretty obvious.
[2:39:24] But the lines are based on topography.
[2:39:26] they were drawn 50 years ago, and it's, but in the end, it's right now our responsibility.
[2:39:36] So now we have even more information about what a colossal volume of work it might be to try to jump into it.
[2:39:44] So we're not going to solve that problem today.
[2:39:45] I think it's worth a discussion offline somehow for us to peel this back a little bit and figure out what to do now.
[2:39:53] I know from a couple of specific examples and I'm aware of like these are they're not old and they're not piles.
[2:40:00] Some of these are homes. Some of them are new and some of them are right next to the river.
[2:40:08] And I think in some cases the city and counties know full well that they're there.
[2:40:13] So this is not obviously something that's going to be worked out in the near future, but I think it's important to start.
[2:40:18] you guys gave us a starting point, which is great.
[2:40:20] So I appreciate that, thank you.
[2:40:21] But I think we need to sit down and figure out
[2:40:23] what we do with it and how we move forward.
[2:40:27] And prioritize whatever it is, our actions are,
[2:40:30] whether we're taking some kind of action to follow up,
[2:40:32] or we're going to follow up with local governments
[2:40:34] and ask them to help do that, or both.
[2:40:38] So let's do that, and probably not do it today.
[2:40:42] But I'm really grateful that you guys were able to pull this
[2:40:44] together, because I think it's been a long time coming.
[2:40:47] Whether we know or not, it's our responsibility right now.
[2:40:51] So, I did want to point out also just as a reminder
[2:40:53] because Bill asked about the POV 499 program.
[2:40:57] And I know this is related to the information
[2:40:59] you've got to present in the report.
[2:41:01] But in our staff report, you'll see our little chart
[2:41:04] in there again.
[2:41:05] And just so folks know that there's always more to be done.
[2:41:10] Over half of the systems and half of the miles
[2:41:13] that are in that program are still not,
[2:41:15] they're inactive.
[2:41:17] You know, and a good 100,000 people plus are also in areas that are inactive.
[2:41:22] So we have the swifts and they've provided a buffer of safety in some cases, not safety, but a buffer for help from the federal government if things go crazy.
[2:41:31] But we're exposing a lot of areas besides the ones that are flagged here in the floodways already.
[2:41:37] And we need to think about how we track that as well.
[2:41:40] Our staff are tracking it, but we need to figure out what we're going to do about it based on the coercive inspections.
[2:41:45] So, because that's still a big, and they're in red, so jumps out of me every month, but it's
[2:41:50] not a report every month, just as a reminder.
[2:41:53] Thank you guys for pulling this together.
[2:41:55] Appreciate it.
[2:41:58] Clyde.
[2:41:59] Thank you.
[2:42:03] Well, here we are again, looking at things, you know, we've all been together here for eight
[2:42:09] And according to my numbers looking at this, it's, we've got 28, I think,
[2:42:18] weights at 29, LMAs have been deemed unacceptable in their maintenance for five years.
[2:42:27] And it's 15 for 13 years. Straight.
[2:42:32] It's not exactly a great record.
[2:42:35] We've done some things to try to deal with this.
[2:42:38] We had established a committee, a deal in Jane,
[2:42:41] to go out and talk to some of these deficient LMAs.
[2:42:44] The Department has established the F map program
[2:42:47] to give the LMAs some funding to try to get into swifts
[2:42:53] and to start looking at prop to 18 revisions,
[2:42:58] and then also some additional funding.
[2:43:00] We've got the SSJDD assessment study going along.
[2:43:05] I mentioned two years before we have RD-1602, which is down by Patterson,
[2:43:10] they came before the board in 2014.
[2:43:14] And basically, we're asking, is there a way we can get out of this system?
[2:43:19] RD-1602 does not have a board of directors, they do not collect an assessment,
[2:43:23] and they do no work.
[2:43:26] the local landowners do whatever work is going to be done.
[2:43:30] And then we had the horseshoe levy problem that we got the letter for last week.
[2:43:38] And at the Coordinating Committee, we have Madera County come into a presentation
[2:43:42] of their conflicts really between looking at the groundwater law and looking at what we are asking them
[2:43:50] and giving us information on what their landowners think they did some surveys.
[2:43:55] They were going to try to go out with a prop to 18 and just kind of went, it didn't
[2:44:01] got a pass, so let's just not go do that.
[2:44:06] I think, you know, we've been here for eight years, and I also did one other thing.
[2:44:13] I looked, I looked to see if I can find this.
[2:44:16] I look to see from Wade's information about how have agencies improved or not improved across
[2:44:28] the time in his chart, which is a five-year chart.
[2:44:32] And I thought it would have been improved some.
[2:44:35] It has 14 of those agencies have improved from that one-in five years later, but 18 of them have gone down.
[2:44:46] And I kind of think it's time we kind of stepped into this, figured out what we're going to do and go do it.
[2:44:56] PG&E had this problem, and we have this problem.
[2:45:00] Problem. And I think, you know, it's time.
[2:45:04] Yeah, I agree with that. And I think there's some things that will, I guess, lead to all, after
[2:45:10] Wades finish, but Jane, you want to comment?
[2:45:15] I would. These annual reports and presentations are obviously very, so
[2:45:21] and troubling and present to us an ongoing challenge to figure out what to do.
[2:45:28] But to suggest that we just hear this report once a year and don't do anything,
[2:45:34] is it's one of our reminds of all we are.
[2:45:36] We have many of these elements that have presented the letters of intent
[2:45:41] that are moving toward a swift.
[2:45:45] I would say the ones that are unacceptable are ones that up until there was active and intensive inspections were just left alone.
[2:45:57] So if you have 20, 30 years of backlog, it's going to take you more than 12 months to correct.
[2:46:03] And the rural entities, and Madera was certainly an example yesterday at Cordon, or Wednesday at Cordonating Committee, that they are working on what to do.
[2:46:14] And they have identified that the number one issue is funding for any number of years.
[2:46:22] Let's pick 1978 when Prop 13 limited local government funding.
[2:46:28] and then whatever year to 18 came along and said,
[2:46:30] you can't do it until you go to the election,
[2:46:34] and can't take away the authority to leave assessments.
[2:46:38] It's made it even even more challenging.
[2:46:41] But they are moving toward that.
[2:46:43] So it's not like we've got to decide to do something.
[2:46:46] We have decided, and Bill and I are the ad hoc community
[2:46:49] to meet with these local groups.
[2:46:50] And some are urban.
[2:46:51] Most are rural.
[2:46:54] Some have functioning boards, some do not.
[2:46:57] Someone out, someone money from the state, they all have a sort of ideas, but they're moving forward.
[2:47:04] They're not stuck in doing nothing, and I appreciate the data that we have now, and you've got
[2:47:11] identified encroachments. Some are bridges, and we know some are structures, but we don't know exactly where.
[2:47:18] So, now we have that data from inspection, but I think that we then move to classifying them by location, risk, history, what's got a local permit, but doesn't have our permit, you know, a sort of review, analyze, maybe the designated floodway maps need to be adjusted, wider, not so wide.
[2:47:48] we wouldn't be in a designated bloodway.
[2:47:51] We're just in a high risk area.
[2:47:53] That's got a whole different kind of classification.
[2:47:55] And then begin to meet with the land use authority,
[2:47:59] which is not the state government or any state entity.
[2:48:02] Even though there's a lot of people that would like that to be done,
[2:48:05] if you pretty complicated to take that away,
[2:48:08] it wouldn't be quick.
[2:48:09] But we have some tools.
[2:48:11] The flood board, and it's we delegate it to our staff,
[2:48:15] review counties general plans, particularly
[2:48:17] their safety element and if they don't have requirements of keeping encroachments that block
[2:48:24] or affect the function of a floodway in their general plan, they would tell them to do that.
[2:48:31] And there are ways that we can encourage them, but you know, my first year is on the board.
[2:48:37] All of our first year is on the board.
[2:48:39] We struggled a lot and put some public money into removing a swimming pool that was in a
[2:48:47] And it was in a place that shouldn't be.
[2:48:51] So it's, you can, you got done.
[2:48:54] And what do you come in after us for?
[2:48:55] We got our building permit.
[2:48:56] We've been all the rest of that.
[2:48:58] So it's, we are making some effort.
[2:49:01] But to think that we can turn this around in even eight years,
[2:49:07] I think, is a good challenge.
[2:49:10] But we continue to work on it.
[2:49:13] And these conversations with the local agencies
[2:49:15] are incredibly enlightening and it does come down to knowing what they need to do and that's
[2:49:21] what the inspection tells them, knowing what they're capable of doing and finding a way to
[2:49:28] fund it. You can't just ride the letter and I'll get it done. But the letter starts and this
[2:49:34] information begins so I think it's good. It helps us to continue to do the work that we've
[2:49:45] following up on these. But what I'm the feedback I'm getting from the people that are out in
[2:49:53] the field, the consulting engineers, who basically are supporting us in terms of the PL-8499
[2:50:02] issue when that comes up. They're supporting, they're trying to get the swifts, trying to get
[2:50:15] faced with and they've told, they've told all their clients that the floodboards coming
[2:50:22] say you better be ready for this and you better sign the swift letter and they'll give you
[2:50:27] some money for it and you need to have a plan and we call it a swift, you can call it a monkey
[2:50:33] renter or whatever but the fact of the matter is you need a plan. Now the chorus said that it
[2:50:40] I was with reasonable, you know, we can't get it done in 10 years or 15 years, they don't care.
[2:50:47] As long as you have a plant to get some of these things done, and that's what they've been selling it.
[2:50:52] But lately,
[2:50:56] what these folks are, at least what the engineers are telling us, in light of these other things that we talked about this morning, all of these rules and regulations.
[2:51:08] and dip from different programs that the state has, whether it's sigma, whether it's
[2:51:16] fish and wildlife, or whatever, they have to choose because they don't have a lot of
[2:51:23] money. So what they're saying is that the flood board never enforces anything that don't
[2:51:38] The sigma regulations that are groundwater regulations that are now coming up and are facing, they're facing.
[2:51:48] So I think at this point we've got two things that I think we need a recommendations from the staff on.
[2:51:59] The way the enforcement works on the repeat offenders, so to speak, is that DWR has to do a report.
[2:52:13] And it's not a little report, but it's according to Mike Mizorah.
[2:52:19] It's a lengthy report, a lot of documentation, a lot of analysis and so on as to go into this report.
[2:52:27] And the Department has to give us a recommendation that this particular LMA has not completed.
[2:52:40] There has not passed an inspection in 20 years.
[2:52:44] And we proposed that the Ford start a maintenance area in that area in order to get the job done.
[2:52:53] There has to be one or two of those so that we can, so the engineers have a little data
[2:53:02] that they can tell their clients and you got to do this swift, you got to have a plan, blah, blah, blah,
[2:53:09] and the state's willing to help out a little bit.
[2:53:12] But we got to perform.
[2:53:15] So I think, as far as the repeat offenders, I think we ought to get with
[2:53:25] who's the fellow
[2:53:27] that the heads up the maintenance are clasped.
[2:53:31] Yeah, more clasped.
[2:53:31] We've got to get with Mark and we've got to look at this data
[2:53:35] and we've got to recommend one or two areas in which
[2:53:41] have not been complied with for 20 years, 15 years,
[2:53:48] and that would be good examples, you know, not one of these examples
[2:53:54] where they don't have a board. It never meets or whatever. We need a good example of
[2:54:03] LMA that is not complied in 15 or 20 years and we need to do a state being necessary. One
[2:54:10] or two examples for the staff based on that and we've got to be some of that in order to support
[2:54:18] what the engineers are telling their clients. We need to do that or they're just going to blow
[2:54:23] off, and like they have been. Now, and in the meantime, Jane and I will continue to meet with
[2:54:30] people that are willing to work with us and see if we can help and gain compliance, and that's
[2:54:36] the idea is to gain compliance in these areas. In the second area that we talked about, or the
[2:54:45] We've got to take what Joe talked about today and Tim and come back with a recommendation on what we ought to be doing, whether we ought to have our committee meet with the land use agency, people, the floodplain managers and the cities and the counties.
[2:55:06] And we say, you know, this is, this is crazy.
[2:55:10] We can't do this kind of, we can't do compliance.
[2:55:14] And this designated from it was, they're making a sense.
[2:55:16] And we want to delegate that responsibility
[2:55:19] to the, to the cities or the, the floodplain
[2:55:21] managers in the city or the county, or something,
[2:55:25] whatever recommendation.
[2:55:26] But those are the two areas that I hear coming out of here
[2:55:31] that we need to recommendations on.
[2:55:33] one or two repeat offenders and what we're going to do on this designated floodway program and
[2:55:41] please don't come back and say we're going to hire 100 people to go out and enforce the
[2:55:46] designated floodway program. I ain't going to work either. So yeah, that'll just blow everything up.
[2:55:56] So anyway, we've got to, I think we've got to start doing our job here. Our job is to enforce
[2:56:02] compliance. The two things is issue permits and enforce compliance. That's our core responsibility.
[2:56:10] Or not doing it. So we gotta do it. Clients right.
[2:56:14] Well, so it's so's Jane. I don't think it's start doing our job. I think it's to continue and to enhance our job.
[2:56:22] Well, yeah, but we gotta we gotta mean what we say.
[2:56:25] Yeah, it's easy to be hard on nobody's doing anything.
[2:56:29] The semi-local agencies are doing nothing because they functionally don't exist, but many of them are struggling with the same things that we're struggling with.
[2:56:38] But yeah, some of them are not doing anything.
[2:56:40] I said that.
[2:56:41] Some of them are doing nothing.
[2:56:42] But we've got to demonstrate that.
[2:56:45] There's a price to pay for that.
[2:56:46] So we need to enhance that.
[2:56:48] So it's kind of like the first enforcement we did.
[2:56:51] And never going in force.
[2:56:52] And so we did something.
[2:56:53] It was like, oh, wow, they're serious.
[2:56:54] Yes, that's right. That's right. Yeah, that's all. So where do we start?
[2:56:58] And we don't start with the pole barn. That protects a goat.
[2:57:03] Well, I don't know. We start with the subdivision. Where we start with home buildings.
[2:57:09] I don't think they're done with the presentation yet. No, I know. I know the art. Okay.
[2:57:14] We're like to test those ourselves. Okay. Okay. Thank you for handling that.
[2:57:21] The rest of your presentation, let's go ahead with it. All right.
[2:57:25] Thank
[2:57:33] you, Wade.
[2:57:38] Good afternoon, President Edgar, and esteemed members of the board.
[2:57:43] My name is Saskia Donovan. I manage the local maintaining agency reporting program,
[2:57:49] and today I will be giving you a brief update on last year's activities and the results of the program.
[2:57:56] As a reminder, this program is separate from the inspection program.
[2:58:00] Now for quick background, the LMA reporting program was established by Assembly Bill 156
[2:58:08] in 2007 and is codified in World Record sections 9140 and 9141.
[2:58:16] It requires annual reporting on operation and maintenance activity for project
[2:58:22] as well as for certain non-project levees.
[2:58:27] What a code 9140 requires that the LMAs report
[2:58:31] annually to DWR, and 9141,
[2:58:35] requires that we in turn report that information to the board.
[2:58:41] The intent is to obtain information beyond what is observed
[2:58:45] by DWR inspectors.
[2:58:47] We are looking for the local operators perspective
[2:58:50] of their problems with the levees and their priorities for levee maintenance in addition to
[2:58:56] information on costs.
[2:59:02] There are five parts to the information we request from the LMAs.
[2:59:07] In part one, we ask for information that is relevant to the levees condition or performance,
[2:59:14] such as vegetation issues, encroachments, sediment accumulation and borne erosion.
[2:59:21] In part two, we ask for information relevant to Levy Integrity and known conditions that might impair or compromise the level of blood protection provided by the Levy, such as C-Pitch, Boils, Burrowholes, Levy Erosion, Levy Instability, Cracks and Penetration deficiencies.
[2:59:44] In part three, we ask for a summary of maintenance performed during the previous fiscal year.
[2:59:51] This is also the part where in which LMAs have the opportunity to provide responses to DWR instance.
[3:00:00] Section items, which the DWR inspectors see during the next inspection cycle. In Part 4, we ask for a list of maintenance activities planned for the current fiscal year, as well as the estimated cost for operation and maintenance of the levy in the current fiscal year.
[3:00:21] In Part 5, we ask for supporting information and any other readily available information that is in the records of the LMA relevant to the condition or maintenance of the levy.
[3:00:33] Examples are updates to emergency action plans,
[3:00:37] as builds, permits, memoranda of understanding and studies.
[3:00:47] There are 106 geographical levied areas
[3:00:51] that have been identified as required to report.
[3:00:55] And those 106 levied areas are represented by 84 elements.
[3:01:01] of those 106 areas, 94% reported in 2019, or met the minimum requirements.
[3:01:11] We have been defining that as responding to at least one of the five parts.
[3:01:17] However, the bar is going to be raised this year requiring a response to all five parts to be considered compliant.
[3:01:26] Last year's reporting compliance trends in line with the four previous years, when it was between 93 and 95 percent.
[3:01:35] We will strive to keep up this high level of compliance and to improve the quality of reporting over the next several years.
[3:01:44] Last year, we implemented a new online reporting system and a percentage of reports that were received electronically,
[3:01:52] when from 69% in 2018 to 83% last year.
[3:01:59] The remaining 17% of reports were submitted as hard copy, which we then entered into the database ourselves.
[3:02:11] For part 3, 92% of the reports that we received provided a summary of maintenance activities performed during the previous fiscal year.
[3:02:22] The graph shows the major maintenance categories which were similar to the ones reported in 2018.
[3:02:30] As an example, for vegetation in 2019, 82% of the reporting levied areas stated that they performed vegetation control during the previous fiscal year.
[3:02:42] Whereas in 2018, 86% of the areas stated that they performed vegetation control.
[3:02:49] As in previous years, vegetation management was the dominant activity, followed by road and control,
[3:02:57] levee repair, levee crown maintenance and encroachment control.
[3:03:06] For part 4, 91% of the reports that we received provided a list of maintenance activities planned for the current fiscal year.
[3:03:15] Again, as reported in previous years, and as shown in the graph, the major categories
[3:03:21] are vegetation control, road and control, levee crown maintenance and levee repairs.
[3:03:29] As part of our efforts to benefit current repair and flood planning programs, we began providing
[3:03:36] the individual LMA cost for operational maintenance per levee mile.
[3:03:42] In the 2019 part four summaries in appendices A and B, our goal for this year is to also provide
[3:03:51] system-wide budget information in the annual report, such as a cost breakdown by maintenance
[3:03:58] category, basin, and urban versus non-urban areas.
[3:04:07] On August 8th, 2019, we held a workshop at the Flatubration Center and Viscipe to provide training
[3:04:16] on the reporting program and the new LMA reporting system.
[3:04:21] A total of 25 participants representing 50 LMAs or 57 areas
[3:04:27] attended the workshop.
[3:04:30] We held additional workshops with DWR Sutter and Sacramento maintenance yard staff.
[3:04:36] The new reporting system was developed with the collaboration of the California Data Exchange
[3:04:42] center or CDEC and the major improvements include easier access, less time consuming data entry,
[3:04:51] improved user interface and overview of data entries and easier generation of summary
[3:04:56] reports of current and previous data. In addition, the LMAs have the opportunity to submit
[3:05:03] their budgets as an attachment in part 4. We developed a user guide for the new reporting system,
[3:05:11] which is available on CDEC, and also provided in the virtual assistance via phone.
[3:05:18] Like every year, we mail the annual reporting reminder to all LMAs, including instructions
[3:05:24] and hard copy forms.
[3:05:26] We also contacted the LMAs that missed the reporting deadline and reduced the number of
[3:05:32] non-reporters from 18 to 6.
[3:05:39] The annual inspection and local maintaining agency report, as well as in the virtual
[3:05:45] inspection reports are accessible on CDEC. Also, CDs and or hard copies of the
[3:05:52] annual report will be distributed to each LMA and to counties and libraries within
[3:05:57] the LMAs jurisdiction. The raw data from the LMA reporting can be accessed by the
[3:06:03] LMAs through the LMA reporting system.
[3:06:12] The information provided through our program
[3:06:14] has several benefits.
[3:06:17] It provides a local perspective of system performance,
[3:06:20] a knowledge of maintenance challenges
[3:06:22] and management practices that we otherwise would not have.
[3:06:28] Also, the data provide information for flood emergency
[3:06:31] preparedness and system-wide financial information
[3:06:34] for flood planning.
[3:06:37] The issues raised can be informative to allocating future
[3:06:41] level improvement funding, like the flood maintenance assistance program and the flood
[3:06:46] system repair project, and my result in cost share enhancement for certain DWR grants and
[3:06:53] repair programs.
[3:06:56] To fully realize these benefits, we depend on receiving quality information
[3:07:01] from the LMAs. In general, about 85% of the levied areas provide sufficient information
[3:07:08] for all five parts. As mentioned before, we are striving to improve the reporting quality
[3:07:16] of the remaining 15% of reports by providing more feedback and performing more outreach.
[3:07:24] Finally, the LMA reporting system provides LMAs a pathway to water code 9140 compliance
[3:07:32] and provides LMAs with secure management of their inspection data.
[3:07:38] And now I've all turned it back to wait.
[3:07:46] Yeah, that looks, that looks like a good program.
[3:07:50] I'm interested in the interface between your reporting system and
[3:07:55] Wades inspection program.
[3:07:58] When you sit down with these LMAs, is there a
[3:08:01] Discard World Wait a minute?
[3:08:02] You said you did these seven things and the
[3:08:07] inspection found that you're deficient in the same areas of, you know, that are identified
[3:08:14] in your, yeah, right. Do you have those discussions? Is that what happens? Or how does,
[3:08:22] how does the reporting system relate to the inspection system as far as the LMA is concerned?
[3:08:29] Well, as I mentioned before, they have the LMAs, the local maintaining agencies have the
[3:08:35] opportunity to look at their inspection items from the spring inspections, and they can provide
[3:08:44] these boxes to those items.
[3:08:48] For example, they can work in progress or pending or complete corrected.
[3:08:56] So that's the connection and the inspectors see these responses during their next inspection,
[3:09:03] during the fall inspection, so it gives them a heads up and it provides an opportunity for
[3:09:12] the LMAs to check these items off, but the inspectors will still, it gives them a heads
[3:09:22] up.
[3:09:22] They will still go through each of these items and check to see how these items were addressed.
[3:09:32] So, it's just a matter of, it's a form of communication where the LMAs let us know what they have done.
[3:09:47] Thank you, Saskia.
[3:09:49] So, at this time, I'd like to provide an update on our programs, tools, and branch activities.
[3:09:55] The first tool I'd like to talk about is our inspection tool.
[3:09:59] This tool is the workhorse of the inspection sections.
[3:10:02] We use it continually, or we are continually updating its content and functionality, and it is used to collect all inspections performed within the inspection sections.
[3:10:14] This year improvements were made that will allow supervisors and inspectors a way to highlight incidents needing special attention when they're out in the field.
[3:10:25] The
[3:10:31] levee log tool is what we are using to update the long outdated paper copies of the levee logs used to document features along the state plan of flood control levees.
[3:10:42] To accomplish this, the branch created the levee log tool which utilizes the same platform as the inspection tool, but modified it specifically for using collecting features for the levee log update.
[3:10:53] The tool was used successfully to perform the field inspections needed for the update, but the work that we have to do to finalize the levy logs is ongoing because of the very complex nature of the QA review that needs to be done.
[3:11:09] Branch staff work to finalize the field inspections data and have completed what we are now calling phase one of the QA review.
[3:11:18] Based two, which will result in the final version of the levy log, has started.
[3:11:23] The final QA review involves purging of duplicate entries and addition of known permit information to associated encroachments.
[3:11:33] To date, staff have completed approximately 250 miles of levy log updates, and as those levy logs are finalized, we will update them on our website.
[3:11:43] We are prioritizing this effort and are anticipating making significant progress toward completing
[3:11:48] this work here in 2020.
[3:11:53] The LMA reporting tool that Soski was referring to has been redesigned.
[3:11:58] The old version of the tool has been available since 2008 and allowed LMAs access to information
[3:12:04] about their LMAs as well as provided a tool for them to submit their LMA reporting requirements.
[3:12:12] based on feedback over the last few years from users,
[3:12:16] the tool has been redesigned.
[3:12:19] The new tool called the LMA reporting system is now faster
[3:12:22] and more user-friendly than its predecessor.
[3:12:26] The user can update their contact information,
[3:12:29] provide feedback to the inspectors on inspection items,
[3:12:33] and submit their five-part reporting requirements.
[3:12:37] Though not all portions of the previous version are included
[3:12:40] in this redesign, the new system is getting pretty good feedback or positive feedback from
[3:12:45] LMAs.
[3:12:47] And we saw that with the increase in reporting results.
[3:12:51] Are you on your inspection tool is the reporting information also there on our inspection
[3:12:59] tool?
[3:12:59] Like when we go out in the field, the inspection tool is the reporting information there.
[3:13:03] No.
[3:13:04] Well, in part, yes, where they indicate that they have corrected or done something,
[3:13:11] It highlights that item for us when we're out in the field doing the inspection to let us know to
[3:13:19] Look at it, basically, to verify that it was complete. Okay, that's that's where the verification comes in.
[3:13:27] The portions of the previous version that were not in this update are still available for users
[3:13:34] and they will eventually be migrated over to the new LMA reporting tool or reporting system.
[3:13:40] system. So utilizing the previous versions, users can still access the utility crossing inspection
[3:13:46] reports, obtain copies of maps and own immanials, and update board staff with corrections
[3:13:52] they have made to their Army Corps periodic inspections.
[3:13:59] Our efforts to develop street view
[3:14:00] imagery of the state plan of flight control levees continues. Currently, we're collecting
[3:14:06] imagery for state maintained areas, and we'll continue to expand our imagery database
[3:14:12] over the next several years.
[3:14:15] To date, we've collected about 280 miles of street view imagery.
[3:14:21] Unfortunately, at this time, it's only available to the inspection section.
[3:14:26] However, we are looking to make this imagery available to DWR, board, and LMA personnel in the future,
[3:14:33] as funding becomes available for that.
[3:14:36] We are also looking into the use of drone imagery by some
[3:14:40] LMAs to accomplish a similar function.
[3:14:43] How that might be used in conjunction with or instead of
[3:14:46] street view imagery to provide valuable information for
[3:14:49] emergency response, operation and maintenance,
[3:14:52] environmental studies, permitting, and enforcement.
[3:15:00] The utility crossing inventory project continues to evolve, making advancements and how data is shared
[3:15:05] with our partners through upgrades to ferrets and how they operate.
[3:15:11] Starting in 2019, the utility crossing inventory project was renamed the utility crossing
[3:15:16] inspection program. And use of staff has started programmatically inspecting all pipes
[3:15:21] within the system on a five year rotation. Ensuring each year, 20% of the pipes will be visited
[3:15:27] expected and reported on.
[3:15:33] Some additional branch activities I'd like to highlight, we continue to participate in coordination
[3:15:39] meetings with the core, the board, and the LMAs, helping to ensure good communication
[3:15:43] between all agencies.
[3:15:47] Supporting the Flood Operations Center to improve flood response capabilities, branch personnel
[3:15:51] taught flood-fight training courses throughout the state.
[3:15:55] Over the last year, our inspectors helped to teach 19 flood-fight classes, providing training
[3:16:01] to about 750 flood-fighters from LMAs, municipalities, and communities in hazard areas.
[3:16:10] Branch flood-fight specialists were deployed to provide technical assistance to multiple
[3:16:14] events throughout the year, including deployments to Hamilton City, Cash Creek, Kings River,
[3:16:22] and most recently the Stanislaus River.
[3:16:25] Inspectors continue to make great progress on updating permits.
[3:16:30] This year inspectors reviewed and updated or closed over 1,000 permits.
[3:16:36] Their work is ensuring active construction projects are meeting board conditions
[3:16:40] and board databases are updated with accurate locations and information for existing encroachments.
[3:16:49] Looking forward into 2020, we will continue to coordinate and communicate with the many agencies involved with maintaining the levees
[3:16:57] in order to share knowledge between board, core and LMAs
[3:17:01] to help meet the operational and regulatory challenges.
[3:17:06] We will continue to improve the LMA reporting program
[3:17:09] and the quality of the reports.
[3:17:13] We will work to obtain more detailed budget information
[3:17:16] to provide better planning programs or better planning
[3:17:23] to provide better data for planning programs.
[3:17:26] We will advance the update of the web-based
[3:17:29] LMA reporting system and we will continue to
[3:17:33] finalize levy log updates throughout the
[3:17:34] system.
[3:17:37] We plan to continue our efforts to start assessing
[3:17:39] LMA responsible drainage pipes as part of the LMAs
[3:17:43] overall rating.
[3:17:46] As always, we will respond to flood and other
[3:17:48] emergencies as they arise and are requested.
[3:17:54] This concludes our presentation of the 2019 LMAE Agency report, and I want to thank the board
[3:18:01] for this opportunity to share our inspection results and showcase some of our accomplishments.
[3:18:06] I would also like to thank the FBIB Branch staff who worked throughout the year to accomplish
[3:18:11] this good work.
[3:18:14] Thank you.
[3:18:17] Yeah, that's thanks very much Wade that you and Sasuke did a good job and and pressed into there's an awful lot of coordination here, and that's why the database program that you're working on is so important and I hope the LMAs tremendously, I'm sure we've
[3:18:38] So anyway, thanks very much.
[3:18:43] Any board members have any other questions?
[3:18:46] Okay, we have one speaker.
[3:18:49] We're going hard.
[3:18:51] Thank you.
[3:18:51] Thank you, Wade.
[3:18:58] Thank you, President Edgar, members of the board.
[3:19:00] We're going hard on behalf of the Floor Control Association.
[3:19:02] I have two comments I want to make.
[3:19:03] First, I want to thank the Department for generating this information and
[3:19:07] continuing to improve our understanding of the deficiencies with the system and
[3:19:10] the status of the system.
[3:19:11] The first comment is on the decision to list the remaining 2018 unrepaired sites on the districts
[3:19:20] of the LMA reports.
[3:19:22] We don't think that's a reasonable approach.
[3:19:24] As we went through the process of defining what is OMR and our understandings, we reached agreement
[3:19:33] that the type of large capital improvement projects that happen after a flood event is not
[3:19:38] the LMA's responsibility.
[3:19:39] The department has a list of 2017 and 2019 storm damage recites that they intend on repairing.
[3:19:48] The sites haven't been repaired for one or two reasons as I understand it.
[3:19:51] First is the lack of resources and the second is the lack of funding.
[3:19:57] Those two reasons should not be why it gets put on to the LMAs responsibility.
[3:20:01] And our concern is if it starts getting listed on the periodic inspections,
[3:20:04] the perception is going to be, this is the deficiency that the LMA needs to take responsibility for.
[3:20:08] and we don't think that's reasonable.
[3:20:10] And so we do want to revisit that issue of what happens
[3:20:12] to these sites that haven't been repaired
[3:20:15] either because of a lack of resources.
[3:20:17] And if we need more funding, then the administration
[3:20:19] should be putting that in there proposed budget for 2020.
[3:20:22] And that funding is not in there.
[3:20:25] The second item is something that I brought it
[3:20:28] before your board before.
[3:20:29] We have had a periodic inspection, a levian inspection program
[3:20:32] that gives us all of the deficiencies
[3:20:33] with existing levies, but we don't have that for the floodways.
[3:20:36] And so I'm looking forward to reviewing this report and seeing and hoping that it identifies
[3:20:42] where through maintenance, a lack of maintenance for vegetation or sediment or subsidence,
[3:20:47] we don't have sufficient capacity in our levy systems. To bring that home, I want to cite two
[3:20:51] examples that I know are problems. On February 27th of 2019, we had a flood event on Cash Creek
[3:20:58] and a levy overtopped in two locations at a flow of 26,400 CFS. The advertised capacity for that
[3:21:05] system is 30,000 CFS, and that's what the core, the locals, the state, believed what it was,
[3:21:10] but yet we overtop the levees system to flow well below that.
[3:21:13] We still don't know why that's the case, and we don't know what the plan is to do anything
[3:21:17] about it.
[3:21:18] The other area is that the Fremont Weir.
[3:21:22] There's a riparian forest that's been growing for some time on the east side of the Fremont
[3:21:26] Weir.
[3:21:27] That's not in compliance with the maintenance program that are the maintenance requirements
[3:21:32] for the advertised channel capacity.
[3:21:35] I know there are other locations like that, and knowing where these are so that we can prioritize funding.
[3:21:40] I'm hoping are identified in this report.
[3:21:43] The association will make comments on it, and hopefully we can work with you to address both of those issues going forward.
[3:21:48] So thank you.
[3:21:50] Any questions from Rick?
[3:21:53] Okay, you're working with both President and Wade on trying to develop these.
[3:22:00] Number one, reporting systems and identification systems,
[3:22:06] the more information we get on these, the better, I think,
[3:22:10] and then we can deal with the data as we can.
[3:22:14] So I would hope that would continue.
[3:22:18] We just like to see some urgency brought to completing the storm damage repairs.
[3:22:23] I think that's an equal issue.
[3:22:25] If the resources don't exist within an apartment,
[3:22:27] then what other resources are available? Can we contract with local LMA to do the
[3:22:32] live your repairs, or can additional resources be brought to bear with us that you
[3:22:36] consider that as well?
[3:22:40] Yeah, Joe.
[3:22:46] On cash-create, I understand there's been subsidence and cash-create areas.
[3:22:53] Is that correct?
[3:22:54] Yes.
[3:22:55] So is that the most likely reason that the levees are being overtoped,
[3:23:01] that we're losing gradient through there?
[3:23:02] I want to be careful about forming an opinion
[3:23:06] without seeing the data.
[3:23:07] The Department did survey it.
[3:23:08] And so we're going to have that data.
[3:23:10] I understand that a department has been doing hydraulic modeling,
[3:23:13] using that survey data to prepare report.
[3:23:15] Oh, that's to document it.
[3:23:17] And I think we ought to hold out judgment.
[3:23:19] But it is correct to say that there has been subsidence
[3:23:22] in that general area.
[3:23:24] That was my next question.
[3:23:26] It seems that it should be a very high priority
[3:23:28] to get new hydraulic modeling.
[3:23:29] I believe it only has a 10-year design.
[3:23:34] Yeah.
[3:23:34] It's something like that.
[3:23:36] And this year's foot event was smaller than that.
[3:23:38] And it overtopped.
[3:23:39] Yeah.
[3:23:40] So this is like, we're asking for a failure.
[3:23:43] Did it overtop on the south side or the north side?
[3:23:46] It overtopped on two locations.
[3:23:48] It overtopped on the north side just downstream of the community to YOLO
[3:23:52] and the department did a wonderful job.
[3:23:55] Flood fighting, sandbagging to make sure that we didn't have a failure there.
[3:23:58] And then there was also a overtopping on the south side
[3:24:03] farther downstream.
[3:24:05] OK, yeah, this is something we really need
[3:24:07] to stay on top of because of potential flooding
[3:24:10] of woodlands of all there.
[3:24:14] Thank you.
[3:24:14] Thank you.
[3:24:15] Any other questions?
[3:24:17] The board.
[3:24:22] OK, Preston, I think you've heard the boards concern.
[3:24:30] We need you to sit down with the team
[3:24:32] And develop some reports back on what to do about these issues.
[3:24:39] One is the repeater fenders.
[3:24:41] One is the designated floodway.
[3:24:44] What's our way forward here, program.
[3:24:48] And then I guess this last issue is the storm damage repairs we need to somehow develop some
[3:25:03] funding, and I'm not sure whether or not to include that.
[3:25:07] I've done seems to me Rick is right.
[3:25:10] I mean, if this has been areas been designated
[3:25:13] as a storm damage repair,
[3:25:15] the state is going to come in with funding and do,
[3:25:18] then we shouldn't have it on inspection report
[3:25:22] that's the efficiency of the LMA,
[3:25:25] but I don't know how you want to deal with that.
[3:25:27] Well, after discussing those,
[3:25:29] you still tell us.
[3:25:30] And then the final issue is this issue of subsidence and over-topping in these two areas that we probably should look at, and I guess is being looked at at the present time.
[3:25:43] We can follow up.
[3:25:45] Any other concerns to the board?
[3:25:50] Okay.
[3:25:51] Thanks very much, Percy.
[3:25:58] Okay.
[3:25:58] Item C-9C has been removed from the agenda.
[3:26:03] At this point, Kyle Bickler, Senior Engineer,
[3:26:07] he works for the Christianel team in the Department of Water Resource.
[3:26:15] He's going to give us an informational briefing on the 7-mile
[3:26:21] setback project along the north bank of the Sacramento Viper.
[3:26:26] Good afternoon.
[3:26:27] President Agar and members of the board.
[3:26:30] My name is Kyle Bickler.
[3:26:30] I'm with Department of Water Resources.
[3:26:33] I'm here today to provide a briefing on the lower L-Core and Basin Libby setback project.
[3:26:40] It's a kind of an exciting day for us.
[3:26:43] I've personally been working on this project for four years.
[3:26:45] I'm the lead to a technical engineer recently taken over as the project manager for Corey
[3:26:52] Lasso.
[3:26:53] We've the board has seen several briefings on this project over the years.
[3:26:58] I want to thank the Board's participation in bringing this project to where it is today.
[3:27:05] And I want to thank our project partners at the Army Corps of Engineers and SafeCA.
[3:27:11] The Reclamation District's 537-785-827 Yellow County and the Landowners as well as Wickland
[3:27:25] breakdown this summer.
[3:27:30] The purpose of this briefing is to provide a status update for the lower L-Permbation
[3:27:35] Libby setback project, which I'll refer to as levels.
[3:27:40] And to inform the Board of our intention to request an approval of the encroachment permit
[3:27:44] at the board meeting on February 28, next month.
[3:27:49] Many of you have seen this in the past, but I'll go through it briefly to orient yourself
[3:27:55] if the mouse works, I'd like to be able to point up here at the screen, but it doesn't
[3:28:00] appear to be working, so I'll read off the red line there, is the existing yellow bypass
[3:28:12] east levee, and that line will shift over to the yellow line, that will become the setback
[3:28:20] It's about a 1,500 to 1,800 foot set back, the brown area in between will be the future expanded
[3:28:30] floodway and will borrow the material for the new levy out of this area.
[3:28:35] If you're not familiar, many of us are, this is the Sacramento National Airport up here, north
[3:28:40] of I-5, Sacramento River, flows down, if you've got an atoneness over here, Woodland is
[3:28:47] across the bypass, and the Sacramento bypass comes to you right here.
[3:28:53] The Army Corps of Engineers is currently working on widening the
[3:28:56] wear.
[3:28:57] It'll widen right here, and then the levy will come straight across.
[3:29:01] So this levy segment that we have here is meant to be temporary.
[3:29:06] We didn't expect that the Corps was going to move as quickly as they did,
[3:29:08] but they're right on our tails.
[3:29:09] And so it looks like they'll be wanting to go to construction in 2021.
[3:29:14] and they're very eager to have us move forward with this project quickly.
[3:29:21] The seven miles, the new levee will be seven miles long.
[3:29:25] The main benefits are flood risk reduction, ecosystem, agricultural preservation,
[3:29:31] sequela notice that determination was filed March 19, 2019,
[3:29:35] and we're expecting to go to construction this summer.
[3:29:39] As you know, the genesis of the lower-alcrum basin,
[3:29:42] So let me set back Project, started with the Center of Life of a Protection Plan and the update,
[3:29:47] based on white feasibility studies, regional studies, and federal and local partners,
[3:29:55] stakeholders were involved as well as the conservation strategy.
[3:30:00] Informed a lot of our mitigation requirements for the project.
[3:30:06] Levels is a multi-ventific project. It's a state-led project. We started about five years ago.
[3:30:12] However, it is required a lot of resources, both within the department and within our consulting partners
[3:30:18] and partnering agencies and permitting agencies. We've worked extremely hard over the last five years to get to where we are today.
[3:30:26] The primary benefits that I'll go over in the next few slides are flood risk reduction, ecosystem, and agriculture.
[3:30:34] Flood benefits include flood risk reduction for over 700,000 people, and more than 50 billion dollars in assets.
[3:30:40] We're going to construct seven miles of new setback levees replacing existing deficient levees.
[3:30:45] The setback levees are designed to withstand the 100-year water source elevation plus one foot for resiliency and climate change adaptation,
[3:30:53] as well as the levees will have six feet of free board.
[3:30:57] The project lowers flood stages on both the Sacramento River and the Illinois pass.
[3:31:02] levees will have a 28-foot wide crown width for resiliency and do come a future raise if needed
[3:31:08] to still also have a 20-foot crown width.
[3:31:11] So we could raise it one foot, further if the future demanded that.
[3:31:17] Both sides of the levee of the water side and the landslide slopes will have four to one slopes
[3:31:21] to allow use of on-site clay, but if you can imagine existing levees out there today have roughly
[3:31:27] two and a half to one slope, so they barely have 20 foot crowned with, they're comparatively
[3:31:32] this levees are going to be much larger, much more resilient or robust and redundant.
[3:31:38] We'll be constructing three miles of seeped berms, in areas where the blanket is not sufficient
[3:31:45] to deal with seepage.
[3:31:46] For the most part, the lower L-Corm basin has a very thick clay blanket, and then in the
[3:31:52] few areas where the clay blanket is thinner, we'll construct secret verms.
[3:31:58] I was hoping that this wasn't as small as it is on the screen, but if I could just give you
[3:32:05] a quick overview, I'll try to remember what the numbers are.
[3:32:09] There are five points here.
[3:32:12] These are hydraulic modeling points, or I'm sorry there's actually six points, we've got the
[3:32:18] My sheet bridge is probably the biggest one that we want to talk about.
[3:32:22] This box should be blue.
[3:32:24] When we converted this to a slide yesterday, it actually would thank you very much.
[3:32:30] Jeremy Hill is our H&H modeler.
[3:32:33] He's with us.
[3:32:34] If you have any questions, basically, at the I-Street Bridge location or the 100 year flood event,
[3:32:39] the flood stays will lower by 0.8 feet and up here at the top of I-5, the very
[3:32:49] northernmost dot, if the cursor will turn on, is will lower the water
[3:32:55] serve salvation in the L of bypass by 0.71 feet. And just south of that east of
[3:33:02] Woodland, the water serve salvation will lower by about 0.7 feet. And the third
[3:33:10] dot down in the L of bypass, will lower by about 0.2 feet. There's one anomalous
[3:33:18] point here that has seen a small increase of about an inch, about a tenth of a foot.
[3:33:25] And the reason for that is we're allowing more water in a little bypass.
[3:33:29] And so as we implement the Center for Firefly Protection Plan and Stages, there will be
[3:33:34] slight impacts that are have to be offset by future projects and future widenings.
[3:33:38] And that's the plan where we can't do everything it wants.
[3:33:42] But this project goes a long way to expand the olivipass to about more flood water to come off the main stem.
[3:33:49] river get it away from the urban areas of Sacramento into the olvipass, which is what
[3:33:55] it's designed for. The olvipass carries 80% of the footfills. And so the main goal is to
[3:34:03] get the water into the olvipass. The Army Corps of Engineers recognizes this. They have
[3:34:08] the third-way authorized project to widen the weir. And so we're moving right along in that
[3:34:17] effort.
[3:34:19] Acosis and benefits produce 1,000,000 acres of additional
[3:34:23] innovative floodplain, 18 acres of riparian wood and
[3:34:26] forest, 320 acres of native perennial grassland, 169
[3:34:31] acres of giant goddess snake habitat, and 156 acres of
[3:34:36] swanes and hawk, foraging habitat.
[3:34:39] Agriculture benefits improve flood protection for the
[3:34:47] County. 282 acres of Agaland protected under easement as a result of this project. Interior
[3:34:54] drainage system for the lower Alcorm basin is being upgraded to discharge the 100 year storm
[3:35:01] event. Currently their discharge capabilities around the 10 year event and they have local flooding.
[3:35:07] So there's a big modernization effort. Safeica has been helping us out quite a bit on this working
[3:35:14] directly with the Reclamation Districts in the landowners to improve drainage in the basin.
[3:35:22] The three Reclamation Districts are in the process of merging.
[3:35:26] RD537 will take over as the single Reclamation District in a lower L-Carm basin.
[3:35:31] And their future corporation yard will be constructed of above the 100-year floodplain,
[3:35:36] which is a great benefit for them for their operations and emergency response throughout the basin.
[3:35:42] Project funding, $151 million comes from Proposition 2035 million from Prop 68,
[3:35:50] $5 million from Prop 1, give us a total of $291 million.
[3:35:55] That's covered planning, design, permitting real estate, and that will take us through construction.
[3:36:01] Our construction contract procurement schedule that we're targeting,
[3:36:05] we're targeting to go out to construction and advertise for construction on March 27.
[3:36:09] We'll job walk with the bidders approximately three weeks later on April 14, and then three weeks later.
[3:36:16] So a total of six weeks this package will be on the street.
[3:36:20] We'll open bids and award and commit funds approximately eight to ten days later.
[3:36:27] The Department Division of Engineering will issue notice of being in work on June 1.
[3:36:32] We expect three years of construction, depending on the water years,
[3:36:38] If we have high water in the Sacramento River, the little bypass ground water could be high for
[3:36:42] extended periods of time, which kick us into a fourth year of construction, it's a contingency
[3:36:48] idea.
[3:36:50] We're on the hook for five years of monitoring, mitigation, establishment.
[3:36:55] That takes us into at least 20-27, are there any questions on this?
[3:37:02] Are we going fast?
[3:37:03] I know the day is long, I'm trying to help you guys out here, but I'll stop if you have
[3:37:07] questions and in closing we request for approval of the encroachment permit for levels will be a consent item at next month's board meeting.
[3:37:17] That's all I have.
[3:37:19] Okay.
[3:37:20] Any questions for Kyle?
[3:37:27] Okay.
[3:37:27] Jane.
[3:37:31] Is the increased flood protection for agriculture agricultural uses within the bypass or outside?
[3:37:40] Primarily, it's in the protected, how do I go back, previous, you want to go back for me, please.
[3:37:49] It's in the protected area of the lower, okay, so currently the existing seven miles
[3:38:00] here experiences a slope failure about once every three or four years from the bypass as high.
[3:38:05] They're actually battling a failure right now.
[3:38:09] And the department fixed a couple of failures in 2017
[3:38:11] on the North Levy the Sac bypass.
[3:38:15] Do the nature of the clay soil.
[3:38:17] In fact, all the levies in the vicinity
[3:38:19] of this project area have clay soils that generally
[3:38:22] misbehaved when they get wet.
[3:38:24] They lose strength.
[3:38:27] And that's one of the reasons why we're going
[3:38:28] to 41 slopes.
[3:38:30] Yeah, clay soils.
[3:38:31] A clay soils, yes.
[3:38:33] You could look at it as since flood stages are being lowered in the olivipass.
[3:38:39] They'll see less frequent inundation during the larger events or the inundation won't be as high.
[3:38:46] So you could argue that the city of Woodland across the way is receiving some increased flood protection
[3:38:54] because during 100 years from event, they're seeing lower water levels on their levees.
[3:39:01] by approximately 0.6 feet and just above 0.71 feet.
[3:39:07] So almost a foot, we'd argue that even after the weir is widened, they'll see further.
[3:39:14] And the CPG berms would help as well.
[3:39:16] The CPG berms are mainly to control exigredients for the new levee.
[3:39:21] Cut-off walls are used.
[3:39:23] This particular basin is interesting because cut-off walls may
[3:39:29] creates some issues during certain hydraulic events because primary
[3:39:34] seepage in the lower L-Cormbasin comes from the Sacramento River.
[3:39:38] Seepage is generally the Sacramento River is higher by about three
[3:39:41] feet in the Yola bypass.
[3:39:43] And the non-Raven Lever evaluation program actually rated the entire
[3:39:49] Sacramento River east-levy of the lower L-Cormbasin as highly
[3:39:54] susceptible to under seepage.
[3:39:57] And so if we had a cutoff wall to mitigate high-exit gradients on our setback levy, there's
[3:40:05] a scenario where groundwater would come in from the Sacramento River and actually hit
[3:40:10] that as a seafood block and raise groundwater levels in the lower-alpern basin.
[3:40:14] And so to make sure that the farmers can can farm and they generally have to deal with high
[3:40:21] water out there on a regular basis. They actually can predict very quickly, depending on where
[3:40:27] the rivers that, which fields they can actually get into and which fields they can't.
[3:40:33] All right. Thank you.
[3:40:35] You said the,
[3:40:39] the stage of the river at the ice street bridge is going to be reduced by
[3:40:44] two and a half feet or something. No. With just the lower all-cran basin, let me set back
[3:40:50] project. This stage reduction is 0.8 feet. After the weird widening, it reduces another
[3:40:57] foot of about and so it's about 1.8 feet total. So we have an opportunity about five
[3:41:03] years from now if we can implement this project and the weird completes that we'll have stage
[3:41:08] reductions at I-Story of almost two feet. That's pretty know. Do you happen to know
[3:41:13] whether there's the, in the emergency operations, manuals or procedures,
[3:41:23] the stage of the
[3:41:24] ice street is, I think, 27 feet and then they start emergency operations. I'm assuming that's
[3:41:31] going to be adjusted based up on this work that's being done.
[3:41:36] I would guess the core might update the water control manual as part of the weird widening.
[3:41:40] I don't know, that I could be a question we could follow upon for you.
[3:41:44] Oh, do you know that?
[3:41:47] No, patient, you need to open a gate.
[3:41:48] She wouldn't change that rule.
[3:41:50] Right.
[3:41:51] Oh, I mean, oh, okay.
[3:41:54] Okay.
[3:41:54] So you'd open the gate the same as you did before.
[3:41:57] All right.
[3:41:58] Just be less free.
[3:41:59] Less free.
[3:42:00] Okay.
[3:42:01] All right.
[3:42:02] Any other questions?
[3:42:05] Okay. Thank you.
[3:42:06] Thank you.
[3:42:13] Okay.
[3:42:13] Where?
[3:42:14] President?
[3:42:16] It's an item of this importance and magnitude and intention of appropriate on the consent.
[3:42:29] Well, further the couple times.
[3:42:30] We're more than a couple times.
[3:42:32] Do you want it?
[3:42:33] What's the actual?
[3:42:35] It just seems because it's so important.
[3:42:38] Okay.
[3:42:39] We can do that.
[3:42:40] Sure.
[3:42:40] We can agenda as in any way you'd like.
[3:42:43] You want it as a hearing?
[3:42:47] Okay.
[3:42:50] We're on items 10.
[3:42:53] My understanding is that item 10A has been removed.
[3:42:58] Jake, can you?
[3:43:00] Yes, that's correct.
[3:43:02] Jake, can you give us a report, please?
[3:43:05] Yes.
[3:43:06] Mr. Harmats, who initially requested to appear before the board, had another commitment.
[3:43:12] One could not wait until his item was being called.
[3:43:14] And two, we also worked out he has a new designs,
[3:43:21] which
[3:43:22] We're going to need to talk to the board, so we have a path forward, so he's going to submit a new application with the redesign for the board's consideration at a future date.
[3:43:31] Okay, so this will be next week, next month.
[3:43:38] All right.
[3:43:40] We're on item 10B, which is the Resolution and Accessory Conway Preservation Group and presentation from
[3:43:54] Mr. Bartwood and Matt DeGrew.
[3:44:00] I guess I need glasses for part of this.
[3:44:04] Good afternoon.
[3:44:04] President Eggher, members of board.
[3:44:06] My name is Joe Bartlett.
[3:44:07] I work with DWR in the Division of Multi-Manifet initiatives.
[3:44:10] I think it's been quite a while since I've had the opportunity to give a
[3:44:14] presentation to you also.
[3:44:15] I appreciate you having me here today.
[3:44:17] We're going to talk a little bit about the resolution and necessity for
[3:44:23] property needed for the lower L-Corn based and
[3:44:25] be set back on project and go through the presentation overview, start with some introductions.
[3:44:35] I do have a co-presenter that I'll be interested in here in a moment.
[3:44:39] I'll talk about the purpose of this presentation, a project overview, the resolution of necessity requirements,
[3:44:46] the authorities of the board, the resolution of necessity findings, the project conception,
[3:44:51] project need and of course the details of the subject property.
[3:45:00] So, I've arranged this myself as to a partlet. Matt DeGrew, senior right away, agent for the vision of adjourning with end department, will speak a little bit later on the specifics of the subject property.
[3:45:17] So, the purpose of this presentation is to, and we have a request from the Board, obviously, to consider the adoption of the attached resolution, number 2020-01, authorizing eminent domain to acquire and fee-simple interest, a part of the following property.
[3:45:32] identified by Yola County assessor-prosal number sorry I always want to say
[3:45:38] 8 p.m., but if you end 0, 4, 2, dash 1, 9, 0, dash 0, 4, and 0, 5, 7,
[3:45:46] dash 2, 0, 0, dash 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6.
[3:45:50] And we'll refer to that furthermore as the property.
[3:45:52] for the lower lorahode core base and leveeset back or commonly in a levels project.
[3:46:00] I'm the brief project of VD, and this probably looks pretty familiar to you since we just saw the
[3:46:05] same slide only moments ago in Kyle's presentation.
[3:46:10] The project is located just south of i5,
[3:46:14] and is bound on the west by the yellow bypass on the east by the Sacramento River and
[3:46:19] at the Southwest Sacramento Bypass to kind of see at the bottom right corner, it says West Sacramento,
[3:46:25] that's the location of the CHP Academy, and below that, you would see offscreen that would
[3:46:31] where we would be where our highway AD causeway crosses the Yellow Bypass. So that's basically where
[3:46:38] we're located. We talked a little bit about the, you know, what this project does,
[3:46:44] covered it pretty extensively, but for the most part, we're setting back this
[3:46:49] levies, 7 miles long, 1,500 foot setback. There's approximately 2,000
[3:46:56] acres within that footprint, over 1100 acres of inadated floodplain, or reconnected
[3:47:02] floodplain, which will provide benefits to both salamonids and regulatory birds
[3:47:09] when it is inundated, there's support for agriculture which, you know, we want to
[3:47:16] great that there's great detail provided by cows this month's ago, but obviously
[3:47:22] flood protection and also where we're converting, you know, land permanently, we're
[3:47:28] putting other lands into easements so that they can no longer be converted. Just to go over a
[3:47:37] couple dates here.
[3:47:39] They were back in July of 2016 as when the project was initiated.
[3:47:44] We had the four-way request to alter levees in September of 2017.
[3:47:49] The draft, EIR, EIS was put out in May 2018.
[3:47:55] The in March 2019 is when the determination, the notice of
[3:48:01] was filed for our secret documents, and then currently our final four-weight package is with
[3:48:08] division, U-says division, and it's under review, and we anticipate it's approval in the next
[3:48:15] coming weeks, and then, you know, as Kyle just went through, we're anticipating going to
[3:48:21] construction in the summer of 2020 this year, so just a few months from now.
[3:48:30] Just to go over the resolution and necessity requirements, I noticed I'm intent to adopt a resolution and necessity was milled on January 6th, 2020 to the owner's record.
[3:48:42] There's a hearing required, which we're in the middle of right now.
[3:48:46] There's a finding and determination, a public use of property, the property description, resolution and necessity findings, and then ultimately adoption of resolution and necessity go over a few of those details here.
[3:49:02] Start up the thirties of the board first.
[3:49:06] The board has authority for resolution necessity and
[3:49:08] eminent domain to California water code section 8590 and
[3:49:13] California water code section 8593 and additional authority and
[3:49:16] California code of civil procedure section 1245.
[3:49:21] .210B
[3:49:24] and they talk a little bit about those
[3:49:26] resolution necessity findings that I mentioned earlier slide.
[3:49:29] Board is being asked to find and determine that the public
[3:49:33] interest in necessity or required by the proposed project, the project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public aid and the least private injury.
[3:49:44] The property described in a resolution necessity is necessary for the proposed project.
[3:49:49] And the offer required by government code section 7267.2 has been made to the owner of record.
[3:49:54] So,
[3:49:59] again, I think it's a pretty familiar slide, and Kyle did go through this, I might have a slightly different discussion around it, but, you know, project, how this project really came about, and really started quite a long time ago, with the passing of the SB5-2008 Flip Protection Act, at that time DWR began its planning with the CBAPP and ultimately the board adopted that in 2012.
[3:50:27] for the revisions, and the update to 27 CBP update were informed by more refined and detailed
[3:50:34] studies at local levels, including the Sacramento River Basin White Peacefully Study, performed
[3:50:38] by DWR and also the, I think it's the, I'm going to get this wrong, but the regional flood
[3:50:44] management study and it's the lower Sacramento River Delta North group.
[3:50:51] I think I have that right, it's, but they're the ones who put together the regional flood
[3:50:56] So in the highlights of all of those studies and previous studies are basically, you know, one of the big things that we know is that about 80% of large fled conveyance goes through the bypass system.
[3:51:09] So when you start to talk about adding resiliency and capacity, it makes a lot sense to look in the bypasses.
[3:51:15] So when you start looking at the bypasses and you look at those, you know, more detail studies on the landscape of yellow bypass.
[3:51:23] But the Basin-wide and Regional Studies recognize that there's pretty good opportunities in the lower
[3:51:29] Alcorn Basin, specifically it opens up the SAC bypass and allows the future expansion of the
[3:51:39] wear, but even in itself at lower stages, just by doing that, because it will increase the efficiencies.
[3:51:45] There's also a lot of alignment between the two plans, and with a lot of work with the locals,
[3:51:51] the RDs, landowners, and others, we were able to adjust the linements and come up with something
[3:51:57] that really worked for everyone. So, through all this planning purposes, I think we came up with a,
[3:52:02] you know, a really good project that's able to achieve multi-benefits, you know, flood risk, agricultural
[3:52:10] and ecosystem benefits. So, it really is kind of, I think a model for the future on how we can
[3:52:18] multi-benefit projects, and it really is, I think, a well-planned and thought-out project.
[3:52:25] I should, I know I'd start with something like that, so I'm going to read because I
[3:52:28] want to forget this one. So, this project will be most compatible with the Grace Public
[3:52:31] Good and at least private entry because it will provide maximum flood protection while simultaneously
[3:52:36] minimizing the amount and private land that will be acquired. The project design incorporates
[3:52:40] communicate community input and advice, technical, and safety considerations, and multiple agency
[3:52:46] review is. So, I talked a lot about the stakeholder participation, but we've also been
[3:52:52] working closely with the different agencies, including California Department,
[3:52:56] Official Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and then with the court self from
[3:53:02] a technical standpoint. We've also employed, as part of our quality assurance program, several
[3:53:08] experts outside experts of the department to review our work in terms of safety of design
[3:53:16] from hydrology and hydrology standpoint and geotechnical standpoint.
[3:53:22] The project need, this is also some repetitive information, but I'll go through it quickly,
[3:53:30] flooding threatens life and public safety property, critical infrastructure, and the environment.
[3:53:35] This project will improve public safety for over 700,000 people, it will increase protection
[3:53:41] of more than $50 billion in assets, it provides increased system resiliency, it replaces
[3:53:46] efficient existing levees. Kyle talked a little bit about some of the recent issues we've
[3:53:52] had out there. We haven't had a brittle failure or we lost the levee, but we've had stability
[3:53:56] issues and slething and slope failures over the years and even in 2017 we had fairly extensive
[3:54:03] damage that had to be repaired. As the system ages and we see higher flows and the back
[3:54:15] isn't, you know, in addition to doing all the great things it does, it also gets an opportunity
[3:54:19] to improve a structure and bring it up to modern standards.
[3:54:25] And then, you know, I mentioned earlier, we're going to provide increased in a data flood
[3:54:28] plants for diversity of native aquatic and traditional species in the ULVIPAS.
[3:54:36] And with that, I would like to introduce that degree to come up and talk a little bit
[3:54:41] more about the specifics of the subject property.
[3:54:51] Good afternoon, or President Eger,
[3:54:55] bill of board members.
[3:54:57] Matt are good, seeing a right-of-way agent
[3:54:59] Department of Water Resources.
[3:55:02] Before I get started, I'd just like to acknowledge that
[3:55:04] on Tuesday afternoon.
[3:55:06] We did receive a letter from the property owner,
[3:55:09] contesting the four different findings
[3:55:11] that we're here today to discuss.
[3:55:14] So we do intend to address those.
[3:55:17] But first, I'd like to describe
[3:55:21] subject property a little bit to you. So, the subject property is owned by a common
[3:55:25] represervation group LLC. It is 2APN, APN, 042, 190, 0404, 057, 200, 0006. We have a proposed
[3:55:39] acquisition in fee of roughly 21 acres out of a total larger parcel of about 97 acres.
[3:55:48] The property is currently located, you can see on the slide, it is the highlighted yellow
[3:55:57] area that is underneath the existing levee on the northern portion of the project.
[3:56:03] So the highlighted strip is the 21 acres that we are proposing to purchase.
[3:56:08] The yellow hashed area is what would be remaining of the larger parcels.
[3:56:13] So roughly 76 acre acres would be remaining.
[3:56:20] So the property is needed for this project.
[3:56:23] It's going to be degraded in order to increase the flood capacity of the yellow bypass to produce.
[3:56:30] And also, it will be providing upland habitat for special species, namely giant goddess snake.
[3:56:37] There are some utility relocation activities that are going to take place.
[3:56:40] and portions of the degraded borough will be used
[3:56:46] from Chale for the new setback levee.
[3:56:51] So two offers were provided to the property owner.
[3:56:54] The first one was on July 23rd, 2019
[3:56:58] and the second offer was on November 13th, 2019
[3:57:02] and I'll get into a little bit more specifics
[3:57:04] about why there were two offers when we address
[3:57:07] the property owner's concerns.
[3:57:10] So, with that, we're going to get into the letter that was submitted for objections that the
[3:57:19] profineer has and Joe's going to come up using address the first two of them, namely that
[3:57:24] the public interest in necessity do not require the proposed project and also that the proposed
[3:57:30] project was not planned in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public
[3:57:34] good and least private injury. So just going to come and speak to them.
[3:57:48] So I'm still
[3:57:50] Joe Bartlin. I still work for DWR for the record.
[3:57:55] So the first comment and I'm not going
[3:57:57] to read the entire thing. I know the board does have the letter in the pocket, but speaking
[3:58:01] to the public interest and necessity do not require the project comment. I think there's no
[3:58:08] doubt that, you know, the increased capacity of the, of the alibi-pass, the second
[3:58:14] and bypassed you, you know, from just a flood risk reduction point alone, do serve the
[3:58:20] public interest, but it's also the multi-manifit nature is very much in line with the public
[3:58:26] interest also.
[3:58:27] But from a technical standpoint, there were some mentions of free war concerns on the
[3:58:32] side of the bypass, and while we do recognize that there are free board deficiencies in other
[3:58:40] deficiencies throughout the bypass, we do not believe that this project impacts that in
[3:58:45] any way, and in fact, as Kyle mentioned earlier, we do see state reductions throughout the
[3:58:51] system.
[3:58:52] In fact, we see state reductions from just above the ridge cut all the way down to essentially
[3:58:58] The causeway, or it starts to see a very slight increase, where essentially we have a contraction of the fledway and we see a little bump because we have a part of vision and that's kind of a nerdy engineering thing.
[3:59:12] But what we are seeing is 0.71 feet in the 100 year at essentially at the i5 crossing, which is adjacent or it's roughly the same latitude as woodland.
[3:59:24] And just south of that, 0.6, so as we go downstream and get close to that construction,
[3:59:31] we see less of less benefit, but directly across from the bypass, we are seeing still
[3:59:36] a quarter-foot of drop in stage for the 100-year.
[3:59:42] What does that mean in terms of flood detection?
[3:59:45] I wrote down, I just pulled one of the numbers off of that previous slide,
[3:59:52] and it's actually
[3:59:52] out of the flood frequency curve, but when we look at the 57 plus 6 which is kind of the prescribed freeboard in this area.
[4:00:00] The existing annual seedless probability, and this is pretty nerdy, but I'm going to try to clear it up as I go through.
[4:00:08] It goes from 0.003 to 0.001. So there are already pretty small numbers when we talk about actual overtopion exceedants.
[4:00:19] And then kind of more common terms,
[4:00:22] we usually take the inverse of that number
[4:00:23] and then we change that to a year.
[4:00:27] And it's basically the exceedance
[4:00:30] that we would annual exceedance.
[4:00:31] So how often do we think that's possible in a year?
[4:00:35] So we refer to level of protection usually like the 100 year
[4:00:38] or the 200 year.
[4:00:40] So if you were looking at these events in that terminology,
[4:00:43] we're talking about changing an over-topping event
[4:00:45] from the 333-year event to the 5,000-year event.
[4:00:51] So overtopping is not a very likely scenario
[4:00:57] in the bypass to start off with.
[4:00:59] So why does that matter?
[4:01:01] Well, I think the point about freeboard is the excessive amount
[4:01:06] of freeboard or some people's mind
[4:01:08] that the large numbers in terms of freeboard are really
[4:01:13] more for wind wave run up so we have waves that drive up this really long fetches because
[4:01:19] the bypass is so wide and we can see waves up for feet is what we see in some of these larger
[4:01:25] events. So by us reducing stages even though it doesn't really change probability that much especially
[4:01:33] when you're talking about 3,000 year events to 5,000, those probabilities that are really not
[4:01:41] meaningful. But when we start talking about reducing stages of seven
[4:01:45] tenths and you have a four foot wave, we're actually talking about increasing
[4:01:49] flow protection. If we were to do a lot of analysis and really look at
[4:01:53] how head is affecting seed vision, other things, we would similarly see
[4:01:58] reductions in, you know, in the frequency of exceeding the
[4:02:03] design allowances. So we would actually see improvements in
[4:02:06] protection but we definitely don't see any impacts. So, secondly, moving to the
[4:02:13] comment regarding the proposed project was not planned in a manner. It will be
[4:02:16] most compatible with the greatest public good in least private injury. I just want
[4:02:21] to reiterate some of the points I made on the earlier slide that we have, I'm
[4:02:26] spent a lot of time working with stakeholders and with agencies, with the board
[4:02:33] staff and just generally all around the property owners on the ground to really plan out
[4:02:39] a multi-benefit project that serves the public interest in the best way possible.
[4:02:45] We've made adjustments to the project all along the way to try to reduce impacts to
[4:02:51] folks on the ground's operations and we continue to work with the property owners, including
[4:02:57] in the Conway Preservation Group to find ways
[4:02:59] where we can minimize those impacts,
[4:03:02] but the project without sacrificing
[4:03:04] the project's purpose, which is in the public interest.
[4:03:07] So with that, I'd like to, and let's first question,
[4:03:09] and there may be, because some of that stuff
[4:03:10] was a pretty number centric.
[4:03:14] I'll take questions and I'll give it back to.
[4:03:16] OK, any questions for DWR?
[4:03:31] There's no agriculture activity going on on that level.
[4:03:35] is there? No sir, so currently the levy does have SJDD
[4:03:43] easements on it for levy purposes and for flood control purposes or I believe there's
[4:03:49] two easements already on the subject property. So it is used as a levy right now and as we
[4:03:57] are moving the levy obviously we need to degrade the levy to allow water into the new flood
[4:04:04] plane. So yeah, it's not easy. It's our cultural currently. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Joe.
[4:04:18] Also, still mat.
[4:04:22] So to address a point number three, the objection to the finding that the property proposed to take in is on this sort for the project.
[4:04:31] The location of the property is right for the project is as Joe mentioned.
[4:04:36] And it is the underneath the levy and the levy will be degraded for the project.
[4:04:41] But more pointed, the letter states that the property doesn't believe that fee take
[4:04:47] is necessary for the project.
[4:04:52] So the levy is, or the property is underneath the de-existing levy.
[4:04:58] It is heavily encumbered already as it is.
[4:05:02] We are going to further encumber that.
[4:05:04] We're going to be removing the grading portions of the levee.
[4:05:09] There will be permanent portions that were remain that will be used for special species habitat for the giant coder snake.
[4:05:19] The currently there's an already road on there.
[4:05:21] That will no longer be available to the property owner.
[4:05:25] There will be no utility left on this area.
[4:05:26] will be completely encountered when the project is done.
[4:05:31] So that alone, an RBVVVVV is a reasonable for a FETAic fiat
[4:05:36] position.
[4:05:38] So currently, they do have limit utility
[4:05:42] to that level, to patrol their property in the yield
[4:05:46] bypass from an elevated vantage point.
[4:05:48] So that's how they currently use it.
[4:05:51] The department has committed to working with the new RG
[4:05:54] and the property owner to coordinate access to the new setback
[4:05:58] level so they will have access to that as well to use that as a similar
[4:06:02] vantage point to viewing the property in the bypass.
[4:06:10] So just the actual construction features of the project are going to take
[4:06:15] away all utility of the property.
[4:06:19] We in addition have to place perpetual mitigation easements over that for
[4:06:24] the Triangars Naked Habitat that the department is responsible for and will be in perpetuity.
[4:06:31] So in order to live up to that obligation, a fee acquisition is also the most appropriate
[4:06:41] property right to have and it should also be noted that it is the department's standard
[4:06:47] process that whenever we acquire property for mitigation purposes we do acquire it in
[4:06:52] So, for all those reasons, we do believe that fee acquisition of this 21 acres is reasonable and appropriate.
[4:07:01] What would you say would be the differential and price between an easement and a fee title?
[4:07:11] Well, for typically for a levy is usually 5% for how heavily we encumber.
[4:07:18] But it would be 5% less.
[4:07:21] Yes.
[4:07:22] Yes.
[4:07:22] That's typically how.
[4:07:24] How heavy.
[4:07:26] And come to survive.
[4:07:27] They're 95%.
[4:07:29] So it kind of leads into the.
[4:07:33] The next point to property on this object to that.
[4:07:36] We have failed to comply with the government code.
[4:07:39] Um, 72, 67.2 or more.
[4:07:42] Namely, that our offer has that did include all the required elements.
[4:07:46] So, the required elements are that it is written, that it contained a summary or a basis for
[4:07:53] how the property was evaluated, and that the just compensation is included, and also
[4:07:59] included, but not limited to, or the data evaluation, the highest and best use, the property
[4:08:04] zoning, many comparable fails, if that's how the property was valued, and if appropriate
[4:08:11] get severed damages.
[4:08:14] So all of our standard offer packages,
[4:08:16] that is included in all of our offer packages,
[4:08:19] and it was included in the offer packages
[4:08:20] so this property owner as well.
[4:08:23] Now, what's the objection to the property owner?
[4:08:26] That we didn't meet all the requirements
[4:08:29] and all those elements.
[4:08:31] Yeah, what requirements did we meet?
[4:08:34] I believe they think they're asserting that
[4:08:38] Not enough information was included in the offer, namely that the full appraisal wasn't included,
[4:08:46] but we were only required to produce a summary in the offer and not the full appraisal.
[4:08:52] So we have since had meetings with the property owner and they've expressed desire to see the full appraisal so they can have more information.
[4:09:00] We're not opposed to that.
[4:09:05] to them. So we are going to be working with them to provide them the more information so they can better understand
[4:09:10] how we came to the just conversation in our offer.
[4:09:15] We can understand that even the adoption of the resolution doesn't prevent them from continuing to
[4:09:20] negotiate. Yes. We understand that. Yes.
[4:09:24] We understand that. Yes. This is only because of the time constraints that we face with this project.
[4:09:31] we have to move this project along and we're establishing a valuation date by adopting this
[4:09:39] resolution.
[4:09:41] That's the only thing we're doing, they can negotiate and deliver blue in the face.
[4:09:44] Is that right?
[4:09:48] So there were actually two objections in the into under this and funding number four.
[4:09:54] So that was the first that everything that we didn't provide sufficient information in the
[4:09:58] second, is that, namely that the seven damages were not addressed in our offer.
[4:10:05] So, the seven damages, any seven damages that they may be entitled to?
[4:10:11] Oh, seven damages.
[4:10:14] So, this is why there are actually two offers we provided them.
[4:10:18] So, initially, we provided an offer, an initial offer on July 23rd.
[4:10:24] we received a letter back from the landowner with some concerns.
[4:10:29] And one of those concerns was that they didn't believe
[4:10:33] seven damages were appropriately analyzed.
[4:10:38] So we take those concerns seriously.
[4:10:40] We decided to do another appraisal of the property.
[4:10:45] We provided that appraisal with the letter that they provided us.
[4:10:50] So the appraisal had in hand their concerns
[4:10:52] about the seven damages and the president went out and repraises the property and he found
[4:10:59] that seven damages were not appropriate in this instance.
[4:11:04] So our second offer on November 13th, there were no seven damages in there, however, the second
[4:11:10] appraisal did establish a new just compensation.
[4:11:16] So it is that offer that we are using to establish the value of the property moving forward.
[4:11:21] And that does not include severance damages.
[4:11:26] That's based upon two views by the appraiser.
[4:11:31] That is correct.
[4:11:33] And willing to share all the back information full appraisal with the property of.
[4:11:40] Yeah, we don't have a problem with that.
[4:11:42] Okay.
[4:11:44] And then I just, I'll just finish by saying that, you know, we're moving down this process
[4:11:48] because we feel we need to, for the success of the project and this very, you know, procedural
[4:11:56] process and that by submitting this statement to you on the property owner by making
[4:12:02] the objections, they are also following what they need to do, procedurally, so should this be
[4:12:09] adopted this resolution by submitting this, the property owner has preserved their right to contest
[4:12:15] this action moving forward a trial.
[4:12:18] So they've done that.
[4:12:22] When do we have to actually post the money with the court?
[4:12:27] We have to do that before we file any proceedings with the court.
[4:12:31] OK, so when would that be after the board's action?
[4:12:37] We're working to streamline that process.
[4:12:40] This one will probably move along faster than the other ones since we now
[4:12:44] have the procedure down, so I imagine I'll probably take a few weeks.
[4:12:49] Okay, all right, so there's only a couple of weeks, a few weeks with the filing in the court.
[4:12:57] You've given them money also.
[4:12:58] Yeah, they've been titled to withdrawing that money.
[4:13:00] Yeah, that's interesting.
[4:13:01] All right.
[4:13:03] Thank you.
[4:13:04] Any questions for Matt?
[4:13:07] And I believe the property owner is here.
[4:13:09] Yes.
[4:13:10] Excuse me.
[4:13:15] So that's all I have.
[4:13:17] I'll wait for the proper.
[4:13:19] Oh, Tim, do you want a question?
[4:13:21] We just have to confirm.
[4:13:22] I think the answer to my question is part of the presentation.
[4:13:26] The roads on the levy.
[4:13:28] Levy's going to be gone.
[4:13:29] But I have access to the new road and the new levy.
[4:13:33] We are committing to helping coordinate that.
[4:13:35] Okay.
[4:13:36] And then the new R.D.
[4:13:37] And you also said there's going to be an ease in place on that.
[4:13:39] Same property for the mitigation, which is presumably in perpetuity.
[4:13:43] Yes, on the same 20 plus papers. Yes, a little bit of that easement. Well, it would be the department. Well
[4:13:54] It would be purchasing fee under the board at that so the board would own it in fee right and then the easement
[4:14:02] We're still working through those details, but it is the department who has the obligation to
[4:14:08] Right for the terms of the permit for mitigation to have the easement. Yeah, okay. Thank you
[4:14:15] Any other questions before we, okay? Thank you, Madam.
[4:14:18] I would like to.
[4:14:25] As I understand that this, please correct me if I don't have a correct right.
[4:14:30] The acquisition is not of the entire assessor parcels.
[4:14:34] It's of a portion of each of them.
[4:14:36] That's correct.
[4:14:37] Then I would suggest our resolution say that rather than say we are acquiring assessor parcel.
[4:14:42] Oh number and it's a personal number.
[4:14:45] Okay.
[4:14:45] Okay.
[4:14:45] portion of that we're leaving it.
[4:14:47] You stated that it's 20 something acres of 90 something acre total of two assessor parcels.
[4:14:54] And we all notice that the parcels are not a legal definition of land.
[4:14:59] So
[4:15:00] I hope perhaps saying legal description is attached. It is, but resolution needs to say it's attached, because that's really what it is being acquired.
[4:15:09] Okay, understood. Thank you.
[4:15:12] Thank you.
[4:15:16] Mr. Garry, little Vosit.
[4:15:20] Something like that.
[4:15:26] Thank you. Garry Leviager, presenting kind of a preservation group.
[4:15:30] First, I would like to emphasize that we are working with staff and have been working with staff
[4:15:36] and will continue to work with staff both the right away and the engineering to try
[4:15:42] and resolve the problems that we have or that will be created by your project.
[4:15:48] We have worked tirelessly on the design of the decommissioned levy because commonly
[4:15:54] The President-President group is currently actively participating in a salmon restoration project
[4:16:01] with another part of DWR that goes hand-to-hand with the recommissioning of the Fremont
[4:16:08] Weir and the Natch, that are built being built north of this, but as Matt indicated today
[4:16:16] is the day where you're considering adopting a resolution necessity and representing landowners
[4:16:22] I have to make sure that our administrative record is established and all defenses that we have
[4:16:28] available to us are preserved for the eminent domain suit that will follow if you do adopt
[4:16:35] the resolution today.
[4:16:39] We do believe that the greatest public good and least private injury has not been sustained
[4:16:47] to date, fee versus easement. That's the big issue. It's a big issue not only with this
[4:16:54] property but with the property further to the north, the Wilson Ranch, the buzz oats,
[4:17:03] Dan Ramos property,
[4:17:06] that the least private harm would be accomplished if an easement was
[4:17:11] and not fee. I've heard from the presentation of staff that this is a 90 sum acre parcel
[4:17:20] of property, 21 acres below the levy and that's the take. Well, the larger parcel from our
[4:17:29] perspective is not just 97 acres. Conway Ranch is approximately 17,243 acres with 8,000 acres
[4:17:41] is so of it located in the bypass, and although that this 21 acres that is proposed to be taken
[4:17:49] is currently under the levy, it is owned in fee by Conway, and it is an integral part
[4:17:54] of the farming operation and other business enterprises that are conducted on Conway Ranch.
[4:18:00] It is an effective portion of the east boundary of Conway Ranch, and Conway Ranch owners
[4:18:07] do have access, and they patrol it, and they police it because there are a lot of things
[4:18:13] that go on out there, including farming, hunting, et cetera, and there are folks that
[4:18:20] come in that aren't invited.
[4:18:23] And we have heard earlier comments today as we were shooting through with homeless and whatnot.
[4:18:29] Those aren't the concerns, but there are hunters, there are fishermen, there are folks
[4:18:33] that want to do vandalism and or acquire farm property,
[4:18:37] the farm equipment that they don't want to buy.
[4:18:41] And these do create significant problems.
[4:18:44] So what this 21 acre take in feed does is punch a hole
[4:18:51] in portion of Conway Ranch, that does, in fact, affect our security.
[4:18:59] And when you look at that larger parcel,
[4:19:01] instead of a larger parcel of 97 acres, you can get an idea that there may be significant
[4:19:08] severance damages that are created by this take. And that's what we wanted you to consider.
[4:19:17] If an easement is taken, that goes away. This,
[4:19:24] I will remind some people that have been around
[4:19:27] have institutional knowledge that I think the project, the flight control project was
[4:19:32] formally called the Sacramento River Flight Control Project and I believe it was adopted
[4:19:36] in 1913 officially when your predecessor board was created by special session.
[4:19:43] And that project has been built over this hundred plus years on easements.
[4:19:49] The greatest majority of this project is built on easements.
[4:19:54] Levy Footprints are on easements held by SSJDD.
[4:19:59] The bypass is controlled by flood easements.
[4:20:03] In fact, there's very few components of this project that are owned in fee by the state.
[4:20:10] And I think that the fact that the state has been required to provide necessary lands easements in rights away for its federal partner for this project for over 100 years.
[4:20:21] and has consistently found that the necessary lands are easement interests and not fee
[4:20:28] go a long way and that's part of what I wanted to say to help you understand what
[4:20:34] the breadth of our objection is and what may be the basis of a right take objection as we
[4:20:41] move forward.
[4:20:45] There has was some comment somewhere that without the fee there would not be
[4:20:52] control. Well, I don't think that's true.
[4:20:56] easements be it they be flood control easements, wildlife habitat and mitigation easements,
[4:21:05] enhancement easements over the years have proven that the easement holder does have the
[4:21:11] control. And the right to use the property for those specific uses. And the landowner
[4:21:17] can do nothing to interfere with those uses, nothing.
[4:21:22] So what we're talking about is something
[4:21:24] where this can go hand in hand, the uses of the property,
[4:21:28] owner, the uses of the public without feetaking.
[4:21:37] We do submit that the offer did not comply with government code
[4:21:41] section 7267.2.
[4:21:44] There were two offers that were submitted, both times
[4:21:47] the land owner objected, asking for more information.
[4:21:50] and we did not get it.
[4:21:54] There was some comment that the second appraisal did have some information concerning
[4:21:59] severance damages, but that's not how we read the government code.
[4:22:03] We read it to say that there has to be a discussion regarding severance damages.
[4:22:07] There has to be a narrative.
[4:22:08] There has to be some analysis.
[4:22:10] And here what we have is a summary chart, summary base of appraisal, and where it says severance
[4:22:17] is just as zero. Now that doesn't give us enough information to adequately assess, and that's
[4:22:26] where we think that has been deficient. We do want to resolve this matter, but before I get
[4:22:33] there again to perfect my administrative record, I've got a great report earlier on the update
[4:22:41] of the levy setback project.
[4:22:43] We know that almost all the resolutions in necessity
[4:22:47] have here to four been adopted.
[4:22:52] So a very aggressive timeline that is in place for this project.
[4:23:00] And I do want to make sure that my records clear
[4:23:03] that it seems as though this hearing has a predetermined outcome.
[4:23:08] And I just want to state that for the record, again, preserving a legal defense that we may
[4:23:15] have if this case is not resolved.
[4:23:17] But back to it, we know you have a tight timeline.
[4:23:20] We do want to resolve this matter.
[4:23:23] We're working hard with staff on the decommissioned levy, what that's going to look like.
[4:23:29] We're working hard with staff and the reclamation board, the new, our excuse me, reclamation
[4:23:38] So we're doing these things in trying to resolve it.
[4:23:43] I want to also represent to the board that we're working with adjacent landowners.
[4:23:48] We're working with Wilson Farms.
[4:23:51] We're in contact with and working with Lexington.
[4:23:56] We are hopeful to try and put something together for a global resolution that would help
[4:24:03] you meet your timelines.
[4:24:05] I want to make sure that the board understands that.
[4:24:08] I want to further make sure that the board understands that if that isn't done, the resolutions adopted, the amount of domain lawsuit is filed, which sets the date of value.
[4:24:23] The filing of the amount of domain case, and the or the deposit of probably just compensation, not the adoption of the resolution necessity.
[4:24:31] But if that happens, the case is filed, motion for possession is filed, we're now in litigation.
[4:24:42] And sometimes things go a lot slower in litigation that we want them to.
[4:24:48] There's oppositions for motion for possession, which creates a whole different timeline.
[4:24:55] there's right to take trials, which are illegal,
[4:24:58] excuse me, decided by the court,
[4:25:00] but those take time to get scheduled and whatnot.
[4:25:07] It makes your timeline much more difficult.
[4:25:11] So again, I want to emphasize to you.
[4:25:14] We're trying to resolve this.
[4:25:16] We think we're making progress resolving it,
[4:25:20] but of the three issues that we have significantly
[4:25:24] before us as landowners, the decommission, engineering, criteria of the
[4:25:31] levy, the decommission levy, we think we're real close there. The access
[4:25:35] issues, we think we're real close there. The biggest one, the biggest hurdle is
[4:25:40] going to be fever's assessment and we're talking to staff and I don't think we've
[4:25:46] been foreclosed on that. If that could be resolved, we could have something done
[4:25:52] And with that, if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
[4:25:55] If not, it's been a long day, I've been
[4:26:04] waiting years to get Gary where I could
[4:26:06] question him.
[4:26:09] The tables are turned.
[4:26:12] The tables are turned.
[4:26:12] Gary was a attorney in the Mary'sville, Levy, the paternal case, or paternal case.
[4:26:20] Is it possible that you could take a easement?
[4:26:26] In other words, we take it in fee and give you an easement for access.
[4:26:31] Well, not over the decommissioned levy because access would not be really possible there.
[4:26:41] But what we're talking about is the setback area that is not being taken from us at this point.
[4:26:48] but we're working with other landowners to determine
[4:26:52] how that's going to look in relationship
[4:26:55] to private ownership in the after condition
[4:26:59] so that the agricultural uses can be preserved.
[4:27:03] But if you're asking about that area,
[4:27:06] it might happen.
[4:27:09] Well, I know that you're a warrior for protection of people.
[4:27:15] And I hope that we're able to resolve this
[4:27:17] have this project move forward because there is a lot of stake, so there is.
[4:27:22] Thank you.
[4:27:35] Any other questions?
[4:27:41] Okay, thank you.
[4:27:45] Any other comments?
[4:27:48] I still matter to grow. Yes, I did not formally request you got the board take the action
[4:27:53] yet, so at this point to circle back and close the loop, we request that the board adopt
[4:28:02] This resolution, with the edits requested by
[4:28:06] for Memondol and for resolution number, 2020, 0-1.
[4:28:13] Thank you, Matt.
[4:28:15] We're not prepared to do that until we make sure that everybody in the audience
[4:28:21] has had a chance to speak.
[4:28:22] Is there anybody else that wants to speak on this item?
[4:28:29] Okay, seeing none, I'm going to bring this back to the board for discussion and action.
[4:28:35] So, be it. What's the pleasure of the board?
[4:28:52] The resolution?
[4:28:56] Okay.
[4:28:57] Move by country men's second up by
[4:28:59] Romeras, I think, going first, quiet.
[4:29:04] That the staff report be approved.
[4:29:09] Any discussion?
[4:29:13] Mr. President, I would just like to make a minor amendment to that request.
[4:29:16] that I suggest is as Mr. DeGrew mentioned that the adoption of the resolution with the amendments proposed by Vice President Dolan,
[4:29:31] regarding the APN numbers.
[4:29:32] That okay, Tim.
[4:29:34] That up to second.
[4:29:36] Well, the amendments over what's actually being acquired. So we're adopting the resolution, not the staff report.
[4:29:55] Okay, any other questions?
[4:29:57] Okay, we'll call the raw on this.
[4:30:04] Board Member Ramirez, Board Member Velines, Board Member Countryman, Board Member McDonald, Vice President
[4:30:13] Dolan, President Edgar.
[4:30:17] Motion passes unanimously.
[4:30:20] Gary, thank you. We'll continue to try to work on this.
[4:30:27] All right, we're on to item C, 10, C, and this is the last item for this afternoon.
[4:30:37] And Connie Perkins has this item, it's an informational briefing on the Goldfield Slevy Project.
[4:30:44] Is Paul here today?
[4:30:46] Yes, he's right here.
[4:30:46] Oh, there he is.
[4:30:48] Okay, Connie and Paul have this report.
[4:30:51] Okay, President Eger, and members of the board, I'm Connie Perkins, board staff.
[4:30:56] Today, I'm going to introduce Paul Brunner, the Executive Director for three Rivers,
[4:31:01] Levy Improvement Authority, or Trilia.
[4:31:04] He'll be giving an overview of the post-200-Year Goldfield's Levy Project in New
[4:31:08] Accounting.
[4:31:10] This project was federally authorized by Section 1305 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018
[4:31:17] for non-federal interests to construct a new levy to connect to the existing levy with
[4:31:22] high ground.
[4:31:23] We will be requesting approval of an encroachment permit for this project at the February board meeting.
[4:31:30] Eventually, the goal is to make the proposed new levy part of the State Plan of Floor Control,
[4:31:35] in the Sacramento River Floor Control project.
[4:31:38] The 1953 MOU between the core and the board will need to be amended.
[4:31:43] So now we'll turn it to Paul.
[4:31:52] Well, hello, President Eger and members of the board,
[4:31:57] good afternoon.
[4:31:58] It's been an interesting day going through the discussions.
[4:32:03] The last one was fascinating.
[4:32:06] I mean, I personally, at three rivers,
[4:32:08] had the experience of going through, like probably
[4:32:10] in excess of 50 runs, and that, in the various cases
[4:32:14] that we've gone through.
[4:32:17] So, it's interesting perspective.
[4:32:19] In the goalfield's presentation, if there's, I do have a land section that of what we're doing,
[4:32:28] so I'm going to make a couple of comments there.
[4:32:31] This is not the first time that I've come before the board to talk about the goalfields.
[4:32:37] So in this particular case, what I'm going to do is I really try to consolidate my briefing
[4:32:41] down to 12 flights.
[4:32:46] Yeah, you've seen a lot before, yeah, I think that's right, Joe.
[4:32:51] But the last time I was here was May 19th, 2017 on the goalfills.
[4:32:57] We talked about the two-end year project somewhat there.
[4:33:01] April 24th, I was here on 2015 and really talking about the 100 year project that we did
[4:33:07] and even many times before that.
[4:33:09] So, you've heard a lot, and I chose not to try to repeat all the slides, and I presume
[4:33:16] you understand why we're out there.
[4:33:19] Which button do I push?
[4:33:23] Okay.
[4:33:25] Good.
[4:33:25] On this one here, I am going to talk about each one of these slides, some very briefly.
[4:33:33] I really just chose to pull off the slides in your presentation for this presentation to
[4:33:39] talk to key issues.
[4:33:40] But I think the board wants to know about things like OMR and R, things about land, as to what we're doing.
[4:33:49] And in our case here, some of the fascinating slides, I think, will be on the state plan of flight control.
[4:33:57] And in the Sacramento River of flight control project and how do we actually attach what we're doing to those plans to those projects?
[4:34:04] We do have a solution that I can share with you.
[4:34:10] Okay, and this one briefly, the location, the red line that you see on there, well first
[4:34:17] this is in Ube County, the black outline, a little hard to see, but it's the city of
[4:34:26] Mary'sville, and that's the Ringlevy around the city of Mary'sville.
[4:34:30] The Ube River is coming from the top of the screen down to the feather, and then the feather
[4:34:35] heads on down towards Sacramento on it as such.
[4:34:39] The end of the state plan of flight control in this area
[4:34:43] is where the yellow line essentially hits the red line.
[4:34:49] Endot right there is the state plan of flight control
[4:34:52] that becomes critical for our project
[4:34:54] where we struggled with in how we move forward on the project.
[4:35:00] The on the little black dash lines that you see just at the end of the red line is the
[4:35:07] goldfield area.
[4:35:09] As I related to before, it's a 10,000 acre approximately, it's a mining area that was from the
[4:35:15] dredged trailing that came before the U.V. river got moved to the north on it and as such.
[4:35:22] That orange line isn't somewhat important in that I'll reference it in the future and one of the next slides, it's the 100 year interim solution that we put in to retain our FEMA accreditation and that's the location of that.
[4:35:39] We built that within the goldfield area itself, per se.
[4:35:47] Okay, just very briefly on background.
[4:35:49] going to cover a lot of years on this. In 2010, not in this building, but in your other
[4:35:55] building, resource building, I came. I listened to a core briefing on their GRR finding at
[4:36:02] that time there was a lot of residents that were really kind of, now positive about what
[4:36:07] we were trying to do for a flight control. And they really talked about the goalfields area
[4:36:12] and having some issues with that. On it, the core did do some studies originally in the
[4:36:21] GRR that went through, they ended up coming forward to the request, your previous board to
[4:36:28] the court to give a briefing.
[4:36:30] I mean, we're sitting in the audience listening to the briefing and hearing really for
[4:36:34] the first time that our project was broken, that we had spent a whole bunch of money on to
[4:36:40] put in the setback levies and everything else that we've done on it and at that point we ended
[4:36:46] that starting this long saga of going forward.
[4:36:50] So from 2010 to 2016 about we worked on feasibility studies.
[4:36:57] I show you the various models and how we got there on the training walls he wrote
[4:37:03] and breaking before in previous briefings.
[4:37:06] We built a hundred year project to preserve the hundred year FEMA accreditation that we have.
[4:37:14] And then we moved on to the 200-year project to put that project in, and that was that yellow line that you saw on it, that we have.
[4:37:25] So the key for the 200-year project became not about trying to build levees or going forward with that.
[4:37:32] I mean, we've done that a lot on it, and it re-prepared in Levy's two, and that it was really
[4:37:41] that the location where we were was not within the state plan of flight control.
[4:37:49] And that really presented a problem in that prop one of the funds that we were doing the project
[4:37:55] under, and it's nice how funds, but we needed the way that legislation was written required
[4:38:01] to step a path to put the project into the state plan of light control.
[4:38:07] And that became really the nexus we had to overcome and work through how we're going to
[4:38:14] do that.
[4:38:15] And that really led down many different paths that we went through.
[4:38:19] But we actually came to a solution and we're here now moving forward.
[4:38:25] This slide shows you the project itself, that we have, up in the top left corner of the slide is where that red and yellow line hit before.
[4:38:38] That's the end of the state plan of flight control.
[4:38:41] We pivot from the end of the state right there.
[4:38:44] The goalfield's project itself, just on the upper screen, going up, was always considered high ground.
[4:38:51] And when the core did their hydraulic briefing in 2010, they established that it wasn't high ground that we had breakage and we're going to be flanked by flood flows.
[4:39:05] So we've been working on to solve the problem.
[4:39:09] So from that top left-hand corner you'll see the green line coming down.
[4:39:14] It runs across property lines and then pivots on Hamilton Sparsville Road and goes up to a couple of miles to the end of the purple.
[4:39:26] There is 2.6 miles of new levee that we're adding.
[4:39:32] We have 2.2 miles of cutoff wall, 1.7 acres of seepage burns.
[4:39:37] A thousand, we're going to degrade up in the top left-hand corner a little bit of the existing
[4:39:45] levee that was built before for hydraulic reasons, we do that.
[4:39:52] We have an interior drainage system that was built.
[4:39:57] The low spot is in the lower corner and the screen where the two green lines come down
[4:40:03] together and meet at the bottom of the screen.
[4:40:07] That's a low spot where we need to have the new setback area be able to drain out.
[4:40:13] So this blue area that you see behind, a series of 2D tension basins that were established
[4:40:20] of which we will connect, we call it a causeway, a little small causeway.
[4:40:26] Between the two, to allow the water to drain out, there will be an exit pipe that will come
[4:40:32] I need the levy that's gated flat and controlled to allow the excess to come out.
[4:40:37] I already 74 will maintain that and maintain the detention basis.
[4:40:43] The levy is about 16 feet high, maximum height.
[4:40:48] It has 20 foot crowns.
[4:40:51] It's designed to ULDC criteria for 10200-year criteria.
[4:40:56] It has the setback areas or the water side and landslide.
[4:41:01] access quarters. And really importantly on the design that comes up is that we have this review
[4:41:09] of the project goes to the state review. We have our independent review panel reviewing the project
[4:41:17] and it's approved from their area access on it. I'll reference that point in the next slide coming
[4:41:30] when I talk about how do we get to the state plan of flight control and what's happening
[4:41:35] on that?
[4:41:39] Let's go to land rights, the land that we're acquiring and then rights away.
[4:41:48] This project acquires approximately 111 acres of property. We're acquiring all that property
[4:41:58] in feet. Our funding agreement that we have with the state under Uber requires us to really acquire
[4:42:09] in feet. And from our purpose, in all the time, I've gone through resolutions and working with people,
[4:42:18] we've acquired our property with the prop one E funds in feet. The I have personally engaged in every
[4:42:26] negotiation that we have, the tool of boarding delegates to me, the authority, the board has
[4:42:32] a final authority, but I do engage with that with the people directly to try to work
[4:42:38] through that and try to meet their needs and work through that on the property, but we have
[4:42:44] acquired in feet on it.
[4:42:47] So you won't be the first time, and not a surprise, you adopted the resolution, but we do
[4:42:53] choir in fee. One of the prime reasons why we acquire in fee is that the property owners
[4:43:04] have changed for us over time. They haven't always been the nice neighbors that you got
[4:43:10] that you're working with on it. And in the future, the levees are going to be a little long time.
[4:43:17] And as they go forward, there's an issue that's there that came up and we have dealt with those
[4:43:22] before, where we couldn't get back on the wedding, even though we had an easement.
[4:43:28] There was issues, and you don't really want that in that case.
[4:43:33] So there are examples that would support that.
[4:43:37] And we have built already an access easement for security reasons, allowing people to go back
[4:43:43] to the properties that DWR did approve for us, where we had people that, along the western
[4:43:49] of the Interceptor Canal had various similar issues about looking down and where the water was flowing
[4:43:56] and having hundreds come in, where they can secure and monitor and patrol the road that they
[4:44:02] want under that easement on it. And so I think there's a way to solve the problem as you work
[4:44:10] through this. Now that the next bullet,
[4:44:16] I think is important because this is something
[4:44:20] that we, we looked at really hard, we're, it says, truly is not acquiring the flowage
[4:44:28] easements for water side lands. We are acquiring the water side access quarter easements
[4:44:36] and easements for that caused way in the detention basins.
[4:44:42] But the land beyond that, behind the new levy that we're building,
[4:44:48] up through the area behind on that previous map that you saw all the way to the river,
[4:44:54] we're not putting a flowage he's went on.
[4:44:58] And our ration...
[4:45:00] Now for that, it's really kind of summarizing these five bullets that you see here is one of which is that there's already this huge mass of land between the levy that we've got the high ground that is currently being mined. It does breach, but it has to breach to do that.
[4:45:21] Not a mile away, that's a lot of land-to-puted flowages, but I'm
[4:45:26] plus you're putting it on paying for a flowage
[4:45:28] management for all that land that's there.
[4:45:32] The ground is already highly saturated during what weather.
[4:45:37] There's studies out there that the crops that are growing, the roots
[4:45:40] already are damaged from crops and orchards that are out there.
[4:45:45] The other area that's being used behind the levy is a mining area.
[4:45:49] and they basically stopped their operations
[4:45:51] and then was high water conditions.
[4:45:54] So we elected that.
[4:45:56] Licked at the cost is there really need
[4:45:58] to put a flowage he's went back there.
[4:46:01] We prepared a tech memo.
[4:46:03] We had legal, a pracer, and technical input
[4:46:07] into the tech memo.
[4:46:08] We have submitted it.
[4:46:09] We provided it to the various reviewers.
[4:46:13] DWR has responded back to us.
[4:46:16] And they concurred with our conclusion, recognizing that you guys have control with your permits in that.
[4:46:22] But that we have concurred by DWR because of funding requirements as to where they are on our project.
[4:46:30] They thought our logic was pretty good.
[4:46:33] When you issue us our permit, our recommendation is you don't require a flow of Gs1.
[4:46:41] And this is an informational briefing that we have, you have the check memo, I think it's kind of not a well spent money.
[4:46:52] Plus I do not know how to define that area that a flowage management would go on other than the entire area out there and that's literally thousands of acres that I don't know what the benefit would be to put a flowage management.
[4:47:08] How do you define it as we go forward?
[4:47:15] Okay, funding.
[4:47:17] We are fully funded.
[4:47:20] The funds from the state are prop 1E.
[4:47:23] Right now our estimate is around 53 million,
[4:47:27] million dollars.
[4:47:29] And we have from state funding somewhere around 42 million
[4:47:33] the less is the rest is local.
[4:47:36] We'll do our best to try to make that a smaller number
[4:47:40] as we go forward and we can serve money.
[4:47:44] The funding is that it comes from the
[4:47:47] Oofur funding agreement that we have,
[4:47:49] and there's two key things in that Oofur funding agreement.
[4:47:52] One is that we identify a path for the project to be added to the state plan of
[4:47:58] flight control, and we've done that and I'll explain that.
[4:48:01] It also requires an OMR and R agreement,
[4:48:04] and we're in the process of going through those steps too.
[4:48:10] On OMR and R,
[4:48:16] the Rd704 is the main LOMA in the area that does the service for this area that we've been maintaining and proving.
[4:48:27] The district recently has expanded their district.
[4:48:31] They went through a benefit assessment election and they've expanded.
[4:48:39] So they now included the goals area into their district.
[4:48:45] They also, same time, expanded their district to match the
[4:48:49] trilla zone that we've had, of area that we've protected and how we've
[4:48:54] collected resources in the past.
[4:48:57] We've actually put our trilla assessment in a bans, because the
[4:49:02] RD-74 assessment is now in place, that covers the same area that we have on
[4:49:07] And now, a large part of the 74 system, I mentioned this, because this is kind of the connection to our project and what we're talking about here is last meeting, you all talked about our own M system and the core did approve or delegate to
[4:49:31] to RD-7-84, or back to the federal system on the O&M.
[4:49:38] And Rick Ryan Hart was here and he gave you a talk,
[4:49:41] and that was good.
[4:49:43] And that was a significant thing that happened.
[4:49:47] So really, most of our system is already in the system.
[4:49:51] Now it's actually in the federal system.
[4:49:54] I mentioned to the board on a third bullet, which is really key,
[4:49:59] is that Trilla and Artis 74 and the Board of Art
[4:50:03] entered into at least a couple OMR and Artigreements.
[4:50:07] There's one because the first one got combined
[4:50:10] in the second one in 2011, that entire red area
[4:50:14] that you saw last meeting and went through the 29 miles
[4:50:18] except for the goals field, it already has an agreement
[4:50:22] that we said that we do OMR and Art on.
[4:50:25] So we're there, we submitted a draft for this next area to go forward and we plan to
[4:50:35] finalize and execute that agreement when the construction is done.
[4:50:41] That's when we actually know what the project is and what we'll put into the agreement.
[4:50:47] And that's our timing for that.
[4:50:48] But I think our commitment to doing the OMR and our
[4:50:53] and agreeing to it is well-established and in place.
[4:51:02] OK,
[4:51:04] state plan, flood control, and the Sacramento River
[4:51:06] flood control project.
[4:51:10] I mentioned earlier, we liked that a whole bunch of different options.
[4:51:16] Along the way of looking at all those options,
[4:51:19] Three rivers did take the step to go and work on what we call it the time plan B.
[4:51:28] We acquired a lobbyist and we went to work with the folks and we're able to get
[4:51:36] within Word of 2018 words that say that the work that we're doing on this new
[4:51:47] is authorized.
[4:51:49] And so it's section 1305 and Word allows us to go and build the project and be authorized.
[4:52:00] Now that's really good.
[4:52:01] I mean, it allowed us to go to high ground to fix the problem.
[4:52:05] That's what we wanted to do.
[4:52:07] We didn't ask for any money at all.
[4:52:11] on it, we just needed to be able to go and fix it.
[4:52:16] And that's all it says, really, essentially on it.
[4:52:20] But I did present some really odd things,
[4:52:28] because having the endpoint kind of already established,
[4:52:33] being okay, how do we get there?
[4:52:37] On it, it became really the difficulty,
[4:52:40] and we work through that.
[4:52:42] It was a difficulty from a board.
[4:52:45] How do you add it to the state plan?
[4:52:47] What happens to the SRCP?
[4:52:50] Since there was no 408, we're already authorized.
[4:52:57] Then what happens to that process in this as we move forward?
[4:53:04] And there was no typical partnering agreement
[4:53:06] between us and the core, that presented a problem for us because we couldn't actually transfer
[4:53:17] money on it to engage with them on the project.
[4:53:21] Meanwhile, we're moving on, building trying to get the project built.
[4:53:27] So the core involvement has been limited, not that we haven't talked to them, but it's
[4:53:31] been limited on the project.
[4:53:33] And that's why I really gave an emphasis before about the design review of what we had on our project today.
[4:53:40] With our independent review team, our various engineers and what we're doing in the state and the state engineers looking at it.
[4:53:48] I think we're ready to go.
[4:53:53] This is a solution.
[4:54:03] We have word of 2018 in place.
[4:54:06] It's an already establishes that we're authorized.
[4:54:09] We have met with the core, we have met with DWR in your board staff and talk through this as to how do we go through.
[4:54:19] So these five steps in very simplistic terms is how we get to the end.
[4:54:26] First, you guys issue the permit to us to construct.
[4:54:31] When you're issuing the permit, we think that you'll send your letter to the core.
[4:54:35] The court's already Ryan is here, and he can talk to it from the court too, is that
[4:54:41] undoubtedly, you'll send you a 408 or some letter to the court, they'll respond saying 408's
[4:54:46] not needed on it to go forward. But you issue your permit, I think you need to do that because of the
[4:54:54] state requirements, and we really want to be able to follow the plan and the rules and have you
[4:55:01] engage with that same construction and over to see the project with us. As we go forward.
[4:55:07] We'll construct the project and start to build it. Later on I have a schedule for you to go forward.
[4:55:18] Concernantly, Trilla enters into a cost sharing agreement and we're doing that right now. We got
[4:55:24] a template. The core did respond to say use 1305, some template, so we created the template with them.
[4:55:31] and how that is. And we have several drafts, and we'll be providing them some money to be able to participate with us.
[4:55:40] But concurrently, we'll enter into a cost sharing agreement with the core for review of the project
[4:55:46] and processing of the amendment to the 1953 MOU. That's important on it. Now, that is going to happen.
[4:55:57] We'll sign the agreement, hopefully, in coming months on it, but it's not critical to building the project.
[4:56:05] It's not a critical for you to go forward and not issue the permit, but do issue that our encroachment permit.
[4:56:14] Following construction,
[4:56:18] we will complete a construction report and a draft federal O&M manual.
[4:56:23] revisions will be sent out just like before when the core got their manuals before and then they
[4:56:31] sent it back and and said that the Rd704 will take over on the system.
[4:56:37] The final bullet is where
[4:56:39] you give your assurances and is added to the state plan. Is the levies built, the core will have done
[4:56:47] their review when they see RCCR. If we get the documents done sooner with the funding agreement,
[4:56:52] and they can participate, that's great on it.
[4:56:56] But we will build the levee, we'll go through,
[4:56:59] we'll give them the manuals, the core or review,
[4:57:03] the post-construction information,
[4:57:05] and works for the Central Life Flood Board
[4:57:07] to execute an amendment to the 1953 MOU.
[4:57:12] 1305, that section says that's one of the things
[4:57:14] that we need to do in that legislation
[4:57:18] was to amend the 1953 MLU.
[4:57:24] And that's where the board provides your assurances in that amendment.
[4:57:30] And issues revised unit 145 O&M manual.
[4:57:35] That's what you dealt with last meeting.
[4:57:37] The O&M manual supplement officially accepting
[4:57:41] the work into the state plan of flight control
[4:57:44] and the Sacramento River flood control project.
[4:57:50] So it's unusual, but I think it works on it.
[4:57:57] And that's what we're proceeding with.
[4:58:00] And on our project.
[4:58:02] I have one question. Sorry.
[4:58:04] Can I have a present?
[4:58:05] Yeah.
[4:58:07] The first bullet?
[4:58:09] Where you encroaching upon?
[4:58:13] There's no state plan of flood control.
[4:58:20] I hope you're asking someone else to.
[4:58:28] Anybody who would like to answer would be welcome.
[4:58:31] There was a discussion internally as we went through
[4:58:36] as does the board need to issue a permit on it.
[4:58:42] And I think as we go forward, and the mechanism moving forward in establishing your criteria,
[4:58:53] your encroachment permit is the vehicle that you use for levee construction.
[4:58:59] You call it encroachment permit.
[4:59:00] So in this aspect, maybe the tie in the connection, you have to connect to the levee is probably
[4:59:07] the closest thing.
[4:59:08] That?
[4:59:08] I get that.
[4:59:09] Okay.
[4:59:09] Thank you. Thank you, Joe. Sure. That's Joe. I think you answer my second question, which is the
[4:59:14] kosher agreement. I wasn't sure how that link was. Maybe you said that language is in the
[4:59:19] federal authorization. It says the link to the 1953 agreement. You said that's in the federal
[4:59:28] authorization. It says that we need to modify the 1953 which is my second question which is
[4:59:33] the other bullet about how you guys are doing the kosher agreement. So that explains there is no kosher
[4:59:38] Right, but in that federal authorization language, the core has a connection and you're paying them to review it for the legislation.
[4:59:49] Essentially.
[4:59:50] Okay, that's good enough.
[4:59:52] Thank you.
[4:59:53] Thank you.
[4:59:53] Follow us that payment to have the core do work on it as part of the local share.
[5:00:01] Or is that an addition just money to get them started and has nothing to do with the cost share?
[5:00:08] You know, I, you know, I haven't actually thought about that so much. As to as a part of the local share, I don't think it will be huge. I was just cutting a check and sending it.
[5:00:19] You know, when the agreement was done and I'll sit down and talk to the DWR folks about where it is. I'm, I'm just really happy that we have a path.
[5:00:27] No, no, that's is that I was just wondering whether you know what that total local cost is going to be
[5:00:36] And if that's part of it because you're going to have to put up some money for the court or even start work on it, right?
[5:00:47] Well, yeah, I would imagine when we finally work through this agreement
[5:00:56] for the court to be involved, it'll be a cost share, or a cost that we'll put into that.
[5:01:02] Not as that cost share start off and I know it's different depending on land season.
[5:01:08] It's a very choice.
[5:01:09] But does that start off the usual 65?
[5:01:13] No.
[5:01:14] No.
[5:01:15] That's right.
[5:01:16] That's okay.
[5:01:17] No.
[5:01:17] I think this is a direct cost.
[5:01:19] Not a cost sharing.
[5:01:21] It's really word-grying that we want the core to be involved and they'll provide a number.
[5:01:29] And we'll look at that and agree with it, Ryan, what do you want to talk about?
[5:01:34] This is, no, I was just going to say, this is what we did on the Stockton Project.
[5:01:39] Back in the day, when the San Joaquin County flood district went ahead with improving
[5:01:46] and the Mormons flew and Bear Creek and all of that.
[5:01:51] They went ahead without any federal money
[5:01:55] and paid the core to review the plans and specs
[5:01:58] to the extent their federal requirements.
[5:02:01] And that was just local money
[5:02:03] had nothing to do with the cost share.
[5:02:05] Because I think eventually later,
[5:02:07] they went and got authorization to try to get some reimbursement.
[5:02:10] But initially for the construction,
[5:02:12] they went ahead with local and state money.
[5:02:15] Okay. So then is there a cost share between the state and the local?
[5:02:21] Yeah, it's like an EIP. Yeah, we have the U for funding agreement. Yeah, okay. So the
[5:02:27] I would imagine that the whatever we have the cost that we provide for that review for
[5:02:33] participation would probably be cost shared. But I haven't had that direct discussion with them.
[5:02:38] Okay, that would be with DWR. Yes. Okay. So the
[5:02:43] So, the cost share agreement, then the normal thing that we look at is between you, it'd be like an EIP agreement, right?
[5:02:54] Because there isn't any.
[5:02:56] Yeah.
[5:02:57] Yeah.
[5:02:57] Yeah.
[5:02:57] Yeah.
[5:02:58] Yeah.
[5:02:58] Yeah.
[5:02:59] Yeah.
[5:02:59] In us in DWR, our previous work, up to this project, was done under those early implementation
[5:03:06] projects.
[5:03:08] The goal-fills project is one of these UFER urban funding agreements that transcended EIP.
[5:03:17] That was a different, so is that a different, original number then, is that a new
[5:03:27] for project is separate and completely apart from the OBIP.
[5:03:33] Yeah, it's a stand alone.
[5:03:35] Stand alone.
[5:03:36] Yeah, it's my earlier slide when I gave the funding,
[5:03:43] DWR, participate with us, a card dot, and dedicated X amount of money.
[5:03:49] I think it's the 42 million that I showed on the slide for the project,
[5:03:54] based upon our project costs, and it's all prop one E, but it's under that funding agreement
[5:03:59] has nothing to do with the EIP projects that we have.
[5:04:04] Okay, any other questions for Paul?
[5:04:07] Well, I got two more slides.
[5:04:09] This is our schedule.
[5:04:13] On it.
[5:04:15] And we plan to, I mean, we're moving.
[5:04:22] I mean, a lot of this is based upon property funds on it and the to do and I mean the shelf life of property funds are running out on it and the so we've been pressing really hard to to move forward on the real estate acquisitions we were moving.
[5:04:45] We have like 12 properties, we're relocating nine of the people that have lived there long
[5:04:52] long time, probably over 40 years on it, and that's difficult to do, but we're working
[5:05:00] with them.
[5:05:01] One more to do, and to finalize for the deal, and that'll happen, and we'll consummate
[5:05:10] all those escrow deals, get the people relocated out.
[5:05:14] We anticipate the bulldozers hit the ground in May.
[5:05:18] Oh, wait.
[5:05:20] And one of the things we need to do is the encroachment permit.
[5:05:24] And I think we worked out the details to do that.
[5:05:30] And we're ready to go.
[5:05:32] Seek was done.
[5:05:34] We went through one lawsuit before.
[5:05:36] We had that long thing going through
[5:05:38] about going straight through a mining area and then we had to re-kink the levee or redo the levee.
[5:05:44] That's one of the briefings to show that I talked about before.
[5:05:48] But we've done all that.
[5:05:50] We have 100% design drawings out for finalization for review.
[5:05:56] And we plan to go out, go to my full board on February 18th,
[5:06:03] ask for authorization to go to bed.
[5:06:04] But we'll plan to send them out the next day and open it in early April.
[5:06:11] Depending upon what the bid say, hopefully we have good bids on it, we'll let you notice
[5:06:17] the proceed and press.
[5:06:19] We expected to be a one-year construction zone, a time period, on it, I might slide somewhat
[5:06:26] hopefully not.
[5:06:28] And then that'll mark a really major milestones for at least Trilla and Rd-7A4.
[5:06:34] This project is the final project for the RD704 improvements that we needed to do to get to 200 year and 100 year improvements for the entire system.
[5:06:50] That doesn't mean that Trilla goes away or wherever you are.
[5:06:53] I probably will be back talking to you about other things that we're doing.
[5:06:57] You would county and others have asked us to go work in other parts of you, but county on different types of efforts for flight control, so we'll most likely be back in other projects to talk to you about them.
[5:07:11] But with that, that's the end.
[5:07:16] Thank you, Paul. That's creative, Clyde.
[5:07:25] I have one concern and I think it's in its its the liability issue kind of of, you know, does the state take additional liability in.
[5:07:39] And that's always been a worry of mine.
[5:07:42] Anyway, but specifically for this, for your project, so you're going to build, you've got the gold fields kind of out there, and you're going to build this wall like this, and you're acknowledging that if a big flood comes, you could be flooding a very large area, and you're not buying flood easements for.
[5:08:09] So those people then could come back and say, well, you, you know, you flooded me.
[5:08:15] I didn't flood before.
[5:08:17] Now you flooded me and somebody has to, somebody has to pick up that, that lawsuit and
[5:08:26] the state under your proposal will have given assurances to the core.
[5:08:33] Is that right?
[5:08:34] We're giving assurances to the core.
[5:08:36] You're giving a sure, I mean just standard thing, you give assurances to us, we give assurances to the core, or are there no assurances?
[5:08:45] Well, you're giving assurances to the core on the lobby system that is typical, I mean that's, I mean nothing's changed.
[5:08:55] The point, I put this map back up on the screen here, is the on the flowagesman on the land or water side of the levee.
[5:09:07] The area that's behind that yellow line looking to the top of the screen to the north is really uninhabited.
[5:09:17] There aren't homes in that there's mining companies that are mining.
[5:09:22] There's a large area in that dashed area that you see that is actively,
[5:09:28] you would goal fields that are people are dredging.
[5:09:33] They still can dredge.
[5:09:34] They can do various things.
[5:09:36] They're like temporary facilities.
[5:09:39] The couple homes, there's nine locations.
[5:09:42] most of them are clustered along Hamilton Smart's full road that we're relocating out from that and on the map that we had, I'm going to turn to the project map here real quick.
[5:09:57] The one detention, it's a triangle to the right of the screen, that blue area. That's where about eight of the homes are that we're relocating.
[5:10:09] That becomes a detention basin that we dig out and we're going to use the dirt for the
[5:10:15] levee.
[5:10:16] So we're relocating them.
[5:10:18] No one's going to live behind the levee.
[5:10:20] There's another resident that lives on Brophy Road by the other detention basin that we're
[5:10:26] relocating out of the area too.
[5:10:28] So no one will live there.
[5:10:31] The threat to the people behind the levee is really a mining operation.
[5:10:38] And some orchards that are there in the orchards that are behind the levy today already are impacted, even without the levy being built by high groundwater.
[5:10:55] When the Uba River comes up, the top soil up to ground level is saturated.
[5:11:02] It's, and sometimes in historical studies comes out of the ground and causes like a foot
[5:11:08] ponds that are sitting out there, just from high groundwater for the U.V. river influencing
[5:11:13] this very porous soil.
[5:11:16] So it already impacts, and there's been lots, lots, it's about impacts of orchards and
[5:11:21] damages to them already and on it, and so we looked at that and concluded, why would we
[5:11:27] give a flow of achievement over this area and pay the additional money for the Kizia and a
[5:11:36] flow of achievement in this case. The discussion that you had last discussion, it most likely
[5:11:43] will rain somewhere around maybe 80 to 95 percent of the property. If the person's already damaged
[5:11:50] on an orchard and you're going to pay them 95% of that property value to keep on farming
[5:11:58] additional and he's already damaged anymore. Why would you do that? That was our conclusion.
[5:12:05] So we put together the memo and it's turning it in. I don't think you have additional
[5:12:08] liability on it and as such and so within your staff review and you look at our permit
[5:12:17] to issue, that's your question, you know, one of the questions that comes that we raise.
[5:12:21] We don't think you need it.
[5:12:22] And I pointed out here is that as you put together our permit, then you should consider
[5:12:29] that.
[5:12:30] We don't think you need it.
[5:12:38] The liability issues and talk with DWR.
[5:12:42] Yeah, absolutely.
[5:12:43] But I think they have our check memo already on it and our explanation where we had and we sat down
[5:12:51] through it with them. But it's just a night in that you need to consider. And if you do
[5:12:59] end up putting it there, then that does have a cost consequence. And where do we put
[5:13:03] it consequence? Because I don't know where to put it. One could lay it out over thousands of
[5:13:09] it. I don't know where to get the money to do that. And then it drives the conclusion if you
[5:13:15] need it. Be really need it. As we go forward. Additional questions? Anything else from board?
[5:13:25] Okay, thanks Paul. How come the levees are 16 feet high?
[5:13:34] Well, I'll try to make it really.
[5:13:36] Well, when we connect to the existing levy, it's almost 16 feet there on the upper
[5:13:44] U.B.
[5:13:45] There's also, as we look to the water levels and that we, with the un, there's a lot of uncertainty
[5:13:57] with the goal fields.
[5:13:59] As to where we are, so as we went through our hydraulic modeling and all that,
[5:14:03] M. B. K. did do a conservative analysis as to what that water surface level should be.
[5:14:10] And they came up with a 200 year level and then placed a conservative nature into that.
[5:14:16] That gave us an additional buffer in case something happens within the goal pills that we can adjust.
[5:14:22] Which then added up to the 16 feet with the free board.
[5:14:28] It seems very high.
[5:14:31] All right. Thank you.
[5:14:32] Thank you, Paul.
[5:14:34] Okay, let's move on and finish this up.
[5:14:40] Executive officers report.
[5:14:42] We have the usual update reports on administration,
[5:14:46] so on Leslie's executive officers report you want to.
[5:14:51] I just have one thing to add that came into late to make it to the report,
[5:14:55] and I want to give Kudos to Greg, who's sitting in the audience for making it.
[5:15:00] I think this happened. Michael, do you want to do the honors? I can just tell you. We had our
[5:15:09] damn emergency action plan approved. I think it might be the first one in the nation or whatever,
[5:15:15] at least in California, but is it? Yes. So, through diligence and returning it multiple times,
[5:15:21] through multiple people making thousands of comments, he was able to get it through, and we just
[5:15:28] and have an opportunity to put it in the end.
[5:15:30] Report.
[5:15:31] Nice job, great.
[5:15:34] OK.
[5:15:36] OK, thanks to the staff for those reports.
[5:15:40] They're very helpful.
[5:15:42] Any comments from the board?
[5:15:44] Tim?
[5:15:45] Go.
[5:15:47] The Clyde?
[5:15:49] Jay?
[5:15:51] Yes.
[5:15:52] Board member McDonald and I.
[5:15:54] That was a big sigh, because it's a real big sigh.
[5:15:58] We're working with our board staff and others who have a lot of opinions about how the advisory committee should move forward, too.
[5:16:06] Just a minute.
[5:16:07] As sure that number one, it goes forward because it will be helpful and it was very helpful with both the original plan and the second.
[5:16:17] But to do it in a way that has a bit more focus.
[5:16:22] So we're going to need to take a little bit of time on that.
[5:16:25] The only other thing, I would say is, lastly, we need to gear up our LMA visits again.
[5:16:36] Accordinate those with Andrew and Preston or whoever.
[5:16:42] I guess we've been doing those mostly with Ruth.
[5:16:44] Ruth and yeah, we'll continue with that.
[5:16:47] I just want to mention, I also am on top already of the designated floodway request that you had made.
[5:16:53] That was one of the priorities I turned into the Secretary's office last year, so we're working
[5:16:58] on making sure that in all of the requisite needs for all of the agencies so that we'll
[5:17:06] be eligible for funding for that program to improve and expand it.
[5:17:12] So we're on top of that.
[5:17:14] Okay, anything on upcoming meetings and topics other than what's on the agenda?
[5:17:20] We have a topic in February, which we'll talk about.
[5:17:25] We do.
[5:17:26] It's going to be a scoping for the plan for the San Joaquin specifically and some of the
[5:17:30] climate change.
[5:17:32] I think Mary is in the audience now waiting to do a little pre-brief on that, so we'll have
[5:17:38] some more info after that, but it should be a good workshop.
[5:17:42] Okay.
[5:17:43] Great.
[5:17:45] We have no closed session and therefore no closed session report, and so at the
[5:17:55] we'll, without objection, say it this meeting's adjourned. Thank you.