HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06171986 - WC.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: WATER COMMITTEE
DATE: JUNE 9, 1986
SUBJECT: DELTA LEVEE PROGRAM
Specific Requests or Recommendations & Background & Justification
REC"ENDED ACTION
ADOPT the following five points for a program for Delta levee maintenance and rehabilitation.
1. Seek resolutions from communities within the Delta and other beneficiaries of the
Delta supporting the immediate establishment of a major Delta maintenance and rehabilitation
program.
2. Meet with businesses in the Delta to secure their participation and input to the
program.
3. Establish direct contact with Delta users (such as boaters, anglers, and other recrea-
tional users) to seek their support and participation in the program.
4. Develop informational materials to be submitted to the Legislature and other decision-
making bodies showing the importance of the Delta statewide.
5. Establish a coordinated campaign initially involvina groups such as the Contra Costa
Water District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Delta Advisory Planning Council ,
Committee for Water Policy Consensus, Congressman George Miller, and Delta counties.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Early participation in this program will be funded through budgeted appropriations for
staff out of the Contra Costa County Water Agency funds. Any major expenditures will be
brought to the Board via the Water Committee for approval .
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
On March 18, 1986, the Board of Supervisors approved a recommendation from Supervisor Tom
Torlakson referring to the Water Committee the issue of levee maintenance in the Delta.
This report is in response to that referral .
Continued on attachment: X yes Signature:
Recommendation of County Administrator Recomm i f Board Committee
Approve Other:
Signature(s): ,
Supervisor Sunne M-Peak Su visorRobert Schroder
Action of Board on: June 17, 1986 Approved as . Recommended x Other
Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
x Unanimous (Absent — ) AND ENTERED ON THE. MINUTES_ .OF. .THE
Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPE VISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Absent: Abstain:
wc.bo.delta.tG Attested
Orig. Div.: Community Development ITIL BATCffFEMF, CLERK
cc: County Administrator OF THE BOARD AND COUNTY
Office of Emergency Services ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works Q
C W PC i CDD
Congree sss man George Miller via CDD By
CC WD -- EBMUD -- V i a CDD DEP K
DAPC v i a CDD
DELTA LEVEE PROGRAM
JUNE 9, 1988
Page 2
In 1982, the Corps Of Engineers distributed a draft feasibility report for a major recon-
struction of Delta levees. Fundinp through the Federal gUvernm9nt via the Corps Of Engineers
is the most likely way to fund long-term Ov2ment3 in the Delta, however, little progress
has been made since 1982. The 1982 draft feasibility report needs to be revised and
finalized includina eliminating the assumption of the Peripheral Canal and determining
Federal/non-Federal cost-sharing. The Department of Water Resources states that the Corps
of Engineers report is not likely to be finalized until late 1990. Congressional authori-
zation, design, and construction would follow. Given the controversy of this issue,
reductions in availability Of Federal funding, and the relatively slow prOare35 Of Federal
aqencfeS to design and construct projects, it could be the year 2000 before any construction
starts on the Delta.
The major issue apparently delaying the finalization of the Corps report is funding from
the non-Federal Share. A substantial amount of the non-Federal Share is expected to come
from the State, although local agencieS and other beneficiaries are also likely to be
involved in funding the non-Federal share. The reality Of water politics in California is
that the funding for a Delta reconstruction program will not be approved until the issue of
water transfer thr0uoh or around the Delta is resolved. There are some interim measures
that can stabilize Delta levees. There is currently a $2 million per year subvention to
local agencies in the Delta for levee maintenance. This amount is not adeOuat2 to provide
the necessary improvements. In the meantime, Delta levees continue to deteriorate and
fail . Substantial Federal and State disaster funds have gone into the Delta for levee
repairs. There maybe some hesitation in the future by Federal agencies to provide emergency
disaster relief if the State takes no action to improve Delta levee maiDtenance. There are
also recent proposals to reduce the amount of emergency disaster funding for all federally- `
reC0gniZ2d disasters.
Over the past several years, the Board Of Supervisors and others- have sent letters to the
LeoiS7atUre and the Governor requesting an increase in funding for Delta levees and initi-
ation Of d Iona-term Delta levee
reconstruction pr0gran. These letters have proven to be
unsuccessful. The Water Committee recommends that d 0a 'Or Campaign be initiated involving
a variety Of interests in the Delta to convince the public and decision-makers statewide
that maintenance and rehabilitation of Delta 72v88S provide statewide benefit. Particularly,
the Delta levees provide water quality assurances for all users Of Delta water throughout
the State. A coordinated approach using the aforementioned five points could lead to
legislation in the 1987 session which could �result in both interim and long-term Delta
levee maintenance and rehabilitation programs.
It is appropriate for the Board Of Supervisors to initiate this program and work with other
parties to develop the program. -