Gastelum Evaluates Importance of Investing in Fragile Bay-Delta Levee System

A chorus of public officials including the Governor, Sen. Feinstein, Rep. Pombo, and countless others are asserting that levee repair in the Bay-Delta should be the state's highest priority. Explain why the levees rank higher in priority than the state's other crucial infrastructure needs, including transportation and air quality.

I think the cry for levee repair, maintenance, and reconstruction is a broader call than the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; in fact, the greatest populations at risk are farther north along the Sacramento River above the cities of Sacramento and Stockton. It is certainly a priority, and as the Legislature has been looking at our infrastructure, there are many that would argue that it is the highest priority, but from my point of view, and I think the L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce, it is no higher than transportation and goods movement, and perhaps affordable housing.

We are conducting this interview on March 10; should we expect a general obligation bond package to be on the June ballot? Will Levees be in the bond package?

I think if the Legislature does approve a bond measure, and that levees will be a part of it. The governor has placed this among his highest priorities, and I would expect that it will be included.

As the former CEO of the MWD and now an Exec. V.P. of the L.A. Chamber of Commerce, you know well that decades ago there was a battle over the Peripheral Canal, an alternative to levees as a means of moving water from north to south. Might such an alternative come back to life as a result of concerns over the levees and the cost of repairing them?

I think the conversation today about levees is really multifaceted. You certainly have people and businesses adjacent to levees that are at risk from floods, earthquakes, and the poor condition of the levees. On another level, some levees protect large areas of farmland, and those are probably in the worst condition of any levees in the state. That problem is compounded by the tidal flows and the potential for rising sea levels and the relative elevation of the water to the much lower land that is being protected by the levees. Then you have water supply and water quality concerns. The State Water Project and the Central Valley Project are dependant on being able to move water through the Delta to supply millions of people – the majority of the population in California, in not only Southern California, but also Central California and the Bay Area.

As we go forward, I think many constituencies – and I would add railroads and other infrastructure – are going to want to find a way to protect that existing infrastructure, but the conversation will soon move, notwithstanding the earlier debate about the Peripheral Canal, to a conveyance system for water and possibly railroad, electrical lines, natural gas lines, and other at-risk infrastructure in the Delta to a corridor to the east of the Delta that would not be at risk given inevitable levee failures.

Randy Record, whom you know from the Eastern Riverside County Water District, recently said, "Of course the Bay Area folks want us to pay for the transfer of water to the South. In their minds, the Delta provides water exports to Southern California . . . . If anybody from Northern California really believed that water for Southern California should be protected from the impacts of a fragile Delta, they would certainly not oppose the Peripheral Canal, they would advocate for it." What is your reaction to Mr. Record's comments?

I believe that a number of people throughout California want to take another look at the Peripheral Canal or something like it. The reason is a growing number of people in Northern California are recognizing that their own water supplies depend on a long-term, sustainable conveyance system around the Delta.

The scientists that have been looking at the Delta, and in particular the fish populations and the ecosystem, have also been advocating a different kind of water delivery system, either through the Delta or around it, to minimize the impacts of water being taken out of the Delta for export to Central and Southern California and other places, to create a more natural delta environment. I sense that we have moved well beyond the rhetoric of the last Peripheral Canal fight, which really boiled down to Northern California objecting to Southern California "stealing" their water, and Southern California thinking that it might be too expensive to build a canal.

Unfortunately, there was no opportunity for the public to engage in the scientific issues or questions about trying to sustain an unnatural levee system or trying to sustain an unnatural delta environment that currently is serving no one well. I believe that Katrina, and the growing evidence offered by scientists that the levee system is not sustainable in the face of expected seismic, flood, and rising sea level forces are the wake-up calls we needed to seriously address the Delta issues.

In MIR's January interview with Michael George of Western Water, he said, "In the Bay-Delta, I think we're seeing the dismantling of the CalFed process, which was launched by the Bay-Delta Accords more than a decade ago. The ecology of the Delta continues to deteriorate, as evidenced by crashing populations of endangered species. We also see huge physical and financial challenges to the outdated and poorly maintained systems of levees. The failure of the levee system would be catastrophic. The accords are in extremis politically, financially, and ecologically; there's not sufficient funding, energy or vision to offer much hope for the resolution of the Delta crisis." How do you react to that claim?

I think that Mr. George has described accurately the forces that California is going to have to deal with. The condition of the levees and the failure of the CalFed consensus process to produce the kind of results that was expected of it. On the other hand, I don't believe that CalFed is dead.

I think that the emphasis on levee maintenance and repair that is seen in the infrastructure bond debate, and hopefully passage of legislation that comes out of that debate, is evidence that this state will be prepared to invest in the physical solutions that are required for levee repair and maintenance and the physical improvements that will be required to manage the Delta in a responsible manner, and to pave the way for a much more stable water management system in the future.

If we do not make these investments, I think that Mr. George's predictions will prove to be accurate, and I think that the question really is whether we will make these investments in time. Because the levees could fail at any time, and one prediction from a very prominent scientist, Dr. Jeffery Mount, is that there's a two-in-three chance within the next 50 years of catastrophic failures from seismic activity.

When you look back at the history of levee failure over the past 50 years, even without major seismic activity, we see regular levee failures. So there's no question that there is going to be levee failures. The question is now whether we can prepare and make the investments to assess and repair the most vulnerable levees to protect people and property that are most at risk? Can we also build a political consensus to go forward and agree on a rational long-term fix for the Delta?

Michael George concludes his MIR interview with: "I fear that too much of our bonding capacity will be frittered away on levee maintenance without any of the institutional accountability reforms that must go along with the level of infrastructure investments California will be asked to approve." And by those reforms he referred to the need for a consistent system of water accounting, accounting for water expenditures, the need to look at hidden cross-subsidies, conjunctive use, etc. What is your reaction to his basic conclusion that we may fritter away these bonds without such reforms?

Mr. George is exactly right in pointing out this risk. The infrastructure bond, if it is passed, will likely not address this risk. It will authorize the spending of money, but unless careful consideration is given to how the money is going to be spent with close oversight by the Legislature and the public, there is a high likelihood, in my opinion, that we will waste money.

One thing people don't recognize as I listen to the debate about levees is that these levees are owned and maintained by various entities. Some are under local control; some are owned and operated, or at least maintained, by the state, and many are owned, operated, and maintained by the federal Corps of Engineers.

Part of the challenge in making sure the monies are spent effectively is to coordinate among these disparate interests and agree on standards that are sustainable. Also, they need to agree on spending money where the levees are most vulnerable, regardless of jurisdiction.

There is also a legal question at the core of all of that, and that is, who is legally responsible for operating and maintaining these levees, and what responsibilities will local governments bear if they make land-use decisions that put new people and new homes in harm's way without accommodating or at least taking into account the overall public safety and liability issue with which we're grappling.

Regarding the Colorado River's contribution to MWD's supply needs, Michael George asserts, "The Colorado River faces structural challenges to the so-called Law of the River, which goes back almost a century and essentially allocates more water than the actual flow in the river . . . . Notwithstanding the wrenching compromises reached within California in the Quantification Settlement Agreement and the continued attempts by the Secretary of the Interior to promote cooperation, the stage is set for further confrontation among the users of the Colorado. California, which contributes little in terms of watershed but takes 4.4 million acre-feet per year under the compact, faces serious equity and reliability issues with no handy solution in sight." How do you react to Mr. George's assessment of the Colorado River supply challenge?

I disagree with Mr. George to this extent: I think that California has made an honest and honorable effort to not overtax the Colorado. It is living within its means and living within the Compact, and it is very progressive in addressing the environmental issues on the Colorado as well as the broader issues of how water would be shared in a shortage.

I would agree with Mr. George to the extent that there are major problems that have to be addressed as a result of over-allocation and the environmental impacts that the Colorado is sustaining because of the uses that all the states are making of this single resource that serves these Basin states. It is a daunting challenge, but I think California, when it made that decision to live within its allocation, took a giant step forward to do its part.

You have been collaborating for some years with former Speaker Bob Hertzberg on fashioning agreements and settlements that will be necessary to achieve needed reforms of our region's water supply systems. How successful or promising have those efforts been? What, if any, progress might we expect in the next year?

Former Speaker Hertzberg, the USC Keston Institute, and others around the state – perhaps most notably the Governor – have for the first time in a long time focused public attention on the importance of our infrastructure and the need for us to reinvest in our infrastructure. That by itself has moved us forward tremendously to addressing and solving some of these problems in the Delta and elsewhere that have been sitting unresolved for far too long.

If the public does approve these bond measures, that will signal a level of understanding and support to address the issues, and I am confident that the answers – certainly the technical answers – will be provided on how to best spend this money.

We've been studying this matter for at least 30 years, and I think we're ready to move forward. All we need now is the continued leadership shown by former Speaker Hertzberg, Governor Schwarzenegger, Senator Don Perata , Speaker Fabian Nuñez, and a willing public.

If that occurs, I'm feeling very optimistic about our future.