TELEPHONE /408) ~4.~_' 27ol.

WILLIAM R. GIANELLJ

CONSULTING CIVIl.. ENGINEER

973 PION6E::A ROAD

PESBLe Sf;;ACH. CA 93953

Mr. David Kennedy, Director Department of Water Resources F. O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236-0001

Dear DilVe:

l!arch 18, 1993

There is an old saying referred to as "Murphy's Law· which states along the lines that 'If something can go wrong, it will '. That old edict seems to more and more apply to the State 11ater Project, and more specifically to the lJelta. Those of us involved with the project formulation since its inception can't believe what is happening.

Reflecting back I can well recall the then State ~ngineer Bob Edmonston calling me into his offiCe in 1951 and asked me to prepare the necessary water right applications in support of the Feather River Project as it was thenknown which I the did; appearing before the Legislative COmmittees in 1959 as the Department's principal witness in support of the Burns-Porter Act and the SWP; and during my tenure as Director during the construction and placing the SWP in operation - during all those periods our major concerns were to secure adequate financing to complete the project and to guarantee both its financial integrity and water SUPp19 commitments to those 31 entities with whom the state entered into binding contracts.

Now, some more than 40 years laterH the project's integrity is being threatened with public trust doctrines, the endangered species Act, section 404 provisions of PL 92-500, and a myriad of other enviromental laws which have only come into being in recent years. In effect, the 'ground rules' have changed since the enactment of Burns-Porter and the vote of the electorate over 30 years' ago, and since 31 water supply contr8cts were entered into with the State to assure performance. SOmething is radically wrong with a system which will allow this to happen. ~/e don't allOW changes to be made i.e.: When we buy a house under a 30 year repayment contract or do We allow changes in building codes to require all existing structures in non-compliance to be torn down, etc.

-2-

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta has been studied more than any other area in the State. Those who advocate returning the Delta to its original Vpristine" state prior to the construction of the CVP and the SWP seem to purposely ignore the facts. prior to the turn of the century the Delta l{aS

largely a sl{alUpy wetland wi th fel' identifiable channels. Following the 19005 much of the rich peat swampland I{as reclaimed for agricultural purpo$es by local entities. In the process defined Delta channels were created largely to build levees around the reclaimed lands, radically changing the hydraulic characteristics of the Delta Area. The hydraulic characteristics were further~ltered by aeposition of material from upstream areas and by the construction of the deep water channels to serve the deep water ports of Stockton and Sacramento. Changing of its hydraulic characteristics has had a major impact on the intrusion of ocean salinity into 'the area.

Extending back at least into the 1920s, State water planners, in their desire to meet the state's water needs, recognized the necessity to move surplus supplies from areas north of the Delta to areas of deficiency in the san Joaquin Valley and southern California. The logical transfer point was the Delta since by the time water reached that area ,it could be considered excess to upstream areas. In the meantime the water planners needed to control the ocean intrusion into the Delta for protection of both Delta agriculture and the transfer of salt-free water to other areas of the State.

Initially, it was recognized that the CVP could operate its transfer facility out of the Delta by the construction of a Delta croBs-channel and pumps located near Tracy, and at the same time protect the Delta agricultural area. The CVP operated successfully that way for more~han 20 years alded by its upstream storage. ~lith the advent of the SVlP water planners recognized that the existing Delta channels would be inadequate to support the eventual increasing export demands of the CVP and the SWP and that some sort of an additional Delta facility would be required. Hence the inclusion of a Delta facility as part of the Burns-Porter Act which would protect both the Delta area itself and export pumpimg from sea-water intrusion.

Initially it was believed that the existing channels of the Delta could be altered to provide Delta area protection and increasing export demands. The boating, recreational, and fishery entitles violently objected to alteration of the Delta channels and hence, after much study and consultation the peripheral Canal concept was adopted a$ the best facility to meet the required objectives. The fishery entities were strongly in support of the Peripheral Canal.

The Pat Brown Administration strongly supported the peripheral Canal as the Delta Transfer Facility authori=ed under the BurnS-Porter Act. III fact, Bill Warne officially designated the canal as the Delta Facility under the authorizing act. The Reagan Administration also supported the Peripheral Canal although our studies at that time indioated it would not be needed for a number of years. III addition, the SWP was under stress due to a shortage of funds to complete the basio project. In order to insure its future oonstruction, however, I entered into an agreement with sam Nelson. the then State Transportation Director. to use borrow material from the peripheral Canal alignment to build the section of Interstate Highway 5 between Stockton ~nd sacramento. If one flies over the route of the Peripheral canal today you will observe sections of the Canal already exoavated. The Jerry Brown Administration whioh followed. while supporting the Peripheral Canal. made the tragic mistake of allowing it to become embroiled with the legislative log-rolling and the SUbject of unnecessary further legislation.

The referendUm on the legislation in 1982, which oontained the Peripheral Canal, also ino1uded a total of about 10 billions of dollars of other water projects, and was soundly defeated by the California electorate. Opponents of the canal argued that the referendUm was a repudiation on the Canal itself; I suspect it should have been more accurately described as a rejection of the expenditure of some 10 billions of dollars for questionable water projects. The Deukmejian Administration seemed not to be willing to confront the issue and verg little happened during its tenure.

I have been very disappointed recently in Governor Wilson's appointment of still another committee to look into the Delta transfer issue. The prospects of such a committee oontributing to our wealth of knowledge seems very minimal. The Governor's action seems to defer a politically sensitive issue to another entity until after the 1994 election. 1f the Ve1ta pumps create a problem for the Delta fishery. an isolated channel to the pump intakes is the obvious answer; hence the Peripheral Canal which is the answer arrived at some 25 gears ago and supported by three separate state administrations after long and detailed stUdies. What is really needed is a deoision to move ahead despite the political unpopularity and the heat which will be generated. Failure to do so could well result in the destruotion of both the CVP and the SWP with the resultant catastrophic economic impact upon the state.

-4-

The state water Project: has been plagued with prablems sillce its inception. It only exists because Pat Brawn believed it was important ta the "elf/lr~ af the State and he was h'i1ling ta use his palitical clout to enSure the passage of the Burns-parter Act. Ei'lch of tb", first three Directors .-ere dediC/lted to its completian so that the water /lnd financial integrity af the Project could be guaranteed in its initial phases. Maintaining the integrity of the project has been entrusted ta subsequent Administrations /lnd Directars.

In retrospect, I believe the prablems yau h/lve had to face i'lre more difficult thi'ln thase faced by Harvey Banks, Bill Ivarne or myself due to circumstances over which you have had na contral. The praject has last most af its political support and few people seem ta care whether or not the Project lives up ta its cantractual commitments made some 30 years ago. I have been disappointed that even the California water Commission has not been very aggressive in efforts to protect the Project.

I have alsa been greatly disturbed by the position of some of the urban areas of the state who seem to be 'teaming up' with ·the environmental groups to the detriment af the agrioultural water users of both the SWP and the CVP for, what appe/lrs to be, short-term gains. In the long rUn a12 water users of the State must align themselves together if its ecanamy is to survive and prosper.

David, I suspect the reason I've written this letter is two-fold. First, I'm greatly concerned about recent efforts ta blame the S"P and the CVP for all of the fishery problems in the Delta with the potential resultant impact of virtually shutting down the St/lte and Federal pumping plants to the detriment of the entire State. Secondly, many af us who have travelled same of your same paths are very appreciative of your efforts and dedication to the position of DWR Directar. The Governor and the State are indeed fortUnate to have you in your positiqn at this time - I hope they appreciate your effarts - no one else could do the jab.

Best regards,

~ William R. Gianelli

cc: Various Parties