(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Delta levees investigation"

A 2. 



^,L^^i>y- 



^n^ 



iti.:«*.-.=.;' ■-■■: i^v.-M-i, 5 



•^'^S'^^WaE^K-... 



^t*^ 




state of California 
The Resources Agency 

Department of 
Water Resources 




Delta Levees 
Investigation 



Bulletin 192-82 
December 1982 




ON THE COVER: Storm clouds hover about Mt. 
Diablo in the bacl<ground of this high-water 
scene depicting the northwest portion of the 
then recently flooded Webb Tract bordered by 
Franl<s Tract and the San Joaquin River This 
photo was taken February 22, 1 980, five weeks 
after the levee breaks on Holland and Webb 
Tracts and one day after the breaks on Prospect 
and Dead Horse Islands, During the period 
between February 16 and February 22, severe 
storms accompanied by 9-foot tides had 
occurred, and flood fight efforts were extended 
to several Delta islands. Fortunately a break in 
the weather on February 21 prevented 
predicted tides of 10 feet from occurring and 
possibly kept other vulnerable islands form 
being flooded. 



Department of 
Water Resources 
Bulletin 192-82 



Delta Levees 
Investigation 



December 1982 



Huey D. Johnson 

Secretary for Resources 



Edmund G. Brown Jr. 

Governor 



Ronald B. Robie 

Director 



The Resources 
Agency 



State of 
California 



Department of 
Water Resources 



FOREWORD 



The condition of Delta levees continues to worsen. As recently as November 30, 
1982, another inadequate levee failed. Such failures have occurred with 
increasing regularity in recent years . They occur during times of high flood 
water and even during the summer, as the gradually sinking Delta takes its toll 
on the fragile levees of yesteryear. 

In 1976 the Legislature directed the Department to prepare a plan for the 
preservation of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta levees. This report is in 
response to that directive — Chapter 1302, Statutes of 1976. In a joint 
effort with the Corps of Engineers, technical plans for restoration of all or 
part of the Delta levee system have now been prepared. Virtually all that can 
be done in terms of such feasibility studies has been done. 

Now is the time for decision. The most significant element in a decision on 
what action to take is how much can we afford and who will pay ? These ques- 
tions can only be answered by the Legislature, the local landowners, and the 
Congress. The potential cost is enormous. 

The bare bones Corps of Engineers flood control program to restore 200 miles of 
levees protecting 19 islands has an estimated cost of $450 million in today's 
prices. (Assuming a modest 6 percent inflation rate this will translate into 
$1.5 billion in actual outlay.) Adding the planned recreation and wildlife 
enhancement would Increase these costs by 16 to 20 percent, respectively. 

A complete rehabilitation of the Delta levee system would cost a staggering 
$3.4 billion at 6 percent inflation ($930 million at today's prices). Adding 
recreation and wildlife enhancement would increase costs by about 10 percent. 

To date there has been a limited willingness of local landowners, the direct 
beneficiaries of a levee improvement program, to pay. In addition, the Federal 
Government is proposing to increase the up-front cost sharing required from 
nonfederal sources, and has taken a greatly restrictive view of the federal 
responsibility for levee restoration. 

There is a danger that taking a short-term view of Delta flooding problems will 
merely pass the tough issues on to the next generation. Short-run economic 
decisions may serve to subsidize private interests at the expense of the 
general public. The great challenge in the Delta is to find an equitable way 
of financing a very uncertain long-term future. The political process is the 
traditional arena for handling these kinds of issues and is the right forum for 
the next step in Delta deliberations . 

These policy issues must be addressed today. In the event the Legislature 
determines that a major responsibility for levee restoration should fall upon 
the State, a bond issue or other form of capital financing must be developed 
and approved by the people. 



'Ronald B. Robie *" 
Director 



11% 



CONTENTS 

Page 

FOREWORD Ill 

ORGANIZATION xlv 

CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION xv 

CONVERSION FACTORS Inside Back Cover 

Chapter 1. SUMMARY AND FINDINGS 1 

Findings 3 

Background • ^ 

Levee Problems ...••••• 6 

Planning Precepts 6 

Alternative Levee Improvement Plans 10 

System Plan 11 

Modified System Plan 13 

Incremental Plan 15 

Cost Sharing and Financial Requirements 17 

No-Action Plan Alternative 19 

Policy Alternatives 21 

Legal and Institutional Matters 22 

Chapter 2. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES 25 

The Delta 26 

Basis for Study 28 

Scope of Study 29 

Conduct of Study 30 

Report Objectives « 30 



V 



Page 

Chapter 3. LEVEE PROBLEMS 35 

Reclaiming the Delta 35 

Soils 36 

Flood Protection 38 

Water Transportation and Water Quality 39 

Potential Short Term Problems 40 

Potential Long Term Problems 41 

Future Work 42 

Recreation 42 

Fish and Wildlife 42 

Causes or Potential Causes of Levee Failure 43 

Overtopping 43 

Structural Failure . 44 

Subsidence 45 

Seepage 45 

Rodent Burrows 45 

Erosion 46 

Seismicity . 46 

Levee Maintenance 48 

Levee Failure Evaluation 50 

Chapter 4. PLANNING AND DESIOI CONSIDERATIONS 53 

Project Purposes 54 

Design Considerations 54 

Levee Overtopping 54 

Freeboard 55 

Land Subsidence 55 

Seismicity 57 

Typical Levee Section 57 

Material Borrow Sites 58 

All-Weather Roads for Floodfight Access 58 

Erosion Control Methods 58 

Vegetation on Levees 60 

Assumptions for Economic Analysis 60 

Assumptions for Cost Sharing Analysis 63 



y^ 



Page 

Flood Control Costs 65 

Recreation and Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Costs . . 68 

Assumptions for Financial Analysis 68 

Legal and Institutional Matters 69 

Federal Participation 69 

Land Use Planning and Regulation 70 

Need To Limit State Liability 72 

Specific Alternative Concepts Evaluated 73 

Chapter 5. SYSTEM PLAN 75 

Flood Control Features 75 

Flood Control Costs 78 

Recreation Features 80 

Recreation Costs 80 

Recreation Benefits 80 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Features 82 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Costs 83 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Benefits 83 

Economics of the System Plan 84 

Construction Schedule and Expenditures 88 

Project Financing 96 

Proposed Cost Sharing Program 97 

Chapter 6. MODIFIED SYSTEM PLAN 101 

Flood Control Features 102 

Flood Control Costs 103 

Recreation Features 103 

Recreation Costs . . •; .- 103 

Recreation Benefits 106 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Features 106 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Costs 106 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Benefits 108 



y^^ 



Page 

Economics of the Modified System Plan 108 

Construction Schedule and Expenditures Ill 

Project Financing 118 

Proposed Cost Sharing Program 122 

Chapter 7. INCREMENTAL PLAN 123 

Flood Control Features 124 

Flood Control Costs 126 

Recreation Features 126 

Recreation Costs ..... 128 

Recreation Benefits 129 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Features 129 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Costs 129 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Benefits 129 

Economics of the Incremental Plan 130 

Construction Schedule and Expenditures 133 

Project Financing 138 

Proposed Cost Sharing Program 141 

Chapter 8. NO-ACTION PLAN ALTERNATIVE 143 

Background 143 

State and Federal Assistance Programs . . . • • • 143 

Agricultural Interests 145 

State and Federal Water Project Interests 147 

Other Interests 149 

Alternative Futures Without A Major 

Island Rehabilitation Project 149 

The Delta With Continued Restoration 150 

The Delta Without Continued Restoration 150 

Factors Affecting Reclamation of Flooded Islands .... 152 

Consequences of Permanent Flooding 154 

Levee Stability 155 

Fish and Wildlife 155 



y^^^ 



Page 
Chapter 9. ADDITIONAL LONG TERM PR0BLE^6 AND OPPORTUNITIES ... 159 

Buffer Zones 159 

Polders 159 

Permanent Flooding 162 



Appendix A. REAGAN ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED COST SHARING 

ON WATER PROJECTS 163 

Appendix B. ENABLING STATE LEGISLATION 195 

Appendix C. DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES COMMENTS ON 

U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT 

AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, 

SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA 203 



Figures 

1 Areas Flooded by Levee Stability Failure or 

Unintentional Overtopping, 1932-82 Facing Page 1 

2 Delta Levees Study Area 2 

3 Lower Land Surface Elevations — 1978 Topography 5 

4 Levee Rehabilitation Methods 9 

5 System Plan . 12 

6 Modified System Plan 14 

7 Incremental Plan 16 

8 Statutory Delta 27 

9 Delta Levees 31 

10 Thickness of Organic Soils 37 

11 Earthquake Epicenter and Fault Map 47 

12 Estimated Frequency of Levee Failure 

Under Present Conditions 51 



tj: 



Page 

13 Estimated Frequency of Levee Failure In Year 2020 .... 52 

14 Allocation of Capital Costs, Traditional Cost Sharing ... 66 

15 Allocation of Capital Costs, Proposed Cost Sharing .... 67 

16 System Plan 76 

17 System Plan Levees • 77 

18 Recreation Facilities 81 

19 Location of Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Areas 85 

20 Modified System Plan 104 

21 Modified System Plan Levees 105 

22 Incremental Plan 125 

23 Incremental Plan Levees 127 

24 Potential for Delta Area to Remain Flooded 153 

25 Projected Future Subsidence 161 

Tables 

1 Overview of Alternative Plans 10 

2 Comparison of Costs and Benefits 11 

3 Illustration of Possible Sharing of Capital Costs .... 17 

4 Capital Cost 18 

5 Estimated Bonding Requirement to Fund Non-Federal Costs . . 19 

6 Islands and Improvements, Delta Study Area .32 

7 Theoretical Depletion Times of Organic Soils 36 

8 Delta Levee Failures, 1950 Through 1982 39 

9 Statistical Frequency of Levee Failures per 100 Years ... 50 

10 Seismic Design Parameters, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta • . 59 

11 Synopsis of State Policy for Agricultural Lands and 

Flood Plain Management 70 



X 



Page 

12 System Plan, Summed Capital Costs and Operation and 
Maintenance Costs for Flood Control, by Island or Tract . • 79 

13 Costs of Recreation Features, System Plan 82 

14 Acreage and Costs of Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Features, 
System Plan 84 

15 Economic Summary, System Flan 86 

16 System Plan, Allocation of Summed Capital Costs, 

Traditional Cost Sharing 88 

17 System Plan, Allocation of Escalated Summed Capital Costs, 

by Participant, Traditional Cost Sharing 89 

18 Schedule of Total Project Costs, System Plan 90 

19 Schedule of Total Project Costs, System Plan, 

6 Percent Escalation Rate 91 

20 Schedule of Total Project Costs, System Plan, 

9 Percent Escalation Rate 92 

21 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, System Plan — 

Traditional Cost Sharing 93 

22 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, System Plan — 

Traditional Cost Sharing, 6 Percent Escalation Rate ... 94 

23 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, System Plan — 

Traditional Cost Sharing, 9 Percent Escalation Rate ... 95 

24 System Plan, Allocation of Repayment Obligation — 

Traditional Cost Sharing 96 

25 System Plan, Allocation of Island or Tract Repayment Obliga- 
tion and Operation and Maintenance Costs, Traditional Cost 
Sharing, 6 Percent Escalation / 9 Percent Bond Interest . . 98 

26 System Plan, Allocation of Island or Tract Repajrment Obliga- 
tion and Operation and Maintenance Costs, Traditional Cost 
Sharing, 9 Percent Escalation / 12 Percent Bond Interest . . 99 

27 Modified System Plan, Summed Capital Costs and Operation and 
Maintenance Costs for Flood Control, by Island or Tract . . 107 

28 Economic Summary, Modified System Plan 109 

29 Modified System Plan, Allocation of Summed Capital Costs 
Traditional Cost Sharing 110 



x^ 



Page 

30 Modified System Plan, Allocation of Escalated Summed Capital 
Costs, by Participant, Traditional Cost Sharing Ill 

31 Schedule of Total Project Costs, Modified System Plan . . . 113 

32 Schedule of Total Project Costs, Modified System Plan 

6 Percent Escalation Rate 114 

33 Schedule of Total Project Costs, Modified System Plan 

9 Percent Escalation Rate 115 

34 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, Modified System Plan — 
Traditional Cost Sharing 116 

35 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, Modified System Plan — 
Traditional Cost Sharing, 6 Percent Escalation Rate . . . 117 

36 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, Modified System Plan — 
Traditional Cost Sharing, 9 Percent Escalation Rate . . . 118 

37 Modified System Plan, Allocation of Repayment Obligation — 
Traditional Cost Sharing 119 

38 Modified System Plan, Allocation of Island or Tract Repayment 
Obligation and Operation and Maintenance Costs, Traditional 

Cost Sharing, 6 Percent Escalation/9 Percent Bond Interest . 120 

39 Modified System Plan, Allocation of Island or Tract Repayment 
Obligation and Operation and Maintenance Costs, Traditional 

Cost Sharing, 9 Percent Escalatlon/12 Percent Bond Interest . 121 

40 Incremental Plan, Summed Capital Costs and Operation and 
Maintenance Costs for Flood Control, by Island or Tract . . 128 

41 Economic Suimnary, Incremental Plan 131 

42 Incremental Plan, Allocation of Summed Capital Costs, 
Traditional Cost Sharing 132 

43 Incremental Plan, Allocation of Escalated Summed Capital 

Costs, by Participant, Traditional Cost Sharing 132 

44 Schedule of Total Project Costs, Incremental Plan .... 133 

45 Schedule of Total Project Costs, Incremental Plan, 

6 Percent Escalation Rate 134 

46 Schedule of Total Project Costs, Incremental Plan, 

9 Percent Escalation Rate 135 

47 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, Incremental Plan 

Traditional Cost Sharing 136 



x^^ 



Page 

48 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, Incremental Plan, 

Traditional Cost Sharing, 6 Percent Escalation Rate . . . 137 

49 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, Incremental Plan, 

Traditional Cost Sharing, 9 Percent Escalation Rate . . . 138 

50 Incremental Plan, Allocation of Repayment Obligation — 
Traditional Cost Sharing 139 

51 Incremental Plan, Allocation of Island or Tract Repayment 
Obligation and Operation and Maintenance Costs, Traditional 

Cost Sharing, 6 Percent Escalation/9 Percent Bond Interest . 140 

52 Incremental Plan, Allocation of Island or Tract Repayment 
Obligation and Operation and Maintenance Costs, Traditional 

Cost Sharing, 9 Percent Escalation/12 Percent Bond Interest . 140 

53 Delta Islands Valuation Estimate, July 1980 147 

54 Average Annual Without-Project Damages, 

Without Peripheral Canal 151 

55 Potential for Delta Areas to Remain Flooded 154 

56 Projected Future Maximum Subsidence 160 



Copies of this bulletin at $5.00 each may be ordered from: 
State of California 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 
P.O. Box 388 
Sacramento, California 95802 

Make checks payable to STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
California residents add sales tax. 



x^^^ 



State of California 
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., GOVERNOR 

The Resources Agency 
HUEY D. JOHNSON, Secretary for Resources 

Department of Water Resources 
RONALD B. ROBIE, Director 



CHARLES R. SHOEMAKER 
Deputy Director 

MARY ANNE MARK 
Deputy Director 



M. CATHARINE BERGREN 
Assistant Director 



ROBERT W. JAMES 
Deputy Director 



GERALD H. ^ERAL 
Deputy Director 



This bulletin was prepared imder the guidance of a task force 
comprised of a Steering Committee and a Work Group 



Wayne MacRostie 
Larry Mullnlx 



Lee Carter 
Don Flnlayson 



Steering Committee 
John McClurg, Chair 

Work Group 

John McClurg, Chair 

Russell Franson 

Ray Hoagland 



Robert Potter 
Robert Whiting 



Bruce Raymond 
Maurice Roos 



and is based on work done by the Central District 

Wayne MacRostie, District Chief 
Kenneth Woodward, Chief, Planning Office 
Lee Carter, Chief, Waterways Management Branch 



Program Management 



Russell Franson 



Walter Terry 



Carroll Evans 
Charles Kearney 

Economics 

Ray Hoagland 
Ron Land Ingham 



Sylvia Blake 
Pamela Casselman 



Engineering 



Ed Lawler 
Dave Lawson 



Robert Manning 
Robert Newton 



Land Appraisal 
Richard Markee 

Drafting, Editing, and Typing 



Vera Doherty 
Harry Inouye 



Elaine Jennings 
Cathy Korff 



Steve Peterson 
Richard Wada 

Geology 

Carl Hauge 
George Newmarch 



Marilyn Manning 
Brent Welch 



XXV 



State of California 

Department of Water Resources 

CALIFORNIA WATER COMMISSION 



SCOTT E. FRANKLIN, Chairperson, Newhall 
ALEXANDRA C. STILLMAN, Vice Chairperson, Stockton 



Thomas K. Beard Stockton 

Roy E. Dodson San Diego 

Daniel M. Dooley Vlsalla 

Harrison C. Dunning Davis 

Merrill R. Goodall Claremont 

Donald L. Hayashl .... San Francisco 

Charlene H. Orszag Sherman Oaks 



Orvllle L. Abbott 
Executive Officer and Chief Engineer 



Tom Y. Fujimoto 
Assistant Executive Officer 



The California Water Commission serves as a policy advisory body to the 
Director of Water Resources on all California water resources matters. The 
nine-member citizen commission provides a vrater resources forum for the 
people of the State, acts as a liaison between the legislative and executive 
branches of State Government, and coordinates Federal, State, and local 
water resources efforts. 



XV 



FIGURE 1 




80 YEAR FLOODED 

HHH NOT RECLAIMED 



AREAS FLOODED BY LEVEE 

STABILITY FAILURE OR 

UNINTENTIONAL OVERTOPPING 

1932-1982 



Chapter 1. SUMMARY AND FINDINGS 



On August 23, 1982, as technical studies 
for this bulletin were nearlng comple- 
tion, the levee protecting McDonald 
Island collapsed, forcing evacuation of 
more than 100 people and flooding 
6,100 acres of farm land. While there 
was no loss of life, three people — one 
a 9-year old girl — had to swim for 
their lives after an 8-foot wall of 
water gushed through the break, forcing 
them from their mobile home.* Scores of 
other people, nearly all farm workers, 
took refuge on roofs of buildings . 
Damage was estimated at $7.8 million and 
the cost to repair the levee and dewater 
the island was estimated at 
$13.5 million. On November 30, 1982, 
just prior to completion of this 
bulletin, the levee on Venice Island 
also failed, flooding 3,200 acres of 
agricultural land. 

These failures are not rare occurrences. 
Maintaining the fragile Delta levees has 
been a continuing problem since they 
were first built to reclaim the fertile 
Delta soils so they could be farmed. 
Since original reclamation, each of the 
70 islands and tracts in the statutory 
Delta has been flooded at least once. 
Even since 1930 some islands have flood- 
ed several times, as shown in Figure 1. 
About 100 failures have occurred since 
the early 1890s. With only three 
exceptions — Big Break, Franks Tract, 
and Lower Sherman Island — flooded 
islands have been restored. In some 
cases, the cost of repairs exceeded the 
appraised value of the island. Whether 
restoration of all flooded islands will 
continue is unknown. 

There are two general designations of 
levees in the Delta. Where the 



Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers enter 
the Delta, the levees along those rivers 
have been either built, rebuilt, or 
adopted as federal flood control project 
levees. These "project" levees are 
maintained to U. S. Army Corps of 
Engineers standards, and generally 
provide adequate protection now. The 
levees in the central Delta are mostly 
"nonproject" levees, constructed and 
maintained over a long period by private 
interests or local reclamation 
districts . 

Since 1950, floodings have occurred on 
17 Islands and tracts, mostly involving 
nonproject levees in the central Delta. 
Two islands flooded twice during that 
period. Twice as many floodings were 
caused by structural failure as by 
overtopping from the combination of high 
tides, winds and floodflows. As on 
McDonald Island, these structural 
failures were caused by the unstable 
nature of the organic Delta soils that 
comprise the levee and its foundation, 
and the accompanying subsidence of 
island land surfaces . 

This bulletin examines the problems, 
feasibility, and costs of upgrading the 
537 miles of nonproject levees protect- 
ing 56 islands and tracts** in the Delta 
study area (Figure 2) as a means of 
reducing the frequency of flooding and 
attendant damage, and preserving the 
physical configuration of the Delta — a 
formal legislative objective as spelled 
out in the California Water Code. As an 
illustration of the magnitudes of this 
task, consider that, placed end-to-end, 
these nonproject levees would stretch 
the airline distance from Oroville to 
Mexico . 



* Sacramento Bee, August 24, 1982. 

** There are 60 named islands and tracts in the study area, but two do not have 

levees and two (Reclamatiori District 17 and Stewart Tract) have only project 

levees . 



FIGURE 2 




BOUNDARV OF THE SACRAMENTO- SAN JOAQUIN DELTA 
(SECTION 12220 OF THE WATER CODE) 

// 

STIJOY AREA 



DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 
CENTRAL DISTRICT 

DELTA LEVEES STUDY AREA 



Findings 

° The complexity of the problems and the uncertainties inherent in all levee 
rehabilitation plans examined should not be minimized. 

° Continued subsidence of Delta islands suggests that the objective of continuing the 
present configuration of the Delta indefinitely is problematical. 

° With or without a major reconstruction project, a long run view suggests that some 
permanent flooding may be inevitable. 

° The economics of the Delta suggest that without substantial federal assistance in 
either reconstructing levees or reclaiming flooded islands, the efforts of other 
public and private parties with an interest in the Delta will not preserve the Delta. 

" Physical measures are available that will decrease the frequency of Delta levee 
failures, but future levee failures are inevitable. 

° The potential damage that would be incurred through loss of the present Delta is 
high, but the costs of preserving the entire Delta in its present configuration for 
50 years is also high ($3.4 billion assuming a 6 percent inflation rate). Adding 
planned recreation and wildlife enhancement features would increase the cost to about 
$3.7 billion. Finding an equitable and acceptable cost sharing formula and financing 
are heretofore insurmountable hurdles that must be overcome if a program to upgrade 
Delta levees is to be implemented. 

° The cost of saving the Delta exceeds the willingness of agricultural landowners, the 
primary beneficiaries, to pay. But, there are other project beneficiaries, including 
urban landowners, land oriented recreationists, boaters. State and Federal water 
projects, water utilities, railroads, oil and gas companies. State and county roads 
and the fishing and hunting industry who utilize the Delta in one way or another. 

° It is not completely clear, however, that benefits to all of these beneficiaries in 
combination can justify rehabilitation of levees on all Delta islands. Many of the 
beneficiaries have alternatives for protecting their interests that do not require 
islands to remain unflooded, and these alternatives limit their financial interests 
in a levee improvement program. 

° Because of the high cost of an uncertainty surrounding upgrading levees of individual 
islands, the Legislature may determine that a less costly levee restoration program 
involving fewer islands or the use of polders is appropriate for the Delta study 
area. 

° Plans that would allow some Delta islands to remain flooded after a levee failure 
could increase the maintenance cost, and possibly the failure rate, of the remaining 
levees because of increased wind-driven wave erosion and increased seepage from 
adjacent flooded islands. 

° The voters' rejection of Proposition 9, which would have given the go-ahead for 
construction of the Peripheral Canal, adds one more complication -- the problem of a 
Delta water transfer facility should be solved and coordinated with a solution to the 
Delta levee problems. 

° If the State is to provide financial assistance to a Delta levee improvement program, 
legislation to limit State liability must be enacted. 

° If the State is to participate in a Delta levee improvement program, public 
recreation facilities, mitigation of fish and wildlife losses, and wildlife 
enhancement features must be included. 

° With or without levee upgrading, the Delta islands are below sea level and will 
remain vulnerable to flooding. Proper use of Delta flood plains requires land use 
regulations that are cognizant of conditions that could result in loss of life or 
damage to public and private structures, and restrain urban encroachment on 
agricultural lands. 



Background 

The statutory Delta (Water Code 
Section 12220) encompasses 550,000 acres 
of prime agricultural land, about half 
of which is in the central Delta. 
Industrial areas already exist or have 
been zoned — mostly around the outer 
fringes of the Delta — in each of five 
Delta counties. Twelve of the 
60 islands and tracts in the study area 
have towns or other urban developments . 

Delta study area waterways meander among 
the 60 islands and tracts, many of which 
have subsided over the years so that 
some are now between 15 and 20 feet 
below sea level (see Figure 3). 
Continued oxidation and other losses of 
peat soils could theoretically result in 
25 feet of additional subsidence in the 
western and central Delta. These 
lowland areas are protected from high 
tides and floodflows by the extensive 
system of levees. Delta farms on the 
Islands are irrigated with water drawn 
from these waterways and from 
subirrigation via rising ground water. 
The Delta levees, adjacent farm lands, 
and about 800 small nonleveed "tule" 
Islands provide habitat for numerous 
wildlife species. The estuarine 
waterways provide a unique habitat for 
California's largest and most diverse 
fishery, and they have become one of 
California's major recreation areas, 
with fishing and boating being the major 
attractions . 

The Delta waterways also serve as 
conduits to transport water of the 
federal Central Valley Project and the 
California State Water Project across 
the Delta for export to water deficient 
areas to the west and south of the 
Delta. Under State law. Delta water 
requirements for all reasonable 
beneficial purposes must be met before 



any water can be exported by these two 
projects. Because the Delta is subject 
to ocean salinity intrusion by tidal 
action through San Francisco Bay, these 
projects must make reservoir releases to 
augment Delta outflow during low flow 
periods to repel the salt water so as to 
protect the quality of local and export 
water supplies. As a condition of water 
rights permits, the State Water 
Resources Control Board has set salinity 
standards for many Delta locations which 
must be met by operation of the State 
Water Project and the federal Central 
Valley Project. 

The future of the Delta depends heavily 
on the extent to which the levees are 
maintained. The California Legislature, 
in 1973, declared that the physical 
characteristics of the Delta should be 
maintained essentially in their present 
form. 

In 1976, the Legislature adopted the 
conceptual plan for improving nonproject 
levees, presented in Bulletin 192,* at 
an estimated capital cost of 
$128 million (1974 prices). In this 
same legislation, the Department of 
Water Resoj^rces was requested to study 
and make recommendations concerning 
construction, cost sharing, land use, 
zoning, flood control and related 
recreation, fish and wildlife 
habitat, and esthetic values. The 
Legislature also directed the Executive 
Branch to request the Corps of Engineers 
to resume its earlier investigation for 
improving Delta levees in cooperation 
with affected State and local agencies. 

These actions led to a cooperative study 
by the Department and the Corps of 
Engineers that forms the basis for this 
bulletin. The Corps has prepared a 
separate draft report, which contains 
detailed technical data and analyses and 



* Department of Water Resources Bulletin 192 "Plan for Improvement of the Delta 
Levees", May 1975. 



FIGURE 3 




LOWER LAND SURFACE 
ELEVATIONS - 1978 TOPOGRAPHY 

ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN FEET 

MEAN SEA LEVEL DATUM 

(NGVD OF 1929) 



KILOMETRES 



recommends the extent of federal 
Interest in upgrading Delta levees. 

Levee Problems 



Delta soils are typically organic or 
mineral, or a combination of both. In 
the heart of the Delta, many of the 
levees were constructed of (or founded 
on) these peaty, organic soils. While 
these soils are well suited for growing 
crops, they are not well suited for 
construction of earthen embankments. 
These peaty soils have low density, 
are highly compressible, and are 
structurally weak. They are also 
susceptible to oxidation, wind erosion, 
and burning, which has led to continual 
subsidence of the levees and the island 
land surfaces . 

As the land surface of islands with 
peaty soils subside, the water pressure 
on (and seepage through or under) the 
levees increases, frequently resulting 
in levee instability and failure. 

Waterside slopes of levees are subject 
to erosion from wind-generated waves, 
boat wakes, and flowing water of high 
velocity. Under some conditions, 
certain types of vegetation on levee 
slopes can help slow erosion; under 
other conditions, continual wave action 
at normal water surfaces undercuts 
vegetation at the water line, resulting 
in progressive caving that eats into the 
levees . 

Maintenance of nonproject levees is the 
responsibility of individual districts 
and landowners for each island and 
tract, and does not conform to uniform 
standards. By comparison with Corps of 
Engineers standards for project levees, 
maintenance on nonproject levees is not 
adequate. 

In a special inspection of nonproject 
levees around 52 islands in October 
1980, the Department of Water Resources 
rated 4 "very poor", 28 "poor", and 
20 "fair". More than 500 problem sites 



were identified. Dense stands of 
bamboo, blackberry vines, etc., on about 
25 percent of the levees precluded 
visual inspection, making it impossible 
to detect and repair erosion, caving, 
or rodent burrows that weaken the 
levees . 

In the future if levees that fail are 
not repaired, large areas in the Delta 
could become open water surfaces like 
Franks Tract, Big Break, and Lower 
Sherman Island. In these cases, 
portions of the levees have mostly 
washed away, causing the flooded islands 
to become part of the open water surface 
of the estuary. Much of the destruction 
of these former levees was caused by 
wind-wave action on the unprotected 
interior levee slopes. 

Flooded islands could provide increased 
fishery habitat and water surface for 
recreation. 

There could also be other impacts. 
These, depending on the islands that 
flooded, include: 

° Increased erosion from wind-driven 
waves and increased seepage on 
adjacent islands. 

" Loss of agricultural production and 
farmsteads. 

" Loss of wildlife food and habitat. 

" On some islands, damage to urban 
settlements . 

" Disruption of highways, railroads, and 
utilities. 

° Loss of fresh water by increased 

evaporation (and in some cases require 
additional Delta outflow to repel salt 
water intrusion). 



Planning Precepts 

Levee rehabilitation plans discussed in 
this bulletin are mainly based on the 



premise that the Delta is to be pre- 
served in its present configuration by 
improving and maintaining existing Delta 
levees in response to legislative 
policy. 

Although not evaluated in this bulletin, 
in previous investigations, the 
Department has considered enclosing 
groups of islands to form large polders. 
Polder levees would reduce the length of 
levee needed to protect a group of 
islands, and would also exclude tidal 
action and floodflows from the 
closed-off channels. Because there is 
concern that the separate islands of the 
Delta cannot be maintained in 
perpetuity, the Legislature may modify 
its policy of maintaining the present 
configuration over the long term. With 
this in mind and with careful planning, 
polders could perhaps be phased in over 
a period of 30 to 50 years. 

During this coordinated study, planning 
considerations have focused on the 
degree of protection to be sought and 
the physical approach for improving the 
levees . It was concluded that in most 
cases levees should be high enough to 
protect against overtopping by flood 
stages with an average recurrence 
interval of once in 300 years . In 
addition, the minimum freeboard to 
withstand wind-generated waves and 
contingency factors like higher than 
anticipated tides should be 1.5 feet for 
levees protecting agricultural land, and 
3 feet for levees protecting urban 
areas . 

Because of the Delta's inherently poor 
foundation conditions, however, this 
should not be interpreted as reducing 
the levee failure rate to 
once-in-300 years . I'Jhile levee 
rehabilitation will greatly reduce the 
frequency of flooding below that of the 
no-action alternative, the 
below-sea-level islands will always 
remain vulnerable to flooding. 

A typical Improved levee section, as 
shown in Figure 4, would have a 16-foot 
crown width with a waterside slope of 



1 vertical on 2 horizontal, and a 
landside slope of 1 vertical on 
3 horizontal. Landside berms would be 
constructed where necessary to help 
provide stability for the weak, highly 
compressible peat foundations. Slopes 
on the landside berms may have to be as 
flat as 1 vertical on 15 horizontal. In 
the deep peat areas, staged construc- 
tion, consisting of periodic raising of 
the levee crowns, backslope, and 
landside berm, would be required to 
compensate for continuing subsidence. 

In some places, construction of levees 
on a new alignment (levee setback) was 
assumed as the method to protect areas 
of high environmental value or to avoid 
reaches of unstable levee. These levees 
would have a 12-foot crown width and 
slopes of 1 vertical on 2 horizontal on 
both the landside and waterside. On 
Bethel Island and Hotchkiss Tract, flood 
walls (sheet piles driven at the water- 
side levee crown) would be used to avoid 
extensive relocation of houses and other 
improvements that have encroached on 
existing levees. 

Because of a general scarcity of 
suitable construction material within 
the Delta, it was assumed that a 
significant portion of the 55 million 
cubic yards of embankment material 
required to rehabilitate the nonproject 
levees would be imported from sources 
within 50 miles of the Delta. 

A levee improvement project would 
substantially reduce the frequency of 
levee failures. Less frequent failures 
would, in turn, result in benefits due 
to reduction in flood damage, salinity 
Impairment of water supplies, and 
floodfight costs. 

The Corps of Engineers estimated the 
economics of the alternative projects by 
comparing benefits and costs (expressed 
in terms of prices prevailing in 1981) 
over a 50-year period of analysis and 
using a discount rate of 7-5/8 percent. 
This analysis was based on the differ- 
ence in damage, costs, and economic 
output with and without the levee 



Improvement project. The without- 
project conditions* used by the 
Corps of Engineers assumed that the 
Peripheral Canal would be in place and 
that flooded islands would continue to 
be restored after a levee break, just as 
they have been after 97 of the last 
100 island floodings. (The fate of 
Venice Island, which flooded as a result 
of levee failure on November 30, 1982, 
had not been decided in time for 
inclusion in this bulletin.) 

Because of voter rejection of 
Proposition 9 in June 1982, the 
Department of Water Resources modified 
the Corps of Engineers' analysis to 
illustrate costs and benefits for this 
bulletin, assuming that the Peripheral 
Canal would not be built . (The effects 
of other new facilities for conveying 
water across the Delta were not 
considered in this study. However, it 
is recognized that the Delta levee 
program and a Delta water transport 
project will need to be coordinated.) 

The Department retained the Corps' 
"continued island restoration" 
assumption. For illustrating possible 
State and local cost sharing of 
non-federal costs, however, the 
Department also found it necessary to 
modify the Corps' estimates of water 
quality and supply benefits to more 
nearly reflect the Impact on 
affected water supplies. The 
modifications Included the recognition 
that water lost in the short term while 
the island was flooded would be 
recovered when the island was pumped 
out, and that under State Water 
Resources Control Board Decision 1485, 
the salt water would often be farther 
west of the Delta for a summer levee 
break than it was in 1972 when Andrus 
and Brannan Islands flooded. (The 
Andrus-Brannan flood was used by the 



Corps as a bases for computing water 
quality - water supply benefits.) 

Flood control costs and benefits are 
sensitive to the assumptions regarding 
the without-project conditions. These 
assumptions affect the degree of 
economic justification for the 
alternative plans considered, including 
the number of islands that would be 
included under two of the plans. In 
recognition of this fact, the Corps' 
draft report states that: 

"The ultimate number of islands and 
tracts which would receive (federal) 
flood control Improvements would be 
dependent on the results of post- 
authorization studies including 
reevaluation of the without project 
conditions ." 

This joint study also assumed that land 
use management would be a local 
obligation and responsibility to prevent 
project-induced urban development on 
agricultural lands within the project 
area. Future development on islands 
that already have urban developments 
would have to be consistent with city 
and county General Plans and be limited 
to areas incapable of sustained economic 
agricultural production. 

Another premise was that local entitles 
would hold the United States free and 
harmless from any damages arising from 
construction and operation of a federal 
levee improvement project. An addi- 
tional premise was that the Legislature 
would enact laws to limit State liabil- 
ity to prevent a project beneficiary 
from recovering damages from the State 
as a result of future levee failures 
simply because the State had agreed to 
participate in a levee improvement 
project to reduce the ever-increasing 
risk of levee failure in the Delta. 



* The ramifications of other without- project possibilities are discussed later in 
this chapter and in Chapters 4 through 8. 



FIGURE 4 



High Water 

V 



Embankment Stages 
Ostages shown) 




Displacement During 
Stage Construction Period 



STAGE CONSTRUCTION 



NOT TO SCALE 



High Water 
V 





"-^ 



Excavated Trench 



LEVEE SETBACK 
NOT TO SCALE 







^^^"Concrete Cap 


High Water 


t 
Freeboard 
♦ 






-T^^ z^ - 


..^^ 


Peal Varies to 50 


Foundation Soil 
(Sand /Silt) 


"^ 


« — Depth varies 



"Existing Levee 

(Height varies 
10' to 25') 



~7^ 



SHEET PILE 
NOT TO SCALE 



LEVEE REHABILITATION METHODS 



9 



Alternative Levee 
Improvement Plans 

Specific flood control plans were 
formulated under one of two concepts: 

" That the Delta is a system of 

interdependent islands and tracts. 

° That each Delta island and tract is 
essentially independent of all other 
islands and tracts. 

Under the first concept, the Delta and 
the economics of a levee Improvement 
plan are considered as a single system 
because the Delta is characterized as 
having many interrelated problems that 
are largely inseparable. Under the 
second concept, the individual charac- 
teristics and problems of each island 
and tract are considered separately in 
determining economic justification of 
a levee improvement project . 

Application of the first concept 
resulted in the System and Modified 



System Plans, and the second concept in 
the Incremental Plan. In addition to 
levee improvement, each of these three 
plans includes public recreation and 
wildlife enhancement features. 

Table 1 presents an overview of the 
treatment of the islands, tracts, and 
levees in the study area under each of 
the three alternative levee improvement 
plans. Table 2 is a summary comparison 
of costs and benefits at 1981 price 
levels. It includes data with and 
without the Peripheral Canal to facili- 
tate tracking with the Corps' draft 
report. Because of inflation, these 
cost estimates are much less than the 
probable costs at the time they would be 
incurred if Congress and the California 
Legislature authorize implementation of 
a levee improvement plan. For this 
reason. Chapters 5, 6, and 7 also 
contain tables of escalated costs. 
Because the rate of inflation cannot be 
predicted with any degree of certainty, 
these escalated costs were made for both 
6 percent and 9 percent rates. A brief 



Table 1 



OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS* 







Svstem Plan 


Modified 


Svstem Plan 


Incremental Plan 


Action 


Number of 

Islands and 

Tracts 

Affected 

47 


Miles of 
Nonproject 
Levees 


Number of 
Islands and 

Tracts 
Affected 

41 


Miles of 
Nonproject 
Levees 


Number of 

Islands and 

Tracts 

Affected 

19 


Miles of 
Nonproject 
Levees 


Extensive Upgrading of 
Nonproject Levees 


444 


400 


205 


Minimum Improvement of 
Nonproject Levees 


6 




73 














No Upgrading of 
Nonproject Levees 










12 


117 


34 


312 


Conversion of Islands and Tracts 
to Wildlife Management Areas 


5 




20 


5 


20 


5 


20 


Islands and Tracts Already 
Protected by Project Levees** 


Z 







2 





2 





Study Area Totals 


60 




537 


60 

^ . 1 


537 

K . .- _ •, f Ti — 


60 

2 -I ■!.. 1 


537 



* Assuming no Peripheral Canal. Under the Corps of Engineers assumption ot the Keripnerai tanai in piace, oniy jd isianui a..u 
tracts under the Modified System Plan and 15 islands and tracts under the Incremental Plan would have nonproject levees 
upgraded. Thus, islands and tracts with levees that would not be upgraded would be increased to 17 and 38, respectively. 

** The draft Corps report excludes Reclamation District 17; this bulletin excludes both Reclamation District 17 and Stewart iract 



MIC UratL V,Uip3 ICpUl^. C/M-IUVJ^i^ r\E\.IUIIIUblull flJbi 1^1. ■!» 

because both are protected exclusively by project levees 



10 



Table 2 



COMPARISON OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 
(In Minions of Dollars at 1981 Prices) 



Item 




With 


Peripheral Canal 




Without Peripheral Canal 


System Plan 




Modified 
System Plan 


Increment 
Plan 


il 


System Plan» 


Modified 
System Plan 


Incremental 
Plan 


CAPITAL COST 








Flood Control^ 

Recreation 

Wildlife Enhancement 




910 
40 
57 




608 
40 
57 


326 
40 
49 




931 
40 

57 


732 
40 
57 


448 
40 
49 


Totals 




1.007 




705 


415 




1,028 


829 


537 


ANNUAL COSTS' 




















Flood Control 

Recreation 

Mildllfe Enhancement 




60.9 
4.0 
3.9 




39.8 
4.0 
3.9 


20.9 
4.0 
3.2 




61.0 
4.0 
3.9 


48.8 
4.0 
3.9 


28.6 
4.0 
3.2 


Totals 




68.8 




47.7 


28.1 




68.9 


56.7 


35.8 


ANNUAL BENEFITS 




















Flood Control"* 

Recreation 

Wildlife Enhancement 




51.9 

13.1 

8.1 




43.9 

13.1 

8.1 


32.6 

13.1 

8.1 




62.1 

13.1 
8.1 


57.1 

13.1 

8.1 


46.1 

13.1 
8.1 


Totals 




73.1 




65.1 


53.8 




83.3 ' 


78.3 


67.3 


BENEFIT-COST RATIOS 




















Flood Control 

Recreation 

Wildlife Enhancement 




0.9:1 
3.3:1 
2.1:1 




1.1:1 
3.3:1 
2.1:1 


1.6:1 
3.3:1 
2.5:1 




1.0:1 
3.3:1 
2.1:1 


1.2:1 
3.3:1 
2.1:1 


1.6:1 
3.3:1 
2.5:1 


Total Project 




1.1:1 




1.4:1 


1.9:1 




1.2:1 


1.4:1 


1.9:1 


'Excludes Stewart Tract because the tract Is already protected by project levees. 
2 Includes both initial and future stage construction cost plus fish and wildlife mitigation costs. 
3 Includes operation and maintenance costs plus amortization of capital costs at 7-5/8 percent over 50 years. 
"•Benefits include reduction of Inundation damage, floodflght expenditures, and salinity impairment of water 
to less frequent levee failures, as estimated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 


supplies due 


1 



summary of these levee improvement 
alternatives and the no-action plan 
alternatives is presented In the 
following sections. 



System Plan 

Of the alternative plans considered, the 
System Plan is the most extensive and 
most nearly meets objective of 
preserving the Delta in its present 
configuration . 

Under the System Plan, depicted by the 
shaded area on Figure 5, 47 islands and 



tracts, with 444 miles of nonproject 
levees, would be rehabilitated and 
extensively upgraded. Six islands and 
tracts, with 73 miles of nearly adequate 
nonproject levees, would require only 
minimum Improvements, and five small 
islands, 3,450 acres with only 20 miles 
of nonproject levees but with highly 
diversified habitat, would be set aside 
for wildlife management areas. In 
addition, wildlife enhancement features 
would include about 1,000 acres of 
upland and riparian habitat in levee 
setback areas and about 1,500 acres of 
channel tule islands. New recreation 
facilities, to be provided at 45 sites 



11 



FIGURE 5 




: ISLANDS INCLUDED IN 
,,,,} CORPS INCREMENTAL 
W//. FLOOD CONTROL PLAN 



ST»TE OF C4LIF0BNH 
TH£ RESOURCES AOENC 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

CENTRAL OtSTRICT 

SYSTEM PLAN 




12 



throughout the Delta, would consist of 
14 recreation areas, 23 fishing access 
sites, 8 boater destination sites, and 
145 miles of trails. 

The System Plan would substantially 
reduce the frequency of failure of most 
nonproject levees and attendant damages 
on the islands and tracts they protect. 
It would also increase recreation 
opportunities and provide wildlife 
enhancement. Using Corps of Engineers 
estimates, the capital cost would be 
about $3.7 billion assuming a conserva- 
tive inflation rate of 6 percent per 
year ($1 billion, based on 1981 prices). 
The estimated annual cost of operation 
and maintenance is $3.4 million at 1981 
prices. Under the Corps' "with 
Peripheral Canal" and "continued restor- 
ation of flooded islands" assumptions, 
the plan has an overall benefit-cost 
ratio of 1.1 to 1. "Without the 
Peripheral Canal" the benefit-cost ratio 
would be 1.2 to 1. Also, while not 
shown in Table 2, The Corps' sensitivity 
analysis shows that the plan would have 
a benefit-cost ratio of 1.5 to 1 without 
the Peripheral Canal and without island 
restoration as a base condition. 
Chapter 5 contains a more detailed 
discussion of the features, costs, 
benefits, and financial requirements. 



Modified System Plan 

While the System Plan has an overall 
computed benefit-cost ratio of 1.1 to 1, 
the benefit-cost ratio for the flood 
control features alone is only 0.9 to 1, 
as estimated by the Corps (refer to 
Table 2). This fact led to the Modified 
System Plan; a plan that is economically 
justified under the Corps' assumptions 
from a flood control standpoint. Under 
this plan, six islands were eliminated 
because the cost of levee improvements 
far exceeds the flood control benefits 
or for other reasons such as landowners 
expressed desire to be excluded. Also 
dropped from the plan were six islands 
and tracts that would require only 
minimum effort to provide adequate 



levees, assuming that this work could be 
accomplished by non-federal interests. 
The latter group, while dropped from the 
plan, would probably remain as viable 
units of the Delta. 

Under the Modified System Plan (without 
the Peripheral Canal), as depicted by 
the shaded areas on Figure 6, 41 islands 
and tracts, with 400 miles of nonproject 
levees that protect about 205,000 acres, 
would be upgraded. Under the Corps of 
Engineers assumption of the Peripheral 
Canal being in place, levees protecting 
only 36 islands and tracts would be 
upgraded in the Modified System Plan. 
It is emphasized, however, that the 
Corps' analysis is for the purpose of 
illustrating concepts rather than 
defining a specific plan. 

This plan would have the same recreation 
and wildlife features as the System 
Plan and would set aside five small 
islands as wildlife management areas. 
The Corps used the same recreation and 
wildlife enhancement features as for the 
System Plan because recreation and wild- 
life plans are essentially separable 
from the levee improvement plans and are 
considered economically justified in 
their own right. 

The 12 islands and tracts with 117 miles 
of nonproject levees not included for 
rehabilitation would continue to be 
maintained to various local standards. 
Under a proposal presented in the Corps' 
draft feasibility report, if these 
excluded levees were improved by 
non-federal interests to a federal 
standard for flood control, they would 
then qualify for consideration for 
emergency repairs vmder Public 
Law 84-99. Such improvements would be 
expensive, however. 

The Modified System Plan would reduce 
the frequency of levee failure for 
roughly two-thirds of the islands and 
tracts with nonproject levees, and it 
would provide essentially the same 
recreation opportunities and wildlife 
enhancement as would the System Plan. 



13 



FIGURE 6 




KILOMETRES 



14 



It has an estimated capital cost of 
about $3 billion, assuming an inflation 
rate of 6 percent per year ($829 mil- 
lion, at 1981 prices). Annual operation 
and maintenance costs would be about 
$2.6 million at 1981 prices. The over- 
all benefit-cost ratio is 1.4 to 1 
without the Peripheral Canal (refer to 
Table 2). The flood control elements of 
the plan, taken as a whole, would have a 
benefit-cost ratio of 1.2 to 1. From 
the Corps' sensitivity analysis, assum- 
ing as a base condition no Peripheral 
Canal and without island restoration, 
the overall benefit-cost ratio would be 
1.8 to 1, and for the flood control 
element as a whole 1.7 to 1 (not shown 
in Table 2). Chapter 6 contains a more 
detailed description and discussion of 
the Modified System Plan. 



Incremental Plan 

Even though the flood control features 
of the Modified System Plan are 
economically justified as a unit, some 
of the individual islands and tracts 
included for levee improvement had a 
benefit-cost ratio of less than 1 to 1. 
This led to consideration of the Incre- 
mental Plan, depicted by the shaded area 
on Figure 7, wherein each island and 
tract must have a flood control benefit- 
cost ratio of at least 1 to 1 to be 
included in the plan. Thus, for eco- 
nomic analysis of this plan each island 
and tract is considered independent of 
all others. 

Under the Incremental Plan, 205 miles 
of nonproject levees that protect 
19 islands and tracts, totaling about 
137,000 acres, would be rehabilitated. 
Under the Corps of Engineers assumption 
of the Peripheral Canal being in place, 
only 15 islands would have their levees 
upgraded under the Incremental Plan. 
Again, the number of islands and tracts 
to be included is not definite but would 
depend on post-authorization studies. 
Furthermore, the Corps' draft report 
indicates that if levees not included in 
the Plan were improved by non-federal 



interests to a federal standard for 
flood control, they would then qualify 
for consideration for emergency repairs 
under Public Law 84-99. Such improve- 
ments would be very expensive, however. 

The Incremental Plan would have the same 
recreation features and the same five 
small islands set aside for wildlife 
management as in the System Plan and the 
Modified System Plan. However, the 
total wildlife enhancement features 
would be somewhat less than those for 
the System Plan and Modified System Plan 
because there would be less setback 
levees to protect riparian habitat area 
due to fewer islands being included in 
the plan. The Incremental Plan would 
reduce the frequency of levee failure 
for about one-third of the islands and 
tracts with nonproject levees . 

Using Corps of Engineers' estimates, the 
Incremental Plan (without the Peripheral 
Canal) has an estimated capital cost 
of about $1.8 billion, assuming an 
inflation rate of 6 percent per year 
($537 million, based on 1981 prices). 
Annual operation and maintenance costs 
are estimated to be $1.9 million at 1981 
prices. The overall benefit-cost ratio 
is 1.9 to 1 without the Peripheral Canal 
(refer to Table 2). The flood control 
element of the plan has a benefit-cost 
ratio of 1.6 to 1. While not shown on 
Table 2, the Corps' sensitivity analysis 
for the without Peripheral Canal and 
without island restoration base condi- 
tion shows the overall and flood control 
elements to have benefit- cost ratios of 
2.3 to 1 and 2.2 to 1, respectively. 

A significant problem with the Incremen- 
tal Plan is that Islands not included 
will in time probably become open water 
areas, increasing the wind-wave erosion 
and seepage on the remaining islands. 
This would Increase the maintenance 
costs and possibly the frequency of 
levee failures of Islands adjacent to 
flooded areas unless remedial measures 
are taken. (These increased operation 
and maintenance costs were not Included 
in the Corps estimates, however.) 



15 



FIGURE 7 




^^g^ ISLANDS INCLUDED IN 
K%^, CORPS INCREMENTAL 
'mrnV/, FLOOD CONTROL PLAN 



SllIE OF C*LifOimi» 
THE RESOURCES *GENCT 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

CENTRAL District 

INCREMENTAL PLAN 



KILOMETRES 



16 



Chapter 7 contains a more detailed 
description and discussion of the 
Incremental Plan . 



Cost Sharing and 
Financial Requirements 

Cost sharing In a Delta levee Improve- 
ment plan Is a significant Issue of 
public policy. This Issue Is quite 
complex for a number of reasons. 



Second, the Corps report assumes the 
traditional federal/non-federal cost 
sharing formula, even though the Reagan 
Administration has proposed a new cost 
sharing formula that would require a 
greater degree of non-federal funding. 

Third, In the Delta there Is another 
complicating factor not found In a 
riverine flood control project; there 
are two broad classes of beneficiaries. 
These are: 



First, the Corps of Engineers has recom- 
mended that the federal Interest be 
limited to those individual Islands and 
tracts where the flood control benefits 
exceed the flood control costs; the 
Incremental Plan concept . Adoption of 
this recommendation by Congress would 
leave a large number of non-federal 
participation Islands and tracts for 
which the main source of potential 
funding would be from State and local 
interests . 



" The beneficiaries protected from 
Inundation. (Primary beneficiaries.) 

** The beneficiaries on the water side of 
the levees that would suffer less fre- 
quent adverse impacts on water quality 
from levee failures . (Secondary 
beneficiaries . ) 

Cost sharing will ultimately have to be 
decided by the Congress and the 
Legislature. As summarized In Table 3, 

Table 3 



ILLUSTRATIOU OF POSSIBLE SHARING OF CAPITAL COSTS> 
(In Millions of Dollars, 1981 Prices) 



Plan and Function 



System Plan 

Flood Control 

Recreation 

Wildlife Enhancement 

Totals 

Modified System Plan 



Project 
Totals 



931 

40 
57 

1,028 



Federal^ 
Tradi- Pro 



Statei 

TraJT 



Tro 



Count 



Tradi- 



Pro- 



Islands and 
Tracts 5 
TrSar: — PFo: 



Water Projects 
& W ater Users S 
TFaJT P?o^ 



Tradi- Pro- iraoi- rro- iraui- rru- naui- n*/- ,.— .. ••■'.. 
tional^ posed« tlonal ^ posed^ tional ^ posed^ tlonal ^ posed « tional^ poseda 



407 
20 
43 

470 



286 

20 



306 



265 

10 

7 

282 



318 
10 
29 

357 





10 
7 

17 




10 
28 

38 



244 



244. 



309 



309 



14 



14 



18 



18 



Flood Control 

Recreation 

Wildlife Enhancement 


732 
40 

57 


407 
20 
43 


286 

20 




167 

10 

7 


220 
10 
29 



10 

7 



10 

28 


150 




215 




9 




12 




Totals 


829 


470 


306 


184 


258 


17 


38 


150 


215 


9 


12 


Incremental Plan 
























Flood Control 

Recreation 

Wildlife Enhancement 


448 
40 
49 


407 
20 
37 


286 

20 




25 

10 

6 


78 
10 
25 




10 

6 




10 
24 


15 




80 




1 




5 




Totals 


537 


464 

1 tu J 


306 
1 » ij — 


41 


112 


16 


34 

iclxnilc 


15 
xnrt trar 


80 
;s" con 


1 
ditions. 


5 



Based on federal participation in only 19 islands and tracts. Depends on congressional legislation. 

Department of Water Resources illustrative example. Depends on State legislation. 

Depends on action by each of the three counties involved (Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Contra Costa). 

Depends on island-by-island decisions on whether to participate in plan. 

Would probably require new legislation. , , , ,. ^ , j , 4«,., 

Based on Corps of Engineers' draft feasibility report and on existing legislation for federal projects. 

Based on June 15. 1981. memorandum to President Reagan from Interior Secretary Watt. 



17 



the Department of Water Resources has 
prepared Illustrations of the effects 
for two of the many possible ways that 
costs could be shared for each of the 
three alternative plans. A discussion 
of the cost sharing assumptions is 
contained in Chapter 4. Chapters 5, 6, 
and 7 and Appendix A show the results in 
more detail, including the costs that 
would be assigned to each island and 
tract . 

The Department estimates that the 
earliest practical date for start of 
construction is 1989. From the antici- 
pated release date of this bulletin, 
this allows: 

" Two years for Federal and State 
authorization. 

" Another two years for post- 
authorization studies to define the 
specific plan of improvement, and 
negotiations of repayment contracts 
for costs to be borne by local 
interests . 

** Another two years for preparing 
designs and specifications. 

Because of practical limitations on 
availability of construction equipment, 
it was assumed that participating 
Islands would be divided into groups 
with approximately equal amounts of work 
in each group. Levees with the highest 
probability of failure would be in the 
first group and those with the least 
failure probability in the last group. 
Initial construction would begin bien- 
nially for each successive group until 
all levees in the adopted plan were 
upgraded. Also because of continuing 
subsidence, additional construction 
would be required periodically over an 
extended period after initial construc- 
tion is completed to maintain the levees 
to design standards. 

Because future rates of inflation cannot 
be predicted with any degree of 
certainty, the Department estimated the 
probable range of funding requirements 



by escalating the Corps' 1981 costs at 
rates of both 6 and 9 percent per year 
to the estimated year that the costs 
would be incurred. (For the past 
several years the Department has used an 
escalation rate of 9 percent per year 
for construction costs for the financial 
analysis of future facilities of the 
State Water Project. This rate is now 
under study with the view of reducing it 
to 6 percent for next year's analysis.) 
Table 4 summarizes the estimated capital 

Table 4 



MPITW. COST* 
(In Hinions of Doll 


ars) 




Plan. Function 
•nd Responsibility 


1981 
Prices 


SiMKd Escalated Prices 
to TIm of Construction 
6S Per Year 9S Per Tear 


System Plan 










Flood Control 
Recreation 
Wildlife Enhancement 


931 
40 
57 




3.365 

93 

206 


8,262 
141 
482 


Project Totals 


1,028 




3.664 


8,885 


Federal Share: 
Traditional** 
Proposed*** 


470 
306 




1,678 
1.046 


4,076 
2,493 


Non-Federal Share: 
Traditional** 
Proposed*** 


558 
722 




1.986 
2,618 


4,809 
6,392 


Modified System Plan 










Flood Control 
Recreation 
Wildlife Enhancement 


732 
40 
57 




2,746 

83 

207 


6,237 
118 
499 


Project Totals 


829 




3.036 


6,854 


Federal Share: 
Traditional** 
Proposed*** 


470 
306 




1,857 
1.160 


3.998 
2,428 


Non-Federal Share: 
Traditional** 
Proposed*** 


359 
523 




1,178 
1.875 


2,856 
4,426 


Incremental Plan 










Flood Control 

Recreation 

Wildlife Enhancement 


448 
40 
49 




1.534 

76 

173 


3,681 
102 
415 


Project Totals 


537 




1,783 


4,198 


Federal Share: 
Traditional** 
Proposed*** 


464 
306 




1.625 
1.154 


3,938 
2.429 


Non-Federal Share: 
Traditional** 
Proposed*** 


73 
232 




158 
629 


260 
1,769 


* Without Peripheral Canal. 

** Based on Corps' draft feasibility report and existing 

federal legislation. 
*** Based on June 15, 1982, memorandum to President Reagan 

from Interior Secretary Watt. 





18 



costs in terms of 1981 prices and esca- 
lated prices for the three alternative 
plans . It also shows the federal and 
non-federal escalated prices under both 
traditional and Reagan Administration 
proposals for cost sharing. 

In its financial analyses, the 
Department assumed that federal costs 
would be funded from annual appropria- 
tions by Congress . It was further 
assumed that the State would fund all 
non-federal costs through the sale of 
bonds, and that the local share would be 
recovered by the State through contracts 
with each participating island and 
tract, county, or other beneficiary. 
Like inflation, interest rates are 
highly volatile and unpredictable. 
Thus, bond service was calculated at 
both 9 percent and 12 percent interest 
for a 50-year period of repayment. To 
simplify the financial analysis, it was 
also assumed that money from bond sales 
allocated for future staged construction 
would be deposited in a sinking fund, 
with interest calculated at both 8 and 
10-1/2 percent. The effect of a sinking 
fund earning interest at a higher rate 
than inflation results in bonding 
requirements much less than the summed 
escalated costs. In actual practice, 
many more bond sales would occur over 
the life of the project to cover stage 
construction costs, and such escalated 
costs would be repaid with dollars 
depreciated by inflation. However, the 
sinking fund approach was chosen for 
this analysis to reduce the bias induced 
by the extreme effect of escalation of 
stage construction costs far into the 
future because it more nearly reflects 
the ability to meet repayment 
obligations . 

Table 5 summarizes the estimated bonding 
requirements to fund the estimated non- 
federal costs for both traditional and 
proposed federal/non-federal cost 
sharing formulas, and for two sets of 
economic assumptions. Chapters 5, 6, 
and 7, and Appendix A show the results 
in more detail. 



Table 5 



ESTIMATED BONDINe REQUIREMENT 

TO FUND NON-FEDCRM. COSTS* 

(In Millions of Dollirs) 





Required 


Bonding 


Plan Mid T 


radUlonal 
ost Sharing 


Proposed 


Financial Assi^tloos** 


Cost Sharing 


System Plan 






6« Escalatlon/W Bond Interest 
9% Esc«lat1on/12X Bond Interest 


1,320 
2.068 


1,631 
2.S19 


Modified System Plan 






6% Esca1at1on/9X Bond Interest 
9% Esca1at1on/12f Bond Interest 


814 
1,232 


1,117 
1.665 


Incremental Plan 






6% Esca1ation/9S Bond Interest 
W Escalatlon/IM Bond Interest 


148 
207 


433 
613 



Without Peripheral Canal. 
** Honey from bond sales for future staged construction was 
assumed to be deposited In a sinkinq fund at 8 percent 
interest for the 6% escalat1on/9X bond interest condition 
and 10-1/2 percent Interest for the 9X escalat1on/12X bond 
Interest condition. 



No-Action Plan Alternative 

The financial costs of a reconstruction 
program to upgrade nonproject Delta 
levees to flood control standards will 
be high. But then, the area to be 
preserved is large. In its analysis of 
project benefits, the Corps of Engineers 
assumed that in absence of a levee 
upgrading program, past practices of 
reclaiming flooded Delta islands would 
continue; but will they? 

In the absence of a major Federal or 
State levee construction program, there 
are many possible scenarios for the 
Delta. One is continuation of past 
practices of substantial Federal and 
State aid in restoring flooded islands. 
The other is the loss of such aid in 
restoring flooded islands and the 
probability that many flooded islands 
would remain flooded . Under either 
case, or under the wide array of 
intermediate possibilities, there will 
be an increasing probability of levee 



19 



failure as the Islands and tracts 
continue to subside. 

At present, primary responsibility for 
upgrading the 537 miles of nonproject 
levees in the Delta rests with local 
reclamation districts and landowners. 
Some financial aid for maintaining these 
levees is provided by the State under 
the 1973 Delta Levees Maintenance Act 
(Way Bill). Historically, Federal and 
State disaster assistance and funding 
has been provided to help fight floods 
and restore flooded islands and tracts 
after levee failures. Most of the money 
for such restoration in recent years has 
come from Federal and State emergency 
funds, with the costs ultimately falling 
on taxpayers. In some cases, reclama- 
tion has cost more than the appraised 
value of the island or tract being 
reclaimed . 

Although it is impossible to determine 
precisely the local ability to finance 
reclamation, evidence from payment 
capacity analysis of Delta agriculture 
and responses from Delta interests indi- 
cates that local willingness to pay 
would be much less than the likely costs 
of reclamation. 

With a Federal and State policy for 
continued reclamation, most of the Delta 
could probably be preserved in its 
present configuration in the near term. 
(This is the assumption used by the 
Corps of Engineers for the base condi- 
tion In its economic analyses of the 
alternative plans for improving Delta 
levees.) However, such an effort would 
require substantial increase in Federal 
and State disaster assistance funding 
with time. This is illustrated in 
Chapter 3 by comparing the estimated 
probability of levee failure under pres- 
ent conditions, shown in Figure 12, with 
the probability of failure under year 
2020 conditions, shown in Figure 13; 
both figures assume continued subsidence 
and no major levee improvements. 

Because of changing policies and 
increasing costs, continued financial 



support for restoration of flooded 
islands from federal programs is 
already becoming less certain. 
Following the 1980 Delta levee failures, 
the Corps of Engineers determined that 
federal Public Law 84-99 authority can 
no longer be used in repairing or 
restoring the nonproject levees in the 
Delta. This is because the Corps now 
classifies the nonproject levees as 
reclamation levees, and not flood 
control levees for which Public 
Law 84-99 would be applicable. Also, 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
has indicated that it may be unable to 
recommend federal financial assistance 
for restoring flooded islands under 
Public Law 93-288, unless in an emer- 
gency situation the public interest 
requires protection against salinity 
intrusion into aqueducts that furnish 
domestic water supplies, or unless there 
is significant non-federal effort to 
improve the Delta levees so that the 
frequency of future levee breaks are 
significantly reduced. 

Failure to continually reclaim flooded 
Delta islands and tracts would 
eventually lead to the evolution of a 
large inland sea in the western and 
central Delta, the opposite of total 
preservation of the present configura- 
tion of Delta islands, tracts, and 
waterways. The sequence and ultimate 
extent of this condition is highly 
speculative, depending on the behavior 
of the parties with a major interest in 
the Delta. 

Although no detailed studies have been 
made on the consequences of allowing an 
inland sea to form over a major portion 
of the Delta, speculation can be made on 
this possibility based on experience 
from flooding of individual Islands, 
either temporary (in most cases) or 
permanent (in the case of Big Break and 
Franks Tract). It is evident that all 
of the economic and environmental 
resources would be affected to some 
extent. Some of the effects (and 
potential mitigating measures) of 
permanent flooding of individual or 



20 



groups of Islands and tracts are 
summarized below. 

Increased levee failures and flooding 
of remaining islands. Much of this 
potential could be mitigated by 
raising the freeboard and increasing 
the erosion protection on adjacent 
levees or by preserving the levees of 
the permanently flooded islands. 

Reduction of yield of the Federal and 
State export projects due to loss of 
fresh water through evaporation (which 
would exceed consumptive use of 
irrigated agriculture), and possibly 
an increased need for additional 
outflow to repel salinity intrusion. 
However, remedial measures, short of 
full restoration of an island, could 
nullify these potential losses. 
Flooded areas could be operated as 
reservoirs to increase the yield to 
the projects. However, the effect of 
permanent flooding on State and 
Federal projects is difficult to 
determine because the State Water 
Resources Control Board might modify 
the Delta salinity standards to 
reflect the change in beneficial uses 
to be protected. 

** Changes in fish and wildlife habitat. 
Although flooded areas such as Big 
Break and Franks Tract have increased 
high quality habitat for fish and 
other aquatic life, future floodings 
would produce much deeper areas, which 
might not have the high biological 
production. Permanent flooding would 
not be particularly adverse to fish, 
but habitat and food supply for 
wildlife would be lost. 

" Loss of the unique system of meander- 
ing waterways and the recreational 
boating values they support (unless 
the levees of the flooded Islands were 
maintained). Also, loss of some 
recreational hunting on the islands. 

" Loss of agricultural productivity on 
the flooded islands . 



" Disruption of transportation systems 
and utilities, such as highways, 
railroads, aqueducts, and gas wells, 
associated with some islands. At a 
cost, all of these effects could be 
mitigated. 

Although the consequences are unclear, 
the economics of the Delta are such 
that, without substantial Federal and 
State assistance in either reconstruct- 
ing Delta levees or continuing to 
reclaim flooded islands, it appears that 
the efforts of other public and private 
parties cannot be expected to preserve 
the Delta. 



Policy Alternatives 

The Legislature has adopted a State 
policy of maintaining the Delta in its 
current configuration. The Legislature 
may wish to reconsider this policy in 
view of the extremely high costs of the 
System Plan and the Modified System 
Plan. 

The Legislature should also recognize 
that although improvement of the Delta 
levees in their present locations is 
physically feasible now, it may not be a 
permanent solution. Eventually, contin- 
uing subsidence may make it virtually 
impossible to retain a section of levee 
due to the large difference between the 
elevation of the subsided island surface 
and the elevation of the water surface 
In the adjacent channel. Levee sections 
subjected to somewhat less severe 
elevation differences may require 
excessive maintenance costs. 

Although not evaluated in this bulletin, 
an alternative that could be considered 
would be combining Islands into large 
polders. This could be acomplished 
either as an initial plan or as a plan 
to be phased in over time. 

The use of polders would exclude tidal 
action and floodflows from closed-off 
channels, but it would also permit the 



21 



reduction of water levels In those 
channels to reduce seepage and mitigate 
the increasing hydrostatic pressure on 
the interior levees due to subsidence 
and greatly reduce the length of project 
levee needed to protect a group of 
islands. Polders would change some 
recreational uses in the Delta and would 
affect fish and wildlife values in the 
Delta. The costs and effects of polders 
have been given some study in the past, 
but they have not been studied in as 
much detail as the alternative projects 
presented in this bulletin. 



Legal and Institutional Matters 

Along with the physical and financial 
aspects, a number of important related 
matters need to be considered in con- 
junction with public funding of any 
levee improvement program. These are 
summarized here and discussed more fully 
in Chapter 4, and also in the Corps' 
draft report. 

In addition to assumption of non-federal 
cost obligations, the Corps report lists 
several other requirements as conditions 
for federal funding. Among these are: 
limiting federal liability, enacting and 
enforcing appropriate land use regula- 
tions, and maintaining and operating 
federal project facilities in accordance 
with regulations and standards pre- 
scribed by the Secretary of the Army. 

It must be recognized that even after 
completion of a levee upgrading program, 
the Delta islands and tracts that are 
below sea level will be vulnerable to 
flooding. Decision making authorities 
must recognize this vulnerability. 

Proper use of Delta flood plains require 
land use regulations that are cognizant 
of conditions that could result in loss 
of life or damage to public and private 
structures. Further, while the 
Legislature has assigned county and city 
governments the responsibility for land 
use planning and regulation, it has also 



established policies and guidelines to 
restrain urban encroachment on agricul- 
tural lands and to foster appropriate 
flood plain management • 

For the Delta levees improvement 
program, four approaches for land use 
planning and regulation were 
considered: 

" Continuation and possible improvement 
of the present State-local government 
system. 

" State-mandated review of performance 
of local flood plain management 
against State criteria. 

" State overview of local government 
land use actions to ensure minimum 
standards on a regional basis. 

" Creation of a new organization or 
level of government, with land use 
responsibilities for the Delta. 

Continuation and possible improvement of 
the present State-local government 
system is the approach considered to 
have the best chance of success, to be 
least controversial, and to be least 
expensive. This system is already in 
place and functioning and the General 
Plans and regulations of Delta cities 
and counties already designate most of 
the land for agricultural use, specify 
areas for urban development, and provide 
criteria for limiting the use of areas 
subject to flooding or unstable 
conditions. Therefore, use and 
improvement of the present system seems 
to be the most appropriate way to 
proceed before serious consideration 
is given to implementing another 
approach . 

Under present law, the State has no 
liability for levee failures in the 
Delta. In the action by landowners for 
damages caused by flooding from the 
Andrus-Brannan Islands levee break In 
June 1972, the California Court of 
Appeals ruled that the State was not 



22 



liable for losses.* The Court further 
held that there was no duty on the part 
of the State to review local reclamation 
plans for levee work that was in 
progress at the time of the failure* 

Any proposal for State funding of 
physical improvements in the Delta must 
address potential leg£il liability of the 
State. While the State may be willing 
to contribute to Delta levee improve- 
ment, it should not be the intent of the 
State to underwrite perfect safety to 
benefited lands. It would be unjust 



for the law to permit a project benefi- 
ciary to recover damages from the State 
simply because the State participated in 
the project to reduce the risk, to the 
beneficiary. State participation should 
be contingent upon enactment of appro- 
priate statutory or constitutional 
immunities or limitation of liability. 
In addition, the State should seek 
hold-harmless or waiver agreements with 
project beneficiaries of such a nature 
as to bind all current and future 
possessors or users of the benefited 
lands . 



*98 Cal. App. 3d 662; 159 Cal. Rptr. 721, Civ. No. 17809. 
1979. 



Third Dist., Nov. 13, 



23 



Chapter 2. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES 



All was well In the Delta during the 
early morning hours of that summer day 
in 1972 until the southerly levee pro- 
tecting Andrus Island gave way. Rushing 
water pouring through the initial break 
quickly widened the opening to 300 feet, 
and eventually to 500 feet. Within two 
hours. Highway 12 was flooded and water 
began spilling over into the adjacent 
Brannan Island. Several people in a 
nearby trailer camp narrowly escaped • 

During the next two days, Andrus and 
Brannan Islands, with land surfaces as 
much as 20 feet below sea level, were 
flooded with 164,000 acre-feet of water. 
Federal, State, and local emergency 
efforts to protect the town of Isleton 
with a bow levee failed, making it 
necessary to evacuate 2,000 people. 

But the water that flooded these islands 
was not winter flood water from the 
major rivers that drain the watershed 
tributary to the Delta. Tributary 
inflow to the Delta at that time was 
mostly storage releases from Federal and 
State reservoirs to supplement low 
summer unregulated flow. This con- 
trolled inflow was not sufficient to 
supply the sudden draft placed on the 
Delta's water supply by the levee break. 
Saline waters rushed in from Suisun Bay 
to meet the remaining draft, temporarily 
interrupting the controlled outflow that 
had been forming a hydraulic barrier to 
protect the Delta against salinity 
intrusion. 

Both the State Water Project and Federal 
Central Valley Project immediately 
reduced exports and increased storage 
releases to restore the hydraulic 
barrier. In the western Delta, salini- 
ties began an immediate downward trend, 
but In the central and southern Delta, 
the flushing effect was much slower and 
the salt water had to be removed by 



local and export pumping, causing 
adverse effects on agricultural and 
domestic water supplies. 

The foregoing event was both usual and 
unusual. Since initial reclamation of 
the Delta began in the 1860s, each of 
the Delta's 70 islands or tracts has 
been flooded at least once, and some 
several times. Since 1930, 30 levee 
failures have resulted in flood damage 
on 22 islands or tracts. In 1980 alone, 
six islands were flooded, indicating 
that Delta levee failures are becoming 
more frequent . Only four of the forty 
levee failures since 1930 occurred 
during the nonwinter flood season — 
Webb Tract, June 1950; Andrus-Brannan 
Islands, June 1972; Jones Tract, Septem- 
ber and October 1980; and MacDonald 
Island, August 1982. 

Only five of the Delta islands subject 
to periodic flooding have significant 
urban populations — Andrus-Brannan, 
Bethel, Byron, Hotchkiss, and New Hope. 
The other islands are devoted almost 
entirely to agriculture, although there 
are large areas of native vegetation 
that provide important habitat for 
numerous wildlife species. 

The continued threat of flooding is a 
major concern of many Delta Interests — 
urban and agricultural landowners, 
recreationists, utilities, railroads, 
and various levels of government. The 
basic purposes of this report are: 

" To examine the problems, methods 
feasibility, and costs of upgrading 
the Delta levee system in order to 
reduce the frequency of flooding and 
attendant damage. 

° To report on alternative plans to 

preserve the physical configuration of 
the Delta as it is today. 



25 



The Delta 

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as 
defined in California Water Code Sec- 
tion 12220 (see Figure 8), is a unique 
area situated at the confluence of the 
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, which 
drain 43,000 square miles* of watershed 
and discharge into San Francisco Bay and 
the Pacific Ocean. The statutory Delta 
occupies an area of more than 1,100 
square miles, including over 700 miles 
of scenic waterways. The Delta encom- 
passes about 70 leveed islands and 
tracts , many of which are 15 to 20 feet 
below sea level as a result of land 
subsidence. The network of levees 
totals about 1,100 miles in length and 
protects 550,000 acres of mostly prime 
agricultural land. 

In addition to the leveed islands and 
tracts, about 800 small, unleveed "tule" 
islands exist within the Delta. The 
tule islands and some of the levees and 
riverbanks support dense growths of 
natural vegetation. Cover and food for 
many wildlife species are provided by 
trees such as oak, cottonwood, and 
willow, and by shrubs, vines, grasses, 
and aquatic plants. 

Three major population centers — the 
San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, and 
Stockton — are located near the Delta's 
borders. Portions of six counties — 
Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San 
Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo — are within 
the area of the Delta. Although no 
major cities are located entirely within 
the Delta, this area includes a portion 
of Stockton and the small incorporated 
cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Isleton, 
Pittsburg, and Tracy, plus about 14 
unincorporated towns and villages. 

Much of the soil in the Delta is 
organic; that is, largely composed of or 
derived from peat, and is subject to 



subsidence problems for a number of 
reasons. While certain measures and 
practices could be adopted to slow the 
rate of subsidence, subsidence will 
continue as long as organic material 
remains and the land is used for farm- 
ing. Since peat in some islands in the 
central Delta is still 30 or more feet 
deep, subsidence will continue for many, 
many years. This poses potential flood- 
ing problems of a scale much greater 
than those that have occurred to date . 
New approaches must be used if we are to 
maintain Delta levees with up to 40 feet 
of static head. 

Ground water levels under the Delta 
Islands are maintained at depths of to 
10 feet below the soil surface, depend- 
ing upon agricultural practices and the 
season of the year. Ground water (and 
seepage through the levees) would rise 
and fill most of the Delta lowlands to 
about the water level in adjacent chan- 
nels if it were not controlled by an 
extensive drainage system where such 
water and seepage are collected and 
pumped back into adjacent channels. 

The economy of the Delta depends heavily 
upon the protection provided by the 
levees. The Delta is a productive 
agricultural area, supporting a wide 
variety of crops, such as corn, aspar- 
agus, pears, tomatoes, sugar beets, and 
various other truck crops. A grape and 
wine industry is expanding in the area. 
About 91 percent of the Delta is zoned 
for agriculture. Although some of this 
land will be converted to nonagricul- 
tural uses, overall crop productivity is 
expected to increase somewhat in the 
future because of double cropping. 

Industrial areas already exist or have 
been zoned for development in each of 
the Delta counties. A relatively small 
growth in industry is expected to take 
place . 



*A11 of the Central Valley Basin except the Tulare Lake drainage, 16,500 square 
miles, which is a closed basin. 



26 



FIGURE 8 




BOUNDARY OF SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA 

(SECTION 12220 OF THE WATER CODE) 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

THE neSOURCES AGENCY 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

CENTRAL DISTRICT 

SACRAMENTO - SAN JOAQUIN DELTA 
STATUTORY DELTA 



Older (deeper) sediments under the Delta 
constitute one of the largest natural 
gas reservoirs in the nation, making the 
Delta a gas producer and storage area of 
regional and national importance. There 
are 35 operating fields scattered 
throughout the area, with major fields 
near Rio Vista. To date, cumulative 
production of gas from these fields 
amounts to about 4.2 trillion cubic 
feet. Delta gas fields can probably 
produce until the turn of the century. 
Because of the Delta's strategic loca- 
tion, some of the abandoned fields are 
being used to store Imported gas. 

The Delta's 50,000 acres of waterways 
provide a rich aquatic habitat for an 
abundance of birds, mammals, fish, and 
other aquatic life. These waterways and 
adjacent land areas support one of 
California's largest and most diverse 
fishery resources and provide habitat 
for over 100 species of waterfowl and 
wildlife, including important game 
species and some rare and endangered 
species . 

The Delta is also one of California's 
major outdoor recreation areas. Its 
abundant water, fish, wildlife, cul- 
tural, and historical resources offer a 
variety of recreational opportunities, 
such as fishing, boating, hunting, pic- 
nicking, camping, bicycling, and sight- 
seeing. The estimated 12.3 million days 
of recreation use in 1980 exceeded the 
capacity of existing facilities. As the 
recreation use has grown, so have 
related problems for the levees in the 
Delta. Because aere and larger recrea- 
tional boats are being used, waterside 
levee erosion from wakes has increased. 
Trespass complaints are common. 

Two major east-west roads. Highway 4 and 
Highway 12, bisect the Delta. 
Highway 160 follows a meandering north- 
south course along the Sacramento River. 
Interstate 5 skirts the eastern side of 
the Delta and Interstate 205 goes near 
the southern border. In addition, two 
30-foot deep water ship channels enable 
ocean-going vessels to travel to the 



inland ports of Sacramento and Stockton. 
Rice, other grains, and wood chips are 
the principal commodities carried by 
these vessels. Projections of commerce 
indicate an optimistic outlook for ship- 
ping through the Delta. It is antici- 
pated that the tonnage of commercial 
shipping will increase significantly in 
the future, particularly if the planned 
deepening of these channels takes place 
to accommodate larger vessels. 



Basis for Study 

Department studies for improving Delta 
levees date back 25 years or more and 
were frequently done in connection with 
planning for a Delta water transfer 
facility of the State Water Project. 
In 1969, after plans for the Delta water 
transfer facility of the State Water 
Project centered on the Peripheral 
Canal, the Legislature requested the 
Department of Water Resources to study 
the problems related to Delta levees and 
to recommend feasible solutions to those 
problems . 

In 1973, as part of the Delta Levee 
Maintenance Act (Way Bill), the 
Legislature declared that the physical 
characteristics of the Delta should be 
preserved essentially in their present 
form. The Legislature also declared 
that the key to preserving the Delta's 
physical characteristics is the system 
of levees defining the waterways and 
producing the adjacent islands (Water 
Code Section 12981 et. seq . ; refer to 
Appendix B) . 

In 1975, the Department published 
Bulletin 192, "Plan for Improvement of 
the Delta Levees", which conceptually 
would preserve the present physical 
configuration of the Delta. The plan 
suggested that capital and replacement 
costs for improving the levees and 
providing recreation features should be 
shared 50 percent Federal, 30 percent 
State, and 20 percent local. Mainten- 
ance costs would be shared 60 percent 
local and 40 percent State. 



28 



In 1976, the Legislature adopted the 
conceptual plan for levee improvement 
set forth in Bulletin 192 and requested 
the Department to develop further plans 
for preservation of Delta levees (Water 
Code Section 12225 et. seq., called the 
Ne jedly-Mobley Delta Levees Act; refer 
to Appendix B). It directed the Depart- 
ment to make recommendations to the 
Legislature concerning construction, 
cost sharing, land use, zoning, flood 
control, recreation, fish and wildlife 
habitat, and esthetic values (Water Code 
Section 12226.1). In 1976, the Legisla- 
ture also directed the Department to 
investigate the viability of subsidence 
control in the Delta (Water Code 
Section 12881.4, SEC. 3; refer to 
Appendix B). 

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers also 
has authority to study Delta levee 
improvements and related matters . That 
authority stems collectively from two 
congressional resolutions and a public 
law, which are paraphrased below. 

On June 1, 1948, the Senate Committee on 
Public Works adopted a resolution 
requesting the Corps of Engineers to 
review past reports for navigation and 
flood control in the Delta to determine 
if certain specified modifications to 
existing projects were advisable, par- 
ticularly for the elimination of tidal 
flow in areas subject to tidal inunda- 
tion in order to reduce the tidal prism 
of the Delta to a minimum. 

Section 205 of the Flood Control Act, 
approved by Congress on May 17, 1950, 
authorized and directed the Corps of 
Engineers to investigate and make 
surveys for flood control and allied 
purposes, including floods aggravated by 
or due to wind or tidal effects, in 
certain designated areas of the United 
States, including the Delta. 

On January 31, 1961, and June 7, 1961, 
respectively, the Senate and House 
Committees on Public Works adopted 
resolutions requesting the Corps of 
Engineers to determine the advisability 



of measures to preserve the scenic 
values and to preserve and enhance 
recreational opportunities in the Delta, 
consistent with the primary flood con- 
trol purpose of existing and proposed 
Delta levees and channel improvements. 



Scope of Study 

The levees within the statutory Delta 
(Water Code Section 12220) have been 
classified into two basic categories — 
project levees and nonproject levees 
(see Figure 9). 

The project levees comprise about 
35 percent of the total Delta levee 
system. They were either built, 
rebuilt, or adopted as federal flood 
control project levees, and are main- 
tained to federal standards by local 
districts. (An exception is the project 
levee on the west side of the Sacramento 
River Deep Water Ship Channel, which is 
maintained by the Corps of Engineers.) 
They generally overlie and are composed 
of mineral soils. In general, most 
project levees provide adequate protec- 
tion. 

The nonproject levees make up about 
65 percent of the levees in the Delta. 
They were constructed by island land- 
owners or local public reclamation 
districts, and are maintained by the 
individuals or districts to widely 
varying and generally less stringent 
standards than project levees. Mainten- 
ance is largely financed by the land- 
owners. There are two exceptions. A 
few nonproject levees — termed direct 
agreement levees — have received 
federal financial assistance as a result 
of an adjacent navigation project or 
during rebuilding following a flood 
disaster. Also, under the Delta Levee 
Maintenance Act (Way Bill), the State 
provides some financial assistance to 
local districts for maintenance and 
rehabilitation, in recognition of State 
interest in preserving Delta levees and 
associated recreation and wildlife 
values . 



29 



Many nonproject levees have Inadequate 
freeboard and levee section, subsiding 
peat foundations, marginal stability, 
seepage from rodent activity or other 
causes. Inadequate maintenance, or a 
combination of these deficiencies. 
Thus, the study area for this Investiga- 
tion and report Is limited to the 60 
Islands and tracts mostly with nonproj- 
ect levees, as shown on Figure 2, In 
Chapter 1. Table 6 lists these Islands 
and tracts, along with statistics on the 
area, length of levee, and type of 
improvements on each Island or tract. 



Conduct of Study 

Recognizing that, to be financially 
feasible, a major rehabilitation of 
Delta levees would probably require 
federal participation, the Legislature, 
in 1973, directed the Secretary of The 
Resources Agency to request the Corps of 
Engineers to resume Its Delta investiga- 
tion, which had been discontinued in 
1966. The study was to be in coopera- 
tion with affected State and local 
agencies, and was to Include a report to 
Congress recommending particular non- 
project levees that should be Included 
as federal project levees. As noted 
earlier, in 1976 the Legislature 
directed the Department of Water 
Resources to develop further plans for 
preserving Delta levees. The studies 
reported herein have been conducted 
jointly by the Department and the Corps 
of Engineers. 

The portion of the study conducted by 
the Department of Water Resources 
pertained to land subsidence, seismic 
hazards, levee vegetation as related to 
erosion control and maintenance, exist- 
ing levee profiles and cross sections, 
land values, economic data, water 
quality data, historical and projected 
recreation use, present levee mainten- 
ance standards and practices, and 
financial requirements and cost sharing 
analysis for nonfederal costs. 

The Corps of Engineers' portion of the 
study Included levee failure analyses 



(past, present, and future), design and 
cost estimates for various levee 
rehabilitation alternatives, economic 
analyses of various alternative improve- 
ment plans, plan formulation studies, 
evaluation of environmental aspects, and 
a recommendation as to whether there is 
federal interest in Delta levee 
rehabilitation, recreation, and wildlife 
enhancement. The Corps of Engineers' 
recommendation of federal interest was 
based on the plans being consistent with 
the Corps' mission and on maximizing net 
benefits for federal dollars Invested. 

Premises for plan formulation and 
analysis were developed jointly by the 
Department of Water Resources and the 
Corps of Engineers. Also, plans for 
recreation and fish and wildlife 
enhancement were developed by these 
agencies jointly. In consultation with 
various Federal, State, and local enti- 
ties responsible for these activities 
and resources . 



Report Objectives 

The primary objective of this bulletin 
is to respond to the enabling legisla- 
tion relative to identifying a plan for 
Improving nonproject levees in the Delta 
(refer to Appendix B), with specific 
attention to flood control, recreation, 
fish and wildlife habitat, cost, cost 
sharing, financing, land use, and 
related matters. This legislation asked 
the Department of Water Resources to 
submit plans to keep the Delta in 
essentially its present configuration. 

A secondary objective is to examine and 
describe the uncertainties Inherent in 
implementing a major levee rehabilita- 
tion program for preserving the Delta in 
its present configuration and to 
identify those key Issues that must be 
addressed if any major rehabilitation 
plan is to succeed . 

The plans presented in this report are 
based on information developed jointly 
by the Department of Water Resources and 
the Corps of Engineers. Initial 



30 



FIGURE 9 



n^ 




*txxx Federol Project Livee - Locol Interes 
Responsible for Maintenance and 
Operation in Accordance with Regulotio'h 
Prescribed by the Secretary of the Army .^|, 

Federal Project Levee- Federol Government 

Responsible For Mointenonce and Operotioir;;"!;^^'" 

PL* 

Direct Agreement Levees- Port of Stockton 

has Assured Federol Government that Levees 

along Stockton Deep Woter Ship Channel will 

be maintained : Repair ond restoration of 

wovewosh protection by Federal Government, sac«*ME«TO-SAI( JOAQUIN DELTA, 

OS determinedto be necessary by the CALIFORKIA 

Secretary of the Army is Authorized . 

Non Project Levee— Local Interests responsible 

for Maintenance and Operation . DFLTA LFVFFS 



KILOMETRES 
Z 4 6 ( 10 



31 



Table 6 



ISLANDS AND IMPROVEMENTS, DELTA STUDY AAEA 









Miles of 










Trans- 












Miles of 


Non- 


Acres 








Mis- 


cities 










Project 


Project 


per Mile 


Public 


6as 


Pipe- 


slon 


or 




Rail- 


Island or Tract 


Acres 


Levees 


Levees 


of Levee 


Roads 


Wells 


Lines 


Lines 


Towns 


Resorts 


roads 


Andrus 


7,323 


20.6 


6.2 


273 


X 


X 






X 


X 


X 


Atlas 


339 


0.7 


3.1 


89 








X 








Bacon 


5,546 





14.3 


388 


X 




X 






X 




Bethel 


3.520 





11.5 


306 


X 








X 


X 




Bishop 


2,169 





5.8 


374 


X 










X 




Bouldin 


6,047 





18.0 


336 


X 










X 




Brack 


4,873 





10.8 


451 


X 














Bradford 


2.143 





7.4 


290 




X 












Brannan 


7,680 


6.8 


3.9 


718 


X 


X 




X 


X 


X 




Byron 


6,933 





9.5 


730 


X 




X 


X 


X 


X 




Canal Ranch 


2,996 





9.5 


315 


X 














Coney 


935 





5.4 


173 
















Deadhorse 


211 





2.5 


84 
















Drexler 


3,165 





8.9 


356 


X 




X 


X 




X 




Empire 


3,725 





10.3 


362 


X 










X 




Fabian 


6,530 





18.8 


347 


X 










X 




Holland 


4.225 





10.9 


388 


X 










X 




Hotchkiss 


3.358 





8.4 


400 


X 


X 




X 


X 


X 




Jersey 


3.471 





15.6 


223 


X 


X 


X 


X 








Jones, Upper/Lower 


12.153 





17.8 


683 


X 




X 






X 


X 


King 


3,260 





9.0 


362 


X 


X 








X 




Mandeville 


5,238 





14.3 


366 
















Mandevllle, Little 


376 

























McCormack- 
























Wil liamson 


1,639 





8.7 


188 




X 












McDonald 


6,145 





13.7 


449 




X 


X 










Medford 


1,219 





5.9 


207 
















Mildred 


998 





7.3 


137 






X 










Mournian 


1,100 





6.8 


162 


X 






X 




X 


X 


New Hope 


9,754 





12.3 


793 


X 


X 




X 


X 


X 




Or wood 


2,440 





6.4 


381 


X 




X 






X 


X 


Orwood, Upper 


1,698 





4.5 


377 


X 




X 


X 




X 


X 


Palm 


2,436 





7.8 


312 






X 








X 


Pescadero 


8,500 


6.7 


8.3 


567 


X 






X 


X 




X 


Pico-Naqlee 


6,090 





8.3 


734 


X 






X 






X 


Quimby 


769 





7.0 


110 
















Rec. Dist. 17 


12,000 


16.2 





741 


X 






X 


X 


X 


X 


Rhode 


92 

























Rindge 


6,844 





15.7 


436 
















Rio Blanco 


667 





3.2 


208 

















Roberts, Lower 
Roberts, Middle 
Roberts, Upper 
Sargent-Barnhart 
Sherman 

Shi ma 
Shin Kee 
Staten 
Stewart 
Terminous 

Twitchell 

Tyler 

Union 

Veale 

Venice 

Victoria 
Walnut Grove 
Webb 

Woodward 
Wright-Elmwood 



10,600 

13,687 

8.260 

1,214 

10.420 

2,394 
1,074 
9,088 
4,700 
10,470 

3,633 
8.583 
24,951 
1,298 
3,220 

7,250 
652 
5,490 
1,822 
2,121 





6.3 

10.3 

1.5 

9.7 





16.5 




2, 
12. 
1, 







0.9 









17.0 
2.0 
4.2 
2.5 
9.8 

8.1 
1.9 

25.5 


16.1 

9.5 
10.7 
28.8 

5.7 
12.3 

15.1 
2.0 

12.8 
8.7 
6.8 



624 
1,649 
570 
304 
534 

296 

565 
356 
285 
650 

303 
372 
832 
228 
262 

480 
225 
429 
209 
312 



TOTAL 



289.534 112.3 



537.3 



32 



findings of the Corps of Engineers from 
this joint study are reflected herein 
and presented in detail in the draft 
federal report entitled, "Sacramento-San 
Joaquin Delta, California — Draft 
Feasibility Report and Draft Environ- 
mental Impact Statement", completed in 
October 1982. That report, which has 
detailed appendices of technical data 
and analytical procedures, describes 
alternatives, plan formulation criteria, 
and the extent of federal interest in 
participating in Delta levee rehabilita- 
tion. 



Accordingly, this report summarizes 
information and uses the same basic 
alternatives as presented in the Corps 
of Engineers' draft report, but it does 
not repeat the detailed data and analy- 
sis published by the Corps. It does, 
however, include supplemental analysis 
on non-Federal financing, cost sharing, 
and other matters not included in the 
Corps' report. (The Department's letter 
comments on the Corps' draft feasibility 
report are presented in Appendix C.) 



33 



Chapter 3. LEVEE PROBLEMS 



The Delta has experienced a long history 
of levee failures resulting in substan- 
tial economic loss. To understand the 
nature of these levee failures and 
related problems it is first necessary 
to review briefly the history of Delta 
reclamation and the nature of Its soils, 
floods, and related factors. 



Reclaiming the Delta 

The long and costly process of reclaim- 
ing the lands of the Delta began in the 
California gold rush era of the early 
1850s. The population influx created a 
demand for food, which in combination 
with the fertile Delta soils, a conven- 
ient water supply, and shallow draft 
shipping to Central California markets 
created the Incentive to reclaim and 
farm the Delta. Settlers first con- 
structed low barriers of earth on the 
higher "natural levees" formed by depo- 
sits during previous floods. These low 
barriers, called "shoestring levees", 
were built primarily to keep tilled soil 
from washing away. 

Settlers rarely tried to prevent high 
tides from easing water over the lower 
portions of their land. Exclusion of 
tidal water awaited complete enclosure 
of the tracts. 

The Federal Swamp and Overflow 
(Arkansas) Act of 1850 provided for 
title transfer of the wetlands from the 
Federal Government to the states. In 
1861, California established a State 
Commission to facilitate reclamation for 
landowners. It was not, however, until 
1868, when the responsibility for carry- 
ing out reclamation was turned over to 
landowners and their reclamation 
districts, that reclamation began on a 
large scale. Sherman Island Is the site 
of the first coordinated levee system; 
this took place in 1868-69. 



The first levees were built with two 
purposes in mind. Levees built around 
the islands of the central Delta were 
intended primarily to exclude tidal 
water from the tracts underlain by peat; 
those built along the sedimentary banks 
of th^ rivers were expected to protect 
the reclaimed land, not just from high 
tides, but against all but the highest 
flood stages as well. 

Levee work was primarily done by Chinese 
laborers teamed to handle four basic 
tasks: dig with an iron spade; fork and 
shovel peat blocks into wheelbarrows; 
push the wheelbarrows along planks; and 
lay the embankment . 

Between 1871 and 1879, most of the 
tracts of swamp and overflow lands were 
enclosed by a levee system. Although 
considerable land was cleared for crops, 
much of it was used for pasture. At 
that time, about 47 square miles of 
marsh between Venice Island and Middle 
Roberts Island remained unleveed. 
About 100 square miles of the central 
Delta's peaty tracts that had been 
leveed were abandoned to the tides by 
187 5. During the 1870s, all but one 
tract (near Courtland) experienced 
flooding. The development of dredges to 
build levees more quickly and at greatly 
reduced cost helped to reclaim most of 
the Delta marsh between 1880 and 1916. 
By 1930, all but minor areas of the 
swamplands had been leveed and were 
producing a wide variety of crops. 

Although dredges have replaced hand 
labor in levee construction, the two 
techniques have some things in common. 
Neither is susceptible to a rigorously 
applied engineering approach, and both 
methods evolved over time on a trial and 
error basis. In fact, because of the 
unstable and widely varying character of 
peat soils, engineers have been unable 
to develop rigorous technical approaches 



35 



to Delta levee design and construction. 
There are modern examples of "engi- 
neered" Delta levees that have taken 
years to stabilize (or have never 
stabilized) following construction. The 
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has been 
unable to turn over some levees along 
the Yolo Bypass to non-federal Interests 
for operation and maintenance because 
they continue to sink and must be recon- 
structed or raised almost annually. The 
Department of Water Resources is having 
similar experience on relatively short 
reaches of levee in the Suisun Marsh at 
Roaring River Slough, where the levees 
overlie 60 feet of peaty soils. 

A research paper, "Discovering and 
Rediscovering the Fragility of Levees 
and Land in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Delta: 1870-1379 and Today", was pre- 
pared by John Thompson, Professor in the 
Department of Geography, University of 
Illinois, and was published by the 
Department of Water Resources in March 
1982. This paper, available at the 
Central District office of the Depart- 
ment, presents information about early 
efforts to construct levees in the 
Delta. 



Soils 

Delta soils are typically organic, 
mineral, or a mixture of both. The 
orgaaic soils are largely composed of or 
derived from peat, which is thickest in 
the western and central portions of the 
Delta, where it reaches a maximum depth 
of more than 50 feet at Sherman and 
Andrus Islands. Mineral soils (sand and 
silt) occur along the margins of the 
Delta and as channel and natural levee 
deposits. Figure 10 shows the distribu- 
tion and thickness of organic soils, 
defined as peat, organic silt, organic 
clay, and mineral soils with more than 
25 percent organic material. 

The physical and chemical properties of 
the orgaaic soils make them susceptible 
to oxidation, anaerobic decomposition, 
wind erosion, and f lammability. These 



properties create continual subsidence 
problems. Peat areas of most islands 
subside at average rates of from one to 
three inches per year (refer to 
Table 7). 

Table 7 



THEORETICAL DEPLETION TIMES Of ORGANIC SOILS 

1 


Estimated Maximum 


Estimated 


Estimated* 




Thickness of 


Subsidence Rate 


Time Until 


Island or 


Organic Soils 
{In Feet) 

53 


per Year 


Depletion 


Tract 


(in Inches) 
1.6 


(in Years) 
>200 


Andrus 


Bacon 


18 


3.0 


72 


Bethel 


10 


I/D 


_- 


Bouldin 


31 


3.0 


124 


Brack 


12 


I/D 




Bradford 


20 


1.6 


150 


Brannan 


29 


1.6 


>200 


Byron 


5 


1.6 


38 


Coney 


4 


1.6 


30 


Empire 


16 


I/D 


-- 


Fabian 


I/O 


-- 


-. 


Holland 


24 


3.0 


96 


Hotchkiss 


16 


I/D 


.. 


Jersey 


30 


3.0 


120 


Jones, Lower 


13 


2.9 


54 


Jones, Upper 


8 


2.9 


33 


King 


5 


I/D 





Mandevil 1e 


34 


2.8 


146 


Medford 


22 


3.0 


88 


Mildred 


I/O 


-- 


.- 


McDonald 


I/D 


-- 


-- 


Orwood 


14 


1.6-3.0 


56-105 


Palm 


10 


3.0 


40 


Quimby 


I/D 


1.6 


-- 


Rindqe 


16 


1.1 


175 


Roberts, Lower 


17 


1.6 


128 


Sherman 


I/D 


3.0 


-- 


Terminous 


I/D 


— 


-- 


Twitchell 


40 


3.0 


160 


Tyler 








Northern Part 


32 


1.6 


>200 


Southern Part 


32 


4.6 


83 


Union 


6 


I/D 


-- 


Veale 


2 


1.6 


15 


Venice 


30 


3.0 


120 


Victoria 


7 


3.0 


28 


Webb 


33 


3.0 


132 


Woodward 


16 


3.0 


64 


I/D = Insufficient Data 






'Assumes all subsidence is due to 


loss of organic 


soils. 


Estimates are 


theoretical. They 


are computed by 


dividing 


estimated maxi 


mum organic soil thickness by estimated 1 


subsidence rates. Actual deplet 


on times may be 


considerably 1 


different, depending on such var 


ables as earth movement, | 


land leveling. 


soil Importation, 


irrigation praci 


ices, and 


flooding. 









About 80 percent of the shallow subsid- 
ence of the organic soils is due to 
oxidation. Figure 3, in Chapter 1, 
shows the location of lower land surface 
elevations throughout the study area. 
Recognizing that before reclamation, the 
surface elevation of organic soils was 
about sea level, the magnitude of nega- 
tive elevations (that Is, elevations 
below sea level based on 1978 



36 



FIGURE 10 




KILOMETRES 



DWR. DELTA SUBSIDENCE STUDY, AUG 1980 



37 



topography) is an approximate measure of 
the maximum amount of subsidence that 
has taken place on each island since 
initial reclamation. Limited available 
data seem to indicate that most Delta 
subsidence is shallow and related to 
depletion of the organic soils rather 
than deep-seated regional subsidence. 
(Experts do not agree on whether tec- 
tonic subsidence is occurring. If it 
is, the rate is very small in comparison 
to other causes.) 

Thus, the depletion of organic soils is 
a major controlling factor in determin- 
ing tlie future of the Delta. For 
Islands within the study area, the 
theoretical depletion times for total 
loss of organic soils are shown in 
Table 7. The depletion times include 
the assumption that all subsidence is 
due to loss of organic soils, and that 
there have been no corrective measures 
or changes in farming practices to 
retard subsidence. 

Complete depletion of organic soils 
would not necessarily be adverse to 
Delta farming, but Lt may reduce farm 
income, leaving less money for levee 
maintenance. Depletion would probably 
signal the end of shallow subsidence. 
Organic soils in some of the southern 
and eastern portions of the Delta have 
already been depleted. 

Shallow subsidence is probably the most 
troublesome problem in preserving the 
Delta levees . As explained in later 
chapters, such subsidence is at least 
partially controllable by changing 
farming practices, including restriction 
of cultivation. Conceivably, this could 
be done in areas immediately adjoining 
the levees to help maintain stability. 
However, this has not been proven by 
testing. 



Flood Protection 

About 40 percent of all the natural 
runoff of California is carried by 



rivers of the Central Valley Basin that 
flow into the Delta and then to the 
Pacific Ocean via San Francisco Bay. 

Historical floodflows of the Sacramento 
and San Joaquin River systems have been 
estimated to be in excess of 400,000 
cubic feet per second. Ironically, 
reclamation of the Delta created part of 
its own flood problem — for every tract 
of land leveed there was correspondingly 
less flood plain over which the excess 
flows from the Central Valley rivers 
could spread . 

Under the Delta's present configuration, 
the major factors influencing high water 
stages are a combination of high flows, 
high tides, westerly winds, and low 
barometric pressure. Historically, the 
highest stages have occurred during 
December through February, as have most 
levee failures. Figure 1, in Chapter 1, 
shows the islands and tracts that have 
flooded since 1930 due to structural 
failure and overtopping . 

While construction of upstream reser- 
voirs since the middle 1940s has reduced 
the threat of overtopping. Delta levee 
failures continue to be a serious 
problem, and seem to be occurring with 
increased frequency. Since about 1950, 
levee failures have been twice as likely 
to be caused by foundation or levee 
instability than by overtopping (see 
Table 8). These types of failures are 
caused by the unstable nature of the 
organic soils and by the subsidence of 
the interior island land surfaces, which 
results in greater continuous hydro- 
static forces on the levees. 

If levees that fail are not repaired, 
large areas in the Delta could become 
like Franks Tract, Big Break, and Lower 
Sherman Island, where portions of the 
levees have washed away, causing the 
flooded islands to become part of the 
open water surface of the estuary. Mich 
of the destruction of these former 
levees was caused by wave action on the 
unprotected interior levee slopes. 



38 



Table 8 











DELTA LEVEE FAILURES, 


1950 THR0U6H 


1982 








Island or Tract 

Venice 






Date 
Falh 


of 
jre 


Uater 
Level 
(feet) 

+ 4.2 




Levee 
Crest 
(feet) 

+ 8+ 


- 


Island 

Floor 

(feet) 

-10+ 


Original 
Thickness 
of Peat 
(feet) 

22+ 




Probable 
Type of 
Levee 

Failure 


3 Dec 


1950 


St^ility 


Stewart 






5 Dec 


1950 


+22.9 




+22+ 




7+ 







Overtopping 


Reclamation District 


17 


7 Dec 


1950 


- 




- 




- 







Overtopping 


Pescadero 








1950 


- 




- 




- 







Overtopping 


Webb 






2 Jun 


1950 


+ 6,1+ 




+ 8.3+ 




-10+ 


30+ 




Stability 


Qulmby 






26 Dec 


1955 


+ 6.3 




+10+ 




-10+ 


20+ 




Stability 


Empire 






26 Dec 


1955 


+ 6.8 




+ 7,5 




-10 


20+ 




Stability 


New Hope 






Dec 


1955 


- 




- 




- 







Overtopping 


McCormack-WI 1 1 i amson 




4 Apr 


1958 


- 




- 




- 







Overtopping 


Dead Horse 






4 Apr 


1958 


- 




- 




- 







Overtopping 


Canal Ranch 






5 Apr 


1958 


- 




- 




- 


10+ 




Overtopping 


Sherman 






20 Jan 


1969 


+ 5.1 




+10.5+ 




-10 


50+ 




Stability 


Mildred 






16 Feb 


1969 


+ 6.0 




9.0 




-10+ 


22+ 




Stability 


Andrus-Brannan 






22 Jun 


1972 


+ 3.2 




+13 




-15 


35+ 




Stability 


Webb 






18 Jan 


1980 


- 




- 




- 


30+ 




Stability 


Holland 






18 Jan 


1980 


- 




- 




- 


30+ 




Stabil/Over 


Dead Horse 






21 Feb 


1980 


- 




- 




- 







Stability 


Jones, Lower 






26 Sep 


1980 


- 




- 




- 


30+ 




Stability 


McDonald 






23 Aug 


1982 


- 0.1 




s* 




-15 


30+ 




Stability 


Venice 






30 Nov 


1982 


6.1+ 




8+ 




-15 


40+ 




Unknown 


Notes: Water level 
time of fall 


elevation at time of fail 
jre not known. Elevation 


[ire estimated from 
datum is mean sea 


nearest gage 
level. 


Highest level on tfay of fail 


ure used if 


Levee crest and 
mean sea level. 


island floor elevations estimated 


from 


topographic 


maps or levee 


surveys. Elevation datum is 


, Original peat thickness for 
under weight of levee. 


island, estimated from 


published peat 


thickness map. 


is thickness 


before compression 





Although flooded Islaads would provide 
Increased fishery habitat and water 
surface for recreation, there would be 
many adverse impacts. These Impacts 
could include: 

" Loss of fresh water by increased 
evaporation and possible increased 
need for additional Delta outflow to 
repel salt water from San Francisco 
Bay. 

° Loss of agricultural production and 
farmsteads . 

° Loss of wildlife food and habitat. 

° Loss of recreational hunting use. 



" Damage to urban development. 

** Disruption of highways, railroads, and 
utilities. 

These are the losses that stimulate the 
search for an effective means to protect 
the Delta levee system — the essence of 
this report • 



Water Transportation and 
Water Quality 

In addition to providing a convenient 
resource of water for local agricul- 
tural, urban, and industrial water sup- 
plies and for recreational and fishery 



39 



purposes. Delta channels also provide an 
Important link In the interbasin 
transfer of water by the Federal Central 
Valley Project and the State Water 
Project. Water released from upstream 
Federal and State storage reservoirs — 
Clair Engle, Shasta, Oroville, and 
Folsom — flows down the Sacramento 
River into the network of channels of 
the Delta, and then to the export 
faclllttes of these two projects located 
in the southern Delta. The levees, of 
course, confine the water to these 
channels . 

During low flow periods, the Delta is 
subject to ocean saltwater intrusion by 
tidal action through San Francisco Bay. 
Ocean salinity intrusion is controlled 
during such periods by creating a 
hydraulic barrier (a flow of fresh water 
to repel the salt water) from releases 
of water stored from upstream Central 
Valley Project and State Water Project 
reservoirs. State policy requires that 
the Delta must be protected before any 
water is exported, and as a condition of 
State water rights for these two proj- 
ects, water quality criteria established 
by the State Water Resources Control 
Board must be met. During periods of 
high uncontrolled runoff, the hydraulic 
barrier pushes ocean salinity far to the 
west, allowing these criteria to be met 
without releases from project reser- 
voirs • 



Potential Short Term Problems 

If a large island floods during an 
extended low-flow period, there is a 
potential for excessive salinity intru- 
sion into the Delta that will degrade 
the water supply for both local use and 
export. For example, on the first day 
of summer in 1972, the Andrus Island 
levee broke, flooding about 13,000 acres 



of Andrus and Brannan Islands. The 
sudden levee failure, followed by the 
rapid flooding of the islands, disrupted 
the hydraulic barrier and caused a large 
amount of water to flow upstream in the 
San Joaquin River. The flow averaged 
about 35,000 cubic feet per second for 
two days and drew saline water into the 
Delta from Sulsun Bay. By June 24, 
salinity (chloride content) increased 
from about 250 to 1,500 parts per 
million at Jersey Point and from 125 to 
750 parts per million at Franks Tract. 

Within hours of the break, State Water 
Project intake gates at Clifton Court 
Forebay were closed and the Central 
Valley Project pumps at Tracy began 
cutting back, reducing exports over a 
35-day period. Releases from Folsom, 
Oroville, and Shasta reservoirs were 
increased, nearly tripling the rate of 
Delta outflow for the next 10 days. 
About 23,000 acre-feet* of extra water 
in addition to the amount inundating 
Andrus and Brannan Islands was released 
to restore salinity to its prebreak 
level in the western Delta, after which 
normal Delta outflows were once again 
effective in holding out saline waters. 
A portion of this outflow came from 
water pumped out of the island lake 
after the levee was repaired. Thus, 
most of the water first used to flush 
the salts was recovered. 

However, even with the reservoir 
releases, a large block of salt water 
remained trapped in the central Delta 
and had to be removed over the next 
several weeks by local diversions and by 
pumping at the Federal and State export 
facilities. During this process salini- 
ties in the southern Delta continued to 
climb to about four times their prebreak 
values. Chloride content peaked at 
about 400 parts per million at the Rock 
Slough intake to the Contra Costa Canal 



*fhis figure is substantially less than the estimate appearing in the Corps of 

Engineers' draft report. The new figure was derived during a reanalysis of the 

Andrus-Brannan situation prompted by a need to develop benefits for cost allocation 
purposes . 



40 



and at about 280 parts per million at 
Clifton Court Forebay. (The limit 
recommended by the Public Health Service 
for drinking water Is 250 parts per 
million chlorides.) This salty Delta 
water was blended with fresh water from 
East Bay l^nlclpal Utility District's 
Mokelumne River Aqueduct, Del Valle 
Reservoir, and San Luis Reservoir, 
providing water of usable quality for 
most export water users. Some users, 
where such blending was not possible, 
had only the salty Delta water. 

Short term water quality problems do not 
occur If a levee breaks during winter 
periods of high floodflow. Nor do water 
quality problems necessarily occur with 
all summer levee breaks, or at all 
locations In the Delta. This was demon- 
strated on August 23, 1982, when the 
west levee of McDonald Island broke, 
flooding about 6,100 acres. Because 
1982 was classified as a wet year, 
requiring a relatively high level of 
controlled Delta outflow during the sum- 
mer under State Water Resources Control 
Board Decision 1485, and because even 
higher Delta outflows were being made 
for a special test for the Department of 
Fish and Game, very little salt water 
was drawn Into the Delta and the quality 
of water supplies was unaffected. 



Potential Long Term Problems 

Long term water supply problems could 
occur If a Delta levee were to break and 
an Island allowed to remain flooded, and 
If no other remedial action were taken. 
Water loss through evaporation of an 
Inundated Island exceeds the consumptive 
use of irrigated agriculture over the 
same area. This would require the State 
Water Project and Federal Central Valley 
Project to make greater releases of 
stored water to meet Delta needs before 
any water could be exported, thereby 
reducing the yield (water for project 
purposes) of the projects. However, 
remedial raeasures, short of full restor- 
ation of an Island, that would nullify 



this loss of yield are possible. Such 
measures will be discussed In Chapter 8 
of this bulletin. 

Increased salinity Intrusion and addi- 
tional outflow needed to control it 
might be a problem if certain islands in 
the western and southwestern channels 
were to remain flooded, and if no 
remedial raeasures were taken. Ifliile 
there would be no significant Increase 
in the total amount of water entering 
the Delta as a result of rising tides, 
there could be a significant change in 
tidal flows in channels in the immediate 
vicinity of the breached levee. This 
could tend to increase the local tidal 
dispersion (mixing action) or reduce the 
salinity travel path, or both. The 
result could be twofold: (1) a greater 
tendency for salinity Intrusion Into the 
central Delta and project water sup- 
plies, and (2) corresponding increases 
in Delta outflow required to control 
that salinity. 

An example of this was the 1980 flooding 
of the 4,200 acre Holland Tract, which, 
if left flooded, would have signifi- 
cantly increased the tidal flow of Dutch 
Slough and could have shortened the path 
of travel. This, in turn, would have 
resulted in a greater possibility of 
salty water being carried from the mouth 
of Dutch Slough (on the San Joaquin 
River) into Old River, and thence to the 
State and Federal export facilities. 
These problems could be mitigated by the 
restoration of the levees without total 
reclamation of the flooded Island as 
discussed In Chapters 8 and 9. 

Some Investigators have mistakenly 
hypothesized that If an Island were 
allowed to remain flooded, there would 
be an Increase In the tidal prism and 
oscillating tidal flows In and out of 
the Delta, thereby increasing the poten- 
tial for salinity intrusion and the need 
for higher outflows to control it. 
While It Is true that with a flooded 
Island a greater surface area Is covered 
with water, the tidal amplitude actually 



41 



lessens so that the tidal prism remains 
essentially constant. This effect has 
been observed not only on an analog 
model developed by the Department of 
Water Resources and the hydraulic model 
constructed by the Corps of Engineers, 
but also in the Delta itself. A compar- 
ison of tides at Colllnsvllle and Venice 
island before and after the Andrus- 
Brannan Island flood showed a 0.7 foot 
decrease In tidal range at the latter 
point. 



Future Work 

The effect of a Delta levee break on 
water quality and supply of the Federal 
Central Valley Project and State Water 
Project water depends on the specific 
location of the levee break and on flow 
and water quality conditions. Flow con- 
ditions depend upon unregulated stream- 
flows, upstream reservoir releases, and 
the specific method and magnitude of 
water transfer through or around the 
Delta. Except for the effects of 
increased evaporation, this makes it 
impossible to quantify the effects on 
the water export projects for a non- 
existent generalized case. 

However, the Corps of Engineers, with 
assistance from the Department of Water 
Resources, and the U. S. Bureau of 
Reclamation, is performing a series of 
24 hydraulic model studies for the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 
The purpose of these tests is to evalu- 
ate the quality impacts of certain levee 
failures in various sections of the 
Delta. To assist in establishing policy 
for federal aid in restoring flooded 
Islands, the Federal Emergency Manage- 
ment Agency is especially interested in 
the long term effects on water exported 
from the Delta in relation to the 
domestic water supplies of Contra Costa 
County, the South San Francisco Bay 
Area, and Southern California. Results 
from these studies, however, were not 
available in time for use in this 
bulletin. 



Recreation 

The Delta offers a great diversity of 
recreational opportunities. Its 50,000 
acres of water surface, nearly 1,100 
miles of leveed shoreline, and abundant 
fish and wildlife support a wide variety 
of recreational activities, the most 
popular being fishing and boating. 
There are 116 private and public resorts 
catering primarily to anglers and 
boaters. The limited facilities for 
picnicking and swimming are heavily 
used. Some of the resorts are also 
developing additional facilities for 
picnicking and camping to augment the 
limited existing facilities. Duck and 
pheasant hunting is also popular in the 
Delta. The maze of Delta channels is 
especially appealing for boat cruising, 
and the expanse of calm water is ideal 
for water skiing and high-speed boating. 
Although some of the channels are not 
used extensively, other areas are con- 
gested. Competition occurs between 
anglers and boaters. Safety for recrea- 
tionists is becoming a significant 
concern. 

Boat wakes contribute to levee erosion, 
which has increased as recreational use 
has grown and boats have become larger 
and more numerous. Also, landowner 
complaints of trespass by recreationists 
onto privately owned levees and farm- 
lands are increasingly common. 

Recreation in the Delta is expected to 
continue to grow over time, reflecting 
the population growth of the San Fran- 
cisco Bay, Sacramento, and Stockton 
areas. If the recreation potential of 
the Delta is to be realized, development 
of additional facilities and better 
management to control the conflicting 
uses and incidents of trespass are 
essential . 



Fish and Wildlife 

Although reclamation of the former 
marshlands has removed much of the once 



42 



lush expanses of native vegetation, the 
Delta remains a unique and varied 
habitat for a multitude of fish and 
wildlife species. 

The largest anadromous fishery resource 
in California is partially dependent on 
environmental conditions in the Delta 
estuary. The most significant of these 
anadromous species are chinook salmon 
and striped bass. Other anadromous 
species of substantial importance 
include steelhead, American shad, and 
sturgeon. Resident warm water species 
include catfish, black bass, and 
crappie. The levees help maintain the 
aquatic environment necessary to the 
continued abundance of some of these 
fishery resources. 

Environmental conditions for fish and 
other aquatic life have deteriorated in 
the Delta over the past 20 years due to 
human activity. Specific adverse 
conditions have been attributed to the 
present method of transferring water 
through the Delta channels for export by 
the Federal Central Valley Project and 
State Water Project. The present opera- 
tion of these projects: 

° Interferes with migrating salmon and 
other anadromous fish. 

" Draws large numbers of free-floating 
striped bass eggs, larvae, and tiny 
fish through the louvered screens at 
the export pumps . 

° Decreases fish food supply due to the 
relatively high velocity flows in the 
channels that are used for water 
transfer. 

These problems are not directly related 
to levees, and their solution is basic- 
ally independent of levee improvement 
plans. However, if levees that fail are 
not repaired, large areas in the Delta 
could become similar to Franks Tract, 
Big Break, and Lower Sherman Island 
where the levees have washed away and 
the flooded islands have become i^rt of 
the estuary. These flooded islands 



expanded the habitat for a variety of 
fish, especially striped bass and 
catfish. However, past observations of 
fish utilization of flooded islands is 
not necessarily the best guide for the 
future. Because of subsidence since 
these early unreclaimed failures, future 
floodings would produce much deeper 
areas. These deep areas would not have 
the high phytoplankton production of the 
existing flooded islands, and thus would 
be of lower value to the fishery. 

The Delta also provides important 
habitat for numerous species of water- 
fowl and other wildlife, including 
pheasant, mourning dove, 200 species of 
aongame birds, and 39 species of 
mammals, some of which support a modest 
trapping industry. The mammal group 
includes river otters, skunks, and bur- 
rowing species such as beaver, muskrat, 
and ground squirrels that cause serious 
damage to levees . 



Causes or Potential Causes of 
Levee Failure 

Levee failures continue to be the 
Delta's primary problem. The principal 
causes of levee failure are structural 
failure of levee materials, foundation 
failures of underlying soils, and over- 
topping by floodflows, tides, and waves. 
Contributing factors include poor con- 
struction materials, erosion by current 
and wave action, seepage through or 
under the levee, rodent burrows in the 
levees, and improper levee repairs. 
Lack of adequate maintenance to correct 
these problems on a regular basis also 
contributes to levee failure. Most 
failures are a composite of several of 
these causes . 



Overtopping 

Construction of upstream reservoirs 
since the middle 1940s has reduced 
the frequency of levee overtopping. 
Although in recent years failure result- 
ing from overtopped levees has been 



43 



controlled to a large degree, the 
continual subsidence of a levee requires 
periodic application of additional 
material to its crown and landward slope 
to maintain adequate freeboard. 

Another problem that may contribute to 
overtopping is the abnormally high tides 
that have recently been observed. Water 
year 1981-82 was one of the wettest in 
this century in the Central Valley. The 
Rio Vista tide gage has been used for 
years as an index of flood stages in the 
Delta. Tide levels at this gage are 
forecast daily by the River Forecast 
Center in Sacramento. These tides 
remained well above average levels 
during the summer of 1982. The average 
stage increases were not large, being 
around 0.5 to 0.7 foot, but neverthe- 
less, they are of concern because of the 
precarious Delta levee situation. 

Some preliminary analysis of the 
abnormal tide situation has been made, 
primarily to determine whether the 
factors involved are of a temporary or 
permanent nature. Indications are that 
there some of each. 

One factor, reflecting a more or less 
temporary condition that has contributed 
to the higher than normal Rio Vista tide 
stages, is that larger than normal Delta 
outflows occurred this past summer. The 
primary reason is the very wet runoff 
season, but a minor reason was reduced 
export pumping by the State Water 
Project and Federal Central Valley 
Project since San Luis Reservoir storage 
levels were lowered to facilitate 
repairs. The greater outflows are 
believed to be the major cause of the 
higher tidal stages. 

There are, however, two other factors 
believed to be contributing to Delta 
tide levels being higher than long-range 
forecasts generally indicate. These 
additional factors may well be perma- 
nent. They are deep-seated subsidence 
in the vicinity of the Rio Vista gage 
and increases in average ocean levels at 
the Golden Gate. Some tentative studies 



of the latter indicate a 50-year trend 
of slowly rising ocean levels of 
0.08 inch per year. Deep-seated subsid- 
ence at the Rio Vista gage is difficult 
to determine with assurance because of 
questions about the stability of nearby 
benchmarks. A very preliminary study 
indicates a deep-seated subsidence rate 
of about 0.2 inch per year. T"/hether 
this is a localized rate or typical of 
larger areas of the Delta is not known. 
Subsidence in the Rio Vista area may be 
partly attributable to natural gas 
extraction in that vicinity. 



Structural Failure 

Levee foundation materials in the 
central Delta vary; they include clay, 
silt, sand, and peat. In general, the 
inorganic materials provide adequate 
foundation conditions, but the peat has 
an extremely low density, is highly 
compressible, and is structurally weak. 
Saturated sands and silts may be subject 
to liquefaction, resulting in decreased 
shear resistance. Liquefaction involves 
a temporary transformation of the 
material into a fluid mass. Soil logs 
from exploratory drill holes along the 
alignment of some levees show that the 
peat in the foundations has consolidated 
to about 60 percent of the original 
thickness, with only a small gain in 
shear strength. Water pressure against 
the levees and the weight of the levee 
can cause this low-strength foundation 
material to move laterally, causing a 
levee failure. 

Differential foundation settlement may 
be another cause of levee failures, 
particularly where levees are founded on 
peat that abuts old, narrow river chan- 
nels or sloughs filled with clay and 
sand. The clay-, silt-, and sand- 
filled channels consolidate little com- 
pared to the surrounding peat. Cracks 
may develop in the levee above the old 
channel sediment-peat contacts, causing 
levee failure. Although the actual 
cause of the levee failure has not been 
determined, both the 1980 failure of the 



44 



Santa Fe Railroad embankment that separ- 
ated Upper and Lower Jones Tracts and 
the 1982 failure of McDonald Island 
levee were near such old channels . 

Since 1950, incidents of levee failure 
due to foundation or levee instability 
have doubled. Structural failures are 
often preceded by a localized partial 
failure involving 200 to 1,000 feet of 
levee. Partial failure Includes settle- 
ment of the levee and the formation of 
cracks and sinkholes in the landward 
levee slope . Unless repair is immedi- 
ate, the condition may become worse 
until the levee completely fails. 

Caution must be used in placing exten- 
sive new fill, particularly saturated 
dredged material, on levees composed of 
or founded on organic soils. The 
additional weight, especially when the 
levees are saturated from winter rains 
or high water levels, can increase the 
chances of failure. Dredge operators 
should be careful not to undermine the 
waterside toe of the levees. They 
should also avoid digging into coarse 
sand lenses in channel bottoms that 
could open new routes for seepage . 
Indeed, some levee failures may have 
been stimulated by levee repair work, as 
they occurred at sites where there liad 
been recent or ongoing repair. The 1972 
A^ndrus Island, the 1980 Jones Tract, and 
the 1982 McDonald Island failures are 
examples of this possibility. 



Subsidence 

Subsidence contributes to structural 
failure. As subsidence of peaty soils 
In the interior of the islands contin- 
ues, water pressure on the levees 
increases . This sometimes causes a 
section of levee or its foundation to 
fail, with subsequent flooding of an 
Island. Results of an analysis by the 
Corps of Engineers Indicate that there 
is likely to be two to three times the 
number of structural failures as a 
result of subsidence during the next 30 
years, compared to the last 30 years. 



Seepage 

The elevation difference between the 
higher channel water surface and the 
lower ground surface of many Delta 
islands causes a continual seepage of 
water through the levees from the 
channels to the interior of the islands. 
Seepage tends to increase with time as 
land subsidence lowers the Island ground 
surface, which continues to increase the 
water pressure on the levees . This 
seepage can cause levee instability, 
loss of agricultural production, and 
higher power costs for drainage pumps. 

Levee instability can result from satur- 
ation and from removal of levee material 
by water seeping through the levee. In 
some instances, saturated soils extend 
1,000 feet into the Islands. Visible 
flows occur in some places at the levee 
toe and in the toe drain ditches. As a 
result of these flows from adjacent 
channels, small ponds have been created 
on some islands. If seepage (and ground 
water) were not removed by pumping, 
seepage would soon fill the island to 
channel levels . 



Rodent Burrows 

The Delta provides abundant habitat, 
including marshlands, berms, and levees, 
for rodents. Rodent burrows, particu- 
larly those of beaver and muskrat, can 
threaten the Integrity of a levee. 
Burrows in levees can weaken the levee 
section and contribute to levee failure 
by Increasing the potential for 
"piping" — the washing away of levee 
material by seepage through a levee . 
Vegetation on levee slopes makes it 
difficult to detect rodent burrows. In 
some areas where excessive vegetation 
(such as dense stands of bamboo or 
blackberry vines) occur, it is imposs- 
ible to detect such burrows. Moveover, 
properly managed vegetation can reduce 
rodent problems . 



45 



Erosion 

The waterside slopes of Delta levees are 
subjected to varying eroslonal effects 
from channel flows, tidal action, wind- 
generated waves, and boat wakes. The 
accelerated growth in recreational use 
in recent years by pleasure boaters, 
anglers, and water skiers has intensi- 
fied this erosion. 

The U. S. Geological Survey* found that 
about 20 percent of the annual energy 
dissipated against the levees could be 
attributed to boat-generated waves in a 
typical narrow channel subject to both 
winter floodflows and heavy boat traf- 
fic. In a channel relatively unaffected 
by winter floodflows, energy dissipation 
from boat-generated waves ranges from 
about 45 to 80 percent of the total, 
depending upon wind movement and other 
factors. 

Erosion is often alleviated by placing 
rock revetment on the waterward levee 
slope, usually with rock hauled in by 
barge from outside the Delta. Chunks of 
concrete or other material obtained 
locally are sometimes used. Placement 
of revetment can cause, as well as 
alleviate, levee problems. The rock 
does not always remain in place on the 
slopes, thus causing unexpected erosion 
if not repaired. In addition, the added 
weight of rock can cause subsidence or 
slumping of levee fill or overload the 
foundation and thereby contribute to a 
structural failure. 

By absorbing the energy of wind- 
generated waves and boat wakes, a berm 
on the waterside of a levee does much to 
prevent erosion. Many Delta levees were 
originally constructed so as to provide 
a berm. In most cases, however, the 
berms have not been adequately pro- 
tected, and these buffers between the 



main channels and the levees have been 
lost . 

Vegetation on levees may be desirable or 
undesirable with regard to erosion. 
Certain types of vegetation (such as 
tules or rushes) on levee slopes can 
help to slow erosion. However, the 
continual wave action at normal water 
levels frequently undercuts inapprop- 
riate types of vegetation at the water- 
line, and progressive caving eats into 
the levee slope. In some places, dense 
stands of vegetation (bamboo, blackberry 
vines, etc.) can also screen the view 
and make it difficult or impossible to 
detect problem areas. 

Other methods of erosion control that 
have been considered include timber 
mattresses, bulkheads, concrete paving, 
grouted riprap, sheet piling, and fab- 
rics such as open nylon and vinyl mats 
and rayon filter materials. For most 
levee erosion situations, nothing has 
been found that is as effective as rock 
revetment. 



Seismicity 

California is one of the most seismic- 
ally active areas of the continental 
United States. Three major active 
faults, the San Andreas, Hayward, and 
Calaveras, are immediately west of the 
Delta and several significant faults 
underlie the Delta (see Figure 11). 
These faults have been studied in detail 
by the Department of Water Resources, 
the Division of Mines and Geology, and 
the U.S. Geological Survey. 

Because these faults have a potential 
for damaging Delta levees, the Depart- 
ment conducted a seismicity hazard 
study** of the Delta as part of the 
joint Delta Levees Study with the Corps. 



* U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations 28-74, "Evaluation of 
Causes of Levee Erosion in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California", 197 5. 

**Departinent of Water Resources, Central District, "Seismicity Hazards in the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta", October 1980. 



46 



FIGURE 11 



LEGEND 



EPICENTER 

AND 
MAQNITUDE 



SACRAMENTO 




PLACERVILLE 




MODESTO 
A 



SAN ANDREAS 
A 



47 



The selsmiclty hazard study coacluded 
that no Delta levee failures are known 
to be directly attributable to earth- 
quakes, but that a major earthquake in 
the area today could cause serious 
damage. There are two reasons for this. 
First, there have been no serious 
damage-causing earthquakes in the Delta 
area since the San Andreas fault rup- 
tured in 1906 (Richter magnitude 8.3)*. 
Second, the few levees in existence at 
that time were much lower and subject to 
much less hydrostatic water pressure. 

Earthquakes can cause a number of prob- 
lems for levees, including liquefaction 
and settlement. These two factors are 
of particular concern in the Delta, 
where levees are founded on and 
constructed with unconsolidated peat and 
iaorganlc soils of low density, low 
shear strength, and high moisture 
coatent. The hazards become greater as 
the levees are raised to counteract 
continued land subsidence. Even without 
another 1906 magnitude earthquake, the 
Antioch fault earthquake of 1965 
(Richter magnitude 4.9) and the Green- 
ville fault earthquake of 1980 (Richter 
magnitude 5.8) emphasize the potential 
for higher earthquake magnitudes and the 
need to consider seismic forces as a 
potential cause of levee failure. 

The Department of Water Resources 
reviewed the Midland fault because it 
crosses the central Delta and several 
recent levee failures are near it, sug- 
gesting a possible correlation. The 
fault was reported to be active and 
capable of producing a Richter 



magnitude 7 earthquake.** However, 
several more recent studies by the 
Department and by the Division of Mines 
and Geology*** conclude that it is 
Inactive, and there is no geologic 
evidence that the Midland fault is 
active or has been active for about 
20 million years. The Department 
plotted all earthquake epicenters and 
recent levee failures in the Delta and 
superimposed them on a geologic map. 
There is no apparent correlation between 
levee failures, epicenters, and the 
Midland fault. 



Levee Maintenance 

Maintenance on nonproject levees is 
performed by many Individual districts 
and landowners. The quality of mainte- 
nance varies according to the practices 
followed by the maintaining entity and 
does not comply with any set of uniform 
standards. In some areas, heavy vegeta- 
tion is allowed to grow on the levee 
slopes, making it difficult to observe 
seepage areas, damage by erosion, rodent 
burrows, cracking, and settlement of 
organic soils of the levees and their 
foundations. 

Marinas are expanding and boating is 
increasing, creating additional levee 
erosion problems. The boating interests 
are not contributing funds to pay for 
the added maintenance costs they cause. 

Indeed, an argument could be made that a 
higher level of inspection and repair is 
needed in the Delta than in other areas 



* Richter magnitude of an earthquake is a rating that measures the energy released 

during the earthquake. The logarithmic Richter scale means that for every upward 

step of one magnitude unit, there is a 32-fold Increase In energy release. 
** Greensfelder, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 
***Department of Water Resources, "Revaluation of Seismic Hazards for Clifton Court 

Forebay, Bethany Dams and Reservoir Patterson Reservoir, Del Valle Dam and Lake 

Del Valle", July 1979. 

Department of Water Resources, "Los Vaqueros Off stream Storage Unit, Engineering 

Feasibility". July 1981. 

California Division of Mines and Geology, "Fault Evaluation Report FER-133", 

July 30, 1982. 



48 



because of the severity of the problems. 
Unfortunately, present practices lead to 
"deferred maintenance", a condition 
requiring periodic major levee rehabil- 
itation when conditions become intoler- 
able. In the interim, such deferred 
maintenance can contribute to levee 
failure. 

In October 1980, following six levee 
breaks that year, the Department of 
Water Resources visually inspected non- 
project levees around 52 islands and 
tracts. Corps of Engineers maintenance 
standards generally used for project 
levees were used as a guide to assess 
the general condition of these levees 
and to Identify sites that could cause 
problems during the 1980-81 flood 
season. *tore than 500 potential problem 
sites were identified. Of the 52 
islands, 4 were rated "very poor", 28 
were rated "poor", and 20 were rated 
"fair"*. 

During the inspection, dense vegetation, 
particularly blackberry vines and 
bamboo, prevented adequate inspection of 
some levees . About half of the levee 
slopes were clear enough to allow good 
visual inspection. Another quarter had 
sparse vegetation and provided for fair 
visual inspection. The rest were so 
heavily covered with wild growth that 
inspection of the levees was precluded. 

Beginning in 1973 with passage of the 
Delta Levee Maintenance Act (Way Bill), 
the State has provided some financial 
assistance to local reclamation dist- 
ricts for routine annual maintenance. 
However, funds available at both the 
State and local levels remain well below 
those needed to upgrade levee 
maintenance throughout the Delta to an 
acceptable standard. 



Although information on expenditures for 
maintenance and rehabilitation of levees 
in the Delta is sparse, available 
information shows substantial levels of 
expenditure. Information on annual 
maintenance and rehabilitation expendi- 
tures from 1973 through 1975 for about 
30 percent of the nonproject levees was 
averaged. This indicates the general 
range of these expenditures during a 
period that did not include substantial 
Federal and State financial assistance 
programs. Following the 1980 flood 
disasters, financial assistance was 
provided to 43 islands and tracts under 
two federal programs administered by the 
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers or the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
plus a State program administered by the 
Office of Emergency Services. In addi- 
tion, financial assistance under the 
State's Delta Levee Maintenance Subven- 
tions program reimbursed part of the 
maintenance and rehabilitation costs 
incurred during fiscal year 1981-82 for 
27 islands and tracts. 

To compare these expenditures with the 
money spent recently by maintaining 
agencies that participated in Federal 
and State financial assistance programs 
during 1980-81, these averaged 1973-1975 
values were multiplied by a factor of 
2.0 to revise the price index from 1974 
to 1981. The general range of these 
expenditures is summarized in the 
following tabulation: 

Without Assistance Programs 

$4,500 to $14,500/mile 
$10 to $50/acre 

With Assistance Programs 

$9,500 to $24,000/raile 
$20 to $60/acre 



*Department of Water Resources, "Findings and Recommendations Based on the 
Inspection of Delta Levees During October 1980", December 1980. 



49 



Levee Failure Evaluation 

As part of the joint Delta Levees Study, 
the Corps of Engineers evaluated the 
historical, present, and future 
frequency of levee failure. While 
construction of upstream reservoirs 
since the middle 1940s has reduced peak 
floodflows, and thereby the number of 
failures due to overtopping, failures 
due to levee instability have Increased 
and will probably continue to Increase 
due to subsidence of the island floors, 
which increases the hydrostatic pressure 
on the levees. The detailed procedures 
and results of analyses of frequency of 
failure due to overtopping and failure 
due to levee instability have been 
published by the Corps of Engineers as 
supporting material to its draft feasi- 
bility report on Delta levee rehabilita- 
tion. The statistical frequency of 
levee failure from a combination of 
overtopping and instability for islands 
and flood plains in the study area under 
both present and future conditions 
(without a levee improvement project) is 
summarized in Table 9. The estimated 
frequency of failure is generalized in 
four categories in Figure 12. Figure 13 
shows frequency of failure 40 years in 
the future assuming no major rehabilita- 
tion program. 

Levee conditions as presented in the 
Corps' study are based on levee data 
collected in 1974. While some levees 
have been improved since then, others 
may be in worse condition, but from a 
statistical point of view, the analysis 
provides an adequate basis for a 
feasibility study. 



Table 9 



STATISTICAL FREQUENCY OF 


LEVEE FAILURES 






PER 


100 YEARS 










After 


After 


After 


After 




Exist- 


20 


40 


60 


80 


Island 


ing 
4.64 


Years 

6.81 


Years 
6.99 


Years 

7.01 


Years 
7.01 


Andrus-Brannan 


Atlas 


0.65 


0.66 


0.70 


0.79 


0.94 


Bacon 


5.63 


7.25 


8.77 


10.09 


11.19 


Bethel 


0.20 


0.86 


1.91 


3.40 


4.29 


Bishop 


5.67 


6.04 


6.23 


6.26 


6.29 


Bouldin 


18.25 


18.25 


18.25 


18.25 


18.25 


Brack 


13.00 


13.25 


13.44 


13.48 


13.51 


Bradford 


5.00 


5.92 


6.29 


6.53 


6.59 


Byron 


0.13 


0.46 


1.02 


1.65 


2.51 


Canal Ranch 


5.22 


6.50 


7.13 


7.57 


7.79 


Coney 


1.42 


1.87 


2.43 


2.76 


2.89 


Dead Horse 


5.08 


5.12 


5.28 


5.44 


5.63 


Empire 


12.22 


14.08 


14.85 


15.32 


15.63 


Fabian 


Neg. 


Neg. 


Neg. 


0.01 


0.20 


Holland 


4.17 


5.68 


7.89 


9.12 


9.82 


Hotchkiss 


2.80 


3.77 


4.46 


5.26 


5.59 


Jersey 


3.49 


5.72 


7.30 


8.22 


8.80 


Jones, Roberts, 












Drexler 


6.65 


8.05 


8.68 


9.21 


9.36 


King 


3.91 


4.88 


5.69 


6.29 


6.49 


Mandevllle 


6.85 


10.04 


11.36 


11.61 


11.65 


McCormack- 












WilUamson 


5.03 


5.19 


5.51 


5.95 


6.51 


McDonald 


7.65 


9.82 


11.04 


11.53 


11.82 


Med ford 


16.90 


17.03 


17.07 


17.07 


17.07 


Mildred 


4.06 


4.81 


5.34 


5.56 


5.68 


New Hope 


1.82 


2.41 


3.44 


4.72 


5.45 


Orwood 


0.16 


0.69 


1.19 


2.11 


3.07 


Orwood, Upper 


11.78 


12.19 


12.54 


12.84 


13.13 


Palm 


3.87 


4.27 


4.46 


4.50 


4.56 


Pescadero 


0.94 


1.40 


1.80 


2.13 


2.46 


Quimby 


2.84 


3.81 


4.82 


5.70 


6.21 


Rindge 


7.14 


9.56 


11.47 


12.44 


13.01 


Rio Blanco 


3.52 


3.6^ 


4.01 


4,39 


4.71 


Sargent-Barnhart 


1.30 


1.36 


1.49 


1.72 


1.95 


Sherman 


1.54 


5.33 


7.16 


7.26 


7.26 


Shima 


2.21 


3.71 


4.99 


5.38 


5.70 


Shin Kee 


13.08 


13.17 


13.32 


13.45 


13.56 


Staten 


2.19 


4.33 


7.44 


10.50 


11.99 


Stewart 


0.94 


1.40 


1.80 


2.13 


2.46 


Terminous 


15.40 


16.79 


17.19 


17.41 


17.79 


Twitchell 


2.85 


4.76 


4.91 


4.93 


4.93 


Tyler 


5.17 


5.94 


6.37 


6.79 


6.91 


Union 


Neg. 


0.02 


0.09 


0.30 


0.73 


Veale 


12.09 


13.40 


13.71 


13.87 


13.91 


Venice 


16.43 


17.03 


17.03 


17.03 


17.03 


Victoria 


1.22 


1.97 


3.13 


4.48 


5.28 


Walnut Grove 


0.02 


0.03 


0.06 


0.10 


0.13 


Webb 


8.81 


9.29 


9.29 


9.29 


9.29 


Woodward 


6.86 


7.62 


7.93 


8.16 


8.34 


Wright-Elmwood 


1.31 


2.14 


2.93 


3.36 


3.58 
1 


From analysis by 


U. S. 


Army Corp 


s of Engineers 


1 



50 



FIGURE 12 




LEGEND 

STATISTICAL NUMBER OF 
FAILURES PER 100 YEARS 

1 I 1.0 OH LESS 

I I 11 TO 2.0 

I I 2 1 TO 4,0 

^^B 4.1 TO 10.0 

GREATER THAN 10.0 



ESTIMATED FREQUENCY OF LEVEE 
FAILURE UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS 



51 



FIGURE 13 




I I 1 OR LESS 

I I 1 1 TO 2 

I 1 2 1 TO 4 



4 1 TO 10.0 
GREATER THAN 10.0 



ESTIMATED FREQUENCY 
OF LEVEE FAILURE IN YEAR 2020 



52 



Chapter 4. PLANNING AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 



The premise and purposes of the study 
are set forth in legislation enacted in 
1973 and 1976 (see Chapter 2). This 
legislation calls for the Department of 
Water Resources to develop plans for 
Improving Delta levees to preserve the 
Delta in its present configuration. The 
idea that the Delta should be preserved 
in its present state has been further 
supported by public hearings conducted 
as a part of this investigation, and was 
strongly supported by a broad base of 
participants at a conference on the 
"Future of the Delta", cosponsored by 
the Institute of Government Affairs, the 
University of California at Davis, and 
the California Department of Water 
Resources, in March 1981. 

Investigations and analyses conducted 
for this bulletin have been influenced 
by numerous assumptions. The major 
purposes of this investigation have 
been: 

To develop and describe a program of 
levee improvement to carry out the 
legislative intent to preserve the 
Delta in its present configuration. 

" To estimate the costs of such a 
program. 

° To Identify uncertainties and 
difficulties inherent in such a 
program. 

° To suggest other measures that may 
warrant further consideration. 

Accordingly, technical studies, specific 
plans, and economic evaluations 
presented in this bulletin are limited 
to levee improvement plans, including 



appropriate flood plain management 
elements. Various scenarios under the 
"no action" alternative are also 
discussed, but only in general terms 
(refer to Chapter 8). 

In addition to individual levee 
improvement plans, the U. S. Army Corps 
of Engineers Included in its draft 
report* a discussion of nonstructural 
and out-of-Delta alternatives, as well 
as cost and benefit data on "polder 
levees", which would enclose small 
groups of islands within the Delta. In 
view of the legislative and public 
preference for preserving the existing 
physical characteristics of the Delta, 
these types of measures are not analyzed 
in this bulletin. This is in keeping 
with the report's format of not 
repeating details of the investigation 
published by the Corps of Engineers. 

Nevertheless, it should be noted that 
the Department has considered various 
polder alternatives in previous 
investigations. They were described in 
the preliminary edition of Bulletin 76, 
"Delta Water Facilities", December 1960, 
and in "Delta Levees — What Is Their 
Future?", September 1973. Unlike the 
Corps analysis of small polders, which 
shows the cost to be nearly as great as 
for improving individual levees, the 
1973 report estimated capital costs of a 
system of large polders to be about half 
the cost of extensive Improvement of 
individual island levees. 

If financing of the projects described 
in this bulletin proves to be an 
Insurmountable problem, the Legislature 
may reconsider its policy of preserving 
the existing physical configuration of 



*Draft Feasibility Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Sacramento- 
San Joaquin Delta", October 1982. 



53 



the Delta. Even though Delta 
agriculture would be preserved, such 
reconsideration would have to recognize 
that polders would inhibit boat travel 
and alter the aquatic environment for 
fish. 



Project Purposes 

The following specific planning goals or 
project purposes were used by the Corps 
of Engineers and the Department of Water 
Resources as a guide in the formulation 
and evaluation of alternative levee 
improvement plans for preserving the 
physical configuration of the Delta. 

" Reduce the extent of floodfight costs, 
property damage, threats to public 
safety, and loss of agricultural 
production resulting from levee 
failure. 

° Reduce water quality problems related 
to levee failure. 

" Improve recreational opportunities, 
when consistent with other Delta 
activities and resources. 

" Protect and enhance fish and wildlife 
that would be affected by flooded 
islands or levee improvements. 

° Preserve significant scenic values. 



Design Considerations 

To provide a basis for formulating 
specific plans for reducing the 
frequency of flooding in the Delta, 
numerous design Issues were considered 
and technical studies conducted during 
this cooperative investigation. Many of 
these issues and studies focus on the 
degree of protection to be sought and 
upon the physical approaches to be taken 
in l.nprovlng the levees. These design 
considerations are summarized in this 
section. 



Levee Overtopping 

Three levels of protection from over- 
topping were considered. These levels 
considered the combined effects that 
high floodflows, high tides, and high 
winds have on water stages in the 
Delta. 

50-Year Flood: Protection against a 
flood with an average recurrence 
interval of once in 50 years was 
considered the minimum appropriate 
protection for islands and tracts used 
primarily for agriculture. 

100- Year Flood: Protection against a 
flood with water stages that could be 
expected to occur on the average of once 
in 100 years was considered the minimum 
appropriate protection for islands and 
tracts with urban development. This 
level of protection, plus a 3-foot mini- 
mum freeboard, corresponds with minimum 
standards required for urban areas under 
the National Flood Insurance Program. 

300- Year Flood: The Corps of Engineers 
analysis of extreme Delta inflows and 
water stages (as affected by high tides 
and wind) concluded that water stages 
with an average recurrence interval of 
once in 300 years would be appropriate 
to base the level of protection against 
overtopping for both urban and 
agricultJiral islands and tracts. 
Overall, the cost of providing 
protection against a 300-year flood is 
only about 4 percent more than providing 
protection against a 50-year flood, and 
was found to result in a maximum of net 
benefits over costs. This is because 
the difference in water stage between a 
50-year flood and a 300-year flood is 
about 0.5 foot for most of the tidal 
dominated waters in the study area. 
Exceptions occur where the Mokelurane and 
San Joaquin Rivers enter the Delta. 
Stage difference between the 50-year 
flood and the 300-year flood at these 
locations is about 2 feet and 4 feet, 
respectively. 



54 



The design flood stage elevation, based 
on approximate 300-year flood levels. 
Is: 

Design Flood Stage 
Elevation 
(feet above 
Location mean sea level) 



Collins vllle 




6.8 


Rio Vista 




7.5 


Venice Island 




7.8 


Stockton 




7.9 


New Hope 




16.0 


Mossdale (regulated) 


23.0 



Freeboard 

Freeboard is the difference between the 
design flood elevation and the top of 
the levee embankment. Lack of adequate 
freeboard is a serious problem in the 
Delta. The purpose of freeboard is to 
insure overtopping protection from 
wind-generated waves and contingency 
factors such as higher than anticipated 
tides. Freeboard criteria consider the 
type of land use being protected (urban 
versus agricultural), channel 
hydraulics, and the highest water level 
expected when design floodflows, high 
tides, and high wind-generated waves 
occur simultaneously. 

The minimum freeboard used for this 
study is 1.5 feet for levees protecting 
agricultural land and 3 feet for those 
protecting urban areas. Freeboard 
allowances to withstand wind-generated 
waves vary throughout the Delta and 
depend on the expanse of open water to 
which the levee is exposed and on the 
levee orientation with respect to 
prevailing winds. Freeboard design 
criteria recognized that wind velocities 
in the Delta can range up to 73 miles 
per hour, with velocities to 50 miles 
per hour occurring every year. 
Calculations for 50 mile per hour winds 
Indicate maximum wave heights could be 
4 feet adjacent to Franks Tract and at 
other locations where the expanse of 



open water surface ranges from 4,000 to 
6,000 feet. Channels with reaches of 
open water surface in the range of 2,000 
to 4,000 feet were calculated to have 
wave heights of about 1 to 2 feet. 

If a levee failure occurs and the island 
remains flooded, with subsequent 
destruction of the remaining levees from 
interior erosion, the freeboard on 
adjacent islands may need to be raised 
because waves generated over a greater 
expanse of water would be higher. 
Because tidal range decreases by a small 
amount as a result of a flooded Island 
(as noted In Chapter 3), the full effect 
of the Increased wave height would not 
translate to a need for Increased 
freeboard. 



Land Subsidence 

The general problem of continuing land 
subsidence was discussed in Chapter 3. 
As the island floors subside, the force 
of the water against the levees 
increases. Subsidence is a major reason 
for the need to increase the levee 
section or mass required for levee 
stability. 

Methods to reduce land subsidence were 
considered in these reports: 

° "Subsidence of Organic Soils in the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta", 
Department of Water Resources, August 
1980. 

° "Causes of Subsidence in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and a 
Strategy for Controlling Its Rate", 
prepared by Helen Burke for the 
Department of Water Resources, 
September 1980. 

The latter report mentions four 
strategies for dealing with subsidence: 

1. Fill the subsided islands to sea 
level elevation with soil, dredging 
spoil, sludge, or compost material. 



55 



2. Grow crops of high bloraass and plow 
residue into the soil. 

3. Grow crops that have a shallow root 
zone, such as pasture, to reduce the 
depth of soil that is subject to 
oxidation. 

4. Convert islands to marshes. 



Under the fourth strategy, the water 
table would be maintained at or slightly 
above the present land surface level on 
some islands, which would then be 
managed as marshes . An example of this 
approach is Little Franks Tract, where 
the State purchased the land and is 
managing it as a recreation and wildlife 
area . 



For the first of these strategies, the 
large volume of material required to 
fill subsided islands is not available 
within a reasonable distance, except for 
possibly one or two small islands that 
might be used to stockpile materials for 
future levee construction and for 
fioodflght emergencies. Proposals to 
add fill, such as sludge from the San 
Francisco Bay Area, to an individual 
Island have been considered, but water 
quality concerns, economics, and 
Insufficient material have prevented 
implementation of this strategy. 

In the second strategy, the addition of 
blomass material would require changes 
in farming practices and crop patterns. 
Reduction of the subsidence rate on the 
Island floors would depend upon the rate 
of accumulation of plant residues In the 
soil, which could be relatively slow. 

Conversion from deep-rooted crops to 
shallow-rooted pasture, as suggested in 
the third strategy, would lower the 
value of the agricultural production of 
the land. This approach might be part 
of an Intermediate strategy until a 
comprehensive levee restoration project 
can be Implemented. However, because of 
the high assessments for levee construc- 
tion and maintenance, the income from 
pasture probably would not be sufficient 
to maintain a profitable farming opera- 
tion along with paying a share of the 
costs of a levee restoration project. 

Strategies that continue the primary 
land use as agricultural can slow 
subsidence rates by a maximum of only 
30 percent as long as organic material 
rt!iaalns . 



Of the four strategies to control the 
rate of subsidence, conversion of 
critical Islands to marshes seems to be 
the most effective because it greatly 
reduces the oxidation process of peat 
soils. This strategy would probably 
require State or Federal ownership of 
the islands, and was considered in 
developing wildlife areas as part of a 
fish and wildlife plan (refer to 
Chapter 5). However, applying this 
strategy on a large scale would 
significantly change the physical 
characteristics of the Delta. 

Because land subsidence cannot be 
eliminated and still meet the objectives 
of this study, techniques must be sought 
to maintain levee freeboard while 
subsidence continues to its natural end. 
The technique selected was to follow the 
initial levee rehabilitation with 
periodic additional construction every 
few years to restore the subsided levees 
to project standards. 

These future construction stages would 
also compensate for settlement (or 
subsidence) of the levees themselves, as 
underlying peat foundations are 
compressed by the Increased loading. In 
areas of the deep peat, this process 
could continue for up to about 90 years 
after initial construction. Cost 
estimates and financial analyses 
presented in this report assume 
continued construction for a 50-year 
period. Indeed, it is not certain that 
levees in the deep peat could be 
economically designed and built to 
withstand the high water pressures that 
will prevail much more than 50 years 
from now. 



56 



Selsmiclty 

The general problem of seismic forces 
and earthquake faults within and near 
the Delta was discussed in Chapter 3. 
Seismicity is discussed in more detail 
in the Department of Water Resources 
report, "Seismicity Hazards in the 
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta", October 
1980. There is no documented record of 
a Delta levee failure resulting from 
seismic activity during the most intense 
ground shaking in recent history, the 
1906 San Francisco earthquake. This is 
probably because the levees were rela- 
tively low at that time; that is, the 
island ground levels had not subsided to 
the extent they have today. 

Now that the island floors have subsided 
and are continuing to subside, the 
height of the levees is greater, causing 
increased water pressure against the 
levees, and a similar earthquake 
occurring today might have different 
results. 

The frequency of earthquakes of 
significant magnitude is still a 
subjective estimate based on experience 
and judgment of experts. The design 
parameters for basic rock motions shown 
In Table 10 were used by the Corps of 
Engineers in evaluating the Delta 
levees. While the Corps' design has 
accounted for small earthquakes, the 
lack of actual experience of the impacts 
of earthquakes on Delta soils leaves 
some doubt that some levees, even after 
rehabilitation, could withstand an 
earthquake of Richter scale magnitude 5 
or greater If the epicenter occurred in 
the Delta, or of magnitude 8 on the San 
Andreas or Hayward faults*. 



Typical Levee Section 

A typical rehabilitated levee section 
would consist of a 16-foot minimum 



crown width with a waterside slope of 
1 vertical on 2 horizontal, and a 
landside slope of 1 vertical on 
3 horizontal, as shown in Figure 4 (in 
Chapter 1). Landside berms would be 
constructed where necessary to control 
seepage and to counter-balance the chan- 
nel water pressure against the levee. 

These typical levee sections were used 
to estimate costs of alternative levee 
improvement plans. If a plan is adopted 
and implemented, the specific design 
would be determined on a site-by-site 
basis. 

For most levees, a construction method 
called "stage construction" was adopted 
because the strength of the foundation 
material in most areas is inadequate to 
support the entire weight of the 
required embankment at any one time 
without excessive foundation settlement, 
and because the levee foundations are 
subject to continuing subsidence. 
Therefore, the levee must be improved in 
stages. Figure 4 illustrates the stage 
construction method of rehabilitating 
existing levees. 

For levees built on a new alignment, the 
"levee setback" method would be used. 
The method would only be used to protect 
areas of high environmental value or 
reaches of levees found to be unstable. 
As illustrated in Figure 4, this method 
includes excavating a foundation 
inspection trench along the new levee 
alignmeat, building retention dikes on 
both sides of the trench, and 
backfilling the area between the dikes 
with suitable material to provide a 
stable levee foundation. Backfilling 
would be with materials from the 
adjacent channel, if available, or from 
imported fill materials. The levee 
section, constructed later from the 
backfill material, would have a 12-foot 
minimum crown width, waterside and 
landside slopes of 1 vertical on 2 



*Richter scale is defined in Chapter 3. Epicenter is the point on the earth's 
surface vertically above the origin of an earthquake. 



57 



horizontal, with flatter berras. The 
existing levee would be left in place 
to protect the setback levee from wave 
action. The area between the two 
levees could be used for wildlife 
habitat. 

The sheet pile method consists of 
placing steel sheet piles at the 
waterside crown of existing levees, as 
illustrated in Figure 4. A portion of 
the sheet pile would extend above the 
top of the levee and would be encased in 
a concrete cap to act as a flood wall 
and provide the required freeboard. 
Because of its relatively higher cost, 
this method was confined to areas with 
urban development, such as Bethel Island 
and Hotchkiss Tract, to avoid extensive 
relocation of houses and other improve- 
ments that encroach on existing levees. 

It is likely that levee failures will 
continue during the 12- to 15-year levee 
rehabilitation process. Indeed, some 
levee failures may even be induced, or 
at least speeded up, by the rehabilita- 
tion process itself. The existing 
levees and their foundations are not 
composed of hoioogeneous construction 
^nate rials for which reaction to 
loading can be precisely predicted or 
controlled. As noted in Chapter 3, 
differential foundation settlement may 
occur where levees founded on peat 
foundations abut levees that overlie 
old, narrow river channels or sloughs 
that are filled with clay or sand. 

Differential settlement can also be 
anticipated where part of the newly 
built levee section overlies partially 
compacted soils under existing levees 
and part is placed on unconsolidated 
material of the island floor. This 
appears to be the condition that has 
caused cracking of the Twitchell Island 
levee along Threemile Slough, making it 
unacceptable for local interests to 
assume responsibility for maintenance 
for the last 20 years. 

Thus, any decision to undertake a levee 
rehabilitation program Implicitly 



carries with it a responsibility to 
restore a flooded Island should a levee 
failure occur during the rehabilitation 
program. 



Material Borrow Sites 

Based on the foregoing typical levee 
sections, the Corps of Engineers 
determined that about 55 million cubic 
yards of material would be required for 
Initial and staged construction to 
rehabilitate the substandard levees In 
the study area. It was also determined 
that because of a general scarcity of 
soils suitable for levee construction 
within the Delta, a significant portion 
of the construction material would have 
to be Imported. 

The Department of Water Resources 
surveyed potential material borrow sites 
within 50 miles of the periphery of the 
study area and found adequate quantities 
of suitable material available within 
this distance. 



All-Weather Roads for 
Floodflght Access 

Some public roads are located on levee 
crowns. Under the proposed plan of 
levee restoration, most of the public 
roads would be relocated landward of the 
levee toe (or landward berm, when used). 
For levee inspection and floodflght 
purposes, a 12-foot stabilized aggregate 
roadway would be built on the crown of 
most rehabilitated levees . 



Erosion Control Methods 



Wind-generated waves, and to some extent 
boat wakes, are the principal cause of 
levee bank erosion. Erosion control 
methods using vegetative plantings were 
evaluated during the study. Although 
more environmentally acceptable than 
other control methods, survival of the 
plantings was generally poor. In 
high erosion areas, vegetation does not 



58 



Table 10 



SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS, SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA 



Fault 
Zone 


Maximum 
Magnitude* 

8-1/4 


Liquefaction 
Radius 
(Miles) 


Other 
Parameters** At: 


Ant loch 


Stockton 


Sacramento 


San Andreas 


93 


Distance (miles) 
Max. Accel, (g's) 
Period (seconds) 
Duration (seconds) 


44 
0.25 
0.5 

20 


65 
0.2 
0.6 

7 


79 

0.18 
0.7 
3 


Hayward 


7 


31 


Distance (miles) 
Max. Accel, (g's) 
Period (seconds) 
Duration (seconds) 


25 

0.25 
0.3 

23 


47 
0.25 
0.4 

10 


62 
0.09 
0.4 
4 


Calaveras 


6-3/4 


20 


Distance (miles) 
Max. Accel, (g's) 
Period (seconds) 
Duration (seconds 


18 

0.25 
0.3 

20 


39 
0.1 
0.4 

12 


59 
0.07 
0.4 
3 


Green Valley 


6 


S 


Distance (miles) 
Max. Accel, (g's) 
Period (seconds) 
Duration (seconds) 


15 

0.25 
0.2 
9 


44 
0.06 
0.3 
2 


44 
0.06 
0.3 
2 


Concord 


6 


5 


Distance (miles) 
Max. Accel, (g's) 
Period (seconds) 
Duration (seconds.) 


12 
0.27 
0.2 

10 


39 

0.07 
0.3 
2 


49 
0.05 
0.3 

1 


Bear Mountain 


6 


5 


Distance (miles) 
Max. Accel, (g's) 
Period (seconds) 
Duration (seconds) 


56 
0.05 
0.3 

1 


31 

0.12 
0.3 
3 


22 
0.16 
0.3 

7 


Greenville 


5-1/2 


2 


Distance (miles) 
Max. Accel, (g's) 
Period (seconds) 
Duration (seconds) 


26 
0.1 
0.2 
3 


14 

0.18 
0.2 
5 


56 
0.04 
0.3 


Ant loch 


5 


1 


Distance (miles) 
Max. Accel, (g's) 
Period (seconds) 
Duration (seconds) 


1 

0.2 
0.2 
4 


28 

0.02 
0.2 


43 
0.01 
0.2 



Information is based on analysis by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Stockton and Midland fault zones are not included 
in Corps analysis. Values presented are estimates of the maximum earthquake characteristics that appear capable of 
occurring given known or assumed selsmological and geological conditions. Approximations presented are for comparative 
purposes only; professional opinions differ on the reliability of such estimates. Approximations presented are not 
intended as design criteria for structures. 

* Magnitude based on Richter Scale. 

** The shortest distance between the fault zone and the cities of Antioch. Stockton, and Sacramento is shown. Earthquake 
acceleration is expressed as a fraction of gravity (g). Thus an acceleration of 0.5g corresponds to an acceleration 
that is 50 percent of the value of gravity. Computation assumptions, local ground conditions, and other factors could 
either increase or decrease expected accelerations. 



59 



provide an adequate degree of erosion 
protection. 

Some alternative levee designs, such as 
sheet piling and levee setback., do not 
require placement of erosion control 
features on all levees . Many levees in 
sheltered areas would not require 
erosion protection because some of these 
areas have less recreational boat 
traffic than the larger, more popular 
waterways. However, where needed, 
erosion control was predicated on using 
a rock blanket. 

Construction practices to mitigate or 
reduce the adverse effect of rock 
revetment include: 

Retention of waterside berms and 
vegetation where possible. 

° Reconstruction of waterside berms and 
allowing revegetation where feasible. 

Selective or rainiraum clearing to 
retain trees and other desirable 
vegetation when the safety of the 
levee and the hydraulic capacity of 
the channel are not adversely 
affected . 



It is anticipated that the final plan 
for the Delta levees could result in 
levees of different sizes and structural 
materials. This, coupled with the 
variable erosion hazard throughout the 
Delta, means that different standards 
for vegetation could be required to 
ensure the safety and protection of all 
the levees. Low growing ground cover is 
desirable in nearly all situations. 
Shrubs are acceptable in most 
situations. Trees are acceptable in 
controlled situations when they do not 
present a hazard to the structural 
integrity of the levee. 

One of the maintenance requirements 
specified in the Corps of Engineers 
design considerations is that roots of 
vegetative growth must not penetrate 
into the basic levee structure. To 
minimize cost, most of the rehabilitated 
levees were not designed large enough 
to permit vegetative growth on the 
waterward levee slopes. The difference 
in policy between the State and the 
Corps of Engineers with regard to 
vegetation management on flood control 
levees will need to be resolved on a 
site-by-site basis during final design 
considerations. 



Vegetation on Levees 

Tt is the policy of the State to 
maintain and enhance the environmental 
values of flood control project levees 
consistent with the primary purpose of 
protecting lives and property from 
floods. Under this policy,* the reten- 
tion of levee and berm vegetation is 
encouraged as long as such vegetation 
does not threaten the flood control 
system. Additionally, vegetation on 
waterside berms and channel islands is 
recognized as sometimes providing a 
flood control benefit by protecting 
levees and berms against erosion. 



Assumptions for 
Economic Analysis 

Assumptions and procedures were adopted 
by the Corps of Engineers for the basic 
economic analysis in its report . In 
some cases, these were modified by the 
Department of Water Resources for this 
bulletin. 

The Corps of Engineers made an economic 
analysis of the alternative plans, as 
required for congressional authorization 
of federal participation in a Delta 
levee restoration project. Economic 
justification (or lack thereof) was 



*V;ater Code Sections 12581, 12582 and 12840 through 12849. Also, State Reclamation 
Roard "Gaide for Vegetation on Project Levees", adopted December 1, 1967 [Revised: 
September 5, 1969; May 10, 1974; December 10, 1976; and December 18, 1981.]. 



60 



established by comparing estimates of 
average annual equivalent flood control 
costs with average annual equivalent 
flood control benefits for a 50-year 
period. Costs and benefits were 
expressed in terms of prices prevailing 
in October 1981. To put costs and 
benefits on a common time base, a 
discount rate of 7-5/8 percent was 
used. 

The "first cost" of the alternative 
plans includes costs for: 

" Initial and future stages of levee 
construction (levee setback, in some 
cases) . 

" Relocations, including relocation 
betterments of structures and 
utilities . 

° Acquisition of lands, easements, and 
rights of way, and family relocation 
assistance . 

° Fish and wildlife mitigation and 
enhancement features. 

" Recreation facilities. 

° Engineering, design, contingencies, 
construction supervision, and 
administration. 

Annual costs include interest on and 
amortization of the first cost, as well 
as annual operation, maintenance, and 
replacement costs associated with the 

plans . 

Flood control benefits steimning from the 
alternative levee improvement plans 
Include: 

° Reduction in flood damage and crop 
losses due to less frequent levee 
failures . 

" Reduction in the frequency and volume 
of water needed to restore Delta water 



quality to meet standards after levee 
failures . 

** Reduction in expenditures for flood- 
fights and island restoration due to 
less frequent levee failures. 

Recreation benefits are based on esti- 
mated increased visitation as a result 
of new facilities and recreational 
opportunities. Numerical estimates of 
recreation benefits were based on the 
travel-cost method of computation, which 
means the estimated cost, in terms of 
time and travel, that people are willing 
to pay to participate in recreation 
provided by the project. Wildlife 
enhancement benefits were based on both 
direct and indirect uses associated with 
establishing fish and wildlife enhance- 
ment areas and the wildlife management 
areas . 

Flood control benefits were measured by 
estimating the difference in damage, 
cost, and economic output for predicted 
conditions with and without the levee 
improvement project. Since the without- 
project condition is compared to the 
with-project condition for calculating 
benefits, it is important that the 
without-project condition be as repre- 
sentative of actual future conditions as 
possible. In the Delta, this is diffi- 
cult because there are a number of 
uncertainties as to what conditions will 
prevail. 

Three possible future conditions that 
affect both the cost and benefit sides 
of the economic analysis equation are: 

° Whether the Peripheral Canal will be 
built. 

° Whether, in absence of a levee 

improvement project, flooded islands 
following a levee break would continue 
to be restored to pre-flood conditions 
as they generally have been in the 
past. 



61 



° Whether noarestored flooded islands 
are maintained as reservoirs or left 
as open lakes. 

The combination of the first two 
possible future conditions leads to four 
possible scenarios: 

1. Peripheral Canal in place; flooded 
islands restored. 

2. Peripheral Canal not in place; 
flooded islands restored. 

3. Peripheral Canal in place; flooded 
islands not restored. 

4. Peripheral Canal not in place; 
flooded Islands not restored. 

The Corps of Engineers analyzed the 
sensitivity of these four without- 
project scenarios on costs and benefits. 
This sensitivity analysis showed the 
first scenario — Peripheral Canal in 
place and flooded islands restored — to 
be the most conservative. In each of 
the other cases, greater net benefits 
and higher benefit-cost ratios would 
accrue from a levee improvement project. 
The option of maintaining nonrestored 
Islands as reservoirs has not been 
analyzed. It is likely, however, that 
this scenario would be more conservative 
than scenarios three and four. 

The wlthout-project condition adopted by 
the Corps assumed that the Peripheral 
Canal would be in place and operating, 
and that subsequent to a levee failure, 
a flooded island would always be 
restored to pre-flood conditions. Use 
of these assumptions was consistent with 
past State legislation and policies of 
the State and Federal Governments.* 
However, there is now a significant 



probability that one or both of the 
Corps' adopted assumptions will prove to 
be incorrect. 

On June 8, 1982, as the Corps draft 
report was being written, California 
voters, through Proposition 9, rejected 
Senate Bill 200, which would have given 
the go-ahead for constructing the 
Peripheral Canal as a part of the State 
Water Project. This bulletin was 
rewritten to make the without Peripheral 
Canal condition the primary basis for 
evaluating alternative levee improvement 
plans. However, this bulletin also 
shows the with Peripheral Canal condi- 
tion at appropriate places to allow 
tracking the analysis in the Corps' 
draft report. 

In addition, since the 1980 Delta levee 
failures, the probabiity of some islands 
to remain flooded has Increased . At 
that time, the Corps of Engineers deter- 
mined that federal Public Law 84-99 
authority could not be used for federal 
financial assistance in repairing levees 
or restoring flooded islands throughout 
most of the Delta. The Federal 
Emergency Management Agency has also 
indicated a reluctance to participate in 
future flood emergency activities unless 
public facilities are threatened, or 
unless significant levee improvements 
are undertaken by non-federal interests 
to reduce the existing flood hazards. 
However, on September 24, 1982, 
President Reagan declared an emergency 
condition regarding the August 23 
flooding of McDonald Island, and the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency has 
pledged federal financial assistance for 
restoration of that Island. Federal 
assistance was not automatic. Local 
agencies had to submit a second request 
with additional information and 



*The assumption on the Peripheral Canal was In keeping with passage of Senate 
Bill 200 by the California Legislature in 1980; the assumption of continuing 
restoration of flooded Islands was consistent with the policy adopted by State 
Legislature in 1973 Statutes for preserving the existing physical characteristics 
of the Delta, and with past Federal and State policy of providing financial 
assistance In restoring a flooded Island. 



62 



justification. Had it been one of the 
less justified islands, the outcome Is 
uncertain. 

Also, on October 15, 1982, as a condi- 
tion for federal financial assistance to 
restore McDonald Island, the Governor 
agreed to provide leadership and other 
resources needed to accomplish essential 
flood hazard mitigation, including the 
support of State legislation which would 
provide for a program of flood plain 
management and appropriate State and 
local cost sharing of work required to 
upgrade the Delta levees system. 

The uncertainty as to future policy 
decisions, together with anticipated 
Increased frequency in levee failures 
accompanied by ever-increasing 
restoration costs, makes it probable 
that flooded islands will not be re- 
stored in the future with federal funds 
unless the State and local agencies 
develop and implement a program to 
upgrade Delta levees. Without such a 
program, future decisions on whether a 
flooded island will be restored cannot 
be reliably predicted. Such decisions 
will continue to depend on political, 
social, economic, and other factors and 
to be made on a case-by-case basis. It 
is likely that this will result in some 
flooded islands being restored and 
others remaining flooded. 

The foregoing strongly suggests the 
appropriateness of assuming as a without 
project condition the non-restoration 
alternative, or at least a combination 
of that alternative with the restora- 
tions condition. However, the Depart- 
ment retained the Corps of Engineers 
assumption as to Island restoration for 
the purpose of illustrating costs, 
sharing of non-federal costs and finan- 
cial analyses in this bulletin. The 
results of the Corps sensitivity 
analyses showing the effects on economic 
feasibility of the alternative plans of 



assuming the wlthout-project condition 
to be without both the Peripheral Canal 
and restoration of islands after flood- 
ing are referred to in Chapters 5, 6 and 
7. The nature of the non-restoration 
scenario is discussed in more detail in 
Chapter 8. 



Assumptions for 
Cost Sharing Analysis 

Cost sharing between Federal , State, and 
local Interests in any Delta levee 
Improvement plan is a significant issue 
of public policy that will ultimately 
have to be decided by the Congress, the 
California Legislature, and the local 
Interests that may decide to participate 
in such a plan. To assist these 
interests in their cost sharing deliber- 
ations, it was considered necessary to 
make certain assumptions to Illustrate 
some of the ways in which costs could be 
shared. This section describes these 
assumptions; Chapters 5, 6, and 7 con- 
tain the results, as applied to the 
specific plans considered, for the 
traditional federal/nonfederal cost 
sharing as set forth in the Corps' draft 
report. Appendix A contains comparable 
information for a new federal/nonfederal 
cost sharing formula being proposed by 
the Reagan Administration. 

In its draft report of October 1982, 
the Corps of Engineers recommended 
limiting federal participation in 
upgrading Delta levees to only those 
islands and tracts that could be 
economically justified when considered 
individually and separately from all 
other islands and tracts. Based on the 
Corps' report, this approach would 
result in from 15 to 27 islands and 
tracts being included for federal 
participation, depending on the specific 
without project assumptions used in the 
economic analysis. Recreation and 
wildlife enhancement features would also 
be included in the federal project . 



63 



Under the "without project"* conditions 
assumed as a base for the detailed cost 
and benefit analysis in the Corps' 
report, federal participation would be 
limited to 15 islands and tracts. 
However, the Corps' draft report also 
states that "the ultimate number of 
islands and tracts which would receive 
(federal) flood control Improvements 
would depend on the results of 
post-authorization studies including 
reevaluation of the assumed (base) 
without project conditions." 

Under "without Peripheral Canal" and 
"continued restoration of flooded 
islands" assumptions, and using the 
Corps' estimates of costs and benefits, 
19 islands and tracts would be included 
in the federal levee improvement 
project. This is the assumption used 
for the federal-nonfederal cost sharing 
Illustration for this bulletin. 

The question of federal-nonfederal 

cost sharing is further complicated by a 

proposed change in federal policy. 

The Corps report assumes the traditional 
federal-nonfederal cost sharing 
relationships, wherein the Corps would 
pay 100 percent of flood control 
construction costs and a proportional 
share of mitigation costs. The Corps 
report also assumed that 50 percent of 
the recreation costs and 7 5 percent of 
the wildlife enhancement costs would be 
federal costs. The Corps assumes other 
costs to be nonfederal. 

Wliile not yet approved by Congress, the 
Reagan Administration has proposed a new 
cost sharing formula. Under this 
formula, nonfederal interests would be 
eKpected to pay, up front, 35 percent of 
all flood control costs, 50 percent of 
recreation costs, and 100 percent of 
wildlife enhancement costs. 

Consequently, this bulletin considers 
the effect of both the traditional and 



Reagan Administration cost sharing 
formulas for illustrating the magnitude 
of the nonfederal costs for the assumed 
19 federal participation islands and 
tracts. This facilitates tracking with 
the Corps report and also shows the 
significant effects of the potential 
change in federal policy on nonfederal 
cost sharing. This bulletin also 
considers State and local cost sharing 
on nonfederal participation islands and 
tracts . 

The procedures adopted to illustrate 
possible sharing of nonfederal costs 
assume that nonfederal flood control 
costs would be shared in proportion to 
benefits received between two classes of 
beneficiaries: beneficiaries protected 
from Inundation of the islands and 
tracts, and beneficiaries protected from 
salinity Impairment of their water 
supplies. For these latter beneficiar- 
ies, the Department found it necessary 
to modify the Corps' estimate of water 
quality and supply benefits to more 
closely approximate the impacts of 
island failures on the water-side bene- 
ficiary under the assumed base (without 
project) condition. The rrodif Ications 
reflect the fact that much of the water 
lost in the short term while the island 
was flooded would be recovered when the 
island was pumped out, and that under 
State Water Resources Control Board 
Decision 1485, the salt water would be 
farther west of the Delta for a summer 
levee break than It was in 1972 when 
Andrus and Brannan Islands flooded. 
This estimate should be considered only 
to illustrate the principles involved, 
recognizing that more precise estimates 
would have to be made if the Congress 
and the Legislature decide to authorize 
and help fund a Delta levee improvement 
project . 

For the land-side flood control 
beneficiary, the Department applied 
existing rules for State-local cost 
sharing of nonfederal costs in a federal 



*The""with Peripheral Canal" and "continued restoration of flooded islands" the 
without project condition was used as a base in the Corps report. 



64 



project as far as they go, but had to 
make assumptions for extending and 
expanding these rules to the nonfederal 
participation islands. 

The somewhat complex procedures are 
most easily explained with the aid of 
illustrations. Figure 14 is for the 
traditional federal cost sharing formula 
and Figure 15 is for the cost sharing 
proposal contained in the June 15, 1982, 
memo to President Reagan from Interior 
Secretary Watt. 



Flood Control Costs 

The principles for sharing flood control 
costs in Figures 14 and 15 are the same 
except for determination of the federal 
share under traditional and proposed 
cost sharing formulas. 

All costs for relocation betterments 
would be allocated to the island or 
tract on which they occur, and would 
be a local responsibility. This con- 
forms to existing Federal and State 
rules for federal flood control 
projects . 



in the Corps report . (Under proposed 
cost sharing formula [Figure 15], 
costs borne by the Federal Government 
would be limited to 65 percent of 
these federal participation island 
flood protection costs.) 

All remaining island protection costs 
for the federal participation islands 
would be shared between the State and 
local interests. The Department 
assumed that existing State-local cost 
sharing rules for federal projects for 
the costs of lands, easements, 
rights-of-way, and relocations would 
be applied to both the federal and 
non-federal participation islands, and 
that all remaining non-federal costs 
be shared 50 percent local and 
50 percent State. Part of the 
justification for State contribution 
is in recognition of the role of boat 
wakes in levee damage. Also, State 
expenditures to improve levees would 
be partially offset by a reduction in 
floodfight and island restoration 
costs by the Office of Emergency 
Services. Implementation of this cost 
sharing formula would require 
legislation. 



Remaining flood control costs (total 
flood control costs, less relocation 
betterments costs) would then be 
allocated between island protection 
and water quality and supply protec- 
tion in proportion to the benefits. 

Allocated island protection costs 
would be divided into two groups: the 
federal participation islands, and the 
non-federal participation islands. 
This division would be in proportion 
to construction costs represented by 
each group. 

For the federal participation islands, 
the Federal Government would pay 
100 percent of the construction costs, 
plus a proportional share of the 
mitigation costs under traditional 
federal cos sharing rules set forth 



Allocated water quality and supply 
protection costs would also be divided 
into two groups: the federal partici- 
pation Islands, and the non-federal 
participation islands. As for Island 
protection costs, the division would 
be In proportion to construction costs 
for each group. 

For the federal participation Islands, 
the Federal Government would pay 
100 percent of the construction costs, 
plus a proportional share of the 
mitigation costs under the traditional 
federal cost sharing rules set forth 
in the Corps report. (Under proposed 
cost sharing formula [Figure 15], 
costs borne by the Federal Government 
would be limited to 65 percent of the 
water protection costs for the federal 
participation Islands.) 



65 



FIGURE 14 



ALLOCATION OF CAPITAL COSTS, TRADITIONAL COST SHARING 



FLOOD CONTROL PORTION 



Total Flood Control 



Water Supply/Quality Protection 



^ 



Island/Tract Protection 






Federal Participation 
Islands/Tracts 



Non-Federal Participation^/^ 
Islands/Tracts 



Federal Participation 
Islands/Tracts 



Corps 

ICC? of allocated 
construction and 
proportional share 
of allocated 
mitigation'* 




^ 



Non-Federal Participation^/^ 
Islands/Trac ts 



^ 



Consumers of 
Delta Mater 



Corps 



Non-Corps 
Costs remaining 
after Corps 
contribution 



100% of allocated 
construction and 
proportional share 
of allocated 
mitigation'* 



(^ 



Non-Federal 
Costs remaining 
after Corps 
contribution 

J 



Non-State Local 
254 of allocated 

L, E, i ROW 
101 of allocated 

relocations 
50% of allocated 

construction' 
50% of allocated 

mitigation' 



Consumers of 
Delta Uater 




Non-State Local 
25% of allocated 

L, E. S R0W3 
10% of allocated 

relocations 
50% of allocated 

non-Federal 

mi ligation^'' 



s 



state 
75% of allocated 

L, E, & ROW 
90% of allocated 

relocations 
50% of allocated 

non-Federal 

mitiqationV 



s 



State 

75% of allocated 

L, E. & R0W3 
90% of allocated 

relocations 
50% of allocated 

construction' 
50% of allocated 

mitigation' 



RECREATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT PORTION 

To tal Recreation and Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 



¥ 



Federal (Corps) 

50% of recreation 

75% of fish and wildlife 

enhancement 



Non- Federal 



50% of recreation 
25% of fish and wildlife 
enhancement 



^ 



Non-State Local 
50% of non-Federal 

recreation 
50% of non-Federal 

fish and wildlife 

enhancement 



State 

50% of non-Federal 

recreation 
50% of non-Federal 

fish and wildlife 

enhancement 



LEGEND 

Bj Costs allocated in proportion to benefits. 

B2 Costs remaining after Corps' contribution, allocated in proportion to benefits. 

Cj Costs allocated between Federal and non-Federal groups in proportion to total construction costs represented by each group. 

Cj Costs allocated among islands and tracts in proportion to construction costs on each island. 

F Costs allocated in accordance with Federal cost sharing principles used in the Corps' draft report. 

S Costs allocated in accordance with 1974 Department of Water Resources guidelines. 

Sj Costs remaining after Corps' contribution, allocated in accordance with 1974 Department of Water Resources guidelines, augmented to 

accommodate mitigation costs. 
S2 Costs allocated in accordance with 1974 Department of Mater Resources guidelines, augmented to accofimodate allocation of construction 

and mitigation costs. 

NOTES 

' Except for relocation betterments, which are the responsibility of the islands and tracts on which they occur (Department of Water 

Resources 1974 guidelines). 
2 For System and Modified System Plans. 
' Lands, easements, and rights of way. 

'* Proportional to the allocation of the sum of all other capital costs. 
5 Hill require legislation. 
' Part of the justification for State contribution is recognition of the role of boat wakes in levee damage. 



66 



FIGURE 15 



ALLOCATION OF CAPITAL COSTS, PROPOSED COST SHARING 



FLOOD CONTROL PORTION 



Total Flood Control 



Water Supply/Quality Protection 



-^ 



Island/Tract Protection 



^ 



Federal Participation 
Islands/Tracts 




Non- Federal Parti clpatlon^/s 
Islands/Tracts 



i^ 



Federal Participation 
Islands/Tracts 



65% of all costs 
allocated" 



Consumers of 
Delta Water 



Non-Federal Partlclpatlon^/s 
Islands/Tracts 



CVP SWP 



Non-Federal 
35% of all costs 
allocated" 



Corps 

6i% of al I costs 
allocated* 



^ 



Non-Corps 
35% of all costs 
allocated" 



A 



Consumers of 
Delta Water 



CVP SWP 



Non-State Local 

25% of allocated L, E. i ROW^ 
10% of allocated relocations 
50% of allocated non-Federal 

mitigation 5 
50% of allocated construction 
shifted to non-Federal 
participants because of 
proposed cost sharing^/' 



(k 



State 

75i! of allocated L. E, t ftOUa 
90% of allocated relocations 
50% of allocated non-Federal 

mitigation* 
50% of allocated construction 
shifted to non-Federal 
participants because of 
proposed cost sharing*'' 



Non-State Local 
25% of allocated 

L, E. i ROW' 
10% of allocated 

relocations 
50% of allocated 

construction' 
50% of allocated 

mitigation' 



© 



State ' 
75% of allocated 

L, E, S ROW' 
90% of allocated 

relocations 
50% of allocated 

construction' 
50% of allocated 

mitigation' 



RECREATION AND FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT PORTION 

Total Recreation and Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 



^ 



Federal (Corps) 
50% of recreation 



Non- Federal 

50% of recreation 
100% of fish and wildlife 
enhancement 



cement 



Non-State Local 
50% of non-Federal 

recreation 
50% of fish and wildlife 

enhancement 



State 
50% of non-Federal 

recreation 
50% of fish and wildlife 

enhancement 



LEGEND 

Bj Costs allocated In proportion to benefits. 

Bj Costs remaining after Corps' contribution, allocated in proportion to benefits. 

Cj Costs allocated between Federal and non-Federal groups In proportion to total construction costs represented by each group. 

C; Costs allocated among Islands and tracts in proportion to construction costs on each Island. 

F Costs allocated In accordance with June 15, 1982, memorandum to President Reagan from Interior Secretary Watt. 

S Costs allocated In accordance with 1974 Department of Water Resources guidelines. 

Sj Costs remaining after Corps' contribution, allocated in accordance with 1974 Department of Water Resources guidelines, augmented to 

accornnodate mitigation costs and added local costs resulting from June 15, 1982, memorandum to President Reagan from Interior 

Secretary Watt. 
%2 Costs allocated in accordance with 1974 Department of Water Resources guidelines, augmented to accornnodate allocation of construction 

and mitigation costs. 

NOTES 

' Except for relocation betterments, which are the responsibility of the Islands and tracts on which they occur (Department of Water 

Resources 1974 guidelines). 
^ For System and Modified System Plans. 
' Lands, easements, and rights of way. 

" Except for mitigation, which is allocated In proportion to the allocation of the sum of all other capital costs. 
* Will require legislation. 
' Part of the justification for State contribution is recognition of the role of boat waltes in levee damage. 



67 



All remaining water quality and supply 
protection costs for the federal par- 
ticipation Islands, plus water quality 
and supply costs for the non-federal 
participation Islands would be allo- 
cated to the State Water Project, the 
Central Valley Project, and the 
salinity affected consumers of Delta 
water. For illustrative purposes, the 
Department assumed this would be in 
proportion to benefits enjoyed (damage 
prevented), for each affected group. 
More precise estimates would have to 
be made during post-authorization 
studies. Collection from these groups 
of beneficiaries would probably 
require new legislation at both the 
Federal and State level. 

Recreation and Fish and Wildlife 
Enhancement Costs 

These costs are entirely separable from 
flood control costs and are not directly 
associated with the federal participa- 
tion islands; that is, the Corps has 
essentially the same recreation and fish 
and wildlife enhancement plan for all 
flood control alternatives. The only 
difference between Figure 14 and 
figure 15 is determination of the 
federal and non-federal shares under the 
traditional and proposed federal cost 
sharing formulas. 

Under traditional federal cost 
sharing, as presented In the Corps 
report, the Federal Government would 
pay 50 percent of recreation costs and 
75 percent of fish and wildlife 
enhancement costs. (Under the pro- 
posed federal cost sharing formula the 
Federal Government would still pay 
50 percent of the recreation cost, but 
none of the fish and wildlife enhance- 
ment cost.) 

All remaining recreation, fish and 
wildlife enhancement costs would be 
non-federal costs to be shared between 
State and local Interests. For this 
illustration, the Department assumed 
the existing 50-50 local-State cost 
sharing rules for federal projects 



would apply to these non-federal 
costs . (Local In this case means the 
counties, rather than the Islands.) 



Assumptions for 
Financial Analysis 

The Corps of Engineers did not include a 
financial analysis In its report. This 
section discusses the assumptions used 
for the Department's financial analysis 
for funding non-federal costs . 

Because of practical limitations on 
availability of appropriate construction 
equipment, it was assumed that partici- 
pating Islands and tracts would be 
divided Into groups of five to twelve 
islands each and that initial construc- 
tion would begin biennially for each 
successive group. Each group would 
represent approximately equal amounts of 
work. The levees would be placed In the 
groups according to probability of 
failure, and groups with the highest 
probability of failure would be 
rehabilitated first. 

The financial analysis by the Department 
assumes separate sales of 30-year bonds 
covering non-federal costs for each 
group of Islands. Also covered would be 
mitigation, recreation, and fish and 
wildlife enhancement costs occurring 
during the Initial construction period 
for each group of Islands. Sale of the 
bonds was assumed to occur during the 
year prior to start of construction for 
each group of Islands. It was assumed 
that the estimated 1981 prices would 
escalate at the rate of 6 percent per 
year to the year that the costs would be 
incurred, and that interest rates on 
bonds would be 9 percent. It was also 
assumed that the bonds would not be 
discounted and that they would cover the 
initial construction costs. Interest 
during construction, and the cost of 
marketing the bonds. In addition, a 
sinking fund to meet 50 years of stage 
cons tuct ion costs for each group of 
Islands would be established with an 
assumed Interest rate of 8 percent. 



68 



This last assumption was made to 
simplify the presentation of the 
financial cost of the project. In 
reality. It Is not accepted practice to 
sell bonds to meet construction costs 
that would occur more than a few years 
after the sale. 

In actual practice, many bond sales 
would occur over the life of the project 
to cover stage construction costs. For 
this reason, the effect of a single 
s Lnklng fund for each island or tract 
group earning interest at a higher rate 
than the rate of escalation would not be 
available to pay for all future stage 
costs. Many much shorter term (e.g. 3 
to 5 year) funds would be created 
Instead. As a consequence, the actual 
sum of all the bond sales for each group 
will be much larger than assumed for 
this report — the result of continually 
financing for ever-escalating stage 
construction costs. The single-sinking 
fund approach was chosen to reduce the 
bias Induced by the extreme effect of 
escalation on stage costs far in the 
future. Because the bonds sold to cover 
t>iese costs would be repaid with dollars 
shruak by inflation, the real Impact of 
these expenditures on the ability to 
meet repayment obligations is reflected 
more realistically using the single-fund 
assumption used for this report. 

Because neither rates of Inflation nor 
interest rates can be predicted with any 
degree of certainty, a sensitivity 
analysis of financial cost was made 
using 9 percent per year cost escalation 
and 12 percent bond interest. In this 
analysis, money from bond sales for 
future staged construction was assumed 
to be deposited in a sinking fund at 
10-1/2 percent Interest. 



Legal and Institutional Matters 

Legal and institutional provisions that 
should be a part of any publicly 
financed levee improvement program for 
the Delta Include: 



" Requirements for federal 
participation. 

° Land use controls to avoid undesirable 
urban developments from occurring on 
Delta Islands dedicated to 
agriculture. 

° Provisions to limit State liability. 

These considerations are discussed in 
this section. 



Federal Participation 

In its draft report, the Corps of 
Engineers recommends federal participa- 
tion in those Islands and tracts that 
individually have computed flood control 
benefits that exceed the cost of provid- 
ing those benefits. Several institu- 
tional requirements are recommended as 
conditions for federal funding. In 
addition to assumption of non-federal 
cost obligations, these Include: 

° Holding the United States free from 
all damages arising from construction 
and operation of the levee improvement 
project, except those involving fault 
or negligence of the United States or 
its contractors. 

* Enacting and enforcing land use man- 
agement, zoning, and other means as 
necessary to assure that no future 
urban development on agricultural 
islands in the project area will occur 
as a direct result of the federal 
project . 

° Ensuring that development on existing 
urban islands will be consistent with 
city and county General Plans and that 
such future development will be 
limited to those areas Incapable of 
sustained economic agricultural 
production. 

" After project completion, maintaining 
and operating federal project facili- 
ties in accordance with regulations 



69 



and standards prescribed by the 
Secretary of the Army and Section 221 
of the 1970 Flood Control Act. 



Land Use Planning and 
Regulation 

Proper use of flood plains is also im- 
portant to State and local governments, 
cities, counties, special districts, 
regional agencies, landowners, farmers, 
and commercial and industrial interests. 
While the Legislature has assigned 
county and city governments the respon- 
sibility for land use planning and 
regulation, it has established policies 
and guidelines to restrain urban 
encroachment on agricultural lands and 
to foster appropriate flood plain 
management . Some of these policies and 
guidelines are paraphrased in Table 11. 

The flood plains of the Delta are 
special land resources that must be used 
in a manner that prevents loss of life 
and reduces economic loss caused by 
flooding. While upgrading Delta levees 
will provide a higher degree of flood 
protection, the islands of the Delta 
that are below sea level will always be 
vulnerable to flooding, even after 
Implementation of a levee restoration 
program. Land use planning in the Delta 
must recognize this vulnerability. 

The iiost important facets of land use 
planning related to Delta levee 
restoration are those that will: 

Preserve the agricultural production 
capability of the Delta by limiting 
urban encroachment within areas 
capable of sustained economical 
production. 

** Preserve the wildlife habitats. 

Including waterways, channel islands, 
wetlands, riparian forests, vegetation 
corridors, and agricultural lands, 
particularly those that are important 
to the Pacific Flyway waterfowl and to 
care, threatened, and endangered 
wildlife species. 



Table 1 1 



SYNOPSIS OF STATE POLICY FOR 
AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT 



AgricuUural Lands 

Preservation of maximun amount of the limited supply of 
agricultural land is necessary to the conservation of the 
State's economic resources (Government Code 
Section 51220(a)). 

Premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land Is 
contrary to public Interest (Government Code 
Section 51220(b)). 

State policy Is to Improve the quality of life in California 
by preserving and using the land resources In economically 
and socially desirable ways (Government Code Section 65030). 

State policy is to ensure that land use decisions are made 
with full knowledge of long-term and short-term economic and 
fiscal Implications, as well as environmental effects 
(Government Code Section 65030.2). 

Local land use practices should ensure the preservation of 
open space for scenic beauty and recreation, the conservation 
of natural resources, the production of food and fiber, the 
separation and definition of developed areas, and the 
protection of public health and safety (Government Code 
Sections 65560 and 65561). 

State policy seeks to maintain, improve, and enhance the 
quality of air, water, and land, including agricultural 
resources, according to State and national standards and 
local needs (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 and 21001). 

The Legislature Intends for counties to conserve open space 
whenever possible, including productive agricultural land 
(Government Code Section 65562). 

The State intends that local land use decisions, such as 

zoning, follow local open space policies and the State 

statutes (Government Code Sections 65563, 65564, 65566, and 
65567). 



Flood Plain Management 

State policy is to encourage local levels of government to 
plan. Implement, and enforce land use regulations that will 
prevent loss of life and economic loss due to excessive 
flooding (Water Code Section 8401(b and c)) and to provide 
guidance and assistance as appropriate (Water Code 
Section 8401(d)). 

Upon request by a local agency, the State shall review the 
agency's flood plain management p1an^ (Water Code 
Section 8403). 

Upon request and funding by a local agency, the State may 
make or cause to be made the investigation and will provide 
data needed to develop local flood plain management plans 
(Water Code Section 8404). 

After completion of a federal project, the appropriate public 
agency shall establish regulations to prohibit construction 
of any structure vi*iich may endanger life or significantly 
restrict the flood carrying capacity of designated floodways. 
(Water Code Sections 8410 and 8411). 



Preserve the biological productivity 
of waterways and wetlands. 



70 



° Provide additional recreational oppor- 
tunities consistent with public safety 
needs, flood control constraints, and 
the need to balance public rights with 
the rights of private property ovmers . 

* Preserve the diverse historical and 
cultural resources from destruction or 
adverse alteration. 

° Provide that developments fronting 
waterways be water related and 
designed and operated to minimize 
intrusion into the waterway and on 
natural qualities of the area. 

" Provide that development be consistent 
with State and Federal policies, 
including the National Flood Insurance 
Program, and that the hazards of sub- 
sidence and liquefaction of foundation 
soils be recognized. These facets 
should also be applied to homesltes 
fronting waters connected directly to 
Delta waterways . 

** Provide that development be reviewed 
for consistency with city and county 
General Plans and with the California 
Environmental Quality Act . 

For a Delta levees restoration program, 
four approaches to the organization and 
process of land use planning were 
considered: 

1. Continuation and possible enhancement 
of the present State-local government 
system. 

2. State-mandated review of performance 
of local flood plain management 
compared to State criteria. 

3. State overview of local government 
land use actions to ensure minimum 
standards on a regional basis. 

4. Creation of a new organization or 
level of government, with land use 
responsibilities for the Delta. 

Continuation and possible enhancement of 
the present State-local government 



system is the approach considered to 
have the best chance of success, to be 
least controversial, and to be least 
expensive. While some adjustments may 
be necessary, much of what is needed for 
the land use component of a levee 
Improvement project is already in place 
and functioning. This system of man- 
dated, legally enforceable, comprehen- 
sive local General Plans, tied to 
decision-making processes, and adopted 
with public review and participation, 
came into existence between 1965 and 
1980. General Plans contain land use 
elements as well as other elements 
pertinent to the Delta Levees Study, 
such as: 

** Conservation and open space elements 
concerning agriculture and 
environment . 

" Seismic and other safety elements 
dealing with flooding, land failure, 
and other matters of public 
protection. 

" Circulation elements controlling roads 
and transmission lines. 

General Plans may also contain optional 
elements that allow local governments to 
engage in certain programs, such as 
recreation elements that enable local 
governments to require that lands be 
dedicated for recreational park 
purposes . 

The General Plans and regulations of 
Delta cities and counties already 
designate most of the land for agricul- 
tural use, specify areas for urban 
development, and provide criteria for 
limiting the use of areas subject to 
flooding and unstable conditions. In 
leveed areas, land use is related to 
levee conditions, which means that 
most areas are limited to agricultural 
use . 

Where urban development is allowed, 
subdivision projects must provide neces- 
sary on-site and off-site improvements. 
Where an urban development project is 



71 



exteaded into adjoining areas, the 
project must bear the cost of safety 
Improvements, such as levee reconstruc- 
tion. Development project requirements 
are keyed to public safety. Particular 
standards or decisions may be chal- 
lenged, but the regulatory structure is 
in operation. 



Need To Limit State Liability 

Under present law, the State has no 
liability for levee failures in the 
Delta. In the action by landowners for 
damages caused by flooding from the 
Andrus-Brannan Islands levee break in 
June 1972, the California Court of 
Appeals ruled that the State was not 
liable for losses.* The Court further 
held that there was no duty on the 
part of the State to review local 
reclamation plans for levee work that 
was in progress at the time of the 
failure. 

Thus, any proposal for physical improve- 
ments in the Delta must address poten- 
tial liability of the State. Three 
points are central to understanding and 
resolving the liability issue. 

The first is that no levee restoration 
program in the Delta can guarantee 
safety from flooding. The instability 
of Delta soils, the effect of winds, 
tides, and flood flows, and the unique 
problems of erosion, seepage, and subsi- 
dence all present uncertainties for 
levee restoration projects in the Delta. 
The same security against flooding 
cannot be achieved by protective works 
in the Delta as in areas less vulnerable 
to these problems. Although a rehabili- 
tation project may be worthwhile because 
of the benefits derived from the 
diminished risks, a significant risk of 
levee failure will still persist. 



Second, agreed-upon cost sharing should 
reflect the total financial burden of 
each participant. If the law were such 
that only those at fault and directly 
responsible for injury would be exposed 
to liability, potential liability would 
have no impact on the allocation of 
costs. But present trends in judicial 
interpretation in tort, nuisance, and 
Inverse condemnation law, broadening 
nonfault, "deep pocket", and cost 
spreading theories of compensation have 
increasingly resulted in the State 
becoming an insurer or surety for 
projects in which it has participated. 
Thus, any cost sharing formula, especi- 
ally given the high risk of projects in 
the Delta, could significantly under- 
state costs to the State unless poten- 
tial liability is somehow limited. 

The third point follows from the first 
two. While the State may be willing to 
contribute to a levee rehabilitation 
project in the Delta, it should not be 
the intent of the State to underwrite 
the perfect safety of the benefited 
lands. A levee rehabilitation project 
would be a risk venture in an unstable 
setting, and participants should each 
know, understand, and assume the risks. 
It would be both an unjustifiable mis- 
understanding of this fact and a severe 
distortion of any agreed-upon cost shar- 
ing, for example, for the law to permit 
a project beneficiary to recover damages 
from the State simply because the State 
had participated in the project. 

State participation should, therefore, 
be contingent upon the enactment of 
appropriate statutory or constitutional 
immunities or limitation of liability. 
In addition, the State should seek 
hold-harmless waiver agreements with 
project beneficiaries of such a nature 
to bind all current or future owners or 
users of the benefited lands. 



*98 Cal. App. 3d 662; 159 Cal . Rptr. 721, Civ. No. 17809. 
Nov. 13, 1979. 



Third Dist., 



72 



Specific Alternative Concepts 
Evaluated 

As noted earlier In this chapters, 
alternative plans evaluated in this 
bulletin are limited to the individual 
island levee improvement projects and 
the "no action" plan. Levee improvement 
was evaluated using criteria described 
earlier in this chapter. 

Protection of the islands against flood 
damage and protection of water supplies 
against salinity intrusion are closely 
related and are, therefore, generally 
considered together. Where measures 
relate only to flood damage or to water 
quality, they are treated separately. 
Except for mitigation, recreation and 
fish and wildlife plans are considered 
as discretionary additions to levee 
improvement plans . 

Under the most extensive levee 
improvement plan — the System Plan 
(Chapter 5) — the Delta is considered 
to be a system of interdependent 
islands. Under the system approach, 
levee Improvements for the Delta islands 
are justified as a single unit rather 
than on an island-by-island basis . 

Under the System Plan approach, the 
Delta is characterized as a system 
having many interrelated problems. 
Water quality can deteriorate over a 
large portion of the Delta when a single 
levee breaks, adversely affecting both 
local and export water supplies. The 
Andrus Island break in 1972 is a good 
example of this. Also, if an island (or 
several islands) were to remain 
permanently flooded, adjacent islands 
would become more vulnerable to erosion 
by wind-generated waves. For example, 
Franks Tract flooding has caused 
Increased levee maintenance problems on 
adjacent Islands. In some cases, the 
hydrostatic pressure on a flooded island 
forces water into underground strata 
(sand lenses) below the island and then 
through sand layers to emerge as seepage 
on adjacent islands, which could weaken 
the levee structure of the adjacent 



islands. McDonald Island flooding in 
1982 and the resultant seepage in Lower 
Jones Tract and Roberts Island is an 
example of this interrelationship. 

Furthermore, in 1976 the Legislature 
adopted as policy the conceptual plan 
presented in Department of Water 
Resources Bulletin 192, 1975 (which 
treats the Delta as a system), as a 
basis for preserving the physical 
configuration of the Delta. Under the 
System Plan concept, all substandard 
Delta levees would be rehabilitated 
regardless of economic justification of 
the work on the individual islands. 
While overall benefits (including 
recreation and wildlife enhancement 
benefits) for the System Plan exceeded 
the costs, benefits from the flood 
control components alone do not exceed 
the cost of the flood control components 
under the Corps of Engineers "with 
Peripheral Canal and with Island 
restoration" assumptions. 

The second most comprehensive plan is 
the Modified System Plan (Chapter 6). 
This plan also treats the Delta as a 
system, but it eliminates from the plan: 

(1) the islands that would require only 
the addition of levee patrol roads and 
erosion protection material to comply 
with levee design standards, and 

(2) some of the least economically 
justified individual islands to achieve 
overall economic justification from a 
flood control standpoint (i.e., a flood 
control plan with an overall benefit to 
cost ratio equal to or greater than 
one-to-one), and other factors such as 
landowners expressed desire to be 
excluded, etc. Flood control benefits 
for some Islands included in this plan 
do not exceed the costs of levee 
rehabilitation . 

The Incremental Plan (Chapter 7) 
reflects the view that Delta islands are 
essentially independent of each other, 
and that the flood control benefits for 
each island should exceed its flood 
control costs. Each island has widely 
varying characteristics, such as the 



73 



condition of Che levees, types of 
Improvements, and crops grown. Under 
this plan, rehabilitation of Individual 
Island levees would have to be economi- 
cally feasible separately to be included 
in the plan. This is the criterion 
adopted by the Corps of Engineers in its 
draft feasibility report as a basis for 
recommending federal participation. 

In addition to discussing the Incremen- 
tal Plan as a separate alternative, this 
bulletin recognizes the Corps' partici- 
pation in the individually justifed 
islands for both the System Plan and the 
Modified System Plan. 

The No-Action Plan Alternative 
(Chapter 8) discusses possible futures 
of the Delta in the absence of a major 
Federal or State program to upgrade 
Delta levees. At one extreme is the 
continuation of past practices of 
substantial Federal and State assistance 
in restoring flooded islands. At the 



other end of the spectrum is the loss of 
such aid, which could eventually lead to 
the Delta becoming as a huge inland sea. 
Obviously, there is a wide array of 
intermediate possibilities. In any 
event, there would be an Increasing 
probability of levee failure as a result 
of continuing subsidence, which will 
lead to increased cost of levee 
maintenance, floodfight efforts, and 
restoration of flooded islands. Three 
possible scenarios are examined: 

° Continuing the practice of reclaiming 
flooded islands. 

" Not reclaiming flooded islands. 

" Partial reclaiming of flooded 
islands . 

Continuation of present practices will 
eventually lead to the Delta as a huge 
inland sea. 



74 



Chapter 5. SYSTEM PLAN 



Of the various alternatives discussed in 
Chapter 4, the System Plan would satisfy 
to the greatest extent the legislative 
intent to preserve the integrity of the 
Delta levee system (refer to Chapter 2, 
"Basis for Study"). This plan was based 
on the concept that the Delta islands 
are interdependent and act together as a 
single system. Economic justification 
was based on the system as a whole, 
rather than on an individual island 
basis, as discussed in Chapter 7. The 
plan would: 

Reduce flooding. 

Reduce the periods of water quality 
impairment by reducing the frequency 
of salinity intrusion caused by island 
flooding. 

Provide needed public access and 
recreation facilities. 

Preserve and enhance some of the 
Delta's natural resources and scenic 
areas . 



islands (Little Mandeville, Medford, 
Mildred, Quimby, and Rhode) are proposed 
for use as fish and wildlife enhancement 
areas, and are not included for flood 
control improvements under the System 
Plan. 

Levee improvements for flood control 
under the System Plan are proposed for 
the remaining 53 islands, which are 
depicted by the shaded area on 
Figure 16. Levee rehabilitation is 
proposed for 47 of the 53 islands. The 
remaining six (Fabian, Mournian, 
Pescadero, Pico-Naglee, Union, and 
Walnut Grove) would only require the 
addition of levee patrol roads and 
erosion protection material to comply 
with levee design standards. The 
crosshatched area in Figure 16 shows the 
19 islands considered — economically 
justified for federal participation 
under the "Incremental Flood Control 
Plan", which is described in the Corps' 
1982 draft feasibility report (without 
Peripheral Canal assumption). 



Improvements proposed for the System 
Plan are discussed first, followed by 
the economics of the System Plan based 
on traditional (recent past) cost 
sharing methods. Tables indicating the 
effect of a Reagan Administration pro- 
posed cost sharing foirmula are included 
in Appendix A. The differences are sum- 
marized in Tables 3 and 5, Chapter 1. 

The plan considered all 60 major islands 
and tracts in the study area. These 
islands and tracts are listed on 
Table 6. The levees protecting two 
tracts, Reclamation District 17 and 
Stewart Tract, are "project levees" that 
have been improved under a Federal-State 
flood control project, and no additional 
work has been proposed for these two 
tracts under the System Plan. Five 



Flood Control Features 

Flood control features consist of levee 
rehabilitation, land use management, 
and fish and wildlife mitigation. The 
stage construction method of levee reha- 
bilitation would be used on most of the 
islands. Fifteen miles of sheet pile 
flood walls would be used on parts of 
Bethel Island and Hotchkiss Tract to 
avoid relocation of existing urban 
development along the levees on those 
tracts. Setback levees would be used to 
protect the existing riparian habitat in 
a number of areas. After rehabilita- 
tion, all 53 islands would have an 
expected frequency of failure of less 
than once in 100 years during the 
50-year economic life of the project. 
Figure 17 shows the general locations of 



75 



FIGURE 16 




THE (tesooBces agenc 
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

CENTRAL DISTRICT 

SYSTEM PLAN 



76 



FIGURE 17 




LEGEND 

— STAGE CONSTRUCTION 

— BERM 
i^ SETBACK LEVEE 

SHEET PILING 

EROSION PROTECTION 

PROJECT LEVEES 



sr«r€ Of C»Lifo««i« 
THE RE30UBCES AGENCY 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 



SYSTEM PLAN LEVEES 



77 



the various types of levee improvements • 
More specific locations are shovm on 
Plates 2 through 37 of the Plan Formula- 
tion Appendix of the Corps of Engineers' 
"Draft Feasibility Report", dated 
October 1982. 

Land use management would be a required 
feature of this plan to ensure that the 
natural and beneficial values of the 
flood plain are preserved. This feature 
would Include enactment and enforcement 
of zoning regulations that would prevent 
project-induced urban growth on agricul- 
tural islands. Urban developments would 
be required to be consistent with city 
and county General Plans and the 
Plans and the California Environmental 
Quality Act, and would be limited to 
areas incapable of sustained economic 
agricultural production (refer to 
Chapter 4, "Land Use Planning and 
Regulation") . 

Although the probability of flooding on 
all Islands would be reduced to less 
than once In 100 years, the Department 
believes that most islands especially 
those below sea level, would not be 
suitable for urbanization. This is 
because the failure of a levee, possible 
even during the sununer, would have too 
severe consequences to urban 
populations . 

Levee rehabilitation would result in a 
loss of riparian habitat, wetland vege- 
tation, and agricultural land. The 
IJ. S. Fish and Wildlife Service indi- 
cates that the most significant fish and 
wildlife impact would be the loss of 
scarce riparian habitat. Adverse 
Impacts on the fishery would be 
mini nal . 

Several methods for mitigation of the 
adverse impacts on riparian habitat 
were considered. For example, setback 
levees could be considered. However, 
the method selected for this report 
would involve the purchase of selected 
small parcels of marginal agricultural 



land for development into mature 
riparian habitat through natural 
establishment and succession of plant 
species. Although Important fish and 
wildlife values would be furnished by 
successlonal development stages, this Is 
natural process is expected to take 
about 40 years. It is estimated that 
about 3,390 acres of agricultural land 
would be required for mitigation of the 
adverse Impacts resulting from construc- 
tion flood control features of the 
System Plan. 



Flood Control Costs 

Table 12 shows the summed capital costs 
(initial construction plus staged 
construction) and the annual operation 
and maintenance costs for flood control 
by Island and tract (1981 prices) and 
also the cost per mile of levee and cost 
per acre for each island and tract. 
These costs per levee mile and per acre 
are a measure of the cost of providing 
flood control In the Delta. As shown in 
the table, the capital costs per mile of 
levee range from $5,596,000 for Venice 
Island down to $71,000 for Union Island. 
The corresponding costs per acre of land 
range from $21,375 for Venice Island 
down to $82 for Union Island. 

After the levees are rehabilitated, the 
annual operation and maintenance costs 
range from about $20,000 per mile ($66 
per acre) for Bethel Island down to 
$3,000 per mile for Walnut Grove Tract, 
and $2 per acre for Andrus-Brannan 
Island. 

The estimated total capital costs. 
Including the cost of fish and wildlife 
mitigation. Is $931 million. The aver- 
age cost per mile of levee rehabilita- 
tion is $1.8 million, or an average of 
about $3,500 per acre of land. The 
average annual operation and maintenance 
cost amounts to about $4,000 per mile, 
or $8 per acre of land Included in the 
System Plan. 



78 



Table 12 













SYSTEM PLAN 










SUMMED CAPITAL COSTS 


AND 


OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR FLOOD 


CONTROL. BY ISLAND 


OR TRACT 














(In Dollars, 


At 1981 Prices) 


















Capital Cost* 




Annual Operat 


Ions and Maintenance 








Per Mile 


Per 




Per Hde 


Per 


Island or Tract 

Andrus-Brannan 






rota 


1 


of Levee 
4,029,000 


Acre 
2,712 


Total 

34.000 


of Levee 
3.366 


Acre 
2 


40 


.695 


,000 


Atlas 




2 


,520 


,000 


813 


.000 


■ 7,434 


10,000 


3.226 


29 


Bacon 




29 


.044 


,000 


2,031 


.000 


5,237 


49,000 


3.427 


9 


Bethel 




31 


525 


000 


2,741 


.000 


8,956 


231.000 


20.087 


66 


Bishop 




a 


.178 


,000 


1,410 


.000 


3,770 


20,000 


3.448 


9 


Bouldln 




69 


885 


000 


3.883 


.000 


11.557 


61.000 


3.389 


10 


Brack 




20 


.392 


000 


1,888 


.000 


4,185 


38,000 


3,519 


8 


Bradford 




18 


.555 


000 


2.507 


000 


8.658 


25,000 


3,378 


12 


Byron 




18 


582 


000 


1,956 


.000 


2.680 


33.000 


3,474 


5 


Canal Ranch 




12 


860.000 


1.354 


,000 


4,292 


33.000 


3,474 


11 


Coney 




3 


.553 


,000 


658,000 


3,800 


18.000 


3,333 


19 


Deadhorse 




4 


447 


000 


1,779 


000 


21,076 


8.000 


3,200 


38 


Drexler 




17 


.094 


,000 


1.921 


,000 


5.401 


31,000 


3,483 


10 


Empire 




15 


392 


000 


1.494 


000 


4.132 


35,000 


3,398 


9 


Fabian 




8 


.756 


,000 


466 


,000 


1,341 


64,000 


3,404 


10 


Holland 




17 


562 


000 


1.611 


,000 


4.157 


37,000 


3,394 


9 


Hotchkiss 




7 


015 


000 


835 


,000 


2.089 


54,000 


6.429 


16 


Jersey 




19 


605 


000 


1.257 


000 


5,648 


53,000 


3.397 


15 


Jones, Lower/Upper 




28 


978 


000 


1,628 


,000 


2,384 


61,000 


3.427 


5 


King 




10 


041 


000 


1,116 


000 


3,080 


30.000 


3.333 


9 


Mandeville 




27 


218 


000 


1.903 


,000 


5,196 


62.000 


4,336 


12 


McCormack-Williamson 




9 


867 


000 


1.134 


000 


6,020 


30,000 


3,448 


18 


McDonald 




28 


295 


000 


2,065 


000 


4,605 


46,000 


3,358 


7 


New Hope 




19 


465 


000 


1,583 


000 


1.996 


42,000 


3,415 


4 


Orwood 




8.465 


000 


1,323 


,000 


3.469 


22,000 


3.437 


9 


Orwood, Upper 




4 


154.000 


923 


000 


2.446 


21,000 


4,667 


12 


Palm 




11 


546 


000 


1,480,000 


4,740 


28.000 


3.590 


11 


Pescadero Area** 




9 


242 


000 


395 


000 


589 


80,000 


3.419 


5 


Rindge 




20 


989 


000 


1.337 


000 


3,067 


53,000 


3.376 


8 


Rio Blanco 




3 


299 


000 


1.031 


000 


4,946 


11.000 


3,437 


16 


Roberts, Lower/Middle 


/Upper 


39 


516 


000 


1.703 


000 


1.214 


174,000 


7,500 


5 


Sargent-Barnhart 




3 


974 


000 


1.590 


000 


3,273 


8,000 


3.200 


7 


Sherman 




50 


379 


000 


5.141 


000 


4,835 


37,000 


3,776 


4 


Shima 




7 


077 


000 


874 


000 


2,956 


27,000 


3,333 


11 


Shin Kee 




3 


587 


000 


1.888,000 


3,340 


7,000 


3,684 


7 


Staten 




35 


029 


000 


1.374 


000 


3.864 


87,000 


3,412 


10 


Terminous 




48 


096 


000 


2.987 


000 


4.594 


56,000 . 


3,478 


5 


Twitchell 




39 


448 


000 


4.152 


000 


10,858 


33,000 


3,474 


9 


Tyler 




22 


904 


000 


2.141 


000 


2,669 


41,000 


3,832 


5 


Union 




2 


052 


000 


71 


000 


82 


87,000 


3,021 


3 


Veale 




4 


305 


000 


755 


000 


3,317 


19,000 


3,333 


15 


Venice 




68 


827 


000 


5.596 


000 


21,375 


42,000 


3,415 


13 


Victoria 




12 


117 


000 


802 


000 


1,671 


51.000 


3,377 


7 


Walnut Grove 




1 


247 


000 


624 


000 


1,913 


6,000 


3,000 


9 


Webb 




30, 


439 


000 


2.378, 


000 


5,544 


43.000 


3,359 


8 


Woodward 




15,657 


000 


1.801 


000 


8,599 


30,000 


3,448 


16 


Wright-Elmwood 
Subtotal 




6. 


979,000 


1.026 


000 


3,290 


23,000 


3,382 


11 


918 


862, 


000 


2,093,000 


Fish and Wildlife Mitigation 

Total 


11 
930, 


738 
600, 


000 
000 












' 


2,093,000 


Average 










1.777 


000 


3,411 




4,048 


8 


Average Computed With 


Mitigation 








1.800, 


000 


3.455 




4,048 


8 


* Based on stage construction method (added cost for levee 


> setback 


Included in 


fish and wildlife enhancement 


costsj. 


** Includes Mournian, 


Pescadaro, 


and F 


ico- 


Nagl 


ee. 













79 



Recreation Features 

Existing recreation facilities in the 
Delta are used beyond optimum 
capacities. Few of the 116 known 
commercial recreation facilities, of 
which 107 are marinas, have major 
expansion plans. New recreation 
features under the System Plan would be 
located on 45 sites in the study area 
and would consist of 14 recreation 
areas, 23 fishing access sites, 8 boater 
destination sites, and 145 miles of 
trails. Figure 18 shows the types and 
locations of the recreation features. 

Recreation areas would provide picnick- 
ing, boat launching and dockage, and 
fishing and camping with restroom 
facilities. Fishing access sites would 
Include picnic tables, restrooms, 
parking facilities, and boat launching 
access to Delta waterways, some with 
cartop-carrier launching facilities and 
others with launching facilities for 
boat trailers. Boater destination sites 
would provide access to small channel 
islands and to many areas accessible 
only by boat. Day use docks, anchoring 
buoys, and some sanitation facilities 
would be provided, depending on the 
location. The trails (bicycling, 
hiking, equestrian, and channels for 
canoes) would link various recreation 
areas and sites and also provide trail 
access from outside of the Delta. About 
70 miles of trails would be located on 
existing roads. 

Existing recreational use is estimated 
to be about 12.3 million recreation days 
annually. Without the proposed recrea- 
tion features, this use is expected to 
increase to about 14 million recreation 
days by year 2020, along with an 
Increase in problems related to 
recreation — trespass, litter, and 
competition between users. 

The new recreation facilities would 
provide opportunities for shore-based 
and water-based activities to accommo- 
date an additional annual use of 
2.4 million recreation days, while 
reducing the existing problems related 



to recreation. This would result in an 
increase of about 20 percent over exist- 
ing use. The proposed recreation plan 
was carefully studied and coordinated to 
preserve scenic values and environmental 
quality, to consider agricultural 
interests and landowner concerns, and to 
be compatible with the flood control and 
water quality features. 



Recreation Costs 

Table 13 lists the recreation facili- 
ties, the first cost, and the annual 
operation and maintenance cost of each 
facility (1981 prices). The first cost 
Includes the cost of constructing the 
recreation facilities and the cost of 
lands, easements, and rights of way, 
plus associated engineering, design, 
construction supervision, and adminis- 
tration. The table also lists the first 
cost associated with the trail system. 
The total first cost for the recreation 
features (45 recreation sites and the 
trail system) amounts to $40 million 
(1981 prices). The equivalent annual 
cost, based on a 7-5/8 percent interest 
rate and a 50-year project economic 
life, would be $3 million. Annual oper- 
ation and maintenance cost associated 
with these features amounts to $966,000, 
which translates to about 40 cents per 
recreation day. The total equivalent 
annual cost, including operation and 
maintenance, amounts to $4 million. 



Recreation Benefits 

Recreation benefits were computed by the 
Corps of Engineers in accordance with 
the Water Resources Council's National 
Economic Development Evaluation Proce- 
dures, using the travel/cost method. 
The equivalent annual benefits for rec- 
reation use, based on a 7-5/8 percent 
interest rate and a 50-year project 
economic life, were estimated at 
$20 million. This value includes 
recreation benefits attributable to the 
fish and wildlife management area. Of 
the total equivalent annual benefits, 
63 percent, or $13 million, is 



80 



FIGURE 18 



LEGEND 

• RECREATION AREA 

A BOATER DESTINATION SIT 

■ FISHING ACCESS 

TRAIL (CANOE) 

TRAIL (HIKING, BIKING, 

EQUESTRIAN) 

SITE NUMBERS REFeVt« LISTIN^N TABLE 



^^PUM^ING <>1.A»T 




" 5./ 



39J) 



BRACK TftflCT 



TCRMINO 



WEBB TRflCT 




-€)- 



S«E«»»" 



^^/ -'V^^^ '"-Solo '- <k^M^- 



I HOTCHKISS M HOLLAND 



'5 






^4 





20 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
THE RESOURCES AGENCY 
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ,^j^fe|^ 

CENTRAL DISTRICT 

RECREATION FACILITIES ^' 



-©- 




Table 13 





COSTS OF RECREATION FEATURES. SrSTEM PLAN 










(1981 Prices) 










Recreation Facilities 






Trail System 










First 


Annual 




First 


AnnuaT~ 


Location 




Cost 


O&M 




Cost 


O&M 


on Map 

1 


Facility 


($1,000) 
163 


(?1,000) 
9.2 


Trail 


($1,000) 
293 


($1,000) 
15.0 


Andrus Island Fishing Access Site 


Andrus-Brannan Island Trail 


2 


Bacon Island Fishing Access Site 


53 


9.2 


Bishop Tract Trail 


129 


0.6 


3 


Benson Ferry Bridge Fishing Access Site 


103 


9.9 


Brack Tract Trail 


187 


0.9 


4 


Blackbird Fishing Access Site 


49 


8.1 


Byron Tract Trail 


123 


0.6 


5 


Black Slough Fishing Access Site 


48 


8.1 


Canal Ranch Trail 


275 


0.9 


6 


Bouldin Island Recreation Area 


3.353 


52.7 


Delta Meadows Canoe Trail 


71 


0.4 


7 


Brannan Island State Park Recreation Area 


2.567 


68.0 


Drexler Tract Trail 


86 


0.4 


8 


Canal Ranch Fishing Access Site 


46 


8.1 


Empire Tract Trail 


96 


0.5 


9 


Channel Island Boater Destination Site 


20 


4.3 


Holland Tract Trail 


186 


0.9 


10 


Clifton Court Forebay Fishing Access Site 


498 


16.3 


Hotchkiss Tract Trail 


48 


0.2 


11 


Connection Slough Recreation Area 


1,631 


35.4 


King Island Trail 


130 


0.,7 


12 


Correia Road Fishing Access Site 


38 


8.1 


Paradise Cut Canoe Trail 


150 


o.a 


13 


Decker Island Recreation Area 


209 


8.8 


Sacramento to Walnut Grove Trail 


3.321 


16.9 


14 


Delta Meadows Recreation Area 


1.878 


30.6 


Shin Kee Tract Trail 


32 


0.2 


15 


Donlon Island Boater Destination Site 


20 


4.3 


Staten Island Trail 


176 


0.9 


16 


El Pescadero Fishing Access Site 


49 


8.1 


Terminous Tract Trail 


281 


1.4 


17 


Fabian Fishing Access Site 


58 


8.1 


Twitchell Island Trail 


116 


0.6 


18 


Franks Tract Boater Destination Site 


26 


4.3 


Tyler Island Trail 


1.334 


0.9 


19 


Grand Island Recreation Area 


5.200 


130.4 


Union Island Trail 


423 


2.1 


20 


Grant Line Canal Recreation Area 


234 


6.6 


Upper Jones Tract Trail 


145 


0.7 


21 


Highway 4 Fishing Access Site 


36 


148.2 


Upper Orwood Tract Trail 


85 


0.4 


22 


Hog Slough Fishing Access Site 


43 


8.1 


Veale Tract Trail 


96 


0.5 


23 


Holland Tract Recreation Area 


5.174 


8.1 


Victoria Island Trail 


116 


0.6 


24 


Light 11 Recreation Area 


1.601 


35.4 


Walnut Grove Trail 


186 


0.9 


25 


Little MandevlUe Boater Destination Site 


20 


4.3 








26 


Lower Jones Fishing Access Site 


53 


9.2 




8.085 


48.0 


27 


Middle River Recreation Area 


1.435 


47.4 








28 


Old River Island Boater Destination Site 


20 


4.3 








29 


Oulton Point Recreation Area 


3.039 


52.7 








30 


Paradise Fishing Access Site 


48 


9.9 








31 


Pixley Slough Fishing Access Site 


SO 


9.9 


■ 






32 
33 


Quimby Island Boater Destination Site 
Rio Vista Fishing Access Site 


20 
93 


4.3 
8.1 


Summary 








First 


Annual 


34 


Rock Slough Fishing Access Site 


63 


9.2 




Cost 


O&M 


35 


Sacramento River Fishing Access Site 


50 


8.1 




($1,000) 


($1,000) 


36 
37 


Sevenmile Slough Fishing Access Site 
Shin Kee Recreation Area 


38 
4.120 


8.1 
49.3 


Recreation Facilities 


32.481 


918.0 


38 

39 


South Fork Mokelumne Fishing Access Site 
Staten Island Fishing Access Site 


48 
63 


8.1 
9.2 


Trail System 


_8j085 


48.0 


40 


Tippy Canoe Recreation Area 


19 


5.0 


Total 


40.566 


966.0 


41 
42 


Trapper Slough Fishing Access Site 
Tule Island Boater Destination Site 


38 
20 


8.1 
9.2 














43 


Turner Cut Fishing Access Site 


63 


4.3 








44 


Venice Cut Boater Destination Site 


20 


4.3 








45 


Widdows Island Recreation Area 


64 
32.481 


6.6 
918.0 








1 



attributed to general recreation; the 
remaining 37 percent is attributed to 
fish and wildlife. Based on the 
equivalent annual cost of $4 million, 
the benefit-cost ratio of the recreation 
features would be 3.3 to 1.0. 

Fish and Wildlife 
Enhancement Features 

Fish and wildlife enhancement features 
include acquiring public interest in 



lands to preserve and enhance their 
natural resources and scenic values. An 
additional enhancement feature would 
involve construction of setback levees 
to preserve and enhance the vegetation 
on the existing levees on Brack, Canal 
Ranch, McCormack-Williamson, and New 
Hope tracts. As mentioned earlier, 
setback levees could be considered as 
mitigation but for compatibility with 
the Corps report levee setbacks have 
been treated as enhancement in this 



82 



report . Figure 19 shows the locations 
of enhancement features. Specifically, 
the acquired lands would provide a 
diversity of terrain, including about 
1,000 acres of significant upland and 
riparian habitat, about 1,500 acres of 
channel tule islands with valuable 
riparian habitat and freshwater marshes, 
and about 3,500 acres of highly diversi- 
fied habitat set aside for wildlife 
management areas on Little Mandeville, 
Medford, Mildred, Quimby, and Rhode 
Islands. Most of the wildlife areas 
were chosen because of favorable wild- 
life habitat, but a few were chosen for 
other reasons. For example, Medford, 
Mildred, and Quimby islands are small, 
with very high levee maintenance costs 
in comparison to the agricultural area 
protected. They could, however, be 
managed to provide food for waterfowl or 
as wetlands (which would also reduce 
the rate of subsidence of the island 
floors) . 

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has 
expressed an interest in developing a 
national wildlife refuge in the Delta. 
Coordination will continue with the 
Service if a flood control project is 
authorized for construction. 

While formulating the fish and wildlife 
measures, the Department of Water 
Resources and the U. S. Army Corps of 
Engineers coordinated their efforts with 
other Federal, State, and local agencies 
interested in the fish and wildlife and 
environmental quality enhancement 
potential of the project. In addition, 
meetings were held with the Delta recla- 
mation districts and private landowners 
to consider fish and wildlife measures. 
Information from all of these sources 
was included in development of fish and 
wildlife measures for the study area. 



Fish and Wildlife 
Enhancement Costs 

First and annual costs for fish and 
wildlife enhancement features are shown 
in Table 14 (1981 prices). The first 
cost of the enhancement areas amounts to 
about $7 million. The cost to repair 
the levees around the wildlife manage- 
ment areas was estimated at $32 million, 
and the cost of the lands was estimated 
at about $9 million, for a total first 
cost of $41 million for the wildlife 
management areas. The increased cost to 
provide setback levees instead of stage 
construction on the present levee align- 
ment was about $8 million,* making a 
total for the fish and wildlife enhance- 
ment features of nearly $57 million. 



Fish and Wildlife 
Enhancement Benefits 



The benefits attributable to the fish 
and wildlife resources include both 
monetary and nonmonetary benefits. The 
monetary benefits accrue primarily from 
recreational fish and wildlife 
activities (fishing, hunting, bird 
watching, nature walks, etc.) associated 
with facilities of the recreation plan, 
and from both sport and commercial 
fishing and hunting of game birds 
associated with the fish and wildlife 
enhancement features. The intangible 
nonmonetary benefits include benefits 
that would occur in preserving 
significant natural areas as identified 
in the Delta Wildlife Habitat Protection 
and Restoration Plan prepared by the 
Department of Fish and Game, the Delta 
Master Recreation Plan prepared by The 
Resources Agency, the Delta Action Plan 
prepared by the Delta Advisory Planning 
Council, and the Environmental Atlas 



*The cost increase as a result of using setback levees instead of the stage con- 
struction method Is considered by the Corps to be enhancement. The Department 
considers at least part of these costs to be costs to avoid mitigation. This 
difference in cost classification would be resolved during post-authorization 
studies . 



83 



Table 14 





ACREAGE AND COSTS OF 








FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT 


FEATURES. 






SYSTEM PLAN 








(1981 Prices) 












First 


Annual 


Location 






Cost 


O&M 


on Map 


Feature 
Enhancement Areas 


Acres 


($1,000) 


i$l,000) 


1 


Beaver Slough 


50 


125 




2 


Bonetti Island 


33 


83 




3 


Coney Island Benr 










Islands 


50 


125 




4 


Disappointment Slough 


300 


750 




5 


Eucalyptus and 










Widdows Islands 


120 


367 




6 


Grand Island 


100 


250 




7 


Hog Slough 


100 


317 




8 


Headreach, Fern, Lost 










Lake, and Tule Islands 300 


750 




9 


Middle River 










(Union Island) 


45 


155 




10 


Middle River 










Channel Islands 


290 


726 




11 


Mokelumne River 


125 


396 




12 


Old River Channel 










Islands 


220 


549 




13 


Potato Slough 










Channel Islands 


200 


500 




14 


Sevenmile Slough 


20 


52 




15 


Spud and Hog Islands 


295 


738 




16 


South Fork Mokelumne 










River 


10 


28 




17 


Webb Tract 


230 


639 




18 


Shin Kee Tract 


50 


162 




19 


Trapper Slough 
Subtotal 


100 
2.638 


250 
6.962 









Wildlife Management 










Areas 








20 


Little Mandeville 
Island 


376 






21 


Medford Island 


1,219 






22 


Mildred Island 


998 






23 


Quimby Island 


769 






24 


Rhode Island 

Initial Construction 
Stage Construction 

Subtotal 


92 


24.765 
16,525 

41.290 




3,454 


340 




Setback Levees* 








25 


Brack Tract 




425 




26 


Canal Ranch 




534 




27 


McCormack-Williamson 




2.802 




28 


New Hope 

Subtotal 

TOTALS 




4,637 
8.398 







6.092 


56.650 


340 


* Net cost 


increase as a result of 


using 


>etback levees 1 


instead 


of stage construction me 


thod. 






1 — _ : 1 



prepared by the U. S. Array Corps of 
Engineers . 

The tangible monetary benefits were 
based primarily on the percentage of 
total recreation benefits associated 



with fish and wildlife activities. The 
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service deter- 
mined that about 37 percent of the 
visitors to the Delta participate in 
activities that depend on fish and 
wildlife resources. This percentage of 
the total annual recreation benefits of 
$21 million was used to obtain the 
annual benefits of $7.8 million assigned 
to the fish and wildlife enhancement 
areas. Additional fish and wildlife 
benefits were based on reduced waterfowl 
losses due to disease, on habitat 
improvement and other contributions to 
the National Migratory Bird Conservation 
Program, on reduced crop depredation, 
and on hunting and visitation at the 
wildlife management areas. These 
equivalent annual benefits were 
estimated to be at least $322,000. The 
total annual fish and wildlife 
enhancement benefits were estimated to 
be about $8 million. 



Economics of the System Plan 

The first cost of initial and stage con- 
struction of this plan includes costs 
for levee construction, acquisition of 
lands, easements, and rights of way, 
relocation of existing facilities, 
construction of recreation features, 
providing fish and wildlife mitigation 
and enhancement features, and the 
related engineering, design, construc- 
tion supervision, and administration. 
The annual costs include amortization of 
the first costs, and the annual opera- 
tion and maintenance costs for the 
levees, recreation facilities, and 
wildlife areas. 

The annual benefits include reduction 
of physical flood losses, reduction of 
floodfight costs, water quality and 
water supply benefits, recreation bene- 
fits from increased recreation use, and 
fish and wildlife benefits from reduced 
waterfowl losses, contributions to the 
National Migratory Bird Conservation 
Program, reduced crop depredation, and 
new hunting and visitation access on the 
proposed wildlife management areas. 



84 



FIGURE 19 




SETBACK LEVEE 

I I ENHANCEMENT AREA 

^>yW. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA 

SITE NUMBERS REFER TO LISTING ON TAbI 

LOCATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 
ENHANCEMENT AREAS 



85 



As shown on Table 15, the plan has an 
estimated cost In 1981 prices of about 
$1 billion. If these prices were 
escalated at 6 percent the plan would 
cost nyjre than $3.6 billion. The plan 

Table 15 



has an overall benefit/cost ratio of 
1.2 to 1. For purposes of comparison, 
figures both with and without the 
Peripheral Canal have been shown. The 
figures in the columns under "With 







ECONOMIC SUHIARY, 


SYSTEM PLAN 








(At 1981 Prices and 


a 7-5/8 Percent Discount Rate, Under 1990-2040 


Project Conditions) 






FIRST COST* 




With Peripheral Canal 


Without Peri 


pheral Canal 


Subtotals 




Totals 


Subtotals 




Totals 










Flood Control and Water Quality** 






$ 


910,000.000 




$ 


931,000,000 


Initial Construction*** 
Stage Construction 




$670,000,000 
240.000.000 






$686,000,000 
245,000,000 






Recreation 








40.000,000 






40,000,000 


Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 








57,000.000 






57,000,000 


TOTAL FIRST COST 






$1 


.007,000,000 




$1,028,000,000 


ANNUAL COST 
















Flood Control and Water Quality 






$ 


60.900.000 




$ 


61,000,000 


Interest and Amortization 
Operation and Maintenance 




$ 58,900,000 
2.000.000 






$ 59,000,000 
2,000,000 






Recreation 








4.000.000 






4,000,000 


Interest and Amortization 
Operation and Maintenance 




$ 3.000,000 
1,000,000 






$ 3,000,000 
1,000,000 






Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 








3.900.000 






3.900,000 


Interest and Amortization 
Operation and Maintenance 

TOTAL ANNUAL COST 




$ 3,500,000 
400,000 






$ 3,500,000 
400,000 






$ 


68.800,000 


$ 


68,900,000 


ANNUAL BENEFITS 
















Flood Control and Water Quality 

Recreation 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 






$ 


51,900,000 

13,100,000 

8,100,000 




$ 


62,100,000 

13,100,000 

8,100,000 


TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFITS 






$ 


73,100.000 




$ 


83,300,000 


BENEFIT-COST RATIOS 
















Flood Control and Water Quality 

Recreation 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 








0.9:1 

3.3:1 

. 2.1:1 






1.0:1 
3.3:1 
2.1:1 


TOTAL PROJECT BENEFIT-COST RATIO 






1.1:1 






1.2:1 


NET BENEFITS (Excess of Benefits Over 


■ Costs) 




$ 


4.300.000 




$ 


14,400,000 


* Rounded to nearest $1 million. 

** The draft Corps report excludes Reclamation District 17; this bulletin excludes 

Stewart Tract because both are protected exclusively by project levees. 
*** Includes $11,000,000 in fish and wildlife mitigation costs under with Peripheral 

$11,700,000 under without Peripheral Canal assumption. 


both Reclamation District 
Canal assumption, and 


17 and 



86 



Peripheral Canal" were taken from the 
Corps of Engineers' draft feasibility 
report dated October 1982. The figures 
in the columns under "Without Peripheral 
Canal" were based on the same basic 
assumptions used by the Corps except 
that Stewart Tract was excluded. 
Changing to the "Without Peripheral 
Canal" assumption does not have a signi- 
ficant effect on costs, but benefits 
would be larger because of the greater 
number of islands included without the 
Peripheral Canal. As indicated in this 
table, the summed first cost (initial 
construction plus staged construction) 
without the Peripheral Canal is 
$21 million greater than with the 
Peripheral Canal; the corresponding 
annual cost is $100,000 greater. 

The annual benefits, however, increased 
by $10.2 million. Furthermore, the 
overall benefit-cost ratio for the 
System Plan increased from l.l for the 
project with Peripheral Canal to 1.2 for 
the project without the Peripheral 
Canal . 

A.S stated in Chapter 4, there is 
considerable logic in support of the 
non-restoration assumption, as well as 
the without Peripheral Canal assumption 
for computing the benefits of the plan. 
According to the Corps' sensitivity 
analysis, the combination of these 
assumptions would result in an overall 
benefit/cost ratio for the System Plan 
of 1.5 and for the flood control 
features of the plan of 1.4. 

For compatibility with the Corps' 
report, the assumptions for this report 
are based on the following: 

° Federal interest in participating in 
flood control improvements in the 
Delta would be limited to those 
locations where the improvements are 
economically justified*. 

° Islands will be reclaimed after levee 
breaks . 



On this basis, the federally authorized 
project would include levee improvements 
on 19 islands (refer to Figure 16) and 
recreation and fish and wildlife 
enhancement features in the federal 
plan. (The ultimate number of islands 
and tracts that would receive flood 
control improvements under a federal 
program would depend on results of 
post-authorization studies, including 
reevaluation of the assumed without- 
project conditions.) 

Table 16 shows the summed capital costs 
(1981 prices) allocated between federal 
and nonfederal participants under the 
traditional cost sharing method used in 
the Corps of Engineers' draft feasibil- 
ity report. The Federal Government 
would pay $407 million of the flood 
control costs for the federal 
participation islands, and would also 
pay $20 million of costs allocated to 
recreation and $43 million of fish and 
wildlife enhancement costs. Nonfederal 
interests would be responsible for the 
levee construction and mitigation costs 
($433 million) on the 34 islands not 
included in the federal project (refer 
to Figure 16). Also, non-Federal 
participants would pay $90 million for 
lands, easements, rights of way, 
relocations, and relocation betterments 
for the 53 islands in the System Plan, 
$20 million for recreation facilities, 
and $14 million for fish and wildlife 
enhancement. For the total project, the 
Federal Government would be responsible 
for 46 percent of the total capital 
costs and the non-Federal interests 
would be allocated 54 percent of the 
total capital costs of the System 
Plan. 

However, the Federal Government is 
proposing to increase the up-front cost 
sharing required from nonfederal 
sources. Comparable cost figures for 
this proposed formula are contained in 
Appendix A Table A-16 which show that 
the federal share would be reduced to 
only 30 percent . 



♦Authorization of the federal Incremental Flood Control Plan would make this 
official policy. 



87 



Table 16 



SYSTEM PLAN 

ALLOCATION OF SUMMEp CAPITAL COSTS 

TRADITIONAL COST SHARING 

(In Thousands of Dollars, 1981 Prices) 



Item 



Project Federal Nonfederal 
Total Allocation Allocation 



Flood Control, 








Federal Participation 


Islands and 


Tracts 




Construction 


405,000 


405,000 


^_ 


Mitigation 


2,500 


2,200 


300 


Lands, Easements, 








Rights of Way 


24,200 


-- 


24,200 


Relocations 


8,100 


— 


8,100 


Relocation Betterments 


8,600 
448,400 


— 


8,600 


Subtotal 


407,200 


41,200 


Percent 


lOOX 


91« 


9% 


Flood Control, 








Nonfederal Participati 


on Islands 


and Tracts 




Construction 


424,100 




424,100 


Mitigation 


9.200 




9,200 


Lands, Easements, 








Rights of Way 


30.200 




30,200 


Relocations 


9.000 




9,000 


Relocation Betterments 


9,700 




9,700 


Subtotal 


482,200 




482,200 


Percent 


lOOX 




loot 



Flood Control Subtotal 930,600 407,200 523,400 
Percent lOOX 44« 56X 



Recreation and Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 



Recreation 



40,000 20,000 
Percent lOOX 50« 



Fish and Wildlife 
Enhancement 

Percent 



57,000 42,800 
lOOX ' 75X 



20,000 
50« 



14,200 
25« 



PROJECT TOTALS 1,027,600 470,000 557,600 
PERCENT lOOX 46X 54X 



Table 17* shows the traditional 
allocation of the summed capital costs 
to Federal, State, county, islands and 
tracts, and to water projects and water 
users in 1981 prices and in costs 
escalated at 6 percent and 9 percent to 



the time of construction. Table A-17 
shows the same information for the 
proposed cost sharing. 

Of the non-Federal flood control costs, 
about half was allocated to the State. 
The islands and tracts were allocated 
47 percent of the non-Federal flood 
control costs; the remaining 3 percent 
was assigned to the water projects and 
local water users. The costs of recrea- 
tion and fish and wildlife enhancement 
were divided equally between the state 
and the counties. Overall, the state 
was assigned about half of the total 
cost of the project. 



Construction Schedule 
and Expenditures 

Before a levee rehabilitation project 
can be initiated, six steps are 
required: (1) Federal and State autho- 
rization of a project must be obtained, 

(2) advanced planning and an environmen- 
tal impact report must be completed, 

(3) design and specifications for the 
work must be completed, (4) funds must 
be available for financing the work, 
(5) contracts detailing repayment 
obligations must be signed between the 
State and the local levee maintaining 
agencies, and (6) contracts must be 
signed to provide for construction, 
operation, and maintenance. Considering 
the aforementioned six steps, it is 
estimated that the earliest date for 
beginning construction would be 1989. 
Assuming maximum annual construction 
contract amounts in the $70 million 
(1981 prices) range to reflect the 
availability of construction equipment 
and the logistics associated with 
construction, the initial construction 
period would extend over a 12-year 
period. The construction schedule was 
developed on the basis of repairing the 
levees with the estimated highest 
frequency of failure rate first. The 



*The addition of numbers in Table 17 and subsequent cost allocation and scheduling 
tables may not equal the totals because of rounding. 



88 































Table 


17 








SYSTEM PLM 

ALLOCATION OF ESCALATED SUKD CAPITAL COSTS. BY PARTICIPANT 

TRAOinOHAL COST SHARIK 
























(In Hllllons of Dollars) 
















Purpose 


Federal Total 












Hon 


-Federal 
















Total 






State 




County 




Islands/Tracts 
1981 Escalation 
Prices SJ « 

244 897 2,214 

47 47 48 


Water Projects/Users 

19S1 Escalation 

Prices 6X 91 

14 52 127 
2 3 3 


Prices 

407 


Escalation 
6t 91 

1,478 3,244 


1981 
Prices 

523 

100 


Escalat 
fit 

1,888 4 
100 


ion 

-w 

,618 
100 


IMl 
Prices 

265 

51 


Escalation 
fiS « 

939 2,277 
50 49 


19S1 
Prices 


Escalation 


Flood Control 
Percent 


Recreation 
Percent 


20 


47 71 


20 
100 


46 
100 


70 
100 


10 
50 


23 35 

50 50 


10 
50 


23 

50 


35 

50 


. 


. 


. 


. 


- 


Fish/Wildlife 
Enhancement 
Percent 


43 


154 361 


14 
100 


52 
100 


120 
100 


7 
50 


26 60 
50 50 


7 
50 


26 
50 


60 
50 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


TOTAL 
Percent 


470 


1,679 4.076 


558 
100 


1,986 4 
100 


,808 
100 


283 
51 


988 2,372 
SO 49 


17 
3 


49 
3 


95 
2 


244 

44 


897 2,214 
45 46 


14 
2 


52 
2 


127 
3 


1 



initial construction for each Island 
would be completed within a two year 
period. Following the initial construc- 
tion, areas where settlement or other 
major problems (that are considered 
beyond the normal maintenance work 
performed by local levee maintaining 
agencies) will be corrected as part of 
the levee restoration project. The 
construction schedule and expenditures 
for the total project based on 1981 
prices are shown on Table 18. 

Recognizing that construction probably 
will not begin until 1989, and prices 
will escalate during the interim (as 
well as after construction begins), an 
evaluation was made to ascertain the 
effect of price escalation on project 
costs. Table 19 presents the cost 
information of Table 18 escalated at a 
rate of 6 percent. As a result of this 
escalation rate, capital costs during 
the initial construction period (1989 
through 2000) would increase by more 
than $1 billion and costs for stage 
construction after year 2000 would 
increase by $1.6 billion. The total 
increase In capital costs associated 
with the 6 percent escalation rate 
amounts to about $2.6 billion. 



To further evaluate its sensitivity 
of price escalation on project costs, 
an analysis was made of the effect of 
a 9 percent rate of escalation. 
Table 20 presents the cost information 
of Table 18 escalated at a rate of 
9 percent. The total capital costs 
associated with the 9 percent escala- 
tion rate amounts to about 
$8.9 billion. 

The total difference between the 
6 percent and 9 percent rates of 
escalation amounts to over $5 billion 
during the 50-year life of the project. 

Cost allocation by the traditional 
method of cost sharing was previously 
discussed. The following discussion 
addresses the nonfederal portion of the 
capital costs of the System Plan. 
Table 21 shows the construction schedule 
and nonfederal costs portion of the 
System Plan in 1981 prices. The total 
nonfederal capital costs during the 
initial construction period (1989 
through 2000) would amount to about 
$470 million. During the following 
stage construction period, the total 
nonfederal capital costs would amount to 
about $85 million. 



89 



Table 18 



SCHEDULE OF TOTAL PROJECT COSTS, SYSTEM PLAN 
(In Thousinds of Dollars, 1981 Prices) 



Island or Tract 



Bouldin* 

Venice 

Termlnous* 

Empire* 

Veale 

Brack* 

Shin Kee 

Orwood, Upper 

Mandevil le* 

McDonald* 

Rindge* 

Webb* 

Roberts, 

Lower /Middle/Upper* 
Drexler* 

Jones, Lower/Upper* 

Woodward 

Bacon* 

Andrus-Brannan* 

Canal Ranch 

Bishop 

Tyler* 

Bradford 

Jersey 

Holland 

Sherman 

McCormack-WI 1 1 1 amson 

Deadhorse 

King 

Twitchell 

Staten 

Palm 

Hotchkiss* 

Shima ' 

R1o Blanco 

New Hope 

Wright-Elmwood 

Victoria 

Coney 

Pescadaro Area 

Sargent-Barnhart 

Bethel 

Orwood 

Atlas 

Byron 

Walnut Grove 

Union 

Fabian 



1989 

20,576 

10,295 

13,937 

5,170 

2,153 

9,083 



1990 

20,576 

10,295 

13,937 

5,170 

2,153 

9,083 



1991 



1,794 
2,077 
8,676 
8,252 
9,333 
7,909 

19,573 
3,846 



1992 



4,824 



1,794 
2,077 
8,676 
8,252 
9,333 
7,909 

19,573 
3,846 



1993 1994 



4,824 

1,410 

340 



1995 



6.673 



1996 1997 



4,824 



1998 



4,824 

3,932 

456 

2,227 



1999 



2,458 
2,116 



370 



12,451 
3,927 
8,704 

11,279 
5,920 
3,154 

10,337 
4,811 



12,451 
3,927 
8,704 

11,279 
5,920 
3,154 

10,337 
4,811 



3,451 



2,316 
861 



1,852 



9,803 
6,580 
25,190 
4,550 
1,930 
4,824 



9,803 
6,580 
25,190 
4,550 
1,930 
4,824 



13,759 
12,164 
4,527 
3,508 
3,294 
1,626 
9,733 



13,759 
12,164 
4,527 
3,508 
3,294 
1,626 
9,733 



3.211 
5.443 
1,777 
4,621 
1,846 
15,018 
3,700 
1,260 
9,291 
624 
1,026 
4,378 



2000 

6,146 



2,115 
295 



4,264 
861 



778 
80 



3,211 
5,443 
1,777 
4,621 
1,846 
15,018 
3,700 
1,260 
9,291 
624 
1,026 
4,378 



Future 
Stage 

15,914 

28,942 

14,881 

4,257 



9,867 

7,218 

2,029 

12,505 



5,951 

4,076 
5,498 
7,372 
14,563 
1,021 
1.870 
2,231 
8,934 



3,624 

767 
507 
393 

11,931 

10,701 

2,493 

489 
47 



558 
1,232 



283 
1,489 
1,066 



Flood Control Subtotal 61,212 61,212 61,459 66,283 60,951 67,155 66,177 62,274 48,609 51,900 52,192 66,731 

Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 831 831 1,078 1,078 957 957 641 641 849 849 1,513 1,513 

Flood Control Total 62,042 62,042 62,537 67.361 61,908 68,112 66,818 62,915 49,458 62,749 53,705 68,244 

Recreation 3,697 3,697 2,383 2,383 2,676 2,676 2,905 2,905 4,392 4,391 4,231 4,230 

Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 3,525 3,525 4,205 4.205 3,707 3,706 4,328 3,330 3,885 2,667 2,629 3,626 

Project Total 69,264 69,264 69,125 73,949 68,291 74,494 74,051 69,150 57,735 69,807 60,565 76,100 

*Islands included In Federal plan. 



182,709 
182,709 

13,312 



Total 

69,885 
68,827 
48,096 
15,392 
4,305 
20,392 

3,587 
4,154 
27,218 
28,295 
20,989 
30,439 

39,516 
17,094 

28,978 
15,667 
29,044 
40,695 
12,860 
8,178 
22,904 
18,555 

19,605 
17,562 
50,379 
9,867 
4,447 
10,041 

39,448 

35,029 

11,546 

7,015 

7,077 

3.299 

19,465 

6,979 

12,117 

3,553 

9,242 

3,974 

31,525 

8,465 

2,520 

18,582 

1,247 

2,052 

8,756 



918,862 

11,738 

930,600 

40,566 

56,650 



196,021 1,027,816 



90 



Table 19 



SCHEDULE OF TOTAL PROJECT COSTS, SYSTEM PLAN 
6 PERCENT ESCALATION RATE 
(In Thousands of DoDtrs) 



Island or Tract 



Bouldin* 

Venice 

Terminous* 

Empire* 

Veale 

Brack* 

Shin Kee 

Orwood, Upper 

Mandevllle* 

McDonald* 

Rindge* 

Webb* 

Roberts, 

Lower/Middle/Upper* 
Drexler* 

Jones, Lower/Upper* 

Woodward 

Bacon* 

Andrus-Brannan* 

Canal Ranch 

Bishop 

Tyler* 

Bradford 

Jersey 

Holland 

Sherman 

McCormack-Wi 1 1 1 amson 

Dead horse 

King 

Twitchel 1 

Staten 

Palm 

Hotchkiss* 

Shima 

Rio Blanco 

New Hope 

Wright-Elmwood 

Victoria 

Coney 

Pescadaro Area 

Sargent-Barnhart 

Bethel 

Orwood 

Atlas 

Byron 

Walnut Grove 

Union 

Fabian 



1989 

32.795 
16.408 
22,213 
8.239 
3,431 
14,476 



1990 

34,763 
17.392 
23,545 
8.734 
3,637 
15,345 



1991 



1992 1993 



3,212 
3,720 
15.536 
14,778 
16,713 
14,164 

35,052 
6,888 



9,157 



3,405 
3,943 
16,469 
15.665 
17.716 
15.014 

37.155 
7.301 



1994 



10,289 

3,007 

725 



1995 1996 



15,087 



11,561 



1997 



1998 



12,990 

10,588 

1,228 

5,997 



1999 



2000 



18.595 



5.891 
5.071 



745 



25.054 

7,901 

17,514 

22.696 

11.911 

6,346 

20.799 

9,680 



26.557 
8,375 
18.565 
24.057 
12.626 
6.727 
22.047 
10.260 



7,802 



5,236 
1,947 



22.163 
14,877 
56,951 
10,287 
4,364 
10.907 



4,987 



23,492 
15,769 
60,368 
10,904 
4,625 
11,561 



34,951 

30,901 

11,499 

8,910 

8,368 

4,131 

24,724 



37,049 

32,755 

12,189 

9,445 

8,870 

4,378 

26,207 



9,164 
15.535 

5,071 
13,190 

5,268 
42,866 
10,560 

3.596 
26,520 

1,780 

2,929 
12.496 



6.399 
893 



12.901 
2.605 



2.354 
242 



9,714 
16,467 

5.375 
13,981 

5,584 
45,438 
11,193 

3,812 
28,111 

1,886 

3.104 
13,246 



Future 
Stage 

153,462 

228,832 

136,217 

22,472 



87,147 

67,467 

27.692 

119,521 



50.775 

24.815 
38,750 
46,989 
122,203 
9,346 
10.740 
15.261 
97,080 



29.575 

33,859 
4,112 
3,021 

100.256 

184,932 

21,530 

3,758 
- 771 



4,546 
15,998 



1,533 
14,449 
18,524 



Total 

254,702 
306,630 
195,571 

41,398 
7,067 

36,818 

6,616 

7.662 

119.152 

110,200 

63,014 

153,769 

72.952 
72.766 

76,426 
60,262 
95,969 

178,494 
33,884 
23,814 
58,107 

117,020 

45,655 
62.575 
117.319 
55,051 
13,343 
25,488 

172,256 
248.587 
45,218 
18,355 
20,996 
9,280 
50.931 

23.424 

48.000 

10.446 

27.171 

12,385 

102.753 

40.277 

7,409 

54.631 

3.666 

6,033 

25,742 



Flood Control Subtotal 97,562 103.416 110,063 125.824 122.645 143,237 149,620 149.243 123.484 166.683 148.974 201,901 1,695.635 3,338,286 

Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 1.324 1,404 1,931 2.047 1,925 2,041 1,450 1,537 2.157 2.286 4,318 4,578 — 26.997 

Flood Control Total 98.886 104.819 111,994 127,871 124.571 145,278 151,070 150,780 125,641 168,969 153,292 206.479 1,695.635 3,365,284 

Recreation 5.892 6,246 4.268 4,524 5,385 5.708 6.568 6,962 11.157 11.824 12.077 12,798 -- 93,408 

Fish/W1ldl1fe Enhancement 5,618 5,955 7,531 7,982 7,459 7,905 9,785 7,981 9,869 7,182 7,504 10,971 109,979 205,721 

Project Total 110,397 117,021 123,792 140,377 137,415 158,890 167,423 165,723 146,667 187,974 172,873 230,248 1,805,614 3,664,413 

*Islands Included In Federal plan. 



91 



Table 20 



Island or Tract 

Bouldin* 

Venice 

Term i nous* 

Empire* 

Veale 

Brack* 

Shin Kee 

Orwood, Upper 

MandevlHe* 

McDonald* 

Rindge* 

Webb* 

Roberts, 

Lower /Middle/Upper* 
Drexler* 

Jones, Lower/Upper* 

Woodward 

Bacon* 

Andrus-Brannan* 

Canal Ranch 

Bishop 

Tyier* 

Bradford 

Jersey 

Holland 

Sherman 

McCormacl(-Wi 1 1 iamson 

Dead horse 

King 

Twitchell 
Staten 

Palm 

Hotchkiss* 

Shima 

Rio Blanco 

New Hope 

Wriqht-Elmwood 

Victoria 

Coney 

Pescadaro Area 

Sargent-Barnhart 

Bethel 

Orwood 

Atlas 

Byron 

Walnut Grove 

Union 

Fabian 



SCHEDULE OF TOTM. PROJECT COSTS, SYSTEM PLAN 
9 PERCENT ESCALATION RATE 
(In Thousands of Dollars) 



1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 



40,999 
20.512 
27,769 
10,301 
4,289 
18.097 



44,689 
22.359 
30,269 
11,228 
4,675 
19,726 



4,246 
4,917 
20,538 
19,535 
22,093 
18,723 

46,336 
9,105 



12,448 



4,628 
5,360 
22.386 
21,294 
24,082 
20,409 

50,507 
9,924 



14,789 
4,323 
1,042 



22,299 



17,571 



20,877 

17,016 

1,973 

9,638 



8,953 
7,707 



1,041 



35,020 
11,044 
24,481 
31,724 
16,650 
8,871 
29.073 
13,530 



38,172 
12.038 
26,685 
34.579 
18,148 
9.670 
31,690 
14,748 



11,532 



7,739 
2,877 



8,015 



32,757 
21,989 
84,176 
15,205 
6,450 
16,120 



35,705 
23,968 
91,752 
16,573 
7,030 
17,571 



54,625 
48.295 
17,972 
13,926 
13,078 
6,456 
38,641 



59,542 
52,641 
19.589 
15,179 
14,255 
7,037 
42,119 



15,144 
25,673 

8,380 
21,798 

8,705 
70,842 
17,451 

5,944 
43,827 

2,941 

4.840 
20.652 



2000 

31,601 



10,875 
1,517 



21,924 
4.427 



4.000 
411 



16.507 
27.983 

9,134 
23,760 

9,489 
77,217 
19.022 

6,478 
47.771 

3.206 

5.275 
22,510 



Future 
Stage 

479,492 

688,126 

445.036 

52,099 



305,219 
217.023 
106,972 
430,422 



155,645 

58,946 

105,840 

121,638 

392,644 

26,992 

24,811 

38,333 

359,549 



85,461 

207.739 

11,640 

8.023 

315.513 

877,594 

60,465 

9.982 
2.942 



12.416 
54,623 



3,445 
42,907 
72,720 



Total 

619,080 
796,682 
524,413 

76,643 
8,964 

47,461 

8.874 
10,277 
348.143 
277,680 
154,664 
477,261 

97,884 
186.207 

132,139 

136,662 

194,728 

474,267 

61,789 

43,351 

99,096 

387.827 

68.463 

135,418 

175,929 

239,517 

25,531 

41,715 

429.680 
978.531 
98.025 
29.105 
37.316 
16.434 
80.760 

44.068 

108,280 

17.514 

45.557 

21.639 

190,966 

109,193 

12,422 

91,598 

6,147 

10,115 

43,162 



Flood Control Subtotal 121,968 132,945 145,495 171.037 171.435 205.884 221.145 226,832 192.993 267.881 246.196 343,108 5.774,258 8,221,176 

Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 1.655 1.804 2.553 2.782 2.691 2.933 2,143 2,336 3,371 3,674 7,137 7,779 -- 40,859 

Flood Control Total 123.623 134.749 148,047 173,819 174,126 208.817 223.288 229.168 196,363 271,555 253.333 350.887 5.774.258 8.262,035 

Recreation 7,367 8,029 5.641 6,149 7,527 8.204 9.708 10.581 17,438 19,003 19,958 21,749 -- 141,354 

Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 7,024 7,656 9,955 10,851 10,427 11.362 14.463 12,129 15,425 11,542 12,401 18.644 339.613 481.490 

Project Total 138,013 150.435 163.643 190,819 192,079 228,383 247,459 251,879 229,226 302,099 285.692 391,280 6,113,871 8,884,879 

*Islands included In Federal plan. 



92 



Table 2 1 

SCHEDULE OF WM-FEDERM. COSTS, SYSTEM PLAN — TRADITIONAL COST SHARING 
(In Thousands of Dolltrs, 1981 Prices) 

Future 
Island or Tract 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Stage Total 



Bouldin* 1,102 1,102 -- 2.203 

Venice 10,295 10,295 -- 4,824 — 4,824 -- 4,824 -- 4,824 -- -- 28,942 68,827 

Termlnous* 1,665 1,665 -- 3,330 

Empire* 966 966 — 1,931 

Veale 2,153 2,153 - 4,305 

Brack* 478 478 - 956 

Shin Kee - -- 1,794 1,794 -- 3,587 

Orwood, Upper — — 2,077 2,077 — — — — — — — — — 4,154 

Mandeville* — — 547 547 — — — — — — — -- — 1,093 

McDonald* — — 530 530 — — — — — — — — — 1,060 

Rindge* — - 1,036 1,036 ■ -- 2,072 

Webb* — — 461 461 — — — — — — — — — 921 

Roberts, 

Lower/Middle/Upper* ~ ~ 3,882 3,882 — ~ — -- — — — — — 7,763 

Drexler* — — 492 492 — — — — — — — — — 984 

Jones, Lower/Upper* — — — — 1,892 1,892 — — — — — — — 3,783 

Woodward 3,927 3,927 2,316 5,498 15,667 

Bacon* 1,258 1,258 -- 2,515 

Andrus-Brannan* — — — — 4,423 4,423 — — — — — — — 8,846 

Canal Ranch 5,920 5,920 1,021 12,860 

Bishop 3,154 3,154 1,870 8,178 

Tyler* 1,340 1,340 - 2,679 

Bradford 4,811 4,811 8,934 18,555 

Jersey 9.803 9,803 -- 19,605 

Holland 6,580 6,580 778 3,624 17,562 

Sherman 25,190 25,190 -- 50,379 

McCormack-Willlamson -- — — — — — 4,550 4,550 -- — — -- 767 9,867 

Deadhorse 1,930 1,930 80 507 4,447 

King 4,824 4,824 393 10,041 

Twitchell 13,759 13,759 - -- 11,931 39,448 

Staten 12,164 12,164 — -- 10,701 35,029 

Palm 4.527 4,527 — — 2.493 11,546 

Hotchkiss* — — — — — — — — 97 97 — -- — 194 

Shima 3,294 3,294 -- - 489 7,077 

Rio Blanco 1,626 1.626 -- -- 47 3,299 

New Hope • 9,733 9.733 -- -- - 19,465 

Wright-Elmwood 3,211 3,211 558 6,979 

Victoria 5,443 5,443 1,232 12,117 

Coney 1,777 1,777 -- 3,553 

Pescadaro Area — — — — — — — — — — 4,621 4,621 — 9,242 

Sargent-Barnhart — — — — — — — — — — 1,846 1,846 283 3,974 

Bethel 15,018 15,018 1,489 31,525 

Orwood 3,700 3,700 1,066 8,465 

Atlas 1,260 1,260 -- 2,520 

Byron 9,291 9,291 -- 18,582 

Walnut Grove — — — — — — — — — — 624 624 — 1,247 

Union 1.026 1,026 - 2,052 

Fabian 4.378 4,378 — 8,756 

Flood Control Subtotal 16,657 16,657 10,817 15,641 26,722 31,546 55,192 57,700 45.199 50,023 52,192 53,050 81,845 513,240 

Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 277 277 189 189 426 426 641 641 765 765 1,513 1,513 — 7,622 

Flood Control Total 16,934 16,934 11,006 15,830 27,148 31,972 55,833 58,341 45,963 50,787 53,705 54,563 81,845 520,862 

Recreation 1,849 1,849 1,192 1,192 1,338 1,338 1,453 1,453 2,196 2,196 2,116 2,115 - 20,283 

Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 881 881 . 1,051 1,051 927 927 1,082 833 971 667 657 907 3.328 14.163 

Project Total 19,664 19,664 13,249 18,073 ' 29,413 34.237 58.368 60.626 49.130 53.649 56.478 57.584 85,173 555,308 

♦Islands Included in Federal plan. 



93 



Table 22 shows the nonfederal costs 
escalated at a rate of 6 percent. 
Compared to the 1981 prices the effect 
of a 6 percent escalation rate would 
increase costs during the initial 



construction period by $667 million; 
during the following staged construction 
period by $764 million; for a total 
increase of about $1.4 billion. 



Table 22 



SCHEDULE OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS. STSTEN PLAN — TRADITIONAL COST SHARING 
6 PERCENT ESCALATION RATE 
(In Thousindt of Oollirt) 



Island or Tract 



Bouldin* 

Venice 

Terminous* 

Empire* 

Veale 

Brack* 

Shin Kee 

Orwood, Upper 

MandevDIe* 

McDonald* 

Rindge* 

Uebb* 

Roberts, 

Lower /Middle/Upper* 
Drexler* 

Jones, Lower/Upper* 

Woodward 

Bacon* 

Andrus-Brannan* 

Canal Ranch 

Bishop 

Tyler* 

Bradford 

Jersey 

Holland 

Sherman 

HcCormack-UI 1 1 lanson 

Dead horse 

King 

Twitchell 

Staten 

Palm 

Hotchkiss* 

Shima 

Rio Blanco 

New Hope 

Wrlght-Elmwood 

Victoria 

Coney 

Pescadaro Area 

Sargent-Barnhart 

Bethel 

Orwood 

Atlas 

Byron 

Walnut Grove 

Union 

Fabian 



1969 

1,756 
16,408 
2,654 
1,539 
3.431 
762 



1990 

1,861 
17,392 
2,813 
1,631 
3,637 
808 



3,212 

3,720 

979 

949 

1,855 

825 

6,951 
881 



3,405 
3,943 
1,037 
1,006 
1,967 
874 

7,368 
934 



3,806 
7,901 
2,530 
8.900 
11,911 
6.346 
2.695 
9,680 



4,034 
8,375 
2,682 
9,434 

12,626 
6,727 
2,857 

10,260 



5.236 



22,163 
14,877 
56,951 
10,287 
4,364 
10,907 



23,492 
15,769 
60.368 
10.904 
4,625 
11,561 



34.951 

30,901 

11.499 

246 

8.368 

4.131 

24.724 



37.049 

32.755 

12.189 

261 

8.870 

4.378 

26,207 



9,164 
15,535 

5,071 
13,190 

5,268 
42,866 
10,560 

3.596 
26,520 

1,780 

2,929 
12,496 



1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 
9,157 -- 10,289 -- 11.561 -- 12,990 



2,354 
242 



9,714 
16,467 

5,375 
13,981 

5,584 
45,438 
11,193 

3,812 
28,111 

1,886 

3,104 
13,246 



Future 
Stage 

228,832 



38.750 



9.346 
10.740 

97.080 



29,575 

33,859 
4,112 
3,021 

100.256 

184,932 

21.530 

3,758 
771 



4,546 
15,998 



1,533 
14,449 
18,524 



Total 

3,617 
306,630 
5,467 
3,170 
7,067 
1.569 

6,616 
7,662 
2,016 
1,955 
3,822 
1,699 

14,319 
1,815 

7,841 
60,262 

5,212 
18,334 
33,884 
23,814 

5,552 
117,020 

45,655 
62,575 
117,319 
55,051 
13,343 
25,488 

172,256 

248,587 

45,218 

508 

20,996 

9,280 

50,931 

23,424 

48,000 

10,446 

27,171 

12,385 

102,753 

40,277 

7,409 

54,631 

3,666 

6,033 

25,742 



Flood Control Subtotal 26,549 28,142 19,372 29,691 53,770 67,285 124.784 138.281 114.820 134.699 148.974 160.508 

Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 441 468 339 359 857 909 1.450 1.53? 1.943 2,059 4,318 4,578 

Flood Control Total 26,990 28,610 19,711 30.051 54.627 68.194 126.234 139.818 116.763 136,758 153,292 165,086 

Recreation 2,946 3.123 2.134 2.262 2.692 2.854 3.284 3,481 5,579 5,912 6,038 6,399 

Fish/Hlldlife Enhancement 1.405 1,489 1,883 1,996 1,865 1.976 2.446 1.995 2,467 1,795 1,876 2,743 

Project Total 31,341 33,221 23,727 34,308 59,184 73,024 131.964 145.294 124.809 144.466 161.207 174,227 

♦Islands included In Federal plan. 



821,613 1,868,488 

19,258 

821,613 1,887,746 

46,704 

27,495 51,430 

849,108 1,985,881 



94 



Table 23 shows the nonfederal costs 
escalated at a rate of 9 percent. 
Compared to the 1981 prices the total 
increase in the capital costs associated 
with the 9 percent escalation rate 
amounts to $4.2 billion. 



Tables A-21, A-22, and A-23 in Appen- 
dix A show the schedule of nonfederal 
costs of the system plan in 1981, prices 
escalated prices at 6 percent and 
escalated prices at 9 percent computed 
by the cost sharing formula proposed by 
the Reagan Administration. 



Table 23 



SCHEDULE OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS. SYSTEM PLAN - TRADITIONAL COST SHARING 
9 PERCENT ESCALATION RATE 
(In Thousands of Dollars) 



Island or Tract 



Bouldin* 

Venice 

Terminous* 

Empire* 

Veale 

Brack* 

Shin Kee 

Orwood, Upper 

Mandevnie* 

McDonald* 

Rindge* 

Webb* 

Roberts, 

Lower/Middle/Upper* 
Drexler* 

Jones, Lower/Upper* 

Woodward 

Bacon* 

Andrus-Brannan* 

Canal Ranch 

Bishop 

Tyler* 

Bradford 

Jersey 

Holland 

Sherman 

McCormack-WI 1 1 1 amson 

Dead horse 

King 

Twitchell 

Staten 

Palm 

Hotchkiss* 

Shima 

Rio Blanco 

New Hope 

Wrlght-Elmwood 

Victoria 

Coney 

Pescadaro Area 

Sargent-Barnhart 

Bethel 

Orwood 

Atlas 

Byron 

Walnut Grove 

Union 

Fabian 



2,195 
20,512 
3,318 
1.924 
4,289 
952 



2,392 
22,359 
3,616 
2.097 
4.675 
1,038 



20.877 



4,246 
4.917 
1,294 
1.255 
2.453 
1,090 

9,189 
1.165 



4.628 
5,360 
1.410 
1,368 
2.673 
1.188 

10,016 
1.270 



5.320 
11.044 

3.537 
12,440 
16,650 

8,871 

3,768 
13.530 



5,799 
12,038 

3,855 
13,560 
18,148 

9,670 

4,107 
14.748 



7.739 



32,757 
21.989 
84.176 
15.205 
6.450 
16,120 



35,705 
23,968 
91,752 
16.573 
7.030 
17,571 



54.625 
48.295 
17.972 
385 
13,078 
6,456 
38.641 



59,542 
52,641 
19.589 
420 
14,255 
7,037 
42.119 



15.144 
25.673 

8.380 
21.798 

8,705 
70,842 
17,451 

5,944 
43,827 

2,941 

4.840 
20,652 



1989 1990 1991 199? 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 
12,448 - 14.789 -- 17.571 



4,000 
411 



16,507 
27,983 

9.134 
23.760 

9,489 
77,217 
19,022 

6,478 
47,771 

3,206 

5,275 
22,510 



Future 
Stage 

688,126 



105,840 



26,992 
24,811 

359,549 



85,461 

207,739 
11,640 
8,023 

315,513 

877,594 

60,465 

9,982 
2.942 



12.416 
54,623 



3,445 
42,907 
72.720 



Total 

4.587 
796,682 
6,934 
4,021 
8,964 
1.991 

8,874 
10,277 
2.704 
2,622 
5,126 
2.278 

19.205 
2,434 

11,119 

136,662 

7,392 

26,000 

61,789 

43,351 

7,874 

387,827 

68.463 

135,418 

175,929 

239,517 

25,531 

41,715 

429,680 
978,531 
98,025 
805 
37,316 
16,434 
80,760 

44,068 

108,280 

17,514 

45,557 

21,639 

190,966 

109,193 

12,422 

91,598 

6,147 

10,115 

43,162 



Flood Control Subtotal 33,190 36,177 25,608 40,360 75,160 96,714 184,437 210,171 179,452 216.479 246,196 272,765 2,970,787 4,587,497 

Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 552 602 448 488 1,198 1,306 2,143 2,336 3.036 3.309 7,137 7,779 — 30,335 

Flood Control Total 33,742 36.779 26.056 40.849 76.358 98.020 186.580 212.507 182.488 219,788 253,333 280,544 2,970,787 4.617.831 

Recreation 3,683 4.015 2,821 3,075 3,763 4,102 4.854 5.291 8.719 9.501 9,979 10,875 — 70,677 

Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 1.756 1.914 2.489 2,713 2,607 2,840 3,616 3,032 3,856 2,885 '3,100 4,661 84,903 120,373 

Project Total 39.181 42.708 31.365 46,636 82,728 104,963 195.049 220,830 195.063 232.175 266.412 296,080 3,055,691 4,808.881 

*Islands Included in Federal plan. 



95 



Project Financing 

The allocation of the escalated capital 
costs to the non-Federal participants 
shovm In Table 17 were used to calculate 
the total amount of the bonds that would 
have to be authorized for State issue 
and the bond repayment obligation of 
each of the project participants. Two 
sets of financial market rate assump- 
tions were used for these analyses (see 
Chapter 4 for a full discussion of the 
financial assumptions): 

Assump- Assump- 
tion 1 tion 2 



Cost Escalation Rate 
Bond Interest Rate 
Sinking Fund Rate 



Table 24 shows the allocation of 
financial costs of the traditional 
non-Federal share of the project among 
beaef iciaries for both sets of assump- 
tions. This allocation was made in 
accordance with the discussion of cost 
sharing principles in Chapter 4. 
Table A-24 shows the same information 
computed by the proposed cost sharing 
formula . 



6% 


9% 


9% 


12% 


8% 


10.5% 



A comparison of Table 24 with Table 17 
reveals the following: 

The escalated suromed capital costs 
for the flood control and fish and 
wildlife enhancement purposes are 
substantially greater than the 
financial costs for these purposes. 

The escalated summed capital costs 
for the recreation purpose are less 
than the financial costs for this 
purpose. 

This difference results from the future 
stage costs associated with both flood 
control and fish and wildlife enhance- 
ment. No future stage costs are associ- 
ated with recreation. Because of the 
sinking fund assumption discussed in 
Chapter 4 (Assumptions for Financial 
Analysis), the large effect of esca- 
lating future stage costs on the sum 
of capital costs is more than compen- 
sated for in the financial analysis. 
This mitigating effect is not signifi- 
cant enough to reduce the recreation 
financial costs below the sum of 
the escalated capital costs for 
recreation. 



Table 24 
























SYSTEM PLAN 
ALLOCATION OF REPAYMENT OBLIGATION - TRADITIONAL 


COST SHARING 














(In Millions 


of Dollars) 










Purpose 


Total* 


State 


County 


Islands/Tracts* 
WH M/121 

580 911 
47 47 


Water Projects 
and Water Users 

33 52 
3 3 


1.238 
100 


n/ui 

1.941 
100 


625 
50 


W/12X 

978 
50 


6i/9i «/12< 


Flood Control 
Percent 


Recreation 
Percent 


50 
100 


76 
100 


25 
50 


38 
50 


25 38 
50 50 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Fish/Wildlife 
Enhancement 
Percent 


32 

100 


52 

100 


16 

50 


26 

50 


16 26 
50 50 


— 


" 


__ 


" 


TOTAL PROJECT 
Percent 


1.320 
100 


2.068 
100 


666 
50 


1.041 
50 


41 64 
3 3 


580 
44 


911 
44 


33 

3 


52 
3 


* Includes re 
**Percents of 


ocation betterments. 
Escalation/Bond Rate. 
















■■ ■ 1 



96 



Tables 25 and 26 show the suballocation 
to individual islands and tracts of the 
financial obligation allocated to the 
islands/tracts category in Table 24. 
This suballocation was made using the 
assumptions discussed in Chapter 4 
(Assumptions for traditional Cost 
Sharing Analysis). The suballocation 
was iTiade using the annual repayment 
equivalent of the total bond repayment 
obligation shown in Table 24. Annual 
unit repayment values by levee mile and 
acre are provided, as well as the 
portion of operation and maintenance 
costs allocated to each island and 
tract. The operation and maintenance 
costs are escalated to the price level 
expected in 1989, the year of the start 
of construction. 

To facilitate the comparison of the 
relative obligations of each of the 
Islands and tracts, a 1988 bond sale 
equivalent capital cost repayment 
obligation is also presented in 
Tables 25 and 26. These figures assume 
that construction on all islands and 
tracts would be initiated In 1989 and 
that bond repayment for all islands and 
tracts would begin on that same date. 
This was a necessary assumption for 
comparison purposes because the figures 
In the first three columns are based on 
six bond sales over a 12-year construc- 
tion period. With inflation assumed to 
continue during this period, the rela- 
tive values of each of the bond sales 
would differ, a dollar of repayment 
obligation stemming from the first sale 



being worth substantially more In real 
terras than a dollar of repayment 
obligation Incurred with the final bond 
sale . 



Proposed Cost Sharing 
Program 

While not yet approved by Congress, a 
revision of traditional cost sharing 
methods is under consideration at the 
federal level. Under the proposed cost 
sharing formula, nonfederal Interests 
would be required to contribute 
35 percent (up front) of the cost of a 
federally authorized flood control 
project,* and to assume 100 percent of 
the fish and wildlife enhancement costs 
and 50 percent of the recreation costs. 
Under this proposed cost sharing 
formula, assuming federal participation 
on 19 islands and tracts in the System 
Plan as shown on Figure 16, the cost 
allocation for the total project (1981 
prices) would be 30 percent ($306 mil- 
lion) federal, 70 percent ($722 million) 
non-Federal, as shown on Table A-16 of 
Appendix D. 

Tables similar to Tables 16, 17, 21, 22, 
23, 24, 25, and 26, computed under the 
proposed cost sharing formula, are pre- 
sented as the same table number preceded 
by the letter "A" in Appendix A. The 
differences in allocation between the 
traditional and proposed cost sharing 
can be compared between the correspond- 
ing tables . 



* The 35 percent share is assumed to be computed after all relocation betterment 
costs are allocated to the nonfederal participants. 



97 



Table 25 


























SYSTEM PLAN 












ALLOCATION OF ISLAND OR TRACT REPAYMENT OBLIGATION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 












TRADITIONAL 


COST SHARING 














6 PERCENT ESCALATION / 9 PERCENT BOND INTEREST 
















1988 Bond Sale 




OIH Costs 






Annua! Repayment 




Equivalent 


Annual Repayinent** 
Per Hlle Per 


(1989 


Price Level) 






Per Hlle 


Per 




Per Mile 


Per 


Island or Tract 
Andrus-Brannan* 


Total 


of Levee 

131.000 


Acre 

88 


Total 


of Levee 

104,000 


Acre 

70 


Total 

40,000 


of Levee 
3.911 


Acre 

3 


1.322,000 


1,047,000 


Atlas 


349,000 


113,000 


1,030 


195,000 


63,000 


575 


12,000 


3,748 


34 


Bacon* 


351,000 


25,000 


63 


278,000 


19,000 


50 


57,000 


3,981 


10 


Bethel 


4,398,000 


382,000 


1,250 


2,456,000 


214,000 


698 


268.000 


23,339 


76 


Bishop 


694,000 


120,000 


320 


550,000 


95,000 


253 


23,000 


4,007 


11 


Bouldin* 


206,000 


11.000 


34 


206,000 


11,000 


34 


71,000 


3,938 


12 


Brack* 


97,000 


9.000 


20 


97,000 


9,000 


20 


44,000 


4,088 


9 


Bradford 


1,437,000 


194,000 


671 


1,138,000 


154,000 


531 


29,000 


3,925 


14 


Byron 


3,248,000 


342,000 


468 


1.814,000 


191,000 


262 


38.000 


4,036 


6 


Canal Ranch 


1,146,000 


121,000 


382 


907,000 


96,000 


303 


38.000 


4,036 


13 


Coney 


495.000 


92,000 


530 


277,000 


51,000 


296 


21.000 


3,873 


22 


Deadhorse 


498,000 


199,000 


2,359 


351,000 


140,000 


1,663 


9.000 


3.718 


44 


Drexler* 


98,000 


11,000 


31 


87,000 


10,000 


28 


36.000 


4.047 


11 


Empire* 


148,000 


14,000 


40 


148,000 


14,000 


40 


41.000 


3,948 


11 


Fabian 


1,230,000 


65.000 


188 


687,000 


37,000 


105 


74.000 


3,955 


11 


Holland 


1,880,000 


173,000 


445 


1,326,000 


122,000 


314 


43,000 


3,944 


10 


Hotchkiss* 


25,000 


3.000 


7 


16,000 


2,000 


5 


63,000 


7,469 


19 


Jersey 


2,227,000 


143.000 


642 


1,570,000 


101,000 


452 


62,000 


3,948 


18 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


376,000 


21.000 


31 


298,000 


17,000 


25 


71,000 


3,982 


6 


King 


1,150,000 


128,000 


353 


811,000 


90,000 


249 


35,000 


3,873 


11 


Mandeville* 


70,000 


5,000 


13 


63,000 


4,000 


12 


72,000 


5,038 


14 


McCormack-WilHainson 


1,070,000 


123,000 


653 


755.000 


87,000 


460 


35,000 


4,007 


21 


McDonald* 


66,000 


5,000 


11 


59.000 


4,000 


10 


53,000 


3,901 


9 


New Hope 


2,565,000 


209,000 


263 


1,609,000 


131,000 


165 


49.000 


3,968 


5 


Or wood 


1,203,000 


188,000 


493 


672,000 


105,000 


275 


26,000 


3,994 


10 


Orwood, Upper 


300,000 


67,000 


176 


267,000 


59,000 


157 


24.000 


5,422 


14 


Palm 


1,390,000 


178,000 


571 


872,000 


112,000 


358 


33.000 


4,171 


13 


Pescadero Area 


1,280,000 


55,000 


82 


715,000 


31,000 


46 


93,000 


3,972 


6 


Rindge* 


189,000 


12,000 


28 


168,000 


11,000 


25 


62,000 


3,922 


9 


Rio Blanco 


428,000 


134,000 


642 


269,000 


84.000 


403 


13,000 


3,994 


19 


Roberts, 




















Lower /Middle/Upper* 


585,000 


25,000 


18 


521,000 


22,000 


16 


202,000 


8,714 


6 


Sargent-Barnhart 


558,000 


223,000 


459 


311,000 


125.000 


256 


9,000 


3,718 


8 


Sherman 


5,781,000 


590,000 


555 


4,076,000 


416.000 


391 


43.000 


4,387 


4 


Shi ma 


893,000 


110,000 


373 


560,000 


69,000 


234 


31.000 


3,873 


13 


Shin Kee 


224,000 


118,000 


208 


199,000 


105,000 


186 


8,000 


4,281 


8 


Staten 


4,013,000 


157,000 


442 


2,518,000 


99,000 


277 


101.000 


3,964 


11 


Terminous* 


293,000 


18,000 


28 


293.000 


18,000 


28 


65,000 


4,041 


6 


Twitchell 


4,781,000 


503,000 


1,316 


3,000.000 


316,000 


826 


38,000 


4,036 


11 


Tyler* 


278,000 


26.000 


32 


220.000 


21,000 


26 


48,000 


4.452 


6 


Union 


284,000 


10,000 


11 


159.000 


6,000 


6 


101.000 


3,510 


4 


Veale 


331,000 


58,000 


255 


331,000 


58,000 


255 


22.000 


3,873 


17 


Venice 


4,371,000 


355,000 


1,357 


4,371,000 


355,000 


1,357 


49,000 


3,968 


15 


Victoria 


1,622.000 


107,000 


224 


906,000 


60.000 


125 


59,000 


3.924 


8 


Walnut Grove 


184,000 


92,000 


282 


103,000 


51,000 


158 


7,000 


3.486 


11 


Webb* 


71,000 


6,000 


13 


63,000 


5,000 


12 


50.000 


3.903 


9 


Woodward 


1,257,000 


145,000 


690 


996,000 


114,000 


547 


35.000 


4.007 


19 


Wright-Elmwood 


954,000 


140,000 


450 


533,000 


78,000 


251 


27.000 


3.930 


13 


* Islands and tracts 1n 


Federal plan. 
















** Common base for comparison of relative financ 


ial obligat 


ion. 















98 



Table 26 









SYSTEM PLAN 












ALLOCATION OF ISLAND OR TRACT REPAYMENT OBLIGATION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 










fRADITIONAL 


COST SHARING 














9 PERCENT ESCALATION / 


12 PERCENT BOND INTEREST 
















1988 Bond Sale 




OlM Costs 






Annual Repayment 




Equivalent 


Annual Repayment** 
Per Mile Per 


(1989 


Price Level) 






Per Mile 


Per 




Per Mile 


Per 


Island or Tract 

Andrus-Brannan* 


Total 

2.423,000 


of Levee 
240.000 


Acre 
162 


Total 


of Levee 
170,000 


Acre 

114 


Total 

49,000 


of Levee 
4,890 


Acre 


1,717,000 


3 


Atlas 


756,000 


244.000 


2.230 


319,000 


103,000 


942 


15,000 


4,686 


43 


Bacon* 


643,000 


45.000 


116 


455,000 


32,000 


82 


71.000 


4,977 


13 


Bethel 


9.556.000 


831.000 


2,715 


4,037,000 


351,000 


1,147 


336.000 


29,178 


95 


Bishop 


1.295,000 


223.000 


597 


918,000 


158,000 


423 


29.000 


5,009 


13 


Bouldln* 


337,000 


19.000 


56 


337,000 


19,000 


56 


89,000 


4,923 


15 


Brack* 


159,000 


15.000 


33 


159.000 


15,000 


33 


55,000 


5.111 


11 


Bradford 


2,749,000 


371.000 


1,283 


1.947,000 


263,000 


909 


36,000 


4,907 


17 


Byron 


7.031.000 


740,000 


1,014 


2,970.000 


313,000 


428 


48,000 


5,046 


7 


Canal Ranch 


2.118.000 


223,000 


707 


1.501,000 


158.000 


501 


48,000 


5,046 


16 


Coney 


1,073.000 


199,000 


1,147 


453,000 


84.000 


485 


26,000 


4,842 


28 


Deadhorse 


972.000 


389.000 


4,608 


580.000 


232.000 


2.748 


12,000 


4.648 


55 


Drexler* 


170.000 


19,000 


54 


143.000 


16.000 


45 


45,000 


5.060 


14 


Empire* 


243.000 


24,000 


65 


243.000 


24.000 


65 


51,000 


4.936 


14 


Fabian 


2.664,000 


142,000 


408 


1.125.000 


60.000 


172 


93.000 


4.945 


14 


Holland 


3,700,000 


339,000 


876 


2.206.000 


202.000 


522 


54.000 


4.931 


13 


Hotchkiss* 


51,000 


6,000 


15 


26.000 


3,000 


8 


78.000 


9,338 


23 


Jersey 


4,312,000 


276,000 


1.242 


2.571.000 


165,000 


741 


77.000 


4,935 


22 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


690,000 


39,000 


57 


489.000 


27,000 


40 


89,000 


4.978 


7 


King 


2.234.000 


248,000 


685 


1.332,000 


148,000 


409 


44,000 


4,842 


13 


Mandeville* 


122,000 


9,000 


23 


102,000 


7,000 


20 


90,000 


6,298 


17 


McCormack-WI 1 1 1 ainson 


2,091,000 


240.000 


1,276 


1,247,000 


143,000 


761 


44,000 


5,009 


27 


McDonald* 


115,000 


8.000 


19 


96,000 


7,000 


16 


67,000 


4,877 


11 


New Hope 


5,252,000 


427.000 


538 


2,636,000 


214,000 


270 


61.000 


4,960 


6 


Orwood 


2,635,000 


412.000 


1,080 


1,113,000 


174.000 


456 


32.000 


4,993 


13 


Orwood, Upper 


519,000 


115,000 


305 


437,000 


97.000 


257 


31.000 


6,779 


18 


Palm 


2,895,000 


371.000 


1,188 


1,453.000 


186.000 


596 


41.000 


5,214 


17 


Pescadero Area 


2,772,000 


118.000 


177 


1.171,000 


50.000 


75 


116.000 


4.966 


7 


Rindge* 


327.000 


21.000 


48 


275,000 


18.000 


40 


77.000 


4,904 


11 


Rio Blanco 


878,000 


274.000 


1,316 


441.000 


138.000 


660 


16.000 


4,993 


24 


Roberts, 




















Lower/Middle/Upper* 


1,013,000 


44.000 


31 


853.000 


37.000 


26 


253.000 


10,894 


8 


Sargent-Barnhart 


1,211,000 


484.000 


997 


512.000 


205.000 


421 


12.000 


4,648 


10 


Sherman 


11.194,000 


1.142.000 


1.074 


6.674.000 


681,000 


641 


54.000 


5,484 


5 


Shima 


1,837,000 


227.000 


767 


922.000 


114,000 


385 


39,000 


4,842 


16 


Shin Kee 


388,000 


204.000 


361 


326.000 


172,000 


304 


10,000 


5,352 


9 


Staten 


8,447.000 


331.000 


929 


4,239,000 


166,000 


466 


126,000 


4,956 


14 


Terminous* 


481.000 


30.000 


46 


481,000 


30.000 


46 


81 ,000 


5,052 


8 


Twitchell 


9.984.000 


1.051.000 


2.748 


5,011,000 


527.000 


1.379 


48,000 


5,046 


13 


Tyler* 


510.000 


48.000 


59 


361,000 


34.000 


42 


60.000 


5,566 


7 


Union 


615.000 


21.000 


25 


260,000 


9.000 


10 


126.000 


4,388 


5 


Veale 


544,000 


95.000 


419 


544,000 


95,000 


419 


28.000 


4,842 


21 


Venice 


7.526.000 


612.000 


2.337 


7,526.000 


612,000 


2.337 


61.000 


4,960 


19 


Victoria 


3.543.000 


235.000 


489 


1.496,000 


99,000 


206 


74,000 


4,906 


10 


Walnut Grove 


398.000 


199.000 


611 


168,000 


84,000 


258 


9,000 


4,358 


13 


Webb* 


123.000 


10.000 


22 


104,000 


8,000 


19 


62,000 


4,880 


11 


Woodward 


2.372,000 


273.000 


1,302 


1,680,000 


193,000 


922 


44,000 


5,009 


24 


Wright-Elmwood 


2.077.000 


305.000 


979 


877.000 


129,000 


414 


33,000 


4,913 


16 


* Islands and tracts in 


Federal plan. 
















** Common base for comparison of relative financ 


ial obligation. 















99 



Chapter 6. MODIFIED SYSTEM PLAN 



The Modified System Plan is based on the 
concept that the Delta Islands are 
interdependent and that the flood 
control benefits for the overall system 
should exceed the flood control costs. 
The plan is similar to the System Plan, 
except that 12 islands and tracts have 
been deleted from the flood control 
project. 

Six of these twelve islands (Fabian, 
Mournlan, Pescadero, Pico-Naglee, Union, 
and Walnut Grove) are the same six 
mentioned in the System Plan that would 
require only the addition of levee 
patrol roads and erosion protection 
material to comply with levee design 
standards. They are located in the 
lower flood hazard areas of the Delta 
and already provide protection against 
at least a once-in-50-year flood 
occurrence. The other six islands 
(Atlas, Orwood, Sargent-Barnhart, 
Sherman, Twitchell, and Venice) were 
deleted because the cost of levee 
improvements exceeded the estimated 
flood control benefits. Other factors 
such as landowners expressed desire to 
be excluded in selecting this group of 
Islands . 

As in the System Plan, the levees 
protecting two tracts. Reclamation 
District 17 and Stewart Tract, are 
"project levees" that have been improved 
under a Federal-State flood control 
project, and no additional work has been 
proposed for these tracts. Also as in 
the System Plan, five islands (Little 
Mandeville, Medford, Mildred, Quiraby, 
and Rhode) are proposed for use as fish 
and wildlife enhancement areas and are 
not Included for flood control 
Improvements . 

Under the Modified System Plan, of the 
60 major islands and tracts in the study 
area, levee improvements for flood 



control are proposed for 41 islands, 
which are depicted by the shaded area on 
Figure 20. The crosshatched area on the 
figure depicts the 19 islands considered 
economically justified for federal par- 
ticipation under the "Incremental Flood 
Control Plan", which is described in the 
Corps' 1982 draft feasibility report 
(without Peripheral Canal assumption). 

The Modified System Plan would essen- 
tially satisfy the intent of the Legis- 
lature to preserve the integrity of the 
Delta levee system (refer to Chapter 2, 
"Basis for Study"). Economic justifica- 
tion was based on the 41-island system 
as a whole, rather than on an individual 
island basis, as discussed in Chapter 7. 
To a lesser extent than the System Plan, 
this plan would: 

° Reduce flooding. 

° Reduce the periods of water quality 
impairment by reducing the frequency 
of salinity intrusion caused by island 
flooding. 

The Modified System Plan includes the 
same recreation and fish and wildlife 
enhancement features as were included in 
the System Plan and, as such, the 
Modified System Plan would: 

° Provide needed public access and 
recreation facilities. 

° Preserve and enhance some of the 
Delta's natural resources and scenic 
areas . 

As for the 12 Islands and tracts that 
would be included in the System Plan but 
excluded in this plan, it was assumed 
that maintaining and upgrading these 
levees would be the responsibility of 
the respective maintaining agencies. 
If funds are appropriated by the 



101 



Legislature, the State may assist these 
agencies through the Delta Levee Mainte- 
nance Subventions Program (Way Bill), 
whereby the State reimburses local 
agencies for a portion of the cost to 
maintain and rehabilitate their levees. 

Should a levee failure occur on the 12 
excluded islands, they could be eligible 
for a federal restoration program being 
proposed by the Corps of Engineers in 
Its draft feasibility report. This pro- 
gram, entitled, "Flood Hazard Mitigation 
Program", would be for Islands and 
tracts not included in a federal levee 
restoration program, and Involves finan- 
cial assistance under Public Law 84-99. 
Financial assistance under Public 
Law 34-99, which is administered by the 
Corps of Engineers, is presently limited 
to supplementing local floodflght 
activities to save lives and prevent or 
mitigate property damage and to 
restoring flood preventative structures 
(but not reclamation structures, as 
nonproject levees in the Delta are now 
classified). Under the Flood Hazard 
Mitigation Program, application of 
Public Law 34-99 authority for 
nonproject levees in the Delta would be 
proposed according to the following 
criteria: 

° Nonproject levees not authorized for 
federal flood control Improvements 
would be considered eligible for 
assistance if nonfederal interests 
improve and maintain the levees to a 
federal standard. 

° Minimum levee standards would be as 
follows: 

- Where the levee protects only 
agricultural lands, the minimum 
levee crown elevation would equal 
the 50-year flood stage elevation 
plus a 1.5-foot minimum freeboard. 

- VThere the levee provides protection 
to urban areas, the minimum eleva- 
tion of the levee crown would be 
based on the 100-year flood stage 
plus a 3.0-foot minimum freeboard. 



- The minimum levee section used in 
raising the existing levees should 
have a crown width of not less than 
12 feet and side slopes of 1 verti- 
cal on 2 horizontal, or flatter. 

- The levee crown would be required to 
have an all-weather surface for 
vehicular access and flood patrols. 

** Continuous maintenance and inspection 
of the levees would be required. The 
maintenance program would be 
prescribed by the Corps of Engineers. 

A discussion of allowing flooded islands 
to remain flooded is presented in 
Chapter 8. 



Flood Control Features 

Flood control features consist of levee 
rehabilitation, land use management, and 
fish and wildlife mitigation. The stage 
construction method of levee rehabilita- 
tion would be used on most of the 
islands. Fifteen miles of sheet pile 
flood walls would be used on parts of 
Bethel Island and Hotchklss Tract to 
avoid relocation of existing urban 
development along the levees. Setback 
levees would be used to protect riparian 
habitat in a number of areas. After 
rehabilitation, all 41 islands would 
have an expected frequency of failure of 
less than once in 100 years during the 
50-year economic life of the project. 

Although the probability of flooding on 
all Islands would be reduced to less 
than once in 100 years, the Department 
believes that most Islands especially 
those below sea level, would not be 
suitable for urbanization. This is 
because the failure of a levee, possible 
even during the summer, would have too 
severe consequences to urban 
populations . 

Figure 21 shows the general locations of 
the various types of levee improvements. 
More specific locations are shown on 
Plates 2 through 31 (exclusive of 8, 9, 



102 



12, and 24) of the Plan Formulation 
Appendix of the Corps' draft feasibility 
report . 

Land use oaanagement would be a required 
feature of this plan to ensure that the 
natural and beneficial values of the 
flood plain are preserved. This feature 
would include enactment and enforcement 
of zoning regulations that would prevent 
project-induced urban growth on agricul- 
tural islands. Urban developments would 
be required to be consistent with city 
and county General Plans and the 
California Environmental Quality Act, 
and would be limited to areas incapable 
of sustained economic agricultural 
production (refer to Chapter 4, "Land 
Use Planning and Regulation"). 

Levee rehabilitation would result in a 
loss of riparian habitat, wetland vege- 
tation, and agricultural land. The 
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service indi- 
cates that the most significant fish and 
wildlife Impact would be the loss of 
scarce riparian habitat. Adverse 
impacts on the fishery would be minimal. 
Several methods for mitigation of the 
adverse impacts on riparian habitat were 
considered. The method selected for 
this report would Involve the purchase 
of selected small parcels of marginal 
agricultural land. It is estimated that 
about 2,280 acres of agricultural land 
would be purchased for mitigation of the 
adverse impacts resulting from construc- 
tion of the Modified System Plan. As in 
the System Plan, these lands would be 
small parcels of marginal agricultural 
land that would be allowed to develop 
into mature riparian habitat through 
natural establishment and succession of 
plant species . 



Flood Control Costs 

Table 27 shows the summed capital costs 
(initial construction plus staged 
construction) and the annual operation 
and maintenance costs for flood control 
by island and tract (1981 prices) and 
also the cost per mile of levee and cost 
per acre for each island and tract. 



These costs per levee mile and per acre 
are a measure of the cost of providing 
flood control in the Delta. As shown in 
the table, the capital costs per mile of 
levee range from $4 million for Andrus- 
Brannan Island down to $658,000 for 
Coney Island. The corresponding costs 
per acre of land range from $21,000 for 
Deadhorse Island down to $1,200 for 
Roberts Island. 

After the levees are rehabilitated, the 
annual operation and maintenance costs 
range from about $20,000 per mile ($66 
per acre) for Bethel Island down to 
about $3,000 per mile for Deadhorse 
Island, and $2 per acre for Andrus- 
Brannan Island. 

The estimated total capital costs for 
flood control, including the cost of 
fish and wildlife mitigation, is 
$732 million. The average cost per mile 
of levee rehabilitation is $1.8 million, 
or an average of about $3,800 per acre 
of land. The average annual operation 
and maintenance cost amounts to about 
$4,000 per mile, or $9 per acre of land 
included in the Modified System Plan. 



Recreation Features 



Recreation features, including costs and 
benefits allocated to recreation, would 
be the same as those used in the System 
Plan. New recreation features under 
both plans would be located on 45 sites 
in the study area, and would consist of 
14 recreation areas, 23 fishing access 
sites, 8 boater destination sites, and 
145 miles of trails. Figure 18 
(Chapter 5) shows the types and loca- 
tions of the recreation features. For a 
further discussion of these recreation 
features and an expansion of the discus- 
sion on costs and benefits presented 
below, refer to Chapter 5. 



Recreation Costs 

Table 13, in Chapter 5, lists the 
recreation facilities, the first cost, 
and the annual operation and maintenance 



103 



FIGURE 20 




^%(^/ ISLANDS INCLUDED IN 
>!%%Z CORPS INCREMENTAL 
V/m^/y/. FLOOD CONTROL PLAN 



SliTE or C*4.IF0BNI» 

THE RESOURCES AGENCY |' 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

CENTRAL OiSTftlCT / 

MODIFIED SYSTEM PLAN 



KILOMETRE 



104 



FIGURE 21 




LEGEND 

STAGE CONSTRUCTION 

BERM 

Ltu^ SETBACK LEVEE 

SHEET PILING 

• ■• ■ EROSION PROTECTION 
--- PROJECT LEVEES 



ST*Tt OF CALIfORNIl 
THE RESOURCES AGENCY 

EPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

CENTRAL DISTSICT 

MODIFIED SYSTEM PLAN LEVEES 



105 



cost of each facility (1981 prices). 
The first cost includes the cost of 
constructing the recreation facilities 
and the cost of lands, easements, and 
rights of way, plus associated engineer- 
ing, design, construction supervision, 
and administration. The table also 
lists the first cost associated with the 
trail system. The total first cost for 
the recreation features (45 recreation 
sites and the trail system) amounts to 
$40 million (1981 prices). The equival- 
ent annual cost, based on a 7-5/8 per- 
cent interest rate and a 50-year project 
economic life, would be $3 million. 
Annual operation and maintenance cost 
associated with the recreation features 
amounts to $966,000, which translates to 
about 40 cents per recreation day. The 
total equivalent annual cost, including 
operation and maintenance, amounts to 
$4 million. 



Recreation Benefits 

Recreation benefits were computed by the 
Corps of Engineers in accordance with 
the Water Resources Council's National 
Economic Development Evaluation Proce- 
dures, using the travel/cost method. 
The equivalent annual benefits for rec- 
reation use, based on a 7-5/8 percent 
interest rate and a 50-year project 
economic life, were estimated at 
$21 million. This value includes 
recreation benefits attributable to the 
fish and wildlife management area. The 
equivalent annual benefits attributed to 
general recreation amounts to $13 mil- 
lion, which provides a benefit-cost 
ratio of 3.3 to 1.0. 



Fish and Wildlife 
Enhancement Features 



Fish and wildlife enhancement features 
would be the same as those discussed for 
the System Plan. These features include 
acquiring public interest in lands to 



preserve and enhance their natural 
resources and scenic values. An 
additional enhancement feature would 
involve construction of setback, levees 
to preserve and enhance the vegetation 
on the existing levees on Brack, Canal 
Ranch, McCormack-Williamson, and New 
Hope tracts to avoid loss of riparian 
habitat. Setback levees could be con- 
sidered as mitigation, but for compati- 
bility with the Corps report, levee set 
backs have been treated as enhancement 
in this report. Figure 19 (Chapter 5) 
shows the locations of enhancement 
features . 

Specifically, the acquired lands would 
provide a diversity of terrain, includ- 
ing about 1,000 acres of significant 
upland and riparian habitat, about 
1,500 acres of channel tule islands with 
valuable riparian habitat and freshwater 
marshes, and about 3,500 acres of highly 
diversified habitat set aside for 
wildlife management areas on Little 
Mandevllle, Med ford, Mildred, Quimby, 
and Rhode Islands. For further discus- 
sion of these fish and wildlife enhance- 
ment features and an expansion on the 
discussion of costs and benefits 
presented below, refer to Chapter 5. 



Fish and Wildlife 
Enhancement Costs 

First and annual costs for fish and 
wildlife enhancement features (1981 
prices) are shown in Table 14 
(Chapter 5). The first cost of the 
enhancement areas amounts to about 
$7 million. The cost to repair the 
levees around the wildlife management 
areas was estimated at $32 million, and 
the cost of the lands was estimated at 
about $9 million, for a total first cost 
of $41 million for the wildlife manage- 
ment areas. The increased cost to 
provide setback levees instead of stage 
construction on the present levee 



106 



Table 27 









MODIFIED SYSTEM 


PLAN 








SUMMED CAPITAL COSTS AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR FLOOD 


CONTROL. BY 


ISLAND OR TRACT 










(In Dollars, At 1981 


Prices) 




■ 










Capital Cost* 




Annual 


Operations and Maintenance 
Per Mile Per 




Per Mile 


Per 


Island or Tract 

Andrus-Brannan 




Total 


of Levee 

4.029.000 


Acre 
2.712 


Total 

34,000 


of Levee 
3.366 


Acre 
2 


40,595,000 


Bacon 




29,044,000 


2.031.000 


5.237 


49.000 


3,427 


9 


Bethel 




31.525.000 


2.741.000 


8.956 


231.000 


20.087 


66 


Bishop 




8,178,000 


1.410,000 


3.770 


20.000 


3,448 


9 


Bou1d1n 




69,885,000 


3.883.000 


11.557 


61,000 


3.389 


10 


Brack 




20.392.000 


1.888.000 


4.185 


38,000 


3.519 


8 


Bradford 




18,555,000 


2.507.000 


8.658 


25,000 


3.378 


12 


Byron 




18,582,000 


1.956.000 


2.680 


33,000 


3.474 


5 


Canal Ranch 




12,860,000 


1.354.000 


4.292 


33,000 


3.474 


11 


Coney 




3.553,000 


658.000 


3.800 


18,000 


3.333 


19 


Deadhorse 




4,447,000 


1.779.000 


21.076 


8,000 


3.200 


38 


Drexler 




17,094,000 


1.921.000 


5.401 


31.000 


3,483 


10 


Empire 




15,392.000 


1,494.000 


4.132 


35.000 


3,398 


9 


Holland 




17.562,000 


1.611.000 


4.157 


37.000 


3,394 


9 


Hotchkiss 


. 


7.015,000 


835.000 


2.089 


54.000 


6.429 


16 


Jersey 




19,605,000 


1.257.000 


5.648 


53.000 


3.397 


15 


Jones, Lower/Upper 




28.978.000 


1.628.000 


2.384 


61.000 


3.427 


5 


King 




10.041.000 


1.116.000 


3.080 


30.000 


3.333 


9 


Mandeville 




27.218.000 


1.903.000 


5.196 


62.000 


4.336 


12 


McCormack-Wi 1 1 i amson 




9.867.000 


1.134,000 


6.020 


30,000 


3.448 


18 


McDonald 




28.295,000 


2.065,000 


4.605 


46.000 


3.358 


7 


New Hope 




19.465.000 


1,583,000 


1.996 


42.000 


3.415 


4 


Orwood, Upper 




4.154.000 


923.000 


2.446 


21,000 


4.667 


12 


Palm 




11.546.000 


1.480.000 


4,740 


28,000 


3.590 


11 


Rindge 




20,989,000 


1.337.000 


3,067 


53,000 


3.376 


8 


Rio Blanco 




3.299.000 


1.031.000 


4,946 


11,000 


3,437 


16 


Roberts, Lower/Middle 


/Upper 


39.516.000 


1.703.000 


1,214 


174,000 


7,500 


5 


Shima 




7.077.000 


874.000 


2,956 


27,000 


3.333 


11 


Shin Kee 




3.587.000 


1.888.000 


3.340 


7,000 


3.684 


7 


Staten 




35,029.000 


1.374.000 


3.864 


87,000 


3.412 


10 


Terminous 




48.096.000 


2.987.000 


4.594 


56,000 


3.478 


5 


Tyler 




22.904.000 


2,141.000 


2.669 


41.000 


3.632 


5 


Veale 




4.305.000 


755.000 


3.317 


' 19,000 


3.333 


15 


Victoria 




12.117.000 


802,000 


1.671 


51,000 


3.377 


7 


Webb 




30,439.000 


2.378.000 


5.544 


43,000 


3.359 


8 


Woodward 




15.657.000 


1,801,000 


8.599 


30,000 


3.448 


16 


Wright-Elmwood 
Subtotal 




6.979.000 


1.026.000 


3.290 


23,000 


3.382 


11 


723.942.000 


1,702.000 


Fish and Wildlife Mitigation 
Total 


8.290.000 
732.232,000 












1.702.000 


Average 






1.808.000 


3.755 




4.250 


9 


Average Computed With 


Mitigat 


ion 


1.828.000 


3,798 




4.250 


9 


* Based on stage construction 


method (added cost for levee setback 


included in 


fish and wildlife enhancement cost). 




! 



107 



alignment, was about $8 million,* making 
a total first cost for the fish and 
wildlife enhancement features of nearly 
$57 million. 



Fish and Wildlife 
Enhancement Benefits 

The benefits attributable to the fish 
and wildlife resources include both 
monetary and nonmonetary benefits. The 
monetary benefits accrue primarily from 
recreational fish and wildlife activi- 
ties (fishing, hunting, bird watching, 
nature walks, etc.) associated with 
facilities of the recreation plan, and 
from both sport and commercial fishing 
and hunting of game birds associated 
with the fish and wildlife enhancement 
features. The intangible nonmonetary 
benefits Include benefits that would 
occur In preserving significant natural 
areas as identified in the Delta Wild- 
life Habitat Protection and Restoration 
Plan prepared by the Department of Fish 
and Game, the Delta Master Recreation 
Plan prepared by The Resources Agency, 
the Delta Action Plan prepared by the 
Delta Advisory Planning Council, and the 
Environmental Atlas prepared by the 
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

The tangible monetary benefits were 
based primarily on the percentage of 
total recreation benefits associated 
with fish and wildlife activities. This 
was determined to be 37 percent of the 
total aanual recreation benefits of 
$21 million, and provided the annual 
benefits of $7.8 million assigned to the 
fish and wildlife enhancement areas. 
Additional fish and wildlife benefits 
based on waterfowl factors were esti- 
mated to be at least $322,000. The 
total annual fish and wildlife 



enhancement benefits were estimated to 
be about $8 million. 



Economics of the 
Modified System Plan 

The first cost of initial and stage 
construction of this plan Includes costs 
for levee construction, acquisition of 
lands, easements, and rights of way, 
relocation of existing facilities, 
construction of recreation features, 
providing fish and wildlife mitigation 
and enhancement features, and the 
related engineering, design, construc- 
tion supervision, and administration. 
The annual costs include amortization of 
the first costs, and the annual opera- 
tion and maintenance costs for the 
levees, recreation facilities, and 
wildlife areas. 

The annual benefits Include reduction of 
physical flood losses, reduction of 
floodfight costs, water quality and 
water supply benefits, recreation 
benefits from Increased recreation use, 
and fish and wildlife benefits from 
reduced waterfowl losses, contributions 
to the National Migratory Bird 
Conservation Program, reduced crop 
depredation, and new hunting and 
visitation access oa the proposed 
wildlife management areas. 

As shown on Table 28, the plan has an 
estimated cost of about $829 million 
at 1981 prices. If these prices were 
escalated at 6 percent, the Plan would 
cost about $2.8 billion. The Plan has 
an overall benefit/cost ratio of 
1.4 to 1. For purposes of comparison, 
figures both with and without the 
Peripheral Canal have been shown. The 
figures in the columns under "With 



*The cost Increase as a result of using setback levees instead of the stage 
construction method is considered by the Corps to be enhancement. The Department 
considers at least part of these costs to be costs to avoid mitigation. This 
difference In cost classification would be resolved during post-authorization 
studies . 



108 



Table 28 





ECONOMIC SUMMARY. NOOIFIED SYSTEM PLAN 








(At 1981 Prices and 


• 7-5/8 Percent DUcount Rate 


, Under 1990-2040 Project Conditions) 






FIRST COST* 




With Peripheral Canal 


Without Peripheral Canal 


Subtotals 


Totals 


Subtotals 




Totals 








Flood Control and Water Quality** 






$ 608.000.000 




$ 


732.000,000 


Initial Construction*** 
Stage Construction 




$438,000,000 
170,000,000 




$549,000,000 
183.000.000 






Recreation 






40.000.000 , 






40,000,000 


Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 






57.000,000 




_ 


57,000.000 


TOTAL FIRST COST 






$ 705,000,000 




$ 


829.000.000 


ANNUAL COST 














Flood Control and Water Quality 






$ 39.800,000 




$ 


48,800.000 


Interest and Amortization 
Operation and Maintenance 




$ 38.600,000 
1.200,000 




$ 47.100.000 
1,700.000 






Recreation 






4.000.000 






4,000,000 


Interest and Anwrtization 
Operation and Maintenance 




$ 3,000,000 
1,000,000 




$ 3.000.000 
1.000.000 






Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 






3.900,000 






3,900.000 


Interest and Amortization 
Operation and Maintenance 

TOTAL ANNUAL COST 




$ 3,500,000 
400.000 




$ 3.500.000 
400.000 






$ 47,700.000 


$ 


56.700.000 


ANNUAL BENEFITS 














Flood Control and Water Quality 

Recreation 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 






$ 43.900.000 

13.100.000 

8.100.000 




$ 


57.100.000 

13.100.000 

8.100,000 


TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFITS 






$ 65.100.000 




$ 


78,300,000 


BENEFIT-COST RATIOS 














Flood Control and Water Quality 

Recreation 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 






1.1:1 
3.3:1 
2.1:1 






1.2:1 
3.3:1 
2.1:1 


TOTAL PROJECT BENEFIT-COST 


RATIO 




1.4:1 






1.4:1 


NET BENEFITS (Excess of Benefits Over Costs) 




$ 17.400.000 




$ 


21,600,000 


* Rounded to nearest $1 million. 

** The draft Corps report excludes Reclamation District 17; this bulletin excludes 

Stewart Tract because both are protected exclusively by project levees. 
*** Includes $7,000,000 in fish and wildlife mitigation costs under with Peripheral 

$8,300,000 under without Peripheral Canal assumption. 


both Reclamation District 17 and 
Canal assumption and 





109 



Peripheral Canal" were taken from the 
Corps of Engineers' draft feasibility 
report dated October 1982. The figures 
In the columns under "Without Peripheral 
Canal" were based on the same basic 
assumptions used by the Corps. As 
Indicated In this table, the summed 
first cost (initial construction plus 
staged construction) without the 
Peripheral Canal is $124 million greater 
than with the Peripheral Canal; the 
corresponding annual cost is $9 million 
greater. 

The annual benefits, however, increased 
by $13.2 million. The overall 
benefit/cost ratio for the Modified 
System Plan (1.4 to 1) did not change. 

As stated in Chapter 4, there is 
considerable logic in support of the 
non-restoration assumption, as well as 
the without Peripheral Canal assumption 
for computing the benefits of the plan. 
According to the Corps' sensitivity 
analysis, the combination of these 
assumptions would result in an overall 
benefit/cost ratio for the Modified 
System Plan of 1.8 and 1.7 for the flood 
control features of the plan. 

For compatibility with the Corps' 
report, the assumptions for this report 
are based on the following: 

Federal interest in participating in 
flood control improvements in the 
Delta would be limited to those 
locations where the improvements are 
economically justified*. 

Islands will be reclaimed after levee 
breaks • 

On this basis, the federally authorized 
project would Include levee improvements 
on 19 islands (refer to Figure 20) and 
recreation and fish and wildlife 
enhancement features in the federal 
plan. (The ultimate number of Islands 



and tracts that would receive flood 
control improvements under a federal 
program would depend on results of 
post-authorization studies, including 
reevaluation of the assumed wlthout- 
project conditions.) 

Table 29 shows the summed capital costs 
(1981 prices) allocated between federal 
and nonfederal participants under the 

Table 29 



MODIFIED SYSTEM PLAN 

ALLOCATION OF SUWCD CAPITAL COSTS 

TRADITIONAL COST SHARING 

(In Thousands of Dollars. 1981 Prices) 



Ite 



Project Federal Nonfederal 
Total Allocation Allocation 



Flood Control, 








Federal Participation 


Islands and 


Tracts 




Construction 


405,000 


405,000 




Mitigation 


2,500 


2,200 


300 


Lands, Easements, 








Rights of Way 


24,200 


__ 


24,200 


Relocations 


8,100 


_- 


8,100 


Relocation Betterments 


8,600 
448,400 


-- 


8,600 


Subtotal 


407,200 


41,200 


Percent 


lOOX 


9 IX 


9« 


Flood Control, 








Nonfederal Participation Islands 


and Tracts 




Construction 


244,800 




244,800 


Mitigation 


5,800 




5.800 


Lands, Easements, 








Rights of Way 


19,800 




19,800 


Relocations 


6,200 




6,200 


Relocation Betterments 


7,200 




7,200 


Subtotal 


283,800 




283,800 


Percent 


lOOS 




lOOX 



Flood Control Subtotal 732,200 407,200 325,000 
Percent 100« 56X 44X 



Recreation and Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 



Recreation 



Percent 



Fish and Wildlife 
Enhancement 

Percent 



40,000 
lOOX 



57,000 
lOOX. 



20,000 
SOX 



42.800 
75X 



20,000 
SOX 



14,200 
25X 



PROJECT TOTALS 829.200 470,000 359,200 
PERCENT lOOX 57X 43X 



*Authorlzatlon of the federal Incremental Flood Control Plan would make this 
official policy. 



110 



traditional cost sharing method used in 
the Corps of Engineers' draft feasibil- 
ity report. The Federal Government 
would pay $407 million of the flood 
control costs for the federal participa- 
tion islands, and would also pay 
$20 million of costs allocated to rec- 
reation and $43 million of fish and 
wildlife enhancement costs. Nonfederal 
interests would be responsible for the 
levee construction and mitigation costs 
($250 million) on the 22 islands not 
included in the federal project (refer 
to Figure 20). Also, non-Federal 
participants would pay $74 million for 
lands, easements, rights of way, reloca- 
tions, and relocation betterments for 
the 41 islands in the 
Plan, $20 million for 
ties, and $14 million 
wildlife enhancement, 
project, the Federal Government would be 
responsible for 57 percent of the total 
capital costs and the non-Federal 
interests would be allocated 43 percent 
of the total capital costs of the 
Modified System Plan. 

However, the Federal Government is 
proposing to Increase the up-front cost 
sharing required from non-Federal 
sources. Comparable cost figures for 
this proposed formula, contained in 
Table A-29, Appendix A, show that the 



Modified System 
recreation facili- 
for fish and 
For the total 



Federal share would be reduced to only 
37 percent. 

Table 30 shows the traditional alloca- 
tion of the summed capital costs to 
Federal, State, county, islands and 
tracts, and to water projects and water 
users in 1981 prices and in costs esca- 
lated at 6 percent and 9 percent to the 
time of construction. Table A-30 shows 
the same information for the proposed 
cost sharing. 

Of the non-Federal flood control costs, 
about half was allocated to the state. 
The islands and tracts were allocated 
47 percent of the non-Federal flood 
control costs; the remaining 3 percent 
was assigned to the water projects and 
local water users. The costs of recrea- 
tion and fish and wildlife enhancement 
were divided equally between the state 
and the counties. Overall, the state 
was assigned about half of the total 
cost of the project. 



Construction Schedule 
and Expenditures 

Before a levee rehabilitation project 
can be initiated, six steps are 
required: 



























Table 


30 








MODIFIED SYSTEM PLAN 

ALLOCATION OF ESCALATED SUMMED CAPITAL COSTS. BY PARTICIPANT 

TRADITIONAL COST SHARING 






















(In Minions of Dollars) 
















Purpose 


Federal Total 








Non-Federal 
















Total 




State 


County 




Islands/Tracts 
1981 Escalation 
Prices fix 91 

150 513 1.279 
46 47 48 


Water Projects/Users 

1981 Escalation 

Prices fix 9X 

9 29 73 
3 3 3 


1981 
Prices 

407 


Escalation 

fix W 

1,661 3,565 


19S1 
Prices 

325 
100 


Escalation 

fix W 

1,085 2,672 
100 100 


1981 
Prices 

167 

51 


Escalation 1981 
fix 9X Prices 

543 1,320 
50 49 


Escalation 
fix 9% 


Flood Control 
Percent 


Recreation 
Percent 


20 


42 59 


20 
100 


42 60 
100 100 


10 
50 


21 30 10 
50 50 50 


21 

50 


30 
50 


- 


- 


- 


.. 


- 


Fish/Wildlife 
Enhancement 
Percent 


43 


155 374 


14 
100 


52 124 
100 100 


7 
50 


26 62 7 
50 50 50 


26 
50 


62 

50 


- 


: : 


- 


- 


- 


TOTAL 
Percent 


470 


1.858 3,998 


359 
100 


1,179 2,856 
100 100 


184 
51 


590 1,412 17 
50 49 5 


47 
4 


92 
3 


150 
42 


513 1,279 
44 45 


9 
2 


29 
2 


73 
3 





111 



" Federal and State authorization of a 
project must be obtained. 

" Advanced planning and an environmental 
impact report must be completed. 

" Design and specifications for the work, 
must be completed. 

" Funds must be available for financing 
the work. 

" Contracts detailing repayment obliga- 
tions, must be signed between the 
State and the local levee maintaining 
agencies . 

° Contracts must be signed to provide 
for construction, operation, and 
maintenance. 

Considering the aforementioned six 
steps, it is estimated that the earliest 
date for beginning construction would be 
1989. Assuming maximum annual construc- 
tion contract amounts in the $70 million 
(1981 prices) range to reflect the 
availability of construction equipment 
and the logistics associated with 
construction, the Initial construction 
period would eKtend over a 10-year 
period. The construction schedule was 
developed on the basis of repairing the 
levees with the estimated highest fre- 
quency of failure rate first. The 
Initial construction for each Island 
would be completed within a two year 
period. Following the initial construc- 
tion, areas where settlement or other 
major problems (that are considered 
beyond the normal maintenance work 
performed by local levee maintaining 
agencies) will be corrected as part of 
the levee restoration project. The 
construction schedule and expenditures 
for the total project based on 1981 
prices are shown on Table 31. 

Recognizing that construction probably 
will not begin until 1989, and prices 
will escalate during the interim (as 
well as after construction begins), an 
evaluation was made to ascertain the 



effect of price escalation on project 
costs. Table 32 presents the cost 
information of Table 31 escalated at a 
rate of 6 percent. As a result of this 
escalation rate, capital costs during 
the Initial construction period (1989 
through 1998) would Increase by about 
$700 million and costs for stage con- 
struction after year 1998 would Increase 
by about $1.3 billion. The total capi- 
tal costs associated with the 6 percent 
escalation rate amounts to about 
$2.8 billion. 

To further evaluate its sensitivity of 
price escalation on project costs, an 
analysis was made of the effect of a 
9 percent rate of escalation. Table 33 
presents the cost Information of 
Table 31 escalated at a rate of 
9 percent. The total capital costs 
associated with the 9 percent escalation 
rate amounts to about $6.9 billion. 

The total difference between the 6 per- 
cent and 9 percent rates of escalation 
amounts to over $4 billion during the 
50-year life of the project. 

Cost allocation by the traditional 
method of cost sharing was previously 
discussed. The following discussion 
addresses the nonfederal portion of the 
capital costs of the Modified System 
Plan. Table 34 shows the construction 
schedule and nonfederal costs portion of 
the plan In 1981 prices. The total non- 
federal capital costs during the Initial 
construction period (1989 through 1998) 
would amount to about $313 million. 
During the following stage construction 
period, the non-Federal capital costs 
would amount to about $44 million. 

Table 35 shows the nonfederal costs 
escalated at a rate of 6 percent. 
Compared to the 1981 prices the effect 
of a 6 percent escalation rate would 
increase costs during the initial 
construction period by $387 million; 
during the following staged construction 
period by $433 million; for a total 
increase of about $820 million. 



112 

























Table 31 








SCHEDULE OF 


TOTAL PROJECT COSTS. MODIFIED SYSTEM PLAN 














(In Thousands of Doll 


ars, 1981 Prices) 






























Future 




Island or Tract 


1989 
20,576 


1990 

20,576 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


1995 
6.673 


1996 


1997 


1998 


Stage 

22,060 


Total 


Bouldln* 


69,885 


Termlnous* 


13,937 


13,937 


— 


— 


-. 


1.410 


— 


— 





3.932 


14,881 


48.096 


Empire* 


5.170 


5.170 


— 


-- 


.. 


340 








.. 


456 


4,257 


15,392 


Veale 


2.153 


2.153 


— 


— 


— 


-- 














.. 


4,305 


Brack* 


9.083 


9.083 








.. 





.. 


_. 


... 


2.227 


.. 


20,392 


Shin Kee 


1.794 


1.794 


-. 








-- 








.. 




.. 


3.587 


Orwood, Upper 


2,077 


2,077 





__ 


-_ 


.. 


.. 


.. 


.. 


_. 


__ 


4,154 


Mandeville* 


8.676 


8,676 


— 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


-- 


— 


— 


9.867 


27.218 


McDonald* 








8,252 


8,252 


.. 


_. 


.. 


2.458 





__ 


9.333 


28.295 


Rindge* 


" 


-- 


9,333 


9,333 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


.- 


— 


2,324 


20.989 


Webb* 


— 


-- 


7,909 


7.909 


— 


-- 


— 


2.116 


— 


.. 


12.505 


30,439 


Roberts, 


























Lower /Middle/Upper* 


— 


— 


19,573 


19,573 


370 





.. 





._ 


._ 


.. 


39,516 


Orexler* 


— 


— 


3,846 


3,846 


— 


— 


3,451 





.. 





5.951 


17,094 


Jones, Lower /Upper* 


— 


— 


12.451 


12,451 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


4.076 


28,978 


Woodward 


.. 


._ 


.« 





3,927 


3.927 


2.316 


_. 


__ 


__ 


5.498 


15,667 


Bacon* 


— 


— 


— 


— 


8.704 


8,704 











.. 


11,636 


29,044 


Andrus-Brannan* 


— 


— 




— 


11,279 


11,279 


861 


— 


-. 


1.852 


15,424 


40,695 


Canal Ranch 


— 


— 


— 


— 


5,920 


5.920 


— 


— 


-- 


— 


1.021 


12,860 


Bishop 


— 


— 


— 


— 


3,154 


3.154 


— 


— 


.- 


— 


1.870 


8,178 


Tyler* 


— 


— 


— 


— 


10,337 


10,337 


— 


— 





.. 


2.231 


22,904 


Bradford 


— 


— 


— 


— 


4,811 


4,811 











.. 


8.934 


18,555 


Jersey 


~ 


" 


-- 


-- 


9,803 


9.803 


— 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


19,605 


Holland 





.. 


__ 


._ 


_., 


._ 


6,580 


6,580 


__ 


.. 


4.402 


17,562 


McCormack-wn llamson 


— 




— 


— 


— 


— 


4,550 


4,550 


— 


-. 


767 


9.867 


Deadhorse 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


— 


-- 


1,930 


1.930 








587 


4.447 


King 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


.. 


4.824 


4.824 


— 


-- 


393 


10.041 


Staten 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


12.164 


12.164 


— 


— 


10,701 


35,029 


Palm 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


4,527 


4.527 


— 


-. 


2,493 


11,546 


Hotchkiss* 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


3.508 


3.508 


— 


— 


-- 


7,015 


Shima 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


3.294 


3,294 


— 


— 


489 


7,077 


Rio Blanco 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


— 


— 


1.626 


1,626 


— 


— 


47 


3,299 


New Hope 


— 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


" 


9.733 


9.733 


-- 


-- 


-- 


19,465 


Wright-Elmwood 




















__ 


__ 


3,211 


3.211 


558 


6.979 


Victoria 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


5,443 


5,443 


1,232 


12,117 


Coney 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 





1.777 


1,777 


-. 


3,553 


Bethel 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


15,018 


15,018 


1,489 


31,525 


Byron 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


9.291 


9,291 


-- 


18.582 


Flood Control Subtotal 


63,463 


63.463 


61,364 


61,364 


58,303 


59,683 


66.036 


57,309 


34,739 


43.206 


"175,026 


723.952 


Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 


845 


845 


953 


953 


850 


850 


998 


998 


500 


500 


— 


8.290 


Flood Control Total 


64,308 


64.308 


62.317 


62.317 


59,152 


60,532 


67.033 


58,306 


35,238 


43.705 


155,026 


732.242 


Recreation 


5,826 


5,825 


3.069 


3,068 


4.332 


4,331 


3.915 


3,914 


3,143 


3.143 


— 


40,566 


Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 3,969 


3.969 


4.728 


4,727 


4,207 


4.206 


4.930 


3,931 


4.445 


3.228 


14.310 


56,650 


Project Total 


74,103 


74.102 


70.114 


70.112 


67.691 


69.069 


75.878 


66.151 


42.826 


50,076 


169,336 


829,458 


*Islands Included in Federal plan. 





113 



Table 32 
































SCHEDULE OF 


TOTAL PROJECT COSTS. MODIFIED SYSTEM PLAN 
















6 PERCENT ESCALATION RATH 




















(In Thousands 


of Dollars) 
































Future 




Island or Tract 


1989 
32,795 


1990 
34,763 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


1995 

15,087 


1996 


1997 


1998 


Stage 

172.057 


Total 


Bouldin* 


254,702 


Termlnous* 


22,213 


23,545 


.. 








3,007 


-- 


— 


— 


10,588 


136,217 


195,571 


Empire* 


8,239 


8,734 


-- 


— 


-- 


725 


-- 


— 


• - 


1,228 


22,472 


41.398 


Veale 


3.431 


3.637 


-- 


— 


.- 


-- 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


7,067 


Brack* 


14,476 


15,345 





.. 


.. 


.. 


— 


.. 


— 


5,997 


-- 


35,818 


Shin Kee 


2.859 


3,030 


.. 


.. 





— 


-. 


-. 


— 


— 


-- 


5,889 


Orwood, Upper 


3.310 


3.509 





.. 


— 


— 


.. 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


6.819 


Mandevllle* 


13,827 


14.657 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


77,561 


106.045 


McDonald* 


__ 


__ 


14,778 


15.665 


.. 


__ 


_. 


5.891 


__ 


.. 


73,867 


110,200 


Rindge* 


.. 


-. 


16,713 


17.716 








— 


-- 


— 


— 


28,585 


63,014 


Webb* 








14,164 


15,014 


— 


— 


— 


5.071 


— 


— 


119,521 


153,769 


Roberts, 


























Lower/Hiddle/Upper* 





— 


35,052 


37,155 


745 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


72,952 


Drexler* 


.. 





6.888 


7.301 


— 


— 


7.802 


— 


— 


— 


50,775 


72,766 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


— 


— 


22,298 


23,636 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


— 


22,085 


68,019 


Woodward 


__ 


.. 


._ 


.. 


7.901 


8,375 


5,236 


._ 








38,750 


60.262 


Bacon* 


__ 


.. 


.. 





17,514 


18,565 








— 


— 


59,890 


95,969 


Andrus-Brannan* 


.. 











22,696 


24,057 


1,947 


— 


— 


4,987 


124,808 


178,494 


Canal Ranch 





— 


.. 


— 


11.911 


12,626 


— 


— 


— 


— 


9,346 


33,884 


Bishop 


.. 











6.346 


6,727 





.. 


— 


— 


10,740 


23,814 


Tyler* 


.. 





.. 





20.799 


22,047 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


15.261 


58,107 


Bradford 








— 


— 


9,680 


10,260 


-. 


— 


— 


— 


97.080 


117,020 


Jersey 


" 


" 


" 


" 


19,725 


20,908 


" 


— 


— 


— 


— 


40,633 


Holland 


«« 


_. 


.. 


«« 





__ 


14,877 


15,769 








31.929 


62,575 


HcCorfflack-W1111ainson 


_. 














.. 


10,287 


10.904 


— 


— 


33.859 


55,051 


Deadhorse 


.. 

















4,364 


4,625 


— 


— 


4,354 


13,343 


King 


.. 


_- 





-. 


.. 





10,907 


11,561 








3,021 


25,488 


Staten 


.. 


.. 














27,502 


29,152 


— 


— 


164,588 


221,242 


Palm 

















— 


10,234 


10,848 


— 


— 


19,161 


40,243 


Hotchkiss* 





— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


7,930 


8,406 


— 


— 


-- 


16,336 


Shima 














-- 


.. 


7,447 


7,894 


— 


— 


3,345 


18,687 


Rio Blanco 











— 


— 


-- 


3,676 


3,897 


-. 


-- 


686 


8,259 


New Hope 


~ 


— 


-- 


" 


-- 


-- 


22.004 


23,325 


— 


-- 


-- 


45,329 


Wright-Elmwood 


__ 





__ 


_.. 


_, 


_. 


_■ 


__ 


8,156 


8,645 


4,046 


20.847 


Victoria 


.. 





— 


— 


— 


-- 


— 


— 


13,826 


14,655 


14,238 


42,720 


Coney 


.. 





— 


— 


— 


-- 


— 


-• 


4,513 


4,784 


-- 


9,297 


Bethel 


_. 


.. 








.. 











38,151 


40,440 


12,859 


91,450 


Byron 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


-- 


— 


— 


-- 


23,602 


25,019 


-- 


48.621 


Flood Control Subtota 


101.150 107.219 109.893 


116.486 117.316 127.298 149.300 137.34J 


88,248 116,343 


1,351.102 


2.521.699 


Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 1,346 


1.427 


1.707 


1.810 


1.710 


1,812 


2.256 


2,391 


1.270 


1,346 


-- 


17,075 


Flood Control Tota 


102.496 


108,646 


111.600 


118.296 


119,026 


129,111 


151.556 


139,734 


89,518 


117,689 


1,351,102 


2,538,774 


Recreation 


9,286 


9,841 


5.496 


5,824 


8,717 


9,238 


8.851 


9,380 


7,984 


8,463 


- 


83,081 


Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 6,326 


6.706 


8,467 


8,973 


8.465 


8,971 


11.146 


9,421 


11,292 


8,692 


118,174 


206,634 


Project Total 


118,108 


125,193 


125.563 


133,093 


136,208 


147,320 


171,553 


158,535 


108,794 


134.844 


1,469,276 


2,828,489 


♦Islands Included in F 


ederal plan. 

























114 



Table 33 









SCHEDULE OF 


TOTAL PROJECT COSTS. WDIFIED STSTEH PLAN 
















9 PERCENT ESCALATIOtI RATE 




















(In Thousands 


of Dollars) 
































Future 




Island or Tract 


1989 

40.999 


1990 

44,689 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


1995 
22.299 


1996 


1997 


1998 


Stage 

511,093 


Total 


Bouldin* 


619,080 


Terminous* 


27,769 


30,269 








.- 


4.323 


-- 


.. 


— 


17,016 


445,036 


524,413 


Empire* 


10,301 


11,228 








— 


1.042 


— 


— 


— 


1.973 


52,099 


76,643 


Veale 


4,289 


4,675 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


-- 


8,964 


Brack* 


18,097 


19,726 


-- 


— 


.. 


— 


— 


— 


— 


9.638 


— 


47,461 


Shin Kee 


3,574 


3,895 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


7,469 


Orwood, Upper 


4,139 


4.511 


— 


— 


-- 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


8,650 


Mandevllle* 


17,286 


18,842 


" 


— 


-- 


~ 


-- 


" 


-- 


-- 


256,897 


293.025 


McDonald* 


.. 


__ 


19.535 


21,294 





_. 


__ 


8.953 





_, 


227,898 


277,680 


Rindge* 


■_ 


.. 


22.093 


24,082 


-- 


— 


.. 


— 


— 


— 


108,489 


154,664 


Uebb* 


— 


-- 


18.723 


20.409 


-- 


— 


-- 


7.707 


-- 


-- 


430,422 


477.261 


Roberts, 


























Lower/Middle/Upper* 





— 


46.336 


50.507 


1,041 


— 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


-- 


97,884 


Orexler* 


.. 





9.105 


9,924 


-- 


— 


11,532 


— 


— 


— 


155,645 


186,207 


Jones, Lower /Upper* 


— 


— 


29.476 


32,129 


— 


— 


— 


— 


~ 


-- 


49,614 


111.219 


Woodward 


^_ 


__ 


__ 


__ 


11.044 


12.038 


7,739 


__ 


_« 


._ 


105,840 


136,662 


Bacon* 











— 


24.481 


26.685 


— 


— 


-- 


— 


143.562 


194,728 


Andrus-Brannan* 





__ 


.. 





31.724 


34,579 


2,877 


— 





8.015 


397.071 


474,267 


Canal Ranch 





.. 








16.650 


18,148 








.. 


— 


26.992 


61,789 


Bishop 














8.871 


9.670 


— 


— 


— 


— 


24.811 


43,351 


Tyler* 





■-. 








29.073 


31.690 


— 


— 


-- 


-. 


38.333 


99,096 


Bradford 














13.530 


14.748 


-- 


— 


-. 


— 


359,549 


387,827 


Jersey 


~ 


," 


— 


-- 


27.571 


30,053 


— 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


57,624 


Holland 


^_ 


_. 


._ 


._ 


__ 


__ 


21,989 


23.968 


.. 


._ 


89,462 


135,418 


McCormack-Wll Hamson 














— 


— 


15.205 


16,573 


— 


-- 


207.739 


239,517 


Oeadhorse 


.. 











-. 


-- 


6.450 


7,030 


-- 


-- 


12.051 


25,531 


King 


.. 











— 


.. 


16.120 


17,571 


— 


— 


8.023 


41,715 


Staten 


_. 


.. 





_. 








40,649 


44,307 





.. 


738,654 


823,610 


Palm 


.. 


._ 





._ 








15,126 


16,488 





— 


50,892 


82,506 


Hotchkiss* 


_. 


.. 


_■ 


.. 








11,721 


12.776 





— 


-- 


24,497 


Shima 


.« 














.. 


11.008 


11.998 


— 


— 


8,402 


31,408 


Rio Blanco 


__ 


.. 














5.434 


5.923 


— 


— 


2,476 


13.832 


New Hope 


— 


— 


— 


— 


" 


" 


32.523 


35.450 


— 


-- 


-- 


67.974 


Wright-Elmwood 


__ 


__ 


., 


._ 


._ 


.« 


_. 


__ 


12,747 


13.894 


10,450 


37.091 


Victoria 














— 


— 


— 


— 


21,608 


23,553 


45,975 


91.137 


Coney 








— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


.. 


— 


7.053 


7.688 


-- 


14,741 


Bethel 





— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


59.626 


64.992 


36,114 


160.732 


Byron 


— 


-- 


— 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


— 


36.888 


40.208 


-- 


77.096 


Flood Control Subtotal 


126,454 


137,835 


145.270 158.344 


163.985 


182.575 220,673 208,745 


137.522 


186.578 


4,543,589 


6,212.765 


Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 1,683 


1,834 


2,257 


2,460 


2.390 


2,605 


3,334 


3.634 


1.985 


2.163 


— 


24.345 


Flood Control Total 


128,137 


139,669 


147,526 


160,804 


166.375 


185.580 


224.007 


212.379 


139.907 


189,141 


4,543,589 


6.237.115 


Recreation 


11,609 


12.651 


7.265 


7,917 


12.184 


13.278 


13,083 


14.257 


12.479 


13.602 


— 


118.325 


Fish/Wildlife Enharicenient 7,908 


8.620 


11.193 


12,198 


11,833 


12.895 


16,475 


14.319 


17.648 


13.970 


371.578 


498.636 


Project Total 


147,654 


160.941 


165.985 


180,918 


190.393 


211.753 


253,564 


240.955 


170.034 


216.712 4.915.167 


6.854.075 


*Islands Included In Federal pl< 


in. 






















1 



115 



Tabic 34 





SCHEDULE 


V NON-FEDERAL COSTS. NOOIFIED SYSTEM PLAN -- TRADITIONAl 


COST SHARING 












(In Thousands 


of Doll 


irs, 1981 


Prices 


































Future 




Island or Tract 


1989 
1.102 


1990 
1.102 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


1995 


1996 


1997 


1998 


Stage 


Total 


Bouldin* 


2.203 


Terralnous* 


1,665 


1.665 


-- 


— 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


3,330 


Empire* 


966 


966 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


-- 


1,931 


Vea1e 


2,153 


2.153 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


— 


-- 


4,305 


Brack* 


478 


478 


.. 


-. 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


— 


-- 


-- 


956 


Shin Kee 


1,794 


1.794 


.. 


-. 


.. 


-- 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


— 


3,587 


Orwood, Upper 


2,077 


2.077 


.. 


-- 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


— 


-- 


4,154 


Mandevllle* 


547 


547 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


— 


-- 


-- 


1,093 


McDonald* 


._ 


.. 


530 


530 


._ 


.. 


.. 


__ 








-- 


1.060 


Rindge* 


— 





1,036 


1.036 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


— 


— 


— 


2,072 


Webb* 





— 


461 


461 


— 


— 




-- 


— 


-- 


-- 


921 


Roberts, 


























Lower /Middle/Upper* 


-- 


— 


3,882 


3.882 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


— 


-- 


-- 


7,763 


Orexler* 





— 


492 


492 


-- 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


984 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


— 


" 


1,892 


1.892 


" 


-- 


" 


" 


— 


-- 


-- 


3,783 


Woodward 


.. 


^_ 


__ 


__ 


3,927 


3.927 


2.316 


__ 


._ 


__ 


5.498 


15,667 


Bacon* 








-- 


— 


1,258 


1,258 


— 


-- 


— 


-- 


-- 


2.515 


Andrus-Brannan* 





— 


-- 


— 


4,423 


4,423 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


8,846 


Canal Ranch 


_. 


__ 


.- 





5,920 


5,920 


.. 


.. 


— 


-. 


1,021 


12,860 


Bishop 


__ 


.. 








3.154 


3,154 


— 


.. 


— 


— 


1,870 


8,178 


Tyler* 


_. 


.. 





.. 


1.340 


1,340 





.- 


— 


-. 


-- 


2,679 


Bradford 





.. 








4.811 


4.811 


.. 


-- 


— 


— 


8,934 


18,555 


Jersey 


— 


— 


— 


" 


9.803 


9.803 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


19,605 


Holland 


__ 


._ 


«_ 





.. 


__ 


6,580 


6,580 


__ 





4,402 


17,562 


McCormack-WI 1 1 1 amson 





.. 








— 


— 


4.550 


4,550 


— 


— 


767 


9.867 


Deadhorse 














— 


— 


1.930 


1,930 


— 


— 


580 


4.447 


King 





__ 


_. 











4.824 


4,824 


— 


— 


393 


10.041 


Staten 














— 


— 


12.164 


12.164 


— 


— 


10.701 


35.029 


Palm 





— 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


4.527 


4.527 


-- 


-- 


2,493 


11.546 


Hotchkiss* 








— 


-. 


.- 


— 


97 


97 


— 


— 


-- 


194 


Shima 








-- 


— 


— 


— 


3.294 


3,294 


— 


— 


489 


7.077 


Rio Blanco 


._ 

















1.626 


1,626 


— 


— 


47 


3.299 


New Hope 


— 


" 


— 


— 


" 


— 


9.733 


9,733 


— 


-- 


-- 


19.465 


Wright-Elmwood 


__ 


__ 


__ 


__ 


_« 


.. 


_. 





3,211 


3,211 


558 


6.979 


Victoria 


._ 








.. 








— 


.. 


5,443 


5,443 


1.232 


12,117 


Coney 


__ 


-. 


.. 














— 


1,777 


1.777 


— 


3,553 


Bethel 








-- 








— 


— 


-- 


15,018 


15.018 


1,489 


31,525 


Byron 

Flood Control Subtota 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


— 


— 


— 


9,291 


9,291 


-- 


18,582 


10.780 


10.780 


8,292 


8,292 


34.633 


34.633 


51,640 


49.324 


34,739 


34,739 


40,481 


318,330 


Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 212 


212 


114 


114 


530 


530 


921 


921 


500 


500 


— 


4.554 


Flood Control Tota 


10,991 


10,991 


8,406 


8,406 


35.163 


35.163 


52,561 


50,245 


35,238 


35,238 


40,481 


322.884 


Recreation 


2,913 


2,913 


1,535 


1.534 


2,166 


2.166 


1,958 


1.957 


1,572 


1,572 


— 


20.283 


Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 992 


992 


1.182 


1,182 


1,052 


1.052 


1,233 


983 


1,111 


807 


3,S78 


14.163 


Project Total 


14,896 


14,896 


11.122 


11,122 


38,381 


38.380 


55,751 


53,185 


37,921 


37,617 


44,059 


357.330 


♦Islands Included In 


•ederal plan. 






















1 



116 



Table 35 



SCHEDULE 


OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS. MODIFIED SYSTEM PLAN - TRADITIONAL COST SHARING 














6 PERCENT ESCALATION RATE 




















(In Thousands 


of Dollars) 


































Future 




Island or Tract 


1989 
1,756 


1990 
1.861 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


1995 


1996 


1997 


1998 


Stage 


Total 


Bouldin* 


3,617 


Term i nous* 


2,654 


2.813 








— 


— 


— 


.- 


— 


— 


— 


5,467 


Empire* 


1,539 


1.631 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


3.170 


Veale 


3,431 


3.637 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


7,067 


Brack* 


762 


808 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


-- 


— 


1,569 


Sh1n Kee 


2.859 


3,030 


— 


-- 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


" 


-- 


5.889 


Orwood, Upper 


3.310 


3,509 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


6,819 


Mandevllle* 


871 


923 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


1,794 


McDonald* 


.. 


_. 


949 


1,006 


«_ 


._ 


__ 


.. 


._ 


.. 


.- 


1.955 


Rindge* 


.. 





1.855 


1,967 





— 


— 





— 


— 


— 


3,822 


Webb* 








825 


874 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


1,699 


Roberts, 


























Lower /Middle/Upper* 


.. 





6.951 


7,368 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


, 14,319 


Drexler* 


— 


— 


881 


934 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


— 


— 


— 


1,815 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


-'- 


— 


3.387 


3,591 


" 


-- 


-- 


-- 


" 


-- 


-- 


6,978 


Woodward 


_. 


_. 


«_ 


_« 


7.901 


8.375 


5,236 


.. 








38,750 


60,262 


Bacon* 


.. 











2.530 


2.682 








.. 


.- 


.- 


5,212 


Andrus-Brannan* 








— 


— 


8.900 


9,434 


.- 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


18,334 


Canal Ranch 


— 


— 


— 


— 


11.911 


12.626 


— 


— 


— 


— 


9.346 


33.884 


Bishop 














6.346 


6.727 


— 


— 


— 


— 


10,740 


23,814 


Tyler* 














2.695 


2,857 


— 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


5.552 


Bradford 








— 


— 


9,680 


10.260 


— 


— 


— 


— 


97,080 


117.020 


Jersey 


" 


— 


" 


— 


19.725 


20.908 


— 


" 


" 


-- 


-- 


40.633 


Holland 


__ 


__ 


__ 


__ 


_. 


.. 


14.877 


15.769 


._ 


_. 


31.929 


62.575 


McCormack-Wi 1 1 i amson 











— 


— 


— 


10.287 


10,904 


— 


-- 


33,859 


55,051 


Deadhorse 














— 


— 


4.364 


4,625 


— 


— 


4,354 


13,343 


King 


_. 


.. 


.. 


.. 


.. 





10.907 


11,561 








3.021 


25,488 


Staten 


.. 

















27.502 


29,152 


— 


— 


164.588 


221,242 


Palm 














— 


-- 


10.234 


10,848 


.- 


-. 


19,161 


40,243 


Hotchkiss* 





— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


219 


232 


— 


-- 


— 


452 


Shima 


.. 


.. 














7.447 


7,894 





.. 


3.345 


18,687 


Rio Blanco 


__ 


.. 














3.676 


3,897 


.. 


— 


686 


8,259 


New Hope 


— 


— 


— 


" 


" 


— 


22.004 


23.325 


— 


-- 


-- 


45,329 


Wright-Elmwood 


__ 


.. 


__ 


._ 


__ 


__ 


.. 


__ 


8.156 


8,645 


4,046 


20,847 


Victoria 











— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


13.826 


14,655 


14.238 


42,720 


Coney 


.. 























4.513 


4,784 


— 


9,297 


Bethel 


.. 




















— 


38.151 


40,440 


12.859 


91,450 


Byron 

Flood Control Subtotal 


— 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


23,602 


25,019 


~" 


48.621 


17,181 


18,212 


14.849 


15,740 


69,688 


73.870 


116.753 


118,208 


88.248 


93,543 


471,374 


1,074,295 


Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 


337 


357 


205 


217 


1.067 


1.131 


2.083 


2,208 


1.270 


1.346 


— 


10,220 


Flood Control Total 


17,518 


18,569 


15.054 


15.957 


70.755 


75.000 


118.836 


120,416 


89,518 


94.889 


471,374 


1.084,515 


Recreation 


4,643 


4,921 


2.748 


2.912 


4.358 


4.619 


4.426 


4,690 


3.992 


4,232 


--• 


41.540 


Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 1.581 


1,676 


2,117 


2.243 


2,116 


2,243 


2.787 


2,355 


2.823 


2,173 


29,544 


51.658 


Project Total 


23.742 


25,166 


19,919 


21.112 


77,230 


81,862 


126.048 


127,461 


96,333 


101,294 


477,547 


1.177,714 


*Islands Included In Fed 


aral plan. 

























117 



Table 36 shows the nonfederal costs 
escalated at a rate of 9 percent. 
Compared to the 1981 prices the total 
Increase in the capital costs associated 
with the 9 percent escalation rate 
amounts to $2.3 billion. 

Tables A-34, A-35, and A-36, in Appen- 
dix A, show the schedule of non-federal 
costs of the Modified System Plan in 
1981 prices, escalated prices at 6 per- 
cent and escalated prices at 9 percent 
computed by the cost sharing formula 
proposed by the Reagan Administration. 

Table 36 



SCHEDULE OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS, MODIFIED SYSTEM PLAN - 
9 PERCENT ESCALATION RATE 
(In Thousands of Dollars) 



Project Financing 

The allocation of the escalated capital 
costs to the non-Federal participants 
shown in Table 30 were used to calculate 
the total amount of the bonds that would 
have to be authorized for State issue 
and the bond repayment obligation of 
each of the project participants. Two 
sets of financial market rate assump- 
tions were used for these analyses (see 
Chapter 4 for a full discussion of the 
financial assumptions): 



TRADITIONAL COST SHARING 

























Future 




Island or Tract 


1989 
?,19S 


1990 
2,392 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


1995 


1996 


1997 


1998 


Stage 


Total 


Bouldin* 


4,587 


Terminnus* 


1,318 


3,616 


.. 


.. 


-. 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


6,934 


Finpire* 


1,924 


2,097 


-- 


.. 


.. 


.- 


.. 


.. 


-- 


-- 


-- 


4,021 


Vpale 


4,289 


4,676 


-. 


.- 


-- 


.. 


.- 


.. 


.. 


-- 


-- 


8,974 


Brack* 


9S2 


1,038 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


1,991 


Shin Kee 


1,574 


3,895 


.. 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


7,469 


Orwood, Upper 


4,n9 


4,511 


-- 


-- 


.- 


-. 


-- 


.. 


-. 


.- 


-. 


8,650 


Vandevil le* 


1,089 


1,187 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


2,276 


McDonald* 


__ 


__ 


1,265 


1,368 


._ 


__ 


_. 


,_ 






._ 


2.622 


Rindge* 


-- 


-- 


2,453 


2,673 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


.- 


5,126 


Webb* 


-- 


-- 


1,090 


1,188 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


2,278 


Roberts, 


























Lower/Middle/llpper* 


-- 


-- 


9,189 


10,016 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


19,205 


Drexler* 


-- 


-- 


1,165 


1,270 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


2,434 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


-- 


-- 


4,478 


4,881 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


9,359 


Woodward 


_, 


.. 


_, 


__ 


11,044 


12,038 


7,739 


,_ 




__ 


105,840 


136,662 


Bacon* 


-. 


-. 


.- 


-. 


3,537 


3,855 


-- 


.. 


.- 




-_ 


7,392 


Andrus-Brannan* 


.- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


12,440 


13,560 


-. 


-. 


-. 


-- 


-- 


26,000 


Canal Ranch 


-. 


-- 


-- 


-- 


16,650 


18,148 


-- 


-. 


-. 


-- 


26,992 


61,789 


Bishop 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


8,871 


9,670 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


24,811 


43,351 


Tyler* 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


3,768 


4,107 


-- 


-- 


-- 


.. 


.- 


7,874 


Bradford 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


13,530 


14,748 


-- 


-. 


.- 


-- 


359,549 


387,827 


Jersey 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


27,571 


30,053 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


57,624 


Holland 


.. 


_. 


,. 


_. 


.. 


__ 


21,989 


23,968 


__ 


__ 


89,461 


135,418 


McCormack-Wi 1 1 iamson 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


15,205 


16,573 


.- 


-- 


207,739 


239,517 


Deadhorse 


-- 




-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


6,450 


7,030 


-- 


-- 


12,051 


25,531 


Kinq 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-. 


15,120 


17,571 


-- 


-. 


3,023 


41,715 


Staten 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-. 


-- 


-- 


40,649 


44,307 


.. 


-- 


738,654 


823,610 


Palm 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


15,126 


16,488 


-- 


-- 


50,892 


82,506 


Hotchkiss* 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


324 


353 


-- 


-. 


-- 


677 


Shi ma 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


11,008 


11,998 


-- 


.. 


8,402 


31,408 


Rio Blanco 


-- 


.. 


-. 


-- 


-- 


-- 


5,434 


5,923 


-- 


-- 


2,476 


13,332 


New Hope 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


32,523 


35,450 


— 


-- 


-- 


67,974 


Wriqht-Elmwood 


.. 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-. 


-- 


-- 





12,747 


13,894 


10,450 


37,091 


Victoria 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


.- 


-. 


21,608 


23,553 


45,975 


91,137 


Coney 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


7,053 


7,688 


-- 


14,741 


Bethel 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


59,626 


64,992 


36,114 


160,732 


Byron 


"" 


'" 


-* 




*~ 


-■ 


'- 


"- 


36,888 


40,208 


"- 


77,096 



Flood Control Subtotal 21,479 23,412 19,629 21,396 97,411 106,178 172,567 179,662 137,922 150,335 1,727,430 2,657,420 

Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 422 459 271 295 1,491 1,625 3,079 3,356 1,985 2,163 -- 15,145 

Flood Control Total 21,900 23,871 19,900 21,691 98,902 107,803 175,645 183,017 139,907 152,499 1,727,430 2,672,565 

Recreation 5,804 6,326 3,633 3,958 6,092 6,639 6,541 7,128 6,239 6,801 — 59,162 

Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 1,977 2,155 2,798 3,049 2,958 3,224 4,119 3,580 4,412 3,492 92,895 124,659 

Project Total 29,682 32,352 26,331 28,699 107,952 117,666 186,305 193,725 150,559 162,792 1,820,323 2,856,386 

*Islands included in Federal plan. 



118 



Cost Escalation Rate 
Bond Interest Rate 
Sinking Fund Rate 



Assump- 
tlon 1 

6% 
9% 
8% 



Assump- 
tlon 2 

9% 

12% 

10.5% 



Table 37 shows the allocation of 
financial costs of the traditional 
non-Federal share of the project among 
beneficiaries for both sets of 
assumptions. This allocation was made 
In accordance with the discussion of 
cost sharing principles in Chapter 4. 
Table A-37 shows the same information 
computed by the proposed cost sharing 
formula . 

A comparison of Table 37 with Table 30 
reveals the following: 

The escalated summed capital costs for 
the flood control and fish and 
wildlife enhancement purposes are 
substantially greater than the 
financial costs for these purposes. 

The escalated summed capital costs for 
the recreation purpose are less than 
the financial costs for this purpose. 



This difference results from the future 
stage costs associated with both flood 
control and fish and wildlife enhance- 
ment. No future stage costs are associ- 
ated with recreation. Because of the 
sinking fund assumption discussed in 
Chapter 4 (Assumptions for Financial 
Analysis), the large effect of escalat- 
ing future stage costs on the sum of 
capital costs is more than compensated 
for in the financial analysis. This 
mitigating effect is not significant 
enough to reduce the recreation finan- 
cial costs below the sum of the esca- 
lated capital costs for recreation. 

Tables 38 and 39 show the suballocation 
to individual Islands and tracts of the 
financial obligation allocated to the 
Islands/tracts category in Table 37. 
This suballocation was made using the 
assumptions discussed in Chapter 4 
(Assumptions for traditional Cost 
Sharing Analysis). The suballocation 
was made using the annual repayment 
equivalent of the total bond repayment 
obligation shown in Table 37. Annual 
unit repayment values by levee mile and 
acre are provided, as well as the 
portion of operation and maintenance 



Table 37 







MODIFIED SYSTEM 
ALLOCATION OF REPAYMENT OBLIGATION - 


PLAN 
TRADITIONAL 


COST SHARING 














(In Millions of Dollars) 










Purpose 


Total* 


State 


County 


Islands/Tracts* 
6%m 9S/12X 

344 523 
47 47 


Water Projects 
and Water Users 
6%/9% 9X/12X 

19 30 
3 3 


•*6«/gx 

738 
100 


9X/12X 

1.120 
100 


6X/9S 

375 
50 


9«/12X 

567 
50 


Flood Control 
Percent 


Recreation 
Percent 


44 
100 


64 
100 


22 

50 


32 
50 


22 
50 


32 
SO 


__ 


" 


— 


_. 


Fish/Wildlife 
Enhancement 
Percent 


32 
100 


48 
100 


16 
50 


24 
50 


16 
SO 


24 
50 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


TOTAL PROJECT 
Percent 


815 
100 


1,232 
100 


413 
51 


623 

51 


38 
5 


56 
5 


344 
42 


523 
42 


20 
2 


30 
2 


* Includes rel 
**Percents of 


ocatlon 
Escalati 


betterments. 
on/Bond Rate. 





















119 



Table 38 



tWOIFIEO SYSTEM PLAM 
ALLOCATION Of ISLAND OR TRACT REPAYMENT OBLIGATION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 

TRADITIONAL COST SHARING 
6 PERCENT ESCALATION / 9 PERCENT BOND INTEREST 



Island or Tract 



Andrus-Brannan* 

Bacon* 

Bethel 

Bishop 

Bouldin* 

Brack* 
Bradford 
Byron 

Canal Ranch 
Coney 

Deadhorse 

Orexler* 

Empire* 

Holland 

Hotchkiss* 









1988 


Bond Sale 






OlM Costs 




Annual Repaynent 




Equivalent 


Annual Repajwent** 
Per Mile Per 


(1989 


Price Level) 






Per mie 


Per 




Per Mile 


Per 


Total 


of Leve« 

133.000 


Acre 
90 


Total 


of Levee 

106.000 . 


Acre 

71 


Total 

40.000 


of Levee 

3.911 


Acre 


1,348.000 


1,068,000 


3 


359.000 


25.000 


65 


285.000 


20,000 


51 


57.000 


3.981 


10 


3,854,000 


335.000 


1,095 


2,418,000 


210.000 


687 


268.000 


23,339 


lb 


738,000 


127.000 


340 


584,000 


101.000 


269 


23.000 


4.007 


11 


179.000 


10,000 


30 


179.000 


10,000 


30 


71.000 


3,938 


12 


87.000 


8,000 


18 


87.000 


8,000 


18 


44.000 


4,088 


9 


1,523,000 


206.000 


711 


1.207.000 


163,000 


563 


29.000 


3,925 


14 


2,862,000 


301.000 


413 


1.795.000 


189,000 


259 


38,000 


4,036 


b 


1,216.000 


128.000 


406 


963.000 


101,000 


321 


38,000 


4,036 


13 


434,000 


80.000 


464 


272,000 


50,000 


291 


21,000 


3.873 


22 


501.000 


200.000 


2,375 


353.000 


141,000 


1,674 


9,000 


3,718 


44 


84,000 


9.000 


27 


75.000 


8,000 


24 


36,000 


4,047 


11 


120,000 


12.000 


32 


120.000 


12,000 


32 


41.000 


3,948 


11 


1,893,000 


174,000 


448 


1.335.000 


122,000 


316 


43.000 


3.944 


10 


22.000 


3,000 


7 


16.000 


2,000 


5 


63.000 


7,469 


19 



Jersey 




1,870,000 


120.000 


539 


1,481,000 


95.000 


427 


62.000 


3.948 


18 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


203,000 


11.000 


17 


181,000 


10.000 


15 


71.000 


3.982 


6 


King 




1,158,000 


129.000 


355 


816,000 


91.000 


250 


35.000 


3.873 


11 


Mandeville* 




70,000 


5,000 


13 


70,000 


5.000 


13 


72,000 


5,038 


14 


McCormack-Williamson 


1,078,000 


124,000 


658 


760,000 


87,000 


464 


35.000 


4,007 


21 


McDonald* 




44,000 


3,000 


7 


39,000 


3,000 


6 


53.000 


3,901 


9 


New Hope 




2,273,000 


185,000 


233 


1.602,000 


130,000 


164 


49.000 


3,968 


5 


Orwood, Upper 




292,000 


65,000 


172 


292,000 


65,000 


172 


24.000 


5,422 


14 


Palm 




1,232,000 


158,000 


506 


868,000 


111,000 


356 


33.000 


4,171 


13 


Rindge* 




156,000 


10,000 


23 


139,000 


9,000 


20 


62,000 


3,922 


9 


Rio Blanco 




379,000 


119.000 


569 


267,000 


84,000 


401 


13,000 


3,994 


19 


Roberts, 






















Lower/Middle 


'Upper* 


441,000 


19,000 


14 


393,000 


17,000 


12 


202,000 


8,714 


6 


Shima 




791,000 


98,000 


330 


557,000 


69,000 


233 


31,000 


3,873 


13 


Shin Kee 




223.000 


117,000 


207 


223,000 


117,000 


207 


8,000 


4,281 


8 


Staten 




3.555,000 


139,000 


391 


2,506,000 


98,000 


276 


101,000 


3,964 


11 


Terminous* 




250,000 


16,000 


24 


250.000 


. 16,000 


24 


65,000 


4,041 


6 


Tyler* 




291,000 


27,000 


34 


231.000 


22,000 


27 


48,000 


4.452 


6 


Veale 




269,000 


47,000 


207 


269.000 


47,000 


207 


22,000 


3.873 


17 


Victoria 




1,420,000 


94,000 


196 


891.000 


59,000 


123 


59.000 


3,924 


8 


Webb* 




54,000 


4,000 


10 


48.000 


4.000 


9 


50.000 


3,903 


9 


Woodward 




1.337.000 


154,000 


734 


1,059.000 


122.000 


581 


35,000 


4,007 


19 


Wright-Elmwood 




836.000 


123,000 


394 


524,000 


77.000 


247 


27.000 


3,930 


13 


* Islands and 


tracts in 


Federal plan 


















** Common base 


for comparison of relat 


ive financia 


obligat 


ion. 












1 



120 



















Table 


' 39 








MODIFIED 


SYSTEM PLAN 












ALLOCATION OF ISLAND OR TRAa REPAYMENT OBLIGATION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 










TRADITIONAL 


COST SHARING 














9 PERCENT ESCALATION / 


12 PERCENT 


BOND INTEREST 
















1988 Bond Sale 






QI.M Costs 






Annual Repayment 




Equivalent 


Annual Repayment** 
Per Mile Per 


(1989 


Price Level) 






Per Mile 


Per 




Per Mile 


Per 


Island or Tract 


Total 


of Levee 
245,000 


Acre 
165 


Total 


of Levee 

173.000 


Acre 

117 


Total 

49.000 


of Levee 
4.890 


Acre 
3 


Andrus-Brannan* 


2,470,000 


1.750,000 


Bacon* 


• 658,000 


46,000 


119 


466,000 


33,000 


84 


71.000 


4.977 


13 


Bethel 


7,919,000 


689,000 


2,250 


3,974.000 


346,000 


1,129 


336,000 


29,178 


95 


Bishop 


1,374,000 


237,000 


633 


973,000 


168.000 


449 


29,000 


5,009 


13 


Bouldin* 


294,000 


16,000 


49 


294.000 


16,000 


49 


89,000 


4,923 


15 


Brack* 


142,000 


13,000 


29 


142,000 


13,000 


29 


55,000 


5,111 


11 


Bradford 


2,909,000 


393.000 


1,358 


2,061,000 


279,000 


962 


36.000 


4,907 


17 


Byron 


5,859,000 


617,000 


845 


2,940,000 


310,000 


424 


48,000 


5.046 


7 


Canal Ranch 


2,244,000 


236,000 


749 


1,590,000 


167,000 


531 


48.000 


5.046 


16 


Coney 


889,000 


165,000 


950 


446,000 


83,000 


477 


26.000 


4,842 


28 


Oeadhorse 


979,000 


392,000 


4.640 


584.000 


233,000 


2,766 


12,000 


4,648 


55 


Orexler* 


145,000 


16,000 


46 


122,000 


14,000 


39 


45,000 


5,060 


14 


Empire* 


196,000 


19,000 


53 


196,000 


19,000 


53 


51,000 


4,936 


14 


Holland 


3,726,000 


342,000 


882 


2,222,000 


204,000 


526 


54,000 


4.931 


13 


Hotchkiss* 


43,000 


5,000 


13 


26,000 


3,000 


8 


78,000 


9,338 


23 


Jersey 


3,430,000 


220,000 


988 


2,430,000 


156,000 


700 


77,000 


4,935 


22 


Jones, Lower /Upper* 


352,000 


20,000 


29 


296,000 


17,000 


24 


89,000 


4,978 


7 


King 


2,249,000 


250,000 


690 


1,341,000 


149,000 


411 


44,000 


4,842 


13 


Mandeville* 


114,000 


8,000 


22 


114,000 


8.000 


22 


90,000 


6,298 


17 


McCorraack-Willlamson 


2,106,000 


242,000 


1.285 


1,255,000 


144.000 


766 


44,000 


5,009 


27 


McDonald* 


77,000 


6,000 


12 


65,000 


5.000 


11 


67,000 


4,877 


11 


New Hope 


4,401,000 


358,000 


451 


2,624,000 


213.000 


269 


61.000 


4,960 


6 


Orwood, Upper 


478,000 


106,000 


281 


478,000 


106.000 


281 


31,000 


6,779 


18 


Palm 


2,426,000 


311.000 


996 


1,446,000 


185.000 


594 


41,000 


5,214 


17 


Rindge* 


270.000 


17,000 


39 


227,000 


14.000 


33 


77,000 


4,904 


11 


Rio Blanco 


736,000 


230,000 


1,103 


439,000 


137,000 


658 


16.000 


4,993 


24 


Roberts, 




















Lower /Middle/Upper* 


764,000 


33,000 


23 


643,000 


28,000 


20 


253,000 


10,894 


8 


Shi ma 


1,539,000 


190,000 


643 


918,000 


113,000 


383 


39,000 


4,842 


16 


Shin Kee 


364,000 


192,000 


339 


364,000 


192,000 


339 


10,000 


5,352 


9 


Staten 


7,078,000 


278.000 


779 


4,220,000 


165,000 


464 


126,000 


4,956 


14 


Term 1 nous* 


410,000 


25,000 


39 


410,000 


25.000 


39 


81,000 


5,052 


8 


Tyler* 


534,000 


50,000 


62 


378,000 


35.000 


44 


60,000 


5,566 


7 


Veale 


440,000 


77,000 


339 


440,000 


77,000 


339 


28.000 


4,842 


21 


Victoria 


2.934,000 


194,000 


405 


1,473,000 


98,000 


203 


74.000 


4,906 


10 


Webb* 


94,000 


7,000 


17 


79,000 


6,000 


14 


62,000 


4,880 


11 


Woodward 


2,518,000 


289,000 


1.382 


1,784,000 


205,000 


979 


44,000 


5,009 


24 


Wright-Elmwood 


1,721,000 


253,000 


811 


864,000 


127,000 


.407 


33,000 


4,913 


16 


* Islands and tracts in 


Federal plan. 
















** Common base for comparison of relative financ 


ial obliqation. 












1 



121 



costs allocated to each Island and 
tract. The operation and maintenance 
costs are escalated to the price level 
expected in 1989, the year of the start 
of construction. 

To facilitate the comparison of the 
relative obligations of each of the 
Islands and tracts, a 1988 bond sale 
equivalent capital cost repayment 
obligation Is presented In Tables 38 
and 39. These figures assume that 
construction on all Islands and tracts 
would be Initiated In 1989 and that bond 
repayment for all Islands and tracts 
would begin on that same date. This was 
a necessary assumption for comparison 
purposes because the figures In the 
first three columns are based on three 
bond sales over a 10-year construction 
period. With Inflation assumed to con- 
tinue during this period, the relative 
values of each of the bond sales would 
differ, a dollar of repajnnent obligation 
stemming from the first sale being worth 
substantially more in real terms than a 
dollar of repayment obligation incurred 
with the final bond sale. 



Proposed Cost Sharing 
Program 

While not yet approved by Congress, a 
revision of traditional cost sharing 
methods is under consideration at the 
federal level. Under the proposed cost 
sharing formula, nonfederal interests 
would be required to contribute 
35 percent (up front) of the cost of a 
federally authorized flood control 
project,* and to assume 100 percent of 
the fish and wildlife enhancement costs 
and 50 percent of the recreation costs. 
Under this proposed cost sharing form- 
ula, assuming federal participation on 
19 islands and tracts in the Modified 
System Plan as shown on Figure 20, the 
cost allocation for the total project 
(1981 prices), as shown In Table A-29 of 
Appendix A, would be 37 percent 
($306 million) federal, 63 percent 
($523 million) non-Federal. 

Tables similar to Tables 29, 30, 34, 35, 
36, 37, 38, and 39, computed under the 
proposed cost sharing formula are pre- 
sented as the same table number preceded 
by the letter "A" in Appendix A. The 
differences In allocation between the 
traditional and proposed cost sharing 
can be compared between the correspond- 
ing tables. 



* The 35 percent share is assumed to be computed after all relocation betterment 
costs are allocated to the nonfederal participants. 



122 



Chapter 7. INCREMENTAL PLAN 



The Incremental Plan is based on the 
concept that each island in the Delta is 
independent of the others and that the 
flood control benefits for each island 
should exceed its flood control costs. 
This is the concept used by the Corps of 
Engineers to develop the selected Fed- 
eral plan that would raaxiraize net bene- 
fits, that is, maximize the differences 
between annual flood control benefits 
and annual flood control costs. 

Federally funded efforts to reclaim 
recently flooded islands have been 
justified, in part, on the theory that 
if one island is left flooded following 
a levee failure, the flood risk on 
adjoining islands increases (domino 
theory) because of greater wave action 
and increased seepage. If this is true, 
it reduces the feasibility of the Incre- 
mental Plan because the Corps assumed 
continued restoration of flooded islands 
and the Corps' cost estimates do not 
take into account the increased costs to 
combat the increased wave action and 
seepage progleras on adjacent islands. 
Nevertheless, the Corps of Engineers' 
draft feasibility report presents the 
Incremental Flood Control Plan as its 
selected plan for levee rehabilitation 
in the Delta. This federal plan, based 
on the without-project assumptions that 
the Peripheral Canal would be built and 
that islands would be reclained if 
flooded, would include 15 islands. 

Under the without-project assumptions of 
this bulletin that the Peripheral Canal 
would not be built but Islands would be 
reclaimed if flooded, levees on four 
additional tracts (Bouldin Island, 
Drexler Tract, Middle Roberts Island, 
and Upper Roberts Island) — for a total 
of 19 islands — would be economically 
feasible for restoration and would be 
included in a Federal plan. These 19 
islands are depicted by the shaded area 



on Figure 22, and are the islands 
considered in this chapter. 

Changing the Corps' other without- 
project assumption so that islands would 
not be reclaimed if flooded, restoration 
of levees would be economically justi- 
fied on nine additional tracts (Bishop, 
Canal Ranch, Holland, King, New Hope, 
Upper Orwood, Shin Kee, Veal, and 
Victoria). Under these assumptions, 
however, Bouldin Island would not be 
economically justified, which would 
provide a total of 27 islands in a 
Federal incremental flood control plan. 

If a Federal project is authorized, the 
ultimate number of islands and tracts 
that would receive flood control 
improvements would depend upon results 
of post-authorization studies including 
reevaluation of the assumed "without 
project conditions". 

The Incremental Plan discussed in this 
chapter also includes the same land use 
management, flood hazard mitigation 
program, and recreation features that 
were included in the Corps' Incremental 
Flood Control Plan that was presented in 
its draft feasibility report. 

The Incremental Plan would satisfy to a 
lesser extent than either the System 
Plan or the Modified System Plan, the 
intent of the Legislature to preserve 
the integrity of the Delta levee system 
(refer to Chapter 2 "Basis for Study"). 
But to some extent, the Incremental Plan 
would reduce flooding and reduce the 
periods of water quality impairment by 
reducing the frequency of salinity 
intrusion caused by island flooding. 
Like the System and Modified System 
Plans , this plan would provide needed 
public access and recreation facilities, 
and would preserve and enhance, essen- 
tially to the same extent, some of the 



123 



Delta's natural resources and scenic 
areas. 

As for the Islands and tracts that would 
not be included In the Incremental Plan, 
it was assumed that maintaining and 
upgrading these levees would be the 
responsibility of the respective 
maintaining agencies. If funds are 
appropriated by the Legislature, the 
State may assist these agencies through 
the Delta Levee Maiatenance Subventions 
Program (Way Bill), whereby the State 
reimburses local agencies for a portion 
of the cost to maintain and rehabilitate 
their levees. 

Should a levee failure occur on the 
excluded islands, they could be eligible 
for a federal restoration program being 
proposed by the Corps of Engineers in 
Its draft feasibility report. This 
Flood Hazard Mitigation Program, which 
would be for islands and tracts not 
included in a federal levee restoration 
program, involves financial assistance 
under Public Law 84-99. Financial 
assistance under Public Law 84-99, which 
is administered by the Corps of 
Engineers, is limited to supplementing 
local floodfight activities to save 
lives and prevent or mitigate property 
damage and to restoring flood 
preventative structures (but not 
reclamation structures, as nonproject 
levees in the Delta are now classified). 
Under the Flood Hazard Mitigation 
Program, application of Public Law 84-99 
authority for nonproject levees in the 
Delta would be proposed according to the 
following criteria: 

° Nonproject levees not authorized for 
Federal flood control improvements 
would be considered eligible for 
assistance if non-Federal interests 
improve and maintain the levees to a 
Federal standard. 

° Minimum levee standards would be as 
follows: 

- Where the levee protects only 
agricultural lands, the minimum 



levee crown elevation would equal 
the 50-year flood stage elevation 
plus a 1.5-foot minimum freeboard. 

- Where the levee provides protection 
to urban areas, the minimum eleva- 
tion of the levee crown would be 
based on the 100-year flood stage 
plus a 3.0-foot minimum freeboard. 

- The minimum levee section used in 
raising the existing levees should 
have a crown width of not less than 
12 feet and side slopes of 1 verti- 
cal on 2 horizontal, or flatter. 

- The levee crown would be required to 
have an all-weather surface for 
vehicular access and flood patrols. 

° Continuous maintenance and inspection 
of the levees would be required. The 
maintenance program would be pre- 
scribed by the Corps of Engineers. 

A discussion of allowing flooded islands 
to remain flooded is presented in 
Chapter 8. 



Flood Control Features 

Flood control features consist of levee 
rehabilitation, land use management, 
and fish and wildlife mitigation. The 
stage construction method of levee 
rehabilitation would be used on most of 
the islands. About 3-1/2 miles of sheet 
pile flood walls would be used on parts 
of Hotchkiss Tract to avoid relocation 
of existing urban development along the 
levees . Setback levees would be used to 
protect riparian habitat on Brack Tract. 
After rehabilitation, all 19 islands 
would have an expected frequency of 
failure of less than once in 100 years 
during the 50-year economic life of the 
project . 

Although the probability of flooding on 
all islands would be reduced to less 
than once in 100 years, the Department 
believes that most islands, especially 
those below sea level, would not be 



124 



FIGURE 22 




THE RESOURCES AGENCt 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

CENTRAL DISTRICT 

INCREMENTAL PLAN 

MILES 



125 



suitable for urbanization. This is 
because consequences of failure of a 
levee, possible even during the summer, 
would be too severe on urban popula- 
tions . 

Figure 23 shows the general locations of 
the various types of levee improvements. 
More specific locations are shown on 
Plates 2 through 31 (exclusive of 8, 9, 
12, 14, 15, 22, 23, 27, and 28) of the 
Plan Formulation Appendix of the Corps' 
draft feasibility report. 

Land use management would be a required 
feature of this plan to ensure that the 
natural and beneficial values of the 
flood plain are preserved. This feature 
would Include enactment and enforcement 
of zoning regulations that would prevent 
project-Induced urban growth on agricul- 
tural islands. Urban developments would 
be required to be consistent with city 
and county General Plans and the 
California Environmental Quality Act, 
and would be limited to areas Incapable 
of sustained economic agricultural 
production (refer to Chapter 4, "Land 
Use Planning and Regulation"). 



construction) and the annual operation 
and maintenance costs for flood control 
by Island and tract (1981 prices) and 
also the cost per mile of levee and cost 
per acre for each Island and tract. 
These costs per levee mile and per acre 
are a measure of the cost of providing 
flood control in the Delta. As shown in 
the table, the capital costs per mile of 
levee range from $4 million for Andrus- 
Brannan Island down to $835,000 for 
Hotchkiss Tract. The costs per acre of 
land range from $11,600 for Bouldln 
Island down to $1,200 for Roberts 
Island . 

After the levees are rehabilitated, the 
annual operation and maintenance costs 
range from about $7,500 per mile for 
Roberts Island down to about $3,400 per 
mile for most of the other islands. 

The estimated total capital cost for 
flood control, including the cost of 
fish and wildlife mitigation, is 
$448 million. The average cost per mile 
of levee rehabilitation is $2.2 million, 
or an average of about $3,500 per acre. 



Levee rehabilitation would result in a 
loss of riparian habitat, wetland veget- 
ation, and agricultural land. The U. S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that 
the most significant fish and wildlife 
impact would be the loss of scarce 
riparian habitat. Adverse impacts on 
the fishery would be minimal. It is 
estimated that about 810 acres of agri- 
cultural land would be purchased for 
mitigation of the adverse impacts 
resulting from construction of the 
Incremental Plan. As In the System and 
Modified System Plans, these lands would 
be small parcels of marginal agricul- 
tural land that would be allowed to 
develop into (nature riparian habitat 
through natural establishment and 
succession of plant species. 



Flood Control Costs 

Table 40 shows the summed capital costs 
(initial construction plus staged 



Recreation Features 

Recreation features, including costs and 
benefits allocated to recreation, would 
be the same as those used in the System 
and Modified System Plans. New recrea- 
tion features under all plans would be 
located on 45 sites in the study area, 
and would consist of 14 recreation 
areas, 23 fishing access sites, 8 boater 
destination sites, and 145 miles of 
trails. Figure 18 (Chapter 5) shows the 
types and locations of the recreation 
features. 

Relatively few of the recreation facili- 
ties are located on islands and tracts 
that qualify for levee rehabilitation 
under the Incremental Plan. However, 
the majority of these sites could be 
developed Independent of levee rehabili- 
tation and are needed to provide for the 
existing recreation demand in the Delta. 
The recreation features are considered 
to be consistent with the work, proposed 



126 



FIGURE 23 




-t) 

LEGEND 

— STAGE CONSTRUCTION 
— -BERM 

^^^ SETBACK LEVEE 

— SHEET PILING 

• • -EROSION PROTECTION 

— PROJECT LEVEES 



THE RESOURCES AGENCT 
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

CENTRAL DISTRICT 

INCREMENTAL PLAN LEVEES 

MILES 



127 



Table 40 



INCREMENTAL PLAN 
SUMMED CAPITAL COSTS AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL, BY ISLAND OR TRACT 



(In Dollars, At 1981 Prices) 



Per 
Acre 









Capital Cost* 






Per HHe 


Island or Tract 




Total 


of Levee 


Andrus-Srannan 


40,695,000 


4.029.000 


Bacon 




29,044.000 


2.031.000 


Bouldin 




69.885.000 


3.883.000 


Brack 




20,392.000 


1.888.000 


Drexler 




17,094,000 


1,921.000 


Empire 




15,392.000 


1.494.000 


Hotchkiss 




7.015.000 


835.000 


Jones, Lower/Upper 




28,978,000 


1.628,000 


Mandeville 




27,218.000 


1.903.000 


McDonald 




28.295,000 


2.065,000 


Rindge 




20,989.000 


1,337.000 


Roberts, Lower/Middle 


/Upper 


39,516,000 


1,703,000 


Terminous 




48,096.000 


2.987.000 


Tyler 




22.904.000 


2,141.000 


Mebb 




30.439.000 


2.378,000 


Subtotal 


445.952.000 




Fish and Wildlife Mitigation 


2,482,000 




Total 




448,434.000 




Average 






2.174.000 


Average Computed With 


Mitigation 




2,186,000 



3,452 
3,471 



Annual Operations and Maintenance 
Per Mile Per 
Total of Levee Acre 



2,712 


34,000 


5.237 


49.000 


11.557 


61.000 


4.185 


38.000 


5.401 


31,000 


4,132 


35,000 


2,089 


54.000 


2.384 


61.000 


5,196 


62.000 


4.605 


46,000 


3.067 


53.000 


1,214 


174.000 


4,594 


56.000 


2,669 


41,000 


5,544 


43.000 




838,000 



838,000 



3.366 
3.427 
3,389 
3,519 
3,483 

3.398 
6.429 
3,427 
4,336 
3.358 

3,376 
7,500 
3.478 
3,832 
3.359 



4.086 
4,086 



2 
9 

10 
8 

10 

9 
16 

5 
12 

7 

8 
5 
5 
5 
8 



* Based on stage construction method (added cost for levee setback included in fish and wildlife enhancement costs). 



under the Incremental Plan and fall 
within the Federal guidelines for 
recreation in conjunction with a flood 
control project. As with the flood 
control features, the location and 
extent of recreation facilities would 
depend on the results of post- 
authorization studies. Including 
reevaluatlon of the compatibility of the 
recreation facilities with the flood 
risk and other factors of a specific 
Island. 

For a farther discussion of these 
recreation features and an expansion of 
the discussion on costs and benefits 
presented below, refer to Chapter 5. 



Recreation Costs 

Table 13, in Chapter 5, lists the recre- 
ation facilities, the first cost, and 



the annual operation and maintenance 
cost of each facility (1981 prices). 
The first cost includes the cost of con- 
structing the recreation facilities and 
the cost of lands, easements, and rights 
of way, plus associated engineering, 
design, construction supervision, and 
administration. The table also lists 
the first cost associated with the trail 
system. The total first cost for the 
recreation features (45 recreation sites 
and the trail system) amounts to 
$40 million (1981 prices). The equiva- 
lent annual cost, based on a 7-5/8 per- 
cent Interest rate and a 50-year project 
economic life, would be $3 million. 
Annual operation and maintenance cost 
associated with the recreation features 
amounts to $966,000, which translates to 
about 40 cents per recreation day. The 
total equivalent annual cost, including 
operation and maintenance, amounts to 
$4 million. 



128 



Recreation Benefits 

Recreation benefits were computed by the 
Corps of Engineers in accordance with 
the Water Resources Council's National 
Economic Development Evaluation Proce- 
dures, using the travel/cost method. 
The equivalent annual benefits for 
recreation use, based on a 7-5/8 percent 
interest rate and a 50-year project 
economic life, were estimated at 
$21 million. This value includes 
recreation benefits attributable to the 
fish and wildlife management area. The 
equivalent annual benefits attributed to 
general recreation only amount to 
$13 million, which provides a benefit/ 
cost ratio of 3.3 to 1.0. 



Fish and Wildlife 
Enhancement Features 

Fish and wildlife enhancement features 
include acquiring public interest in 
lands to preserve and enhance their 
natural resources and scenic values. 
These environmental features would be 
the same as those discussed In the 
System and Modified System Plans, except 
the setback levees on Canal Ranch, 
McCormack-Williamson, and New Hope were 
excluded as enhancement features . 
Setback levees could be considered as 
mitigation but, for compatibility with 
the Corps report, levee setbacks have 
been treated as enhancement in this 
bulletin. Excluding these setback 
levees. Figure 19 (Chapter 5) shows the 
locations of enhancement features. 

Specifically, the acquired lands would 
provide a diversity of terrain, includ- 
ing about 1,000 acres of significant 
upland and riparian habitat, about 
1,500 acres of channel tule islands with 
valuable riparian habitat and freshwater 
marshes, and about 3,500 acres of highly 
diversified habitat set aside for wild- 
life management areas on Little Mande- 
ville, Medford, Mildred, Quiinby, and 
Rhode Islands. For further discussion 
of these fish and wildlife enhancement 
features and an expansion on the 



discussion of costs and benefits 
presented below, refer to Chapter 5. 

Fish and Wildlife 
Enhancement Costs 

First and annual costs for fish and 
wildlife enhancement features (1981 
prices) are shown in Table 14 
(Chapter 5). The first cost of the 
enhancement areas amounts to about 
$7 million. The cost to repair the 
levees around the wildlife management 
areas was estimated at $32 million, and 
the cost of the lands was estimated at 
$9 million, for a total first cost of 
$41 million for the wildlife management 
areas. The increased construction cost 
for setback levees would be decreased to 
$425,000 because setback levees would be 
included only on Brack Tract, making a 
total first cost for the fish and 
wildlife enhancement features of about 
$49 million instead of nearly $57 mil- 
lion. (The Corps of Engineers considers 
the cost increase resulting from using 
setback levees instead of the stage 
construction method to be enhancement. 
The Department considers at least part 
of these costs to be costs to avoid 
mitigation. This difference in cost 
classification would be resolved during 
post-authorization studies.) 



Fish and Wildlife 
Enhancement Benefits 



The tangible monetary benefits were 
based primarily on the percentage of 
total recreation benefits associated 
with fish and wildlife activities. This 
was determined to be 37 percent of the 
total annual recreation benefits of 
$21 million, and provided the annual 
benefits of $8 million assigned to the 
fish and wildlife enhancement areas. 
Additional fish and wildlife benefits 
based on waterfowl factors were 
estimated to be at least $322,000. A 
monetary value was not assigned to the 
riparian vegetation saved by setback 
levees. Therefore, the total annual 



129 



fish and wildlife enhancement benefits, 
estimated at $8 million, did not change 



Economics of the 
Incremental Plan 

The first cost for initial and stage 
construction of this plan includes costs 
for levee construction, acquisition of 
lands, easements, and rights of way, 
relocation of existing facilities, 
construction of recreation features, 
providing fish and wildlife mitigation 
and enhancement features, and the 
related engineering, design, construc- 
tion supervision, and administration. 
The annual costs include amortization of 
the first costs and the annual operation 
and maintenance costs for the levees, 
recreation facilities, and wildlife 
areas . 

The annual benefits include reduction of 
physical flood losses, reduction of 
floodfight costs, water quality and 
water supply benefits, recreation bene- 
fits from increased recreation use, and 
fish and wildlife benefits from reduced 
waterfowl losses, contributions to the 
National Migratory Bird Conservation 
Program, reduced crop depredation, and 
new hunting and visitation access on the 
proposed wildlife management areas. 

As shown on Table 41, the plan has an 
estimated cost of about $537 million at 
1981 prices. If these prices were esca- 
lated at 6 percent, the plan would cost 
about $1.8 billion. The plan has an 
overall benefit/cost ratio of 1.9 to 1. 
For purposes of comparison, figures both 
with and without the Peripheral Canal 
have been shown. The figures in the 
columns under "With Peripheral Canal" 
were taken from the Corps of Engineers' 
draft feasibility report dated October 
1982. The figures in the columns under 
"Without Peripheral Canal" were based on 
the same basic assumptions used by the 
Corps. Changing to the "Without 
Peripheral Canal" assumption increases 
both the costs and benefits of the plan. 



As Indicated in this table, the summed 
first cost (initial construction plus 
staged construction) without the 
Peripheral Canal is $122 million greater 
than with the Peripheral Canal; the 
corresponding annual cost is 
$7.7 million greater. 

The annual benefits increased by 
$13.7 million. The overall benefit/cost 
ratio of 1.9 for the Incremental Plan 
did not change . 

As stated in Chapter A, there is 
considerable logic in support of the 
non-restoration assumption, as well as 
the without Peripheral Canal assumption 
for computing the benefits of the plan. 
According to the Corps' sensitivity 
analysis, the combination of these 
assumptions would result in an overall 
benefit /cost ratio of 2.3 for the 
Incremental Plan and of 2.2 and for the 
flood control features of the plan. 

For compatibility with the Corps' 
report, the assumptions for this report 
are based on the following: 

° Federal interest in participating in 
flood control improvements in the 
Delta would be limited to those 
locations where the improvements are 
economically justified. (Authoriza- 
tion of the federal Incremental Flood 
Control Plan would make this official 
policy.) 

° Islands will be reclaimed after levee 
breaks . 

On this basis, the federally authorized 
project would Include levee improvements 
on all 19 islands in the Incremental 
Plan and also recreation and fish and 
wildlife enhancement features. (The 
ultimate number of islands and tracts 
that would receive flood control 
improvements under a Federal program 
would depend on results of post- 
authorization studies, including reeval- 
uation of the assumed wlthout-project 
conditions .) 



130 



Table 41 



ECONOMIC SUmARY. INCREMENTAL PLAN 










(At 1981 Prices and a 7-5/8 Percent Discount Rate 


, Under 1990-2040 Project Conditions) 






FIRST COST* 


With Peripheral Canal 




Without Perl 


pheral Canal 


Subtotals 




Totals 


Subtotals 




Totals 










Flood Control and Water Quality** 




$ 


326,000.000 






$ 


448,000,000 


Initial Construction*** 
Stage Construction 


$225,000,000 
101,000,000 








$308,000,000 
140.000.000 






Recreation 






40,000,000 








40,000.000 


Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 




_ 


49,000,000 








49,000,000 


TOTAL FIRST COST 




$ 


415,000,000 






$ 


537,000,000 


ANNUAL COST 
















Flood Control and Water Quality 




$ 


20,900,000 






$ 


28,600.000 


Interest and Amortization 
Operation and Maintenance 


$ 20,300,000 
600.000 








$ 27.800.000 
800.000 






Recreation 






4,000.000 








4.000.000 


Interest and Amortization 
Operation and Maintenance 


$ 3.000.000 
1,000,000 








$ 3,000,000 
1,000,000 






Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 






3.200.000 








3,200.000 


Interest and Amortization 
Operation and Maintenance 

TOTAL ANNUAL COST 


$ 2,900,000 
300,000 








$ 2,900,000 
300,000 






$ 


28.100.000 


$ 


35.800.000 


ANNUAL BENEFITS 
















Flood Control and Water Quality 

Recreation 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 




S 


32,600.000 

13.100.000 

8.100,000 






$ 


46.300.000 

13.100.000 

8,100,000 


TOTAL ANNUAL BENEFITS 




S 


53.800.000 






S 


67.500,000 


BENEFIT-COST RATIOS 












, 




Flood Control and Water Quality 

Recreation 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 






1.6:1 
3.3:1 
2.5:1 








1.6:1 
3.3:1 
2.5:1 


TOTAL PROJEa BENEFIT-COST RATIO 






. 1.9:1 








1.9:1 


NET BENEFITS (Excess of Benefits Over Costs) 




$ 


25.700,000 






$ 


31,700,000 


* Rounded to nearest $1 million. 

** The draft Corps report excludes Reclamati 

Stewart Tract because both are protected 
*** Includes $2,000,000 in fish and wildlife 

$2,500,000 under without Peripheral Canal 


on District 17; this bulletin excludes both Reclamation District 
exclusively by project levees. 

mitigation costs under with Peripheral Canal assumption, and 
assumption. 


17 and 





131 



Table 42 shows the summed capital costs 
(1981 prices) allocated between Federal 
and non-Federal participants under the 
traditional cost sharing method used in 
the Corps of Engineers' draft feasibil- 
ity report. The Federal Government 
would pay $407 million of the flood 
control costs and also $20 million of 

Table 42 



INC 

ALLOCATION C 

TRAD IT 

(In Thousands 
Item 


REMENTAL PLAN 
)F SUMMED CAPITAL COST 
ONAL COST SHARING 

of Dollars. 1981 Prici 

Project Federal 
Total Allocation 

s lands and Tracts 


Nonfederal 
Allocation 


Flood Control, 
Federal Participation 


300 

24,200 
8,100 
8,600 

41,200 
9X 

20,000 
50« 

12,200 
25« 


Construction 
Mitigation 
Lands, Easements, 

Rights of Way 
Relocations 
Relocation Betterments 

Total Flood Control 

Percent 

Recreation and Fish anc 


405,000 
2,500 

24,200 
8,100 
8,600 

448,400 
100« 

Wildlife 


405,000 
2,200 


407,200 
91X 

Enhancement 


Recreation 

Percent 

Fish and Wildlife 
Enhancement 

Percent 

PROJECT TOTALS 

PERCENT 


40,000 
lOOX 

49,000 
lOOX 


20,000 
50!t 

36,800 
75X 


537,400 
lOOX 


464,000 
86X 


73,400 
14X 



costs allocated to recreation and 
$37 million of fish and wildlife 
enhancement costs. Non-Federal partici- 
pants would pay $41 million for lands, 
easements, rights of way, relocations, 
and relocation betterments, $20 million 
for recreation facilities, and $12 mil- 
lion for fish and wildlife enhancement. 
For the total project, the Federal 
Government would be responsible for 
86 percent of the total capital costs 
and the non-Federal interests would be 
allocated 14 percent. 

The Federal Government is proposing to 
increase the up-front cost sharing 
required from non-Federal sources. 
Comparable cost figures for this 
proposed formula, contained in 
Appendix A, show that the Federal share 
would be reduced from 86 percent to 
57 percent, as shown on Table A-42. 

Table 43 shows the traditional alloca- 
tion of the summed capital costs to 
Federal, State, counties, islands and 
tracts, and to water projects and water 
users, in 1981 prices and in costs 
escalated at 6 percent and 9 percent to 
the time of construction. Table A-43, 
in Appendix A, shows the same informa- 
tion for the proposec cost sharing. 
Of the non-Federal flood control costs, 
59 percent was allocated to the State, 
38 percent to the islands and tracts, 
and 3 percent to the water projects and 
local users. The costs of recreation 



































Table 


43 








INCREMENTAL PLAN 

ALLOCATION Of ESCALATED SUMMED CAPITAL COSTS, BT PARTICIPANT 

TRADITIONAL COST SHARING 


























(In Millions of 


Dollars) 


















Purpose 


Federal Total 














Non 


-Federal 


















Total 






State 






County 




Islands/Tract! 
lidl Escalati 
Prices M 

15 29 
37 38 


on 

41 
39 


Water Projects/Users 

IMl Escalation 

Prices 6i « 

1 2 2 
3 3 2 


I$6I 
Prices 

407 


Escalation 
1,457 3,576 


Prices 

41 
100 


Escalation 
» » 

77 105 
100 100 


1981 
Prices 

25 
60 


Escalation 
ti » 

46 62 
59 59 


I9A1 
Prices 


Escalation 
Si M 


Flood Control 
Percent 


Recreation 
Percent 


20 


38 51 


20 
100 


38 
100 


51 
100 


10 
50 


19 
50 


26 

50 


10 
50 


19 
SO 


25 
SO 


- 


. 


_ 


- 


: 


: 


Fish/Wildlife 
Enhancement 
Percent 


37 


130 ■ 311 


12 
100 


44 
100 


104 
100 


6 
50 


22 
50 


52 
50 


6 

50 


22 
50 


52 
50 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


TOTAL 
Percent 


464 


1.625 3,938 


73 
100 


159 
100 


260 
100 


41 
56 


87 
54 


140 
54 


16 
22 


41 
26 


77 
30 


15 
21 


29 
19 


41 
16 


1 
1 


2 

1 


2 





132 



and fish and wildlife enhancement were 
divided equally between the State and 
the counties. Overall, the State was 
assigned 55 percent of the total cost of 
the project. 



Construction Schedule 
and Expenditures 

Before a levee rehabilitation project 
can be initiated, six steps are 
required: 

° Federal and State authorization of a 
project must be obtained. 

° Advanced planning and an environmental 
impact report must be completed. 

° Design and specifications for the work 
must be completed. 

° Funds must be available for financing 
the work. 

° Contracts detailing repayment obliga- 
tions must be signed between the State 
and the local levee maintaining agen- 
cies . 



Contracts must be signed to provide 
for construction, operation, and 
maintenance. 

Considering these steps, it is estimated 
that the earliest date for beginning 
construction would be 1989. Assuming 
maximum annual construction contract 
amounts in the $70 million range (1981 
prices) to reflect the availability of 
construction equipment and the logistics 
associated with construction, the 
initial construction period would extend 
over a 6-year period. The construction 
schedule was developed on the basis of 
repairing the levees with the estimated 
highest frequency of failure rate first, 
frequency of failure rate first. The 
initial construction for each island 
would be completed within a 2-year 
period. Following the initial construc- 
tion, areas where settlement or other 
major problems that are considered 
beyond the normal maintenance work 
performed by local levee maintaining 
agencies will be corrected as part of 
the levee restoration project. The 
construction schedule and expenditures 
for the total project based on 1981 
prices, are shown on Table 44. 



















Table 44 


SCHEDULE OF TOTAL 


PROJECT 


COSTS, INCREMENTAL PLAN 








(In Thousands 


of Ooll 


ars, 1981 Prices 


) 




















Future 




Island or Tract 


1989 

20,576 


1990 

20,576 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


Stage 

28,733 


Total 


Bouldin 


69.885 


Terminous 


13,937 


13,937 


-. 


-- 


— 


1,410 


18,813 


48,096 


Empire 


5.170 


5,170 





.. 





340 


4,713 


15,392 


Brack 


9,083 


9,083 


-- 


-- 


-- 


.. 


2,227 


20,392 


Mandevil 1e 


8.676 


8,676 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


9,867 


27,218 


McDonald 


-- 


— 


8.252 


8.252 


-- 





11,791 


28,295 


Rindge 


~ 


-- 


9,333 


9.333 


— 


-- 


2,324 


20,989 


Webb 


— 


.. 


7.909 


7,909 


.- 


-. 


14,621 


30,439 


Roberts, 


















Lower/Middle/Upper 


— 


— 


19,573 


19,573 


370 





.« 


39,516 


Drexler 


— 


— 


3,846 


3,846 


-- 


-. 


9,402 


17.094 


Jones, Lower/Upper 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


12.451 


12.451 


4.076 


28.978 


Bacon 


— 


-- 


-- 


— 


8,704 


8.704 


11.636 


29,044 


Andrus-Brannan 


— 


— 


— 


.- 


11,279 


11.279 


18.137 


40,695 


Tyler 


— 


— 


— 


— 


10,337 


10.337 


2.231 


22,904 


Hotchkiss 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


3.508 


3.508 


-- 


7,015 


Flood Control Subtotal 


57,440 


57,440 


48.913 


48,913 


46.648 


48.028 


138.571 


445,952 


Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 


420 


420 


450 


450 


371 


371 




2,482 


Flood Control Total 


57,860 


57,860 


49.362 


49.362 


47.019 


48.399 


138,571 


448.434 


Recreation 


6,070 


6,070 


7,051 


7,051 


7.162 


7,162 


._ 


40.566 


Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 5,039 


5,039 


5.346 


5,346 


5.691 


5.691 


16.525 


48.677 


Project Total 


68,969 


68.969 


61.759 


61,759 


59.872 


61.252 


155.096 


537,677 



133 



Recognizing that construction probably 
will not begin until 1989 and that 
prices will escalate during the interim 
(as well as after construction begins), 
an evaluation was made to ascertain the 
effect of price escalation on project 
costs. Table 45 presents the cost 
Information of Table 44 escalated at a 
rate of 6 percent. As a result of this 



escalation rate, capital costs during 
the Initial construction period (1989 
through 1994) would Increase by about 
$300 million and costs for stage con- 
struction after year 1994 would Increase 
by over $900 million. The total project 
costs associated with the 6 percent 
escalation rate amount to about 
$1.8 billion. 



Table 45 


















SCHEDULE OF TOTAL 


PROJECT COSTS, INCREMENTAL PLAN 










6 PERCENT ESCALATION RATE 












(In Thousands 


of Dollars) 






















Future 




Island or Tract 


1989 
32,795 


1990 

34,763 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


Stage 

187,144 


Total 


Bouldin 


254,702 


Terminous 


22,213 


23,545 


-- 


— 


-- 


3,007 


146,805 


195,571 


Empire 


8,239 


8,734 


-- 


-- 


-- 


725 


23,699 


41.398 


Brack 


14,476 


15,345 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


5,997 


35,818 


Mandeville 


13,827 


14,657 


— 


— 


— 


— 


77,561 


106,045 


McDonald 


._ 


_^ 


14,778 


15,665 


_. 


._ 


79,757 


110,200 


Rindge 


.- 


— 


16,713 


17,716 


-- 


-- 


28,585 


63.014 


Webb 


-. 


— 


14,164 


15,014 


-- 


-- 


124,592 


153,769 


Roberts, 


















Lower/Middle/Upper 


~ 


— 


35,052 


37,155 


745 


— 


-- 


72,952 


Drexler 


— 


— 


6,888 


7,301 


— 


— 


58,578 


72,766 


Jones, Lower/Upper 


.. 


.. 


««. 


.. 


25,054 


26,557 


24,815 


76,426 


Bacon 


-. 


-- 


— 


-> 


17,514 


18,565 


59,890 


95,969 


Andrus-Brannan 


— 


-- 


-- 


-. 


22,696 


24,057 


131,741 


178,494 


Tyler 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


20,799 


22,047 


15,261 


58,107 


Hotchkiss 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


7,058 


7,481 


-- 


14,539 


Flood Control Subtotal 


91,551 


97,044 


87,595 


92,851 


93,865 


102,440 


964,426 


1.529.771 


Fish/Wildlife Mitigatior 


670 


710 


805 


853 


746 


791 


-- 


4,576 


Flood Control Total 


92,221 


97,754 


88,400 


93,704 


94,611 


103,231 


964,426 


1,534,347 


Recreation 


9,675 


10,255 


12,627 


13,385 


14,411 


15,276 


-- 


75,629 


Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 8,031 


8,513 


9,574 


10,148 


11,451 


12,138 


113,345 


173,201 


Project Total 


109.927 


116,522 


110,601 


117,237 


120,474 


130,646 


1,077,771 


1,783,178 





134 



To further evaluate the sensitivity of 
price escalation on project costs, an 
analysis was made of the effect of a 
9 percent rate of escalation. Table 46 
presents the cost information of 
Table 44 escalated at a rate of 9 per- 
cent. The total project costs assoc- 
iated with the 9 percent escalation rate 
amount to about $4.2 billion. 



The total difference between the 6 per- 
cent and 9 percent rates of escalation 
amounts to over $2.4 billion during the 
50-year life of the project. 

Cost allocation by the traditional 
method of cost sharing was previously 
discussed. The following discussion 
addresses the non-Federal portion of the 

Table 46 



SCHEDULE OF TOTAL PROJECT COSTS. INCREMENTAL PLAN 










9 PERCENT ESCALATION RATE 












(In Thousands of Dollars) 






















Future 


• 


Island or Tract 


1989 
40,999 


1990 

44,689 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


Stage 

533,392 


Total 


Bouldin 


619,080 


Term i nous 


27,769 


30,269 


— 


— 


-- 


4,323 


462,052 


524,413 


Empire 


10,301 


11,228 


— 


-- 


-- 


1,042 


54,073 


76,643 


Brack 


18,097 


19,726 


— 


-- 


— 


-- 


9,638 


47,461 


Mandeville 


17,286 


18,842 


— 


— 


— 


— 


256,897 


293.025 


McDonald 


.. 


_^ 


19,535 


21,294 


^. 


_. 


236,851 


277.680 


Rindge 


— 


~ 


22,093 


24,082 


— 


— 


108,489 


154,664 


Webb 


— 


— 


18,723 


20,409 


-- 


-- 


438,129 


477,261 


Roberts, 


















.Lower/Middle/Upper 


— 


— 


46,336 


50,507 


1,041 


— 


-- 


97.884 


Orexler 


— 


— 


9,105 


9,924 


— 


— 


167,178 


186.207 


Jones, Lower /Upper 


__ 


__ 


.. 


.. 


35,020 


38,172 


58,946 


132.139 


Bacon 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


24,481 


26,685 


143,562 


194.728 


Andrus-Brannan 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-> 


31,724 


34,579 


407,963 


474.267 


Tyler 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


29,073 


31,690 


38,333 


99.096 


Hotchkiss 


-- 


— 


-- 


-- 


9,865 


10,753 


-- 


20.619 


Flood Control Subtotal 


114,453 


124,754 


115,794 


126,215 


131.205 


147,244 


2,915.503 


3.675.168 


Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 


838 


913 


1,064 


1,160 


1,043 


1,137 


-- 


6.155 


Flood Control Total 


115,291 


125,667 


116,858 


127,375 


132,248 


148,381 


2,915,503 


3.681,324 


Recreation 


12,095 


13,183 


16,692 


18,195 


20,144 


21,957 


" 


102,267 


Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 


10,041 


10,944 


12,656 


13,795 


16,007 


17,447 


333,646 


414,536 


Project Total 


137,426 


149,794 


146,206 


159,365 


168,399 


187,786 


3.249.150 


4,198,126 


1 



135 



capital costs of the Incremental Plan. 
Table 47 shows the construction schedule 
and non-Federal costs portion of the 
plan, In 1981 prices. The total aon- 
Federal capital costs during the Initial 



construction period (1989 through 1994) 
would amount to about $73 million. The 
future stage construction was considered 
to be a Federal cost, consisting of 
costs for construction. 



Table 47 



SCHEDULE 


OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS, INCREMENTAL 


PLAN 










TRADITIONAL COST SHARING 










(In Thousands of Doll 


irs. 1981 


Prices) 






















Future 




Island or Tract 


1989 
1,102 


1990 
1,102 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


Stage 


Total 


Bouldin 


2,203 


Terminous 


1,665 


1,665 


-- 


-. 


-- 


-. 


-- 


3,330 


Empire 


966 


966 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


1,931 


Brack 


478 


478 


.- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


956 


Mandeville 


547 


547 


— 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


1,093 


McDonald 


«aa ■ 


^. 


530 


530 


._ 


_^ 


. . 


1,060 


Rindge 


— 


-- 


1,036 


1,036 


-- 


-- 


-- 


2,072 


Webb 


— 


-- 


461 


461 


-- 


-- 


-- 


921 


Roberts, 


















Lower /Midd le/Upper 


— 


— 


3,882 


3,882 


— 


-- 


-. 


7,763 


Drexler 


— 


-- 


492 


492 


-- 


— 


-- 


984 


Jones, Lower/Upper 


• • 


.« 


.. 


__ 


1,892 


1,892 


__ 


3,783 


Bacon 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


1,258 


1,258 


-- 


2,515 


Andrus-Brannan 


-. 


-- 


-- 


.- 


4,423 


4,423 





8,846 


Tyler 


— 


-- 


— 


-- 


1,340 


1,340 


-- 


2,679 


Hotchkiss 


"~ 


-- 


-- 


-- 


97 


97 


-- 


194 


Flood Control Subtotal 


4,757 


4,757 


6,400 


6,400 


9,009 


9,009 




40,330 


Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 


48 


48 


51 


51 


42 


42 


-- 


283 


Flood Control Total 


4,804 


4,804 


6,451 


6,451 


9,051 


9,051 


— 


40,613 


Recreation 


3,035 


3,035 


3,526 


3,526 


3,581 


3,581 


-- 


20,283 


Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 


1,260 


1,260 


1,337 


1,337 


1,423 


1,423 


— 


12,169 


Project Total 


9,099 


9,099 


11,313 


11,313 


14,055 


14,055 


-- 


73,065 


1 



136 



Table 48 shows the nonfederal costs 
escalated at a rate of 6 percent. 
Compared to the 1981 prices the effect 
of a 6 percent escalation rate would 



Increase non-Federal costs by $85 mil- 
lion, for a tot£il project cost of about 
$158 million. 



Table 48 



• 


SCHEDULE OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS. INCREMENTAL PLAN 
TRADITIONAL COST SHARING 
6 PERCENT ESCALATION RATE 
(In Thousands of Dollars) 






Island or Tract 


1989 

1,756 

2,654 

1,539 

762 

871 


1990 

1,861 

2,813 

1,631 

808 

923 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


Future 
Stage 


Total 


Bouldin 

Terminous 

Empire 

Brack 

Mandeville 


3,617 
5,467 
3,170 
1,569 
1,794 


McDonald 
Rindge 
Webb 
Roberts, 

Lower/Middle/Upper 
Drexler 


— 


— 


949 

1,855 

825 

6.951 
881 


1,006 

1,967 

874 

7,368 
934 


— 


— 


— 


1,955 
3,822 
1,699 

14,319 
1,815 


Jones, Lower/Upper 

Bacon 

Andrus-Brannan 

Tyler 

Hotchkiss 


— 


— 


— 


— 


3,806 
2,530 
8,900 
2,695 
195 


4,034 
2,682 
9,434 
2,857 
207 


— 


7,841 

5,212 

18,334 

5,552 

402 


Flood Control Subtotal 
Fish/Wildlife M1tigati( 


7,581 
)n 76 


8,036 
81 


11,461 
92 


12,149 
97 


18,127 
85 


19,214 
90 


— 


76,569 
522 


Flood Control Total 


7,658 


8,117 


11,553 


12,246 


18,212 


19,305 


— 


77,091 


Recreation 


4,837 


5,128 


6,314 


6,692 


7,206 


7,638 


-- 


37,815 


Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 2,008 


2,128 


2.393 


2,537 


2,863 


3,035 


— 


43,300 


Project Total 


14,503 


15,373 


20,260 


21,476 


28,280 


29,977 


— 


158,206 


1 



137 



Table 49 shows the non-Federal costs 
escalated at a rate of 9 percent. 
Compared to the 1981 prices, the total 
project costs associated with the 
9 percent escalation rate amount to 
$260 million. 

Tables A-47, A-48, and A-49 in Appen- 
dix A show the schedule of non-Federal 
costs of the Incremental Plan, in 1981 
prices, escalated prices at 6 percent, 
and escalated prices at 9 percent, 
respectively, computed by the cost 
sharing formula proposed by the Reagan 
Administration. 

Table 49 



Project Financing 

The allocation of the escalated capital 
costs to the traditional non-Federal 
participants shown in Table 43 were used 
to calculate the total amount of the 
bonds that would have to be authorized 
for State issue and the bond repayment 
obligation of each of the project parti- 
cipants. Two sets of financial market 
rate assumptions were used for these 
analyses (see Chapter 4 for a full dis- 
cussion of the financial assumptions): 



SCHEDULE 


OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS, INCREMENTAL PLAN 










TRADITIONAL COST SHARING 












9 PERCENT ESCALATION RATE 












(In Thousands 


of Dollars) 






















Future 




Island or Tract 


1989 

2,195 


1990 
2,392 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


Stage 


Total 


Bouldin 


4,587 


Terminous 


3,318 


3,616 


-- 


-- 


-- 


.- 


-_ 


6,934 


Empire 


1,924 


2,097 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


4,021 


Brack 


952 


1,038 


-. 


.. 


__ 


• _ 


_. 


1,991 


Mandeville 


1,089 


1,187 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


— 


2,276 


McDonald 


.. 


.. 


1,255 


1,368 


__ 


_ _ 


_^ 


2,622 


Rindge 


— 


— 


2,453 


2,673 


-- 


.- 


• • 


5,126 


Webb 


-> 


— 


1,090 


1,188 


-- 


-- 


.. 


2,278 


Roberts, 


















Lower /Middle/Upper 


— 


-- 


9,189 


10,016 


„ 


-- 


• _ 


19,205 


Drexler 


— 


-- 


1,165 


1,270 


— 




-- 


2,434 


Jones, Lower/Upper 


__ 


__ 


• _ 


•_ 


5,320 


5,799 


^_ 


11,119 


Bacon 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


3,537 


3,855 


-- 


7,392 


Andrus-Brannan 


— 


-- 


— 


-- 


12,440 


13,560 


-- 


26,000 


Tyler 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


3,768 


4,107 


-_ 


7,874 


Hotchkiss 


"* 


"" 


-- 


-- 


273 


297 


— 


570 


Flood Control Subtotal 


9,478 


10,331 


15,151 


16,515 


25,338 


27,618 




104,430 


Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 


96 


104 


121 


132 


119 


130 


-- 


702 


Flood Control Total 


9,573 


10,435 


15,272 


16,647 


25,457 


27,748 


" 


105,132 


Recreation 


6,047 


6,592 


8,346 


9,097 


10,072 


10,979 


— 


51,133 


Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 2,510 


2,736 


3,164 


3,449 


4,002 


4,362 


— 


103,634 


Project Total 


18,131 


19,762 


26,783 


29,193 


39,531 


43,088 


-- 


259,899 



138 



As sump- Assump- 
tion 1 tion 2 



6% 


9% 


9% 


12% 


8% 


10.5% 



Cost Escalation Rate 
Bond Interest Rate 
Sinking Fund Rate 



Table 50 shows the allocation of finan- 
cial costs of the non-Federal share of 
the project among beneficiaries for both 
sets of assumptions. This allocation 
was made in accordance with the 
discussion of cost sharing principles in 
Chapter 4. Table A-50 shows the same 
information computed by the proposed 
cost sharing formula. 

The effect of the change in the escala- 
tion rate assumption on the allocation 
of flood control costs results from the 
variation in the State's share of each 
component of the flood control cost in 
conjunction with the fact that future 
stage costs are associated with only the 
construction cost component; that is, 
this component is disproportionately 
affected by escalation. 

Tables 51 and 52 show the suballocation 
to individual islands and tracts of the 



financial obligation allocated to the 
islands/tracts category in Table 50. 
This suballocation was made using the 
assumptions discussed in Chapter 4 
(Assumptions for Traditional Cost Shar- 
ing Analysis). The suballocation was 
made using the annual repayment equiva- 
lent of the total bond repayment obliga- 
tion shown in Table 50. Annual unit 
repayment values by levee mile and acre 
are provided, as well as the portion of 
operation and maintenance costs allo- 
cated to each island and tract . The 
operation and maintenance costs are 
escalated to the price level expected in 
1989, the year of the start of construc- 
tion. 

To facilitate the comparison of the 
relative obligations of each of the 
islands and tracts, a 1988 bond sale 
equivalent capital cost repayment obli- 
gation is presented in Tables 51 and 52. 
These figures assume that construction 
on all islands and tracts would be 
initiated in 1989 and that bond repay- 
ment for all islands and tracts would 
begin on that same date. This was a 
necessary assumption for comparison pur- 
poses because the figures in the first 



Table 50 







INCREMENTAL PLAN 
ALLOCATION OF REPAYMENT OBLIGATION - TRADITIONAL 


COST SHARING 














(In Mini 


ons of Dollj 


irs) 










Purpose 


Total* 


State 


County 
fiX/« 9i/l» 


Islands/Tracts* 

W75X — mm 

31 44 
39 39 


Hater Projects 
and Hater Users 
6im 9X/12K 

2 3 
2 2 


**6«/9« 

82 
100 


9X/ia 

113 
100 


49 
59 


9«/l» 

66 
59 


Flood Control 
Percent 


Recreation 
Percent 


40 
100 


54 

Too 


20 
50 


27 
50 


20 
50 


27 
SO 


-. 


.. 


— 


-- 


Fish/Wildlife 
Enhancement 
Percent 


26 
100 


40 
100 


13 
50 


20 
50 


. 13 
50 


20 
50 


— 


^_ 


— 


._ 


TOTAL PROJECT 
Percent 


147 
100 


207 
100 


81 
55 


113 
55 


33 

23 


47 
23 


31 
21 


44 
21 


2 

1 


3 
1 


• Includes re 
**Percents of 


ocatlon 
Escalati 


betterments. 
on/Bond Rate. 


















i 



139 



Table 51 









INCREMENTAL PLAN 












ALLOCATION OF ISLAM) OR TRACT REPAYMENT OBLIGATION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 










TRADITIONAL 


COST SHARIN6 














6 PERCENT ESCALATION / 9 PERCENT BONO INTEREST 


















1988 Bond Sale 






3tM Costs 






Annual Repayment 




Equivalent 


Annual Repayaent** 
Per mie Per 


(1989 


Price Level) 






Per HUe 


Per 




Per Hlle 


Per 


Island or Tract 
Andrus-Brannan* 


Total 


of Levee 

110,000 


Acre 
74 


Total 


of Levee 
87.000 


Acre 
58 


Total 
39,000 


of Levee 
3,899 


Acre 
3 


1,108,000 


877,000 


Bacon* 


280,000 


20,000 


51 


222,000 


16.000 


40 


57.000 


3,969 


10 


Bouldin* 


130,000 


7,000 


22 


130,000 


7.000 


22 


71.000 


3.925 


12 


Brack* 


68,000 


6,000 


14 


68.000 


6,000 


14 


44,000 


4.076 


9 


Orexler* 


86,000 


10,000 


27 


76.000 


9,000 


24 


36.000 


4.035 


11 


Empire* 


68,000 


7,000 


18 


68,000 


7,000 


18 


41,000 


3.936 


11 


Hotchkiss* 


8,000 


1,000 


2 


7.000 


1,000 


2 


63,000 


7,446 


19 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


213,000 


12,000 


18 


169,000 


9,000 


14 


71,000 


3,970 


6 


Mandevllle* 


40,000 


3,000 


8 


40,000 


3,000 


8 


72.000 


5,022 


14 


McDonald* 


47,000 


3,000 


8 


42.000 


3.000 


7 


53.000 


3,889 


9 


Rindge* 


160.000 


10,000 


23 


142,000 


9.000 


21 


61.000 


3,910 


9 


Roberts, 




















Lower/Middle/Upper* 


457,000 


20.000 


14 


407.000 


18,000 


13 


202.000 


8,687 


6 


Tern 1 nous* 


171,000 


11.000 


16 


171.000 


11,000 


16 


65,000 


4.029 


6 


Tyler* 


167,000 


16.000 


19 


132,000 


12.000 


15 


47,000 


4,438 


6 


Webb* 


56,000 


4,000 


10 


50.000 


4.000 


9 


50.000 


3,891 


9 


* Islands and tracts In 


Federal plar 


. 
















*• Coinmon base for compar 


1son of relative financ 


lal obllgat 


on. 












1 



Table 52 









INCREMENTAL PLAN 












ALLOCATION OF ISLAND OR TRACT 


REPAYMENT 


OBLIGATION ANC 


OPERATION 


AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 










TRADITIONAL 


COST SHARING 














9 PERCENT ESCALATION / 12 PERCENT BOND INTEREST 


















1988 Bond Sale 






DIM Costs. 






Annual Repayment 




Equivalent 


Annual Repayment** 
Per Mile Per 


(1989 


Price Level) 






Per HHe 


Per 




Per HHe 


Per 


Island or Tract 
Andrus-Brannan* 


Total 


of Levee 

201,000 


Acre 

135 




Total 


of Levee 
142.000 


Acre 
96 


Total 
49.000 


of Levee 

4,875 


Acre 
3 


2,028,000 


1,437,000 


Bacon* 


513,000 


36,000 


93 




363,000 


25.000 


66 


71,000 


4,962 


13 


Bouldin* 


213,000 


12,000 


35 




213,000 


12.000 


35 


88.000 


4,907 


15 


Brack* 


111.000 


10,000 


23 




111.000 


10,000 


23 


55,000 


5,095 


11 


Orexler* 


148.000 


17,000 


47 




125,000 


14.000 


39 


45,000 


5,044 


14 


Empire* 


111.000 


11,000 


30 




111.000 


11,000 


30 


51,000 


4,921 


14 


Hotchkiss* 


15.000 


2,000 


5 




11,000 


1,000 


3 


78,000 


9,309 


23 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


390.000 


22,000 


32 




277,000 


16,000 


23 


88,000 


4,963 


7 


Mandeville* 


66.000 


5,000 


13 




66.000 


5,000 


13 


90.000 


6,278 


17 


McDonald* 


81.000 


6.000 


13 




68.000 


5,000 


11 


67.000 


4,862 


11 


Rindge* 


276,000 


18.000 


40 




233,000 


15.000 


34 


77,000 


4,888 


11 


Roberts, 






















Lower/Mlddle/Upper* 


792,000 


34.000 


24 




666,000 


29.000 


20 


252,000 


10,861 


8 


Termlnous* 


280,000 


17,000 


27 




280,000 


17,000 


27 


81,000 


5,037 


8 


Tyler* 


305,000 


29,000 


36 




216.000 


20,000 


25 


59,000 


5,549 


7 


Webb* 


97,000 


8,000 


18 




82.000 


6,000 


15 


62.000 


4.865 


11 


• Islands and tracts In 


Federal plan. 


















** Common base for comparison of relative financial obll 


aat 


ion. 












1 



lAO 



three columns are based on three bond 
sales over a 6-year construction period. 
With inflation assumed to continue 
during this period, the relative values 
of each of the bond sales would differ, 
a dollar of repayment obligation 
stemming from the first sale being worth 
substantially more in real terms than a 
dollar of repayment obligation Incurred 
with the final bond sale. 



Proposed Cost Sharing 
Program 

li/hile not yet approved by Congress, a 
revision of traditional cost sharing 
methods is under consideration at the 
federal level. Under the proposed cost 
sharing formula, nonfederal interests 
would be required to contribute 35 per- 
cent (up front) of the cost of a 



federally authorized flood control 
project,* and to assume 100 percent of 
the fish and wildlife enhancement costs 
and 50 percent of the recreation costs. 
Under this proposed cost sharing 
formula, assuming federal participation 
on all islands and tracts in the 
Incremental Plan, the cost allocation 
for the total project (1981 prices) 
would be 57 percent ($306 million) 
Federal, 43 percent ($232 million) 
non-Federal, as shown on Table A-42. 

Tables similar to Tables 42, 43, 47, 48, 
49, 50, 51, and 52, computed under the 
proposed cost sharing formula are 
presented as the same table number, 
preceded by the letter "A" in 
Appendix A. The differences in allo- 
cation between the traditional and 
proposed cost sharing can be compared 
between the corresponding tables. 



* The 35 percent share is assumed to be computed after all relocation betterment 
costs are allocated to the nonfederal participants. 



141 



Chapter 8. NO-ACTION PLAN ALTERNATIVE 



Earlier, this report presented alterna- 
tive projects designed to perpetuate, at 
least into the near-term future, all or 
a substantial part of the present 
configuration of Delta islands and 
\«terways. This chapter extends the 
previous analysis by describing, in 
general terms, futures for the Delta if 
none of these projects are undertaken 
and by identifying uncertainties and 
difficulties inherent in all of these 
projects; that is, the long term preser- 
vation of the Delta as it presently 
exists is problematic. 



Background 

Levee maintenance and rehabilitation for 
the 537 miles of nonproject levees, 
essential for preserving the Delta, are 
primarily the responsibility of local 
reclamation districts, levee districts, 
and governmental entities. 

Without a levee improvement project, 
preservation of the Delta will depend on 
a number of existing State and Federal 
Government programs. These programs 
finance, to some extent, part of the 
necessary preservation work and the 
efforts of a variety of interested par- 
ties with a stake in some portion of the 
Delta — local reclamation districts, 
utilities, private landowners, various 
Individual State and Federal agencies, 
and private corporations whose economic 
activities encompass the Delta. 
Although public interest in the Delta is 
widespread, quantifying the extent of 
these interests is complicated and 
exacerbated by the uncertainties 
inherent in any Delta levee program. 
Including continued reclamation after 
flooding. 

The effect of present expenditures on 
maintenance and rehabilitation, however. 



is not sufficient to substantially 
improve the structural stability of 
nonproject levees and reduce the proba- 
bility of levee failure. From estimates 
of the existing and future probabilities 
of levee failure developed by the Corps 
of Engineers (Table 9 and Figures 12 and 
13, in Chapter 3), it is clear that 
without a levee rehabilitation program, 
the flood hazard in the Delta will 
increase substantially through time. 



State and Federal 
Assistance Programs 

Levee sections, waterside bank protec- 
tion, and local maintenance practices on 
nonproject levees are not adequate in 
comparison to standards considered 
necessary by the Corps of Engineers . 

The State Delta Levee Maintenance Sub- 
vention Program (Way Bill), established 
by the Legislature in 1973, provides 
some financial support to assist in 
preserving the nonproject levees in the 
Delta through improved maintenance and 
rehabilitation. The dollar amount of 
this aid has varied. The program was 
funded at a level of $200,000 per year 
during fiscal years 1973-74 and 1974-75. 
In 1976, with passage of Senate 
Bill 1390, the program was reestablished 
and funded at $200,000 per year during 
fiscal years 1976-77, 1977-78, and 
1978-79. The legislation was amended in 
1981, and $1.5 million per year was made 
available for the program from the 
Energy and Resources Fund (State Tide- 
lands Oil Revenues) for continuation of 
the program during fiscal years 1981-82 
and 1982-83. 

The program has encouraged local 
agencies to increase maintenance and 
rehabilitation activities. Claims for 
financial assistance were submitted by 



143 



27 of the 29 districts that applied for 
participation in the 1981-82 program. 
(Two districts did not submit claims 
because they did not do any of the 
proposed work.) The total expenditure 
under this program for fiscal year 
1981-82 was $3,512,024, of which 
$1,420,871 was reimbursed ($1,500,000 
niinus the State's administration cost). 
The work accomplished included various 
kinds of maintenance, enlarging or 
raising 130,000 feet of levee, repairs 
on three boil or seepage areas, and 
constructing 11,700 feet of all-weather 
patrol road. 

Without a major rehabilitation effort, 
the future configuration of the Delta 
depends almost entirely on the magnitude 
of the effort to restore the inevitable 
succession of flooded islands and 
tracts. The magnitude of restoration 
efforts is difficult to predict, depend- 
ing as it does primarily on the willing- 
ness and financial ability of public and 
private interests in the Delta to 
reclaim and restore flooded islands and 
tracts. 

In the past, almost all flooded islands 
have been reclaimed. The major excep- 
tion is Franks Tract, which flooded 
twice (in 1936 and 1938) during the 
Great Depression, and was subsequently 
abandoned. Major financial assistance 
in reclaiming flooded islands has been 
provided in recent years (pre-1980 
floods) by federal agencies — the Corps 
of Engineers, through Public Law 84-99, 
and the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, through Public Law 93-288. 
Continued financial support from these 
programs for restoration is becoming 
less certain. Both agencies are becom- 
ing more reluctant to approve funds for 
restoration of Delta islands following 
levee breaks . Experience from the 
recent breaks points out the critical 
problems . 

On August 23, 1982, following the 
McDonald Island levee break, the Depart- 
ment of Water Resources requested the 
Corps of Engineers to determine if it 



could provide assistance in repairing 
the break under Public Law 84-99, which 
the Corps administers. On August 31, 
the Corps of Engineers, Sacramento 
District, replied that assistance could 
not be provided and listed guidelines 
for its position on levee breaks in the 
Delta: 

"1. Following a flood occurrence, the 
following parameters apply to restora- 
tion of flood control structures. 

a. The damaged structure must be a 
viable flood preventative struc- 
ture. 

b. Structures built for channel 
alignment, navigation, recreation, 
fish and wildlife, land reclama- 
tion, drainage, or to protect 
against land erosion and which are 
not designed and constructed to 
have appreciable and dependable 
effects in preventing damage by 
irregular and unusual rises in 
water level are not classed as 
flood control works, and are 
ineligible for PL 84-99 rehabil- 
itation. 

"2. Rehabilitation of protective con- 
trol structures damaged by occurrences 
other than floods, hurricanes or 
coastal storms is not authorized under 
PL 84-99. 

"The McDonald Island levee failure did 
not occur as a result of a flood and 
the levees are reclamation levees, not 
flood control levees. Only flood 
control levees damaged by floods are 
eligible for restoration under the 
provisions of PL 84-99, amended." 

Earlier, following the 1980 Delta flood- 
ing, the Corps of Engineers made similar 
determinations: most of the nonproject 
levees in the Delta are reclamation 
levees rather than flood control levees, 
they are poorly designed and poorly 
maintained, and a permanent solution to 
the flood problem should be encouraged . 
Assistance would be limited to local 



144 



floodfight activities to save lives and 
prevent or mitigate property damage and 
to restore flood prevention structures, 
where the problem is clearly beyond 
local and State resources. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
is also reluctant to participate in 
future restoration efforts. Following 
the 1982 McDonald Island break, the 
Agency originally denied Governor 
Brown's request that the President 
proclaim San Joaquin County a federal 
emergency area, stating that, based on 
preliminary damage information submitted 
by the State Office of Emergency 
Services, the impact was insufficient to 
warrant declaring a federal emergency. 
The Agency argued that only a few indi- 
viduals were affected and concluded that 
mitigation was within the capacity of 
Reclamation District 2030 and the State. 
After appeal, funds were granted with a 
provision that an Improved hazard miti- 
gation program would be a condition for 
any future assistance from the Agency in 
restoring flooded Islands. 

The 1980 Delta flooding had elicited a 
similar response from the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency. In a later 
review of emergency declarations during 
1980, the Agency Indicated that without 
significant non-federal efforts to 
Improve these levees so that future 
levee breaks would be rare. It might not 
be possible to recommend similar presi- 
dential declarations In the future. The 
Agency expressed the concern that such 
federal expenditures are not as effec- 
tive on an ad hoc basis as comparable 
nonemergency funding would have been to 
upgrade and maintain these levees. 

A decision has not yet been made on 
whether Federal or State funds will be 
made available to reclaim Venice Island, 
which flooded November 30, 1982. 



Agricultural Interests 

Agriculture, the primary economic activ- 
ity In the Delta with a strong Interest 



In reclaiming flooded Islands, has not 
generally expressed a willingness to pay 
restoration costs. Government subsidy 
or extensive contributions from other 
beneficiaries have been, and continue to 
be, required for restoration. 

During the first part of the century, 
the Delta was one of the most productive 
agricultural areas in California. 
Today, however, many Delta farming 
enterprises are at a low ebb. The rela- 
tive decline in productive value was the 
result of the shift from vegetable crops 
to the lower valued field crops. The 
Delta is no longer a major producer of 
summer potatoes, asparagus, and fall 
celery. Onions now occupy only a frac- 
tion of their past acreage. The shift 
to lower valued crops Is Illustrated 
below. 







Percent of 






Cropp( 


=d Acreage 


Crop 




1955 


1968 1976 


Vegetable 




27 


21 14 


Orchard/Vlneya 


rd 


4 


4 5 


Field Crops 




45 


54 64 


Alfalfa 




12 


11 9 


Pasture 




12 


10 8 



Total Acres Cropped 
(In thousands) 



517 



522 



520 



Because of the shift to lower valued 
crops, particularly corn, the ability to 
pay for levee maintenance and restora- 
tion, based on standard payment capacity 
analysis. Is low. An island's payment 
capacity depends on the productivity of 
its soils, the crops grown, and the cost 
structure of each Individual owner. 
Those Islands with lower payment capaci- 
ties tend to be dominated by the lower 
valued crops, such as corn, grain, and 
pasture, while those with higher valued 
payment capacity grow a substantially 
higher proportion of high valued crops, 
such as asparagus and tomatoes. 

A Department of Water Resources (Central 
District) 1981 analysis of annual 



145 



payment capacity for nine islands showed 
a range from zero to about $220 per 
acre. A comparison of these payment 
capacities with the amortized costs of 
reclaiming Webb Tract, McDonald Island, 
and Holland Tract provides a rough 
indication of the financial capabilities 
of Delta agricultural interests, based 
on the economics of onsite operation, to 
reclaim flooded islands. Assuming a 
30-year loan, amortized at 8 percent, 
reclamation would cost between $188 and 
$324 per acre. If the levee were to 
fail and the island flood before the end 
of the 30-year loan repayment period, 
the per-acre costs would be higher. 
Many islands have a likelihood of 
failing more than once in 30 years. 

Few islands have payment capacities 
within the $188 to $324 per acre range. 
Moreover, if any island were to flood 
more than once during the relatively 
short time span, the burden of reclama- 
tion costs would, no doubt, exceed local 
financial resources. 

Future repayment capacities are not 
likely to improve substantially. The 
basic cause of the loss of vegetable 
crop acreage was a failure to meet the 
competition from other areas. This was 
probably because of farming methods and 
special problems found in the Delta. 
These problems were summarized in a 1980 
report by Madrone Associates titled, 
"Sacramento /San Joaquin Delta Wildlife 
Habitat Protection and Restoration 
Plan". A partial list follows. 

° Land Tenure. With increasing absentee 
landlords (often foreign), there is a 
tendency to "mine" the soil and less 
concern with maintaining the original 
fertility. 

" Drainage and Subsidence. Lowering of 
the land surface of the islands has 
increased the hydraulic pressure from 
the surrounding channels, with a 
corresponding increase in seepage and 
costs for drainage pumping, and in 
risk of levee failure. 



° Soil Salinity. Frequent leaching is 
required to maintain suitable growing 
conditions for crops. 

° Fertility Problems. Although peat 
is rich in nitrogen, other nutrient 
problems are often inherent in peat 
soils . 

" Transportation. Movement of produce 
can be difficult because of the 
limited roadway system and increasing 
costs of shipping. 

Another rough measure of financial 
ability of local agricultural interests 
is given by comparison of land value to 
restoration costs. Land values, along 
with total island valuations including 
improvements as of 1980 are shown in 
Table 53. 

Restoration costs are often more than 
the land and improvement values of a 
flooded island, as illustrated by two 
recent events. Webb Tract, flooded in 
1980, covered 5,495 acres and was 
appraised at $9 million. About 
$20 million has been spent in connection 
with flood recovery activities — repair 
of the levee break, restoration of 
levees around the island, and pumping 
floodwater from the island. The Corps 
of Engineers estimates that full 
restoration will cost another $2.1 mil- 
lion (1981 dollars). For Holland Tract, 
also flooded in 1980, about $9 million 
was spent on flood recovery activities, 
while the estimated value of land and 
appurtenances was about $10 million in 
1980. McDonald Island, flooded in 
1982, had an appraised land value of 
$10 million in 1980, while restoration 
cost estimates exceed $13 million. 
Venice Island had an appraised land 
value of about $4.5 million in 1981; 
restoration costs are not yet 
available. 

It is clear that it is not unusual for 
restoration costs to approach or exceed 
land values for a flooded island in the 
Delta. 



146 



Table 53 



DELTA ISLANDS VALUATION ESTIMATE 




JULY 1980 






(In Dollars) 








Improve- 




Island or Tract 


Land Value 


ments Value 


Total Value 


Andrus 


32,543,560 


14.110.500 


46.654,060 


Atlas 


604,780 


- 


604,780 


Bacon 


11,248,550 


1.415.000 


12,663,550 


Bethel 


65,575,040 


62,863,550 


128,438,590 


Bishop 


4,874.270 


549.000 


5,423.270 


Bouldin 


10,650,730 


500.000 


11,150.730 


Brack 


9,458,820 


3.453.000 


12.911.820 


Bradford 


4,528,610 


928.000 


5.456.610 


Brannan 


20,334,810 


5,787,000 


26,121,810 


Byron 


85,156,400 


80,795,000 


165,951,400 


Canal Ranch 


5,662,640 


459,000 


6.121.640 


Coney 


1,637.370 


73.000 


1.710,370 


Dead horse 


528.040 


255,000 


783.040 


Orexler 


6,765,680 


629,000 


7,394,680 


Empire 


8.435.780 


313.000 


8,748,780 


Fabian 


26,158,460 


2,803,000 


28.961,460 


Holland 


6.532,500 


217.000 


6.749,500 


Hotchkiss 


23,175,380 


31,231,000 


54.406,380 


Jersey 


5,846,720 


165,000 


6,011,720 


Jones, Lower 


11,775,090 


703,000 


12,478,090 


Jones, Upper 


11,784,220 


748,000 


12,532.220 


King 


8,100.960 


1,304.500 


9.405.460 


Little Frank 


499,500 


- 


499.500 


Mandeville 


9,658.280 


600.000 


10.258.280 


McCormack- 








Williamson 


2,970,700 


89.000 


3.059;700 


McDonald 


10,881,000 


233.000 


11.114,000 


Med ford 


1,880,920 


29,400 


1,910,320 


Mildred 


1,678,640 


116,250 


1,794,890 


New Hope 


25,694.380 


5.357,000 


31.051.380 


Orwood 


5.659,280 


1,868.000 


7.527,280 


Palm 


4,165,000 


95,000 


4,260,000 


Pescadero Area 


76,944,850 


33,464,000 


110,408,850 


Quimby 


1.153,500 


58,000 


1.211.500 


Rindge 


14,753,000 


302.000 


15.055.000 


Rio Blanco 


2,134,000 


225,000 


2.359.000 


Roberts, Lower 


23,374,400 


3,474.000 


26,848,400 


Roberts, Middle 


31,589,000 


9.854,000 


41,443,000 


Roberts, Upper 


19,029,340 


5,210,000 


24,239.340 


Sargent-Barnhart 


3,649,000 


1,482,000 


5,131,000 


Sherman 


21,343,240 


2,485.000 


23,828.240 


Shima 


4,903,400 


123.500 


5,026,900 


Shin Kee 


2,100,740 


11,000 


2,111,740 


Staten 


16.306,850 


2,452,000 


18,758.850 


Terminous 


22,309,230 


4.543,000 


26.852,230 


Twitchell 


6.277.820 


667,000 


6,944.820 


Tyler 


15,209.080 


7.133.000 


22,342.080 


Union (East) 


20,697,080 


2.528.000 


23.225.080 


Union (West) 


30,491,600 


2.216.000 


32,707.600 


Veale 


2,372.590 


230.000 


2.602,590 


Venice 


3.942.900 


522.000 


4.464,900 


Victoria 


14,047.360 


1,169,700 


15.217.060 


Walnut Grove 


1,755,500 


457.000 


2.212,500 


Webb 


9,162,810 


145.000 


9.307,810 


•Woodward 


3,124,730 


82.000 


3.206,730 


Wi ight-Elmwood 


5,778.610 


351,000 


6.129.610 


TOTAL 


776.916.740 


296,873,400 1 


.073.790,140 



State and Federal 
Water Project Interests 

Both State Water Project and federal 
Central Valley Project Interests are 
affected by Inundation of Delta Islands. 
These interests relate to the water 
quantity, water quality, and economic 
costs to the projects. As discussed in 
Chapter 3, Delta channels provide an 
important link for the interbasin trans- 
fer of water for both projects. The 
efficiency of the link is threatened to 
some extent by flooding, both temporary 
and permanent. 

In the short terra, there are two sources 
of potential loss due to a Delta levee 
break and the resulting salinity intru- 
sion during low flow conditions. First, 
extra water is required to restore Delta 
water quality standards. Second, if a 
central or southern Delta island floods, 
some of the intruded salt water cannot 
be readily flushed back to the Bay; 
therefore export water quality is 
degraded, with associated physical and 
economic losses to the water user. (If 
salt water intrudes during the irriga- 
tion season, local Delta irrigators will 
also be affected.) 

The Contra Costa Canal of the Central 
Valley Project is most vulnerable to 
export quality degradation. State Water 
Project exports can be sharply curtailed 
and blended with water in San Luis and 
Del Valle Reservoirs to minimize quality 
detriments. There would be relatively 
minor effects on quality, particularly 
in the South Bay service area. The 
Central Valley Project could temporarily 
increase releases from New Melones 
Reservoir to reduce the salinity and to 
maintain quality standards at its Tracy 
Pumping Plant. Such releases could, 
however, result in loss of energy from 
hydroelectric generation. 

Some extra Delta outflow must be fur- 
nished from upstream State Water Project 
and Central Valley Project storage to 
restore Delta water quality criteria 



1A7 



after a large inundation. Whether the 
extra outflow causes a significant loss 
of project yield is determined by 
weather conditions during the following 
18 months. In most years, the following 
winter produces enough runoff to refill 
the storage reservoirs. However, if 
such a break were to occur during a 
critical dry period, such as 1928 
through 1934, there would be some loss 
in yield to both projects . If the 
island were reclaimed, water flooding 
the island would eventually become 
available (probably for Delta outflow) 
as the island was dewatered. 

These losses (increased Delta outflow, 
salinity damage, and energy losses) were 
discussed earlier in this bulletin when 
estimating water supply and water 
quality benefits for a Delta levee 
reconstruction program. If a flooded 
island were not reclaimed, these values 
could lead water project managers to 
seek practical solutions when islands 
remain flooded. Solutions might include 
maintaining levees on flooded islands in 
such a way as to minimize adverse 
impacts on water project operations. 

In the western Delta, a breach could 
result in increased mixing of intruded 
ocean water, which could require an 
increase in Delta outflow. If deter- 
mined to be economically feasible, the 
projects could protect the water supply 
by placing riprap on the inside of the 
levee and closing the breach. In the 
event of a drought, the lake would be 
partially emptied and the remaining 
water would evaporate. In this way, the 
yield of the State and Federal projects 
would be increased by the amount that 
would not otherwise be required for 
farming. Other uses by the water 
projects are discussed in Chapter 9. 

Retaining the islands in a filled con- 
dition could reduce the probability of 
levee failure, and also maintenance 
costs. Because of the decreased differ- 
ential hydrostatic pressure against the 
levee, smaller breaches could be 



repaired easily and less subsidence 
would be expected. Also, oxidation of 
the interior peat lands would be 
eliminated. These changes, however, 
have not been studied . 

One additional impact concerns the rela- 
tionship between permanent flooding and 
State Water Resources Control Board 
Water Right Decision 1485. 

Present Delta water quality control 
standards are contained in Deci- 
sion 1485, which imposes terms and con- 
ditions on the water right permits of 
the federal Central Valley Project and 
the State Water Project. Most Deci- 
sion 1485 standards are based on flow 
and quality conditions that would exist 
today if the two projects had not been 
built. This basis reflects the need for 
protecting existing beneficial uses and 
water rights and for providing mitiga- 
tion for project impacts on fish and 
wildlife. 

Permanent flooding of Delta islands 
could significantly alter the way in 
which Delta water quality responds to 
freshwater inflow. Most likely, more 
freshwater Delta inflow (and outflow) 
would be needed to meet Decision 1435 
standards . 

The State Water Resources Control Board 
has Indicated that it will periodically 
review Decision 1485 standards. It is 
likely that the Board will account for 
increased nonproject development and for 
changes in the physical makeup of the 
Delta when it reconsiders the standards. 
Therefore, it is likely that the Board's 
periodic review (every 5 to 10 years) 
will result in changes in standards to 
redefine the obligation of the State 
Water Project and the federal Central 
Valley Project, but these changes are 
not knovm. Failure of Delta levees, 
which significantly affects Delta flow- 
salinity relationships, could occur at 
any time. Revision of standards might 
cause a significant reduction in project 
water supply yield but, like future 



148 



changes, the effects are unknovm at this 
time. 



Other Interests 

Interests other than agriculture and the 
State and Federal water projects have a 
stake in the Delta. Additional justifi- 
cation to reclaim an island may come 
from a variety of sources, that is, the 
need to protect State highways, county 
roads, railroads, or facilities of the 
natural gas industry or water purveyors 
such as the East Bay Municipal Utility 
District, among others. 

Table 6 (in Chapter 2), which lists 
resources of Delta islands, gives a 
rough indication of the extent of these 
interests. However, the amount of 
financial support that each of these 
interests might contribute to preserving 
Delta islands is limited because most 
interests have alternatives that do not 
depend on islands being reclaimed after 
flooding . 

As an example, the East Bay Municipal 
Utility District has three large pipe- 
lines crossing the Delta and connecting 
the District's principal sources of 
water in the Sierra Nevada with its 
distribution area in Contra Costa and 
Alameda counties. During the 1981 
conference on the "Future of the Delta", 
District representatives indicated that 
its concern with Delta levee vulnerabil- 
ity centers on the immediate effects a 
levee break might have on continuous 
operation of these three aqueducts, 
which cross five tracts in the Delta: 
Orwood, Woodward, Jones, Roberts, and 
Sargent-Barnhart . Since these aqueducts 
rest on piles of timber and concrete, 
the District is concerned about effects 
of a levee break on aqueduct support 
systems. A levee break too close to an 
aqueduct river crossing would likely 
result in extensive scour that could put 
all three aqueducts out of service for a 
year. Flooding of adjacent islands 
might also result in serious damage to 
aqueduct support systems, but with less 



time needed to place the system back in 
service . 

Without a major levee rehabilitation 
program. East Bay Municipal Utility 
District is evaluating methods for 
improving the long term security of the 
Mokelurane Aqueduct. Alternatives 
include isolation of the aqueducts 
behind new or improved levees, elevating 
and deepening the aqueduct pile support 
system, a joint utilities transportation 
causeway, and relocation of one or more 
of the aqueducts, both within and out- 
side the Delta. Study of such alterna- 
tives Indicates that District interest 
in preserving the islands has limits. 

The natural gas industry may have a 
major interest in preserving the Delta. 
The Delta natural gas reservoir, one of 
the largest in the nation, makes natural 
gas a resource of regional and national 
importance. Operating fields in the 
five Delta counties total 35, with major 
fields around Rio Vista. Cumulative 
production of gas from the Delta now 
stands at 4.1 trillion cubic feet, with 
gas reserves estimated to be about 
1.5 trillion cubic feet at the end of 
1974, compared with a reserve of 
5.8 trillion cubic feet throughout the 
State. However, Delta gas fields can 
probably produce only until the turn of 
the century. Even though some of the 
abandoned fields are used to store 
imported gas, the industry's interest in 
preserving the Delta is relatively short 
term. Also, like East Bay Municipal 
Utility District, the natural gas opera- 
tions have some capability to operate 
under flooded conditions or to adopt 
other alternatives. 



Alternative Futures Without A 
Major Island Rehabilitation Project 

The changing policies of key Federal 
agencies that have traditionally 
financed much of the cost of restoration 
have substantially increased the degree 
of uncertainty about how extensive 
future efforts at restoring flooded 



149 



Islands and tracts will be. Where human 
life and extensive public works or util- 
ities are in jeopardy (municipal water 
supply or gas mains), the State and the 
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers can be 
expected to fight floods in the Delta if 
local resources are exhausted. Flood- 
fight efforts, however, can in no way 
substitute for stable levees and good 
maintenance. 

Because of the changing policies, it is 
Impossible to describe one future for 
the Delta under a no-action plan altern- 
ative. Instead, outlined below are two 
possible futures, each based on the 
premise that a major Delta levee 
improvement plan will not be Implemented 
In the near future. The two futures 
differ in one essential element — the 
degree of State and Federal participa- 
tion in reclaiming flooded islands. 

Each of the two futures was used as a 
base case by the Corps of Engineers in 
evaluating the cost effectiveness of 
Delta levee rehabilitation projects. 
For the base case of continual restora- 
tion after flooding, both the base case 
and the restoration projects had high 
costs. IVhen substantial rehabilitation 
Is compared with continual restoration 
after flooding on an island-by-lsland 
basis, substantial rehabilitation is 
more cost effective for only a few 
Islands. This base case was adopted by 
the Corps and used for benefit-cost 
analysis in its draft report. 

The second base case, without continual 
restoration after flooding, is also 
discussd in the Corps report and signif- 
icantly increases the number of islands 
for which substantial rehabilitation is 
cost effective on an individual island 
basis. 



The Delta With 
Continued Restoration 

One possible future for the Delta is 
defined by the assumption that, 
following flooding, all Delta islands 



are restored. This assumption defines 
the non-project case for the economic 
analysis of the Corps of Engineers' 
draft feasibility report and for the 
Department's cost sharing analysis 
presented earlier in this bulletin. 

This future is characterized by substan- 
tial periodic expenditures for restora- 
tion, large property damage costs, and 
water supply costs, all resulting from 
more frequent flooding. The extent of 
the damage, in terras of expected value 
($65 million per year, at 1981 prices), 
is indicated in Table 54, taken from the 
Corps' draft report. A subsequent 
Department analysis of the System Plan 
indicated the water quality portion of 
the value is about $1.5 million per year 
rather than $10.8 million as shown in 
the Corps' draft report. 



The Delta Without 
Continued Restoration 

Although many levels of decreased State 
and Federal assistance in reclaiming 
flooded islands are possible, this 
section describes the limiting case of 
no significant assistance and explores 
factors affecting decisions to reclaim. 
This future is the one most opposite to 
total preservation of the Delta's pres- 
ent configuration of islands, tracts, 
and waterways . While many hope this 
future can be avoided, its possibility 
must be faced. 

Without substantial Federal financial 
assistance in reclaiming flooded 
islands, and with no overall rehabilita- 
tion plan, permanent flooding of some 
Delta islands becomes highly probable . 
Failure to continually reclaim Delta 
Islands and tracts flooded as a result 
of levee overtopping or instability 
would lead to the evolution of a large 
inland lake in the central and western 
Delta. The physical dimensions of this 
inland sea, its eventual stability, the 
time span over which it might evolve, 
and the consequences for the Delta are 
all significant unknowns. 



150 































Table 54 








AVERME MMWM. HITHOUT-PWUECT OMUfiES 


. HITHOUT PERIPHERAL CANM. 


















(In nMnisands of Oollvs. 


October 1981 Price Lc*e)s. 


7-5/8 Percent Interest) 
























Levee 




















Agrl- 




Restden- 




PiAMc 




Repair t 






Mobile 


Roads. 












culturil 




tui 


Residen- 


and 




Island 




Mobile 


Struc- 


Util- 












Crops 


FtrwH 


Struc- 


tial 


Seat- 


EMr- 


Denater- 


CoMKr- 


Struc- 


ture 


ities. 




Sid>- 


Water 




Island or Tract 


Cleinup 


Steid 


tures 


Contents 


Public 


S^/ 


ing 


clal 


tures 


Contents 


Debris 


Other 


Total 


Quality 


Total 


Andrus-Brannan 


1,079 


. 


1.386 


614 


323 


111 


1.150 


141 


ISO 


83 


89 


52' 


5.178 


1.394 


6.572 


Atlas 


3 


. 


. 


. 


, 


. 


1 


, 


. 








4 




4 


Bacon 


866 


91 


58 


14 


28 


18 


596 


. 


_ 


. 


_ 


_ 


1.671 


268 


1.939 


Bethel 


U 


- 


710 


203 


14 


66 


37 


44 


102 


34 


_ 


132 


1.241 


37 


1,278 


Bishop 


153 


41 


- 


- 


14 


1 


62 


- 


- 


- 


- 




271 


21 


292 


Bouldin 


1,09S 


169 


. 


. 


557 


4 


1.330 


. 


. 


. 




. 


3.155 


1,081 


4,236 


Brack 


799 


448 


- 


- 


62 


4 


471 


, 


_ 


_ 




_ 


1.784 


216 


2,000 


Bradford 


112 


74 


- 


- 


6 


3 


162 


. 


. 


, 




_ 


357 


103 


460 


Byron 


27 


2 


284 


80 


45 


53 


19 


133 


. 


- 




. 


643 


27 


670 


Canal Ranch 


414 


61 


- 


- 


26 


2 


134 


- 


- 


- 




- 


637 


80 


717 


Coney 


16 


3 


. 


. 


_ 


. 


12 


. 


. 


. 






31 


13 


44 


Oeadhorse 


21 


20 


- 


- 


. 


_ 


S 


. 


_ 


, 




. 


49 





49 


Emp i re 


504 


71 


- 


- 


IB 


3 


646 


. 


- 


. 




. 


1.242 


150 


1,392 


Fabian 


- 


- 


- 


- 


. 


. 


. 


. 


. 


. 




_ 











Holland 


127 


26 


- 


- 


11 


3 


297 


- 


- 


- 




63 


470 


148 


618 


Hotchkiss 


47 


63 


1.367 


708 


23 


142 


65 


97 


. 


. 






2.512 


41 


2.553 


Jersey 


107 


17 


- 


- 


12 


2 


227 


- 


- 


, 




_ 


365 


232 


597 


Jones, Roberts 


4,3S3 


2,249 


- 


- 


719 


76 


3.455 


7 


. 


. 




. 


10.859 


1.221 


12,080 


King 


166 


79 


23 


- 


27 


13 


139 


26 


. 


. 




. 


473 


91 


564 


Mandeville 


690 


91 


- 


- 


33 


4 


761 




- 


- 




- 


1.579 


353 


1,932' 


McCormack-Williainsan 


90 


11 


, 


_ 


12 


. 


69 


. 


. 


. 






182 


7 


189 


McDonald 


692 


51 


- 


- 


26 


3 


782 


_ 


. 


. 




_ 


1.554 


566 


2,120 


Medford 


125 


9 


. 


- 


9 


1 


158 


. 


. 


, 




_ 


302 


45 


347 


Mildred 


50 


9 


- 


- 


3 


- 


57 


- 


. 


_ 




. 


119 


36 


155 


Nex Hope 


262 


71 


78 


24 


46 


37 


78 


16 


- 


- 




307^ 


919 


3 


922 


1 
Orwood 


21 


16 


_ 


_ 


1 


. 


12 


. 


. 


. 




35/* 


407 


12 


419 


Orwood, Upper 


14 


1 


. 


- 


1 


1 


122 


. 


. 


. 




11- 


150 


16 


166 


Palm 


92 


9 


- 


. 


8 


1 


146 


. 


* . 


. 






256 


103 


359 


Pescadero Area 


205 


85 


- 


- 


33 


5 


12 


. 


. 


_ 




_ 


340 


13 


353 


Quimby 


6 


3 


- 


- 


- 


- 


28 


- 


- 


- 




- 


37 


13 


50 


Rindge 


722 


63 


- 


_ 


13 


3 


789 


_ 


_ 


. 




. 


1,590 


498 


2,088 


Rio Blanco 


36 


12 


_ 


. 


1 


1 


6 


_ 


. 


. 




_ 


56 


1 


57 


Sargent-Barnhart 


17 


. 


35 


9 


1 


1 


10 


. 


. 


. 




' 1"* 


74 





74 


Sherman 


475 


138 


- 


. 


276 


7 


568 


7 


, 


. 






1,471 


520 


1,991 


Shima 


78 


8 


- 


- 


6 


- 


95 


- 


- 


- 




- 


187 


46 


233 


Shin Kee 


155 


6 


_ 


_ 


6 


1 


72 


. 


. . 


. 




_ 


240 


2 


242 


Staten 


495 


176 


. 


. 


26 


2 


632 


. 


. 


. 




. 


1.331 


594 


1,925 


Stevart 


137 


4 


- 


. 


7 


3 


8 


. 


, 


. 




_ 


159 


8 


167 


Terminous 


2.017 


462 


. 


. 


519 


212 


1,777 


273 


1.129 


. 




. 


6,389 


1.040 


7,429 


Twitchell 


146 


40 


- 


- 


9 


1 


288 






- 




- 


484 


220 


704 


Tyler 


536 


339 


. 


. 


10 


6 


544 


45 


. 


. 




. 


1.480 


424 


1,904 


Union 


. 


. 


- 


. 


, 


. 


. 


. 


. 


. 




. 











Veale 


123 


63 


- 


- 


19 


5 


116 


. 


_ 


. 




. 


326 


14 


340 


Venice 


479 


98 


- 


. 


15 


2 


776 


_ 


- 


. 




_ 


1.370 


289 


1,659 


Victoria 


178 


23 


- 


- 


73 


- 


185 


- 


- 


- 




- 


459 


190 


649 


Ualnut Grove 


. 


. 


. 


, 


. 


. 


. 


. 


_ 


. 




. 











Mebb 


421 


18 


. 


. 


9 


2 


793 


. 


, 


. 




_ 


1.243 


602 


1,845 


Woodward 


141 


16 


- 


_ 


15 


_ 


186 


_ 


_ 


. 




22^ 


587 


75 


662 


Wright-Elmwood 


34 


10 


- 


- 


2 


- 


37 


- 


- 


- 






83 


29 


U2 


TOTAL 


18,344 


5,246 


3,941 


1.652 


3.064 


799 


17,918 


789 


1.381 


117 


89 


976 


54,316 


10.842 


65,156 


^ Lots and cleanup. 
































^ Boats on land. 
































'Marina. 
































"East Bay Municipal Utility District 


iqueduct. 


























5 Industrial. 



































151 



The Departmeat of Water Resources 
attempted to define the physical boun- 
daries of the inland lake future for the 
Delta during 1975 legislative hearings 
on Bulletin 192, "Plan for Improvement 
of the Delta Levees". The area of hypo- 
thetical permanent flooding consisted of 
16 Islands in the central and western 
Delta and included the area from Jersey 
Island to Empire Tract and from 
Twitchell Island to Woodward Island. 
The area could also be described as the 
central portion of the Delta most prone 
to levee failure (see Figure 12 In 
Chapter 3). The number of islands that 
could become part of the inland lake 
could be significantly larger under 
present conditions (Figure 12), and 
would be even larger in the future 
(Figure 13). The analysis was based on 
a 1973-74 assessment of levee stability, 
combined with an economic analysis of 
the financial ability of local interests 
to pay the costs of reclaiming a flooded 
island without Federal or State 
assistance. Another consideration was 
the possible inability to begin 
restoration work before the entire levee 
was destroyed by erosion. 

The above is essentially a short-run 
view of the possible evolution of an 
inland lake, with the limited financial 
resources of local Delta agricultural 
interests as the key factor. Although 
the ability of local Interests to 
finance restoration is difficult to 
determine, cursory analysis of payment 
capacity of Delta agriculture does indi- 
cate that private financial resources 
are limited in comparison to the likely 
costs . 

Earlier sections indicated the large 
costs of restoring recently flooded 
islands. These amounts, in dollars per 
acre, would be $3,600 for Webb, $2,100 
for Holland, and $2,100 for McDonald. 



The magnitude of these costs raises the 
question of whether local interests 
could finance and justify this type of 
reclamation, based on future agricul- 
tural productivity and on probabilities 
of levee failure. 



Factors Affecting Reclamation 
of Flooded Islands 

A number of factors are used to evaluate 
the advisability of reclaiming Delta 
Islands and tracts after a levee fail- 
ure. Value of land, public utilities 
and transportation needs, urban develop- 
ments, effect on Delta water transfer, 
and political factors are but a few 
elements that could be considered. 

As an example, the potential for Delta 
Islands to remain flooded was analyzed 
using the factors listed below. The 
significant outcome, shown in Table 55 
and Figure 24, was not the numeric 
probability, but the placing of islands 
in groups based on their potential to 
remain flooded in the absence of outside 
assistance. The islands with a signifi- 
cant potential to remain flooded are 
shown on Figure 24. 

Areas where the levees are considered 
to have a low probability of failure 
(and assuming they are properly main- 
tained) stand a good chance of not 
being flooded during the period of the 
proposed Corps of Engineers' project. 
Areas with levee probability of 
failure less than 0.0200* were 
included in this category. 

Because of the high property values 
and the number of people affected, 
areas with urban development will 
probably be reclaimed after a levee 
failure . 



*To determine frequency of failure from probability of failure, multiply the 
probability value by 100. The result will be the number of failures that would be 
expected in a 100-year period if there are no changes in assumed conditions. For 
example, a probability of 0.200 would be equivalent to a frequency of two expected 
failures sometime during a 100-year period. 



152 



FIGURE 24 




SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL 

(Other areas have a low 

potential to remain flooded 

or would be dedicated as 

fish and wildlife enhancement.) tSii*. 



POTENTIAL FOR DELTA AREAS 
TO REMAIN FLOODED 



153 



Table 55 



POTENTIAL FOR DELTA AREAS TO REMAIN FLOODED 




Existing 


Flood Control 




Probability of 


Benefit/Cost 


Island or Tract 

LOW POTENTIAL 


Levee Failure 

TO REMAIN FLOODED 


Ratio 




Low Probability of Levee Fa1 


ure 


0.49 


Sherman 


0.0154 


Coney 


0.0142 


0.14 


Wright-Elmwood 


0.0131 


0.19 


Sargent-Barnhart 


0.0130 


0.22 


Victoria 


0.0122 


0.66 


Pescadero 


0.0094 


0.41 


Stewart 


0.0094 


0.32 


Atlas 


0.0065 


0.02 


Or wood 


0.0016 


0.67 


Walnut Grove 


0.0002 


0.00 


Fabian 


Negligible 


0.00 


Union 


Negligible 


0.00 


Reclaimed for Urban Development 




Andrus-Brannan 


0.0464 


2.61 


Hotchkiss 


0.0280 


4.05 


New Hope 


0.0182 


0.57 


Bethel 


0.0020 


0.48 


Byron 


0.0013 


0.39 


Economically Justified to Reclaim 


1.01 


Bouldin 


0.1S2S 


Terminous 


0.1540 


2.64 


Brack 


0.1300 


1.23 


Empire 


0.1222 


1.40 


Webb 


0.0881 


1.09 


McDonald 


0.0765 


1.21 


Rindge 


0.0714 


1.31 


Mandevil le 


0.0685 


1.15 


Jones-Roberts Flood Plain 


0.0665 


1.86 


Bacon 


0.0563 


1.06 


Tyler 


0.0517 


1.05 


SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL TO REMAIN FLOODED 


Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 


Areas 




Med ford 


0.1690 


Mildred 


0.0406 


-- 


Quimby 


0.0284 


-- 


Significant Probability of Levee Failure and 


0.50 


Low Economic Feasibility for 


Reclamation 


Ho 1 1 and 


0.0417 


King 


0.0391 


0.68 


Palm 


0.0387 


0.43 


Rio Blanco 


0.0352 


0.21 


Jersey 


0.0349 


0.36 


Twitchell 


0.0285 


0.28 


Shima 


0.0221 


0.39 


Staten 


0.0219 


0.88 


HIGH POTENTIAL TO REMAIN FLOODED 




High Probability of Levee Fa 


lure and 


0.51 


Low Economic Feasibility for 


Reclamation 


Venice 


0.1643 


Shin Kee 


0.1308 


0.83 


Veale 


0.1209 


0.92 


Orwood, Upper 


0.1178 


0.47 


Woodward 


0.0686 


0.69 


Bishop 


0.0567 


0.50 


Canal Ranch 


0.0522 


0.70 


Deadhorse 


0.0508 


0.15 


McCormack-Wil liamson 


0.0503 


0.25 


Bradford 


0.0500 


0.46 



Areas where a levee restoration proj- 
ect Is economically justified from a 
flood control standpoint will probably 
upgrade levees. If a project such as 
that proposed by the Corps of Engi- 
neers Is Implemented, these areas 
would be Included In the project, and 
would then be eligible for Federal and 
State financial assistance (as has 
been the practice on project levees) 
for the majority of the restoration 
costs, and probably would elect to 
reclaim. 

Certain areas of the Delta, if 
dedicated for wildlife purposes, would 
not have levees upgraded to project 
standards. It is reasonable to expect 
that some of these areas would be 
flooded within 35 years. Although the 
potential for flooding and for remain- 
ing flooded is significant, proposed 
wildlife habitat improvement measures, 
consisting of raising part of the 
island interiors, would diminish the 
magnitude of flooding. These areas 
were classified along with those that 
would be reclaimed. 

Based on flood damage benefits, the 
remaining islands and tracts have low 
economic justification for a levee 
restoration project and the levees 
probably would not be upgraded . In 
case of levee failure, these areas 
probably would be eligible for only 
minor assistance to defray reclamation 
costs. Areas in this category that 
have an existing probability of levee 
failure of between 0.0500 and 0.0200 
have a significant potential to remain 
flooded. 



Consequences of 
Permanent Flooding 

Permanent flooding of some Islands or 
groups of islands is a possibility. No 
details exist on the consequences of 
allowing a large inland sea to form in 
part of the Delta through failure to 
reclaim flooded islands. Speculation as 
to these consequences is based solely on 



154 



experience with flooding of individual 
islands, mostly for a few months. At 
the request of the Federal Emergency 
Management Administration, tests on the 
long term effects of Delta island flood- 
ing on outflows required for water 
quality control are being performed by 
the Corps of Engineers on its hydraulic 
model. Results of these tests are not 
yet available. 

While the Delta's valuable resources, 
both natural environment and economy, 
will be affected to some extent, a few 
specific problem areas have been the 
primary focus of concern. 



Levee Stability 

The fear exists that flooding of indi- 
vidual islands or groups of islands will 
cause Increased frequency of levee 
failures and flooding of the remaining 
Delta islands. Physical factors that 
can increase the risk of flooding 
adjacent islands are increased wind- 
generated wave erosion and increased 
seepage . 

The Increased water surface created by 
premanent flooding produces a longer 
fetch (distance of open water surface in 
the direction of the wind), allowing the 
wind to generate larger waves . The 
largest fetches occur in the lower 
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, with 
fetches of 7 and 6 miles, respectively. 
The longest fetch over open water, where 
the width is at least equal to length, 
is about three miles, over Franks 
Tract. 

Wave heights from trough to crest have 
been determined for 50-mile per hour 
winds, 'vhich can be expected to occur 
every year in the Delta, using the 
longest fetches. 

Calculations using 50-mile an hour winds 
indicate maximum wave heights could be 
four feet adjacent to Franks Tract and 
at other locations, such as the Sacra- 
mento and San Joaquin Rivers, where the 



expanse of open water surface ranges 
from 4,000 to 6,000 feet. In most areas 
of the Delta, reaches of open water 
surface range from 2,000 to 4,000 feet 
and waves in the channels were calcu- 
lated to have heights of about one to 
two feet. 

Levee failures would increase the fetch 
and wave heights on adjacent remaining 
island levees. One consequence of 
increased fetch and higher wave heights, 
is the requirement for higher levees on 
adjacent islands for any given degree of 
overtopping protection. Another conse- 
quence Is to increase the erosion rate 
on the remaining exposed levees. Perma- 
nent inundation of small islands would 
not significantly affect the stability 
of adjacent levees from this cause 
because only a limited distance for 
generation of waves would be provided. 

Experienced Delta observers say, and 
recent island flooding experience indi- 
cates, that flooding an island can open 
new seepage paths and increase the rate 
of seepage accumulating on adjacent 
islands. However, it has been suggested 
that this problem will diminish with 
time, as new seepage paths are clogged 
with silt. 



Fish and Wildlife 

Permanent flooding of Delta islands 
would have substantial impacts on fish 
and wildlife habitat. The following 
discussion of these impacts relies heav- 
ily on the study by Madrone Associates 
and on discussions at the 1981 confer- 
ence on the "Future of the Delta", both 
mentioned earlier in this chapter. 

The effects on fish and wildlife of 
island flooding through levee failure 
and of intentional controlled flooding 
to create marshland habitat are 
substantially different. 

Insights gained from past flooding of 
islands such as Franks Tract, Big 
Break, and Lower Sherman Island, all 



155 



exteaslvely used as a habitat area by 
striped bass and catfish, show that 
flooding of islands could expand the 
habitat for a variety of fish. Adult 
striped bass migrating back into the 
Delta In the fall tend to concentrate in 
these flooded Islands (especially Franks 
Tract) before moving into the channels 
to spawn in spring. Catfish and 
juvenile bass also use the island 
extensively in their first two years. 

Effects of present and future flooding 
will probably be quite different from 
those In the past. Flooded islands have 
been loore heavily used by fish because 
phytoplankton productivity, at the base 
of the food chain, has tended to be 
higher due to the lower exchange rate of 
water and the relatively shallow depth 
of flooded islands. Because recent 
subsidence will have caused a greater 
depth of water, newly flooded islands in 
the central Delta probably would have 
significantly less production of phyto- 
plankton, and hence be of lower value to 
the fishery. 

Flooding the Delta islands would also 
produce some indirect effects on fishery 
resources . If the present minimum 
outflows are maintained, no significant 
Indirect effects are expected. However, 
if flooding resulted in a decision to 
reduce minimum outflows, the effects 
would probably be negative. The 
"entrapment zone" of the estuary is the 
most productive zone for the fishery. 
Under noroial outflow conditions, this 
area is generally located in the Suisun 
Bay region, and adjoins the shallow 
erabayments of Grizzly and Honker Bays on 
the north side of the channel. This 
allows the high production of phyto- 
plankton in the shallows to "exchange" 
into the deeper channels and contribute 
to the productivity of that reach. 

During droughts, the entrapment zone 
moves upstream from Suisun Bay, result- 
ing in a dramatic decrease of its area 
and, subsequently, of phytoplankton pro- 
duction. The reduction or abandonment 
of -ninioiura outflows would dramatically 



decrease production in this area. It is 
possible that flooded islands might play 
the same exchange role as the flats in 
Grizzly and Honker Bays; however, 
because the islands would be deeper, it 
is unlikely. The length of time before 
these effects would occur in relatively 
deep flooded islands is related to the 
rate of sediment buildup on the island 
floor. Lower rates of exchange in flow 
across the islands might result in sig- 
nificant sedimentation but, because it 
occurs deep under water, there would not 
be an accumulation of marshland. 
Instead, the sedimentation would be 
Inorganic suspended material. Specific 
questions as to rate of deposit need to 
be assessed. 

A major resource not thought to be 
affected directly by loss of islands is 
the salmon fishery. These fish tend to 
stay in the channels during both 
upstream and downstream migration. 
However, they are affected by other 
concerns of Delta management. Salmon 
depend on flow direction and magnitude 
to guide their migration. It is poss- 
ible that flooded islands might further 
alter channel flows and thus upset 
migration. 

The limiting factor for waterfowl on the 
Pacific Coast is the availability of 
wintering habitat in California. That 
habitat has dwindled from over 5 million 
acres of wetlands to about 450,000 
acres. Winter use of the Delta by 
waterfowl has increased from about 
0.5 million birds 20 years ago to about 
1.5 million today. This is a substan- 
tial portion of the typical Pacific 
Flyway fall flight of 8 million to 
10 million birds. This increased use is 
thought to result from two food factors : 
the salt-tolerant plants of the Suisun 
Marsh and the waste grain left after 
harvesting corn on the Delta islands. 
Failure to maintain levees, and subse- 
quent flooding of the islands, would 
have damaging effects on these food 
sources and, consequently, on water- 
fowl. 



156 



Except for agricultural lands, the main 
terrestrial wildlife habitats are ripar- 
ian, taking the form of linear corridors 
along the levees. The way in which the 
levees are now managed plays a large 
role in the continuance of three major 
habitat types: waterfowl, riparian 
woodland, and tule marsh. 

Flooding an island would not create 
habitat for birds and mammals, except 
around the fringe. Fields that are 
seasonally flooded for leaching are used 



by migratory and wintering waterfowl as 
feeding areas. Waterfowl feed on either 
the grain lost during harvest or the 
emergent food plants that grow in shal- 
low water. Because the water covering 
flooded islands would be far too deep to 
support vegetation for waterfowl feed, 
habitat that would be destroyed by 
flooding is more valuable for terrest- 
rial and water-associated wildlife than 
the type of vegetation the flooded 
island would create. 



157 



Chapter 9. ADDITIONAL LONG TERM PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES 



The Legislature has adopted a policy of 
maintaining the Delta in its present 
configuration. Permanent flooding of 
Delta Islands is possible as a result of 
short term economic forces. Addition- 
ally, a long term view of the Delta 
indicates that, even with substantial 
Federal, State, and local expenditures, 
permanent flooding may eventually result 
as portions of islands continue to sub- 
side if alternative strategies are not 
developed . 

The land surface of many islands is 
already over 15 feet below sea level, 
and in 50 to 100 years may be from 25 to 
30 feet below sea level. These low 
elevations, resulting primarily from 
OKldation of organic soils, raise the 
question of the physical ability to 
build and sustain levees against the 
pressures created by these depths. The 
physical problems and financial costs 
also raise significant public policy 
questions . 

Studies of the Delta by the U. S. Army 
Corps of Engineers have developed 
construction proposals that the Corps 
and the Department believe will, if 
t.npleraented , result in viable Delta 
levees for perhaps another 50 years. 
However, once Delta levees are called 
upon to withstand the forces caused by 
over 35 feet of water pressure, the 
problems begin to exceed engineering and 
economic confidence limits. Even if 
levees can be designed and strategies 
effected to reduce subsidence rates so 
that these water pressures could be 
withstood, it may not be possible to 
build and maintain the levees at 
affordable costs. Even if these 
exceedingly large levees can be built 
and maintained , the seepage rates may be 
so great as to make agricultural use of 
the lands uneconomical. 



Table 56, Figure 3 (year 1978), and 
Figure 25 (years 2020 and 2080) show 
present and expected levels of subsi- 
dence in the Delta. Within 50 to 
100 years, subsidence will have ceased 
on a number of islands, but as the 
figures indicate, many islands could be 
well over 30 feet below sea level. The 
subsidence rate may slow in the future, 
as surface soils begin to contain a 
higher percentage of inorganic (mineral) 
content . 



Buffer Zones 

As Island surface elevations become 
lower, the problem of increased pressure 
on levees caused by the elevation dif- 
ference between the low point on the 
island and the top of the levee also 
increases. The increase in relative 
elevation is more dangerous if it 
develops in a short horizontal distance. 
The problem of dealing with excessive 
levee heights in a narrow band of land 
could be mitigated by creating buffer 
zones on the landward side of levees 
adjacent to soils having a significant 
thickness of peat. The buffer zones 
would be managed with the objective of 
not disturbing the surface and of 
keeping a moderate moisture level near 
the surface. The intent of these 
actions would be to slow the rate of 
peat soil loss and thereby reduce the 
threat of levee failure. 



Polders 



Another method of dealing with excessive 
levee height is combining islands into 
polders. The larger areal extent of 
polders would permit more room on the 
landward side of levees for construction 
of berms and still leave a usable areas 



159 



within the polders. In addition, the 
polder plan would permit lowering of 
water levels in blocked channels to 
lessen the hazard of failure and reduce 
seepage problems. 

A plan to preserve the Delta by using 
polders could be in two phases. The 
first phase could be improvement of 
existing levees and construction of new 
levees to preserve the Delta in a con- 
figuration similar to, but not neces- 
sarily the same as, that now existing. 
The second phase, which could occur over 
about 30 to 50 years, would join groups 
of islands together in polders. Before 
the levees could be improved in the 
first phase, it would be necessary to 
plan the location of the polders. 
However, economic and physical factors 
could result in some or all of the 
polders being Included in the first 
phase. 

The Corps of Engineers' draft report 
indicates a polder plan with a positive 
cost-benefit ratio. Earlier polder 

Table 56 



plans studied by the Department 
envisioned polders considerably larger 
than those considered by the Corps. For 
example, one Department plan would have 
provided master levees to divide most of 
the Delta covered by the System Plan 
into five large polders; the Corps of 
Engineers' polders consisted of two 
groups of two islands i.e., 4 of the 
15 islands in its incremental plan. 

liany changes and trade-offs would result 
from polders. Channels available for 
boating would be reduced, but land 
recreation and water access sites could 
be increased. Some species of fish 
could lose habitat, but this might be 
mitigated by widening some channels. 
Wildlife habitat could be enhanced by 
conversion of blocked sloughs as long as 
drainage capability is maintained. 
Although frequency of flooding would be 
decreased and level of maintenance 
increased, failure of a polder levee 
would result in a greater amount of 
damage . 







PROJECTED FUTURE MAXIMUM SUBSIDENCE 
















Estimated 
















Subsidence 


Maximum 


Estimated 














Since 


Thickness of 


Rate of 




Projected Subsidence* 




Island or Tract 

Tyler 


Reclamation 
(Feet) 

17 


Organic Soils 
(Feet) 


Subsidence 
(Inches/Year) 

1.6 - 4.6 






Feet) 






^S"Years 
24 - 36 


75 Years 
27 - 46 


100 Years 

30 - 48 


32 


Brannan 


21 


29 


1.6 




28 


31 




34 


Webb 


18 


33 


3.0 




31 


37 




43 


Mandeville 


19 


34 


2.8 




31 


37 




42 


Sherman 


19 


— 


3.0 




32 


38 




44 


Venice 


17 


30 


3.0 




30 


36 




42 


Bacon 


18 


18 


3.0 




31 


30 




32 


Boutdin 


17 


31 


3.0 




30 


36 




42 


Upper Jones 


11 


8 


2.9 




19 


19 




19 


Lower Roberts 


16 


17 


1.6 




23 


26 




29 


Holland 


16 


24 


3.0 




29 


35 




40 


Jersey 


15 


30 


3.0 




28 


34 




40 


Lower Jones 


15 


13 


2.9 




27 


28 




28 


Medford 


14 


22 


3.0 




26 


33 




36 


Mildred 


14 


— 


(3.0) 




27 


33 




39 


McDonald 


17 


__ 


(3.0) 




30 


36 




42 


Orwood 


14 


14 


1.6 - 3.0 


23 


- 27 


24 - 28 


27 


- 28 


Palm 


13 


10 


3.0 




23 


23 




23 


Twitchell 


18 


10 


3.0 




31 


37 




43 


Victoria 


14 


7 


3.0 




21 


21 




21 


Woodward 


15 


16 


3.0 




28 


31 




31 


* Includes "Subsidence Si 


ice Reclamation" 


column. 















160 



FIGURE 25 




161 



Adoption of the two-phase polder alter- 
native would depend on adoption of a 
policy by the Legislature that would 
adjust over the long term from the goal 
of maintaining the Delta in its current 
configuration. 



Permanent Flooding 

The Delta with its 700 miles of meander- 
ing waterways contained within the levee 
system maintained in essentially its 
present physical configuration is a 
unique State resource, particularly from 
a recreation standpoint. 

Should some of the islands flood and be 
permitted to remain flooded, not all of 
the Delta's uniqueness need be lost if 
actions are taken to preserve the 
remaining levees of an island following 
inundation. Conditions such as those 
presently existing in Old River adjacent 
to Franks Tract allow large waves to 
develop from the long fetch across 
Franks Tract and make this reach of Old 
River undesirable for boaters. Mitiga- 
tion of the effects of waves that would 
be generated by the open water surface 
of the flooded island, would include 
placing erosion protection, such as a 
rock blanket, on the interior levee 
slope. Protecting the remaining levee 
would be necessary to preclude the waves 
generated on the flooded island from 
creating additional maintenance problems 
on levees of adjacent islands. The 
existence of a water surface on both 
sides of the levee may reduce the 
probability of structural failure of the 
levee from hydrostatic forces; would 
also preclude further oxidation of 
organic soils and subsequent subsidence 
of the island floor; but may also 
increase the portion of the levee that 
is saturated. 



From the point of view of the State 
Water Project and the Federal Central 
Valley Project, permanent inundation of 
Delta islands would be limited to any 
water quantity, water quality, or 
economic costs to the projects. With 
respect to water quantity, a flooded 
island where the breach is not closed 
would evaporate more water than would be 
used to irrigate crops grown on the 
island (about 5 feet of evaporation 
versus about 3 feet of consumptive use). 
The magnitude of the water quantity 
effect on the projects depends on the 
type of water year that prevails. A wet 
year that would refill storage reser- 
voirs would have little effect. In a 
dry year, the increased evaporation 
would decrease, to some extent, the 
amount of water that could be exported. 

If found to be cost effective the 
flooded island could be operated as a 
stabilized flooded island. The breach 
would be closed with a new levee sec- 
tion, with or without a structure to 
control flow in and out of the island; 
rip rapping of the island side of levees 
would be done to preserve the levees, 
and the water surface on the island 
would be managed to control evaporation 
from the island water surface and seep- 
age through the levees from the channel 
areas . 

A higher level of development would be 
operation of the flooded island as a 
reservoir with pumps transferring water 
from the island lake to Delta channels 
during drought and refilling the island 
during the next high flow period. 

Operation of islands as off stream 
reservoirs could increase the yield of 
the State and federal water projects but 
has not been subjected to an economic 
analysis. 



162 



Appendix A 

REAGAN ADMINISTRATION PROPOSED COST SHARING 
ON WATER PROJECTS 



CONTENTS, APPENDIX A 

Page 
PROPOSED REVISION OF FEDERAL /NON-FEDERAL COST SHARING FORMULA ... 167 



MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT FROM JAMES WATT, COST SHARING ON 

WATER PROJECTS, JUNE 15, 1982 169 



TABLES BASED ON PROPOSED COST SHARING FORMULA 

A-16 System Plan, Allocation of Summed Capital Costs, 

Proposed Cost Sharing 173 

A-17 System Plan, Allocation of Escalated Summed Capital Costs, 

By Participant, Proposed Cost Sharing 173 

A-21 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, System Plan — 

Proposed Cost Sharing 174 

A-22 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, System Plan — 

Proposed Cost Sharing, 6 Percent Escalation Rate .... 175 

A-23 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, System Plan — 

Proposed Cost Sharing, 9 Percent Escalation Rate .... 176 

A-24 System Plan, Allocation of Repayment Obligation — 

Proposed Cost Sharing 177 

A-25 System Plan, Allocation of Island or Tract Repayment Obliga- 
tion and Operation and Maintenance Costs, Proposed Cost 
Sharing, 6 Percent Escalation / 9 Percent Bond Interest . . 178 

A-26 System Plan, Allocation of Island or Tract Repayment Obliga- 
tion and Operation and Maintenance Costs, Proposed Cost 
Sharing, 9 Percent Escalation / 12 Percent Bond Interest . . 179 

A-29 Modified System Plan, Allocation of Summed Capital Costs, 

Proposed Cost Sharing 181 

A-30 Modified System Plan, Allocation of Escalated Summed Capital 

Costs, By Participant, Proposed Cost Sharing 181 

A-34 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, Modified System Plan — 

Proposed Cost Sharing 182 

A-35 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, Modified System Plan — 

Proposed Cost Sharing, 6 Percent Escalation Rate .... 183 



165 



Page 

A-36 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, Modified System Plan — 

Proposed Cost Sharing, 9 Percent Escalation Rate .... 184 

A-37 Modified System Plan, Allocation of Repayment Obligation — 

Proposed Cost Sharing 185 

A-38 Modified System Plan, Allocation of Island or Tract Repayment 
Obligation and Operation and Maintenance Costs, Proposed Cost 
Sharing, 6 Percent Escalation / 9 Percent Bond Interest . . 186 

A-39 Modified System Plan, Allocation of Island or Tract Repayment 
Obligation and Operation and Maintenance Costs, Proposed Cost 
Sharing, 9 Percent Escalation / 12 Percent Bond Interest . . 187 

A-42 Incremental Plan, Allocation of Summed Capital Costs, 

Proposed Cost Sharing 189 

A-43 Incremental Plan, Allocation of Escalated Summed Capital 

Costs, By Participant, Proposed Cost Sharing 189 

A-47 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, Incremental Plan, 

Proposed Cost Sharing 190 

A-48 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, Incremental Plan, 

Proposed Cost Sharing, 6 Percent Escalation Rate .... 191 

A-49 Schedule of Non-Federal Costs, Incremental Plan, 

Proposed Cost Sharing, 9 Percent Escalation Rate .... 192 

A-50 Incremental Plan, Allocation of Repayment Obligation — 

Proposed Cost Sharing 193 

A-51 Incremental Plan, Allocation of Island or Tract Repayment 

Obligation and Operation and Maintenance Costs, Proposed Cost 
Sharing, 6 Percent Escalation / 9 Percent Bond Interest . . 193 

A-52 Incremental Plan, Allocation of Island or Tract Repayment 

Obligation and Operation and Maintenance Costs, Proposed Cost 
Sharing, 9 Percent Escalation / 12 Percent Bond Interest . . 194 



166 



PROPOSED REVISION OF 
FEDERAL /NON-FEDERAL COST SHARING FORMULA 



The Corps of Engineers' draft feasibility report assumes the traditional 
Federal/non-Federal cost sharing relationships, wherein the Corps would 
pay 100 perceat of flood control construction costs and a proportional 
share of raitigatioa costs. The Corps' report also assumes that 50 per- 
cent of the recreation costs and 75 percent of the wildlife enhancement 
costs would be Federal costs. The Corps assumes other costs to be 
non-Federal. The cost allocations and financial analysis presented in 
Chapters 5, 6, and 7 are based on this traditional Federal/non-Federal 
cost sharing formula. 

Although not yet approved by Congress, the Reagan Administration has 
proposed a new cost sharing formula, as described in a June 15, 1982 
memorandum. Under this formula, non-Federal interests would be expected 
to pay 35 percent (up front) of all flood control costs*, 50 percent of 
recreation costs, and 100 percent of wildlife enhancement costs. 

This appendix presents similar tabulations on cost allocation and finan- 
cial analyses as were presented in Chapters 5, 6, and 7, but modified to 
reflect the Reagan Administration's proposed cost sharing formula. These 
modified tables have the same table number as their traditional formula 
counterpart, but preceded by the letter "A". For example, in Chapter 5, 
Table 16 shows the summed capital costs (1981 prices) allocated between 
Federal and non-Federal participants based on the traditional cost 
sharing formula. In this appendix, the comparable table based on the 
proposed cost sharing formula is numbered A-16. 

A further discussion of the assumptions used for the cost sharing and 
financial analysis in this bulletin is presented in Chapter 4. 



* The 35 percent share is assumed to be computed after all relocation 
betterment costs are allocated to the non-Federal participants. 



167 



(COPY) 

THE WHITE HOUSE 
WASHINGTON 

June 15, 1982 



MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT 

FROM: JAMES G. WATT, CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE 

CABINET COUNCIL ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

SUBJECT: Cost Sharing on Water Projects 



Attached is the Cabinet Council's decision memo and recommendation. 

You will be pleased to know that some progress has been made on these issues 
already. The Department of the Army has been successful in obtaining letters 
of intent from non-federal entities interested in ten new Civil Works project 
starts to provide 78 percent of the cost, as opposed to their providing only 
13 percent under the historical policies. The non-federal groups also agreed 
to pay that amount "up front," that is, as spent, rather than by repaying the 
federal outlays over a number of years. "Up front" financing by non-federal 
interests would relieve the burden on the federal budget. 



169 



(COPY) 

THE WHITE HOUSE 
WASHINGTON 

June 15, 1981 (sic) 



MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT 

FROM: JAMES G. WATT, CHAIRMAN AND PRO TEMPORE 

CABINET COUNCIL ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 



ISSUE : 

What kind of cost sharing arrangements should the Administration require for 
federal water projects? 

BACKGROUND : 

Water projects have contributed significantly to the health, prosperity, and 
quality of American life. In this era of federal fiscal austerity, the continued 
development of such projects will require non-federal participation in project 
planning, finance, and management. Without such cost-sharing arrangements, much 
needed development of this vital resource is in jeopardy. 

DISCUSSION : 

The two important federal water project responsibilities have been (1) project 
planning and evaluation, and (2) project finance and repayment. The Cabinet 
Council on Natural Resources and Environment, in conjunction with the Water 
Resources Council, has recommended new Principles and Guidelines for planning and 
evaluating economically viable, environmentally sound water projects. These 
guidelines replace the very rigid and cumbersome Principles and Standards that 
have contributed to a hiatus in water project development. In addition to these 
Principles and Guidelines, the Cabinet Council now recommends, as part of this 
Administration's comprehensive water project development policy, the adoption, 
as policy, of cost sharing with non-federal project beneficiaries. 

In the current era of budgetary stringency, some cost sharing for water projects 
is a necessity. Set forth below are the cost sharing recommendations of the 
Cabinet Council . 



170 



Purpose 

Urban and rural flood 
protection and 
rural drainage 

Agricultural water 



Recreation (excluding 
costs for minimum 
safety and sanitation 
facilities 

Municipal water 

Navigation 

Fish and Wildlife 
mitigation 

Fish and Wildlife 
enhancement 

Industrial water 

Hydroelectric power 

Publicly financed 

Privately financed 



(COPY) 

Non-Federal Share of Capital Costs 
Variable (no less than 35 percent) 



Variable (no less than 35 percent) depending 
on benefits to users 

50 percent of joint and separable costs 



100 percent of costs 

(Subject of pending legislation) 

(100 percent project cost -- allocated in 
proportion to project costs) 

100 percent of costs 
No less than 100 percent 

No less than 100 percent 

Payment for right to use a federal facility for 
partnership arrangement 



Operation and maintenance costs would be the responsibility of beneficiaries. 
The principles behind these proposals are: 

1. In general, recipients of services or benefits should pay for the cost of 
those services. 

2. In cases where the value of water service is greater than the cost, consideration 
should be given to recovery of more than project cost. 

3. Certain services, such as agricultural water and flood control, need a greater 
degree of leeway. However, they still should be required to pay a significant 
portion of the cost. The 35 percent minimum figure used here will be raised 
where the irrigator gets greater benefits (based on the benefits estimated in 

the cost-benefit study used to justify the project). 



171 



(COPY) 

RECOMMENDATION : 

The Council recommends approval of these cost sharing guidelines for federal 
water projects. 

DECISION : 

APPROVE DISAPPROVE 



172 



Table A-16 

SYSTEM PLAN 

ALLOCATION OF SUMMED CAPITAL COSTS 

PROPOSED COST SHARING 

(In Thousands of Dollars, 1981 Prices) 



Item 



Project Federal Nonfederal 
Total Allocation Allocation 



Fl ood Control, 

Federal ParTicipatlon Islands and Tracts 



Construction 
Mitiqation 
Lands, Easements, 

Rights of Way 
Relocations 
Relocation Betterments 

Subtotal 
Percent 



448,400 

loot 



285,800 
64S 



162,600 
36S 



F lood Control, 

Nonfederal Participation Islands and Tracts 

Construction 424,100 

Mitigation 9.200 
Lands, Easements, 

Rights of Way 30,200 

Relocations 9,000 

Relocation Betterments 9.700 

Subtotal 482.200 

Percent 100* 



424.100 
9.200 

30,200 
9,000 
9,700 

482,200 
lOOX 



Flood Control Subtotal 930.600 285,900 644,700 
Percent lOOX 31% 69X 



Recreation and Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 

Recreation 40.000 20.000 20,000 

Percent 100« SOX 50< 



Fish and Wildlife 
Enhancement 57,000 

Percent 100« 



57,000 
lOOX 



PROJECT TOTALS 1.027,600 305,900 ^^l.TOO 

PERCENT lOOX 30X 70X 



Table A-17 

SYSTEM PLAN 

ALLOCATIOM OF ESCALATED SUMMED CAPITAL COSTS, BY PARTICIPANT 

PROPOSED COST SHARING 

(In Minions of Dollars) 



Purpose 


Federal Total 

I9S1 Escalation 

Prices SX M 

286 1,000 2,423 


1981 
Prices 

645 
100 


Total 
Escalation 

2,365 5,840 
100 100 


1981 
Prices 

318 
49 


Slate 
Escalation 

1.161 2,856 
49 49 


1981 
Prices 


County 
Escalation 


Islands/Tracts 
1981 Escalation 
Prices 6i a 

309 1,139 2,822 
48 48 48 


Mater Proji 
1981 I: 
Prices 

18 
3 


icls/t 
icalat 

6i 

65 
3 


Isers 
;1on 


Flood Control 
Percent 


162 
3 


Recreation 
Percent 


20 


47 71 


20 
100 


46 
100 


70 
100 


10 
50 


23 35 
50 50 


10 
50 




23 
50 


35 
50 


. 


- 




- 


- 


Fish/Wildlife 
Enhancement 
Percent 


- 


- 


57 
100 


206 
100 


482 
100 


29 
50 


103 241 
50 50 


28 
50 




103 
50 


241 
50 


- 


- 




- 


- 


TOTAL 
Percent 


306 


1,047 2,494 


722 
100 


2.617 
100 


6,392 
100 


357 
49 


1,287 3,132 
49 49 


38 
5 




126 
5 


276 
4 


309 1,139 2,822 
43 43 44 


18 
3 




65 
3 


162 
3 



173 



Table A-21 

SCHEDULE OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS. SYSTEM PLM - PROPOSED COST-SHARING 

(In Thousands of Dollars, 19B1 Prices) 

Future 
Island or Tract 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Stage Total 



Bouldin* 7.330 7,330 2,336 2,161 5,570 24,717 

Venice 10,295 10,295 -- 4,824 -- 4,824 -- 4,824 - 4,824 -- -- 28,942 68,827 

Terminous* 6.010 6,010 493 1,376 -- -- 6,208 17,099 

Empire* 1.810 1,810 119 160 -- -- 1,490 6,388 

Veale 2.153 2,163 -- *.305 

Brack* 3.262 3.262 779 -- -- -- 7,303 

Shin Kee - - 1,794 1.794 -- 3,587 

Orwood. Upper — -- 2,077 2,077 -- -- — -- — — — — — 4.154 

Mandeville* -- -- 3,042 3,042 -- -- -- -- -- - -- - 3,453 9,637 

McDonald* - -- 2,888 2,888 860 740 2,526 9,903 

Rindge* - -- 3,418 3,418 -- -- -- -- 103 710 7,649 

Webb* - - 2,803 2,803 741 4,377 10.723 

Roberts, 

Lower/Middle/Upper* — — 7,106 7,106 129 — -- -- -- -- -- — — 14,341 

Drexler* -- -- 1,440 1,440 -- - 1.208 -- -- -- -- -- 2.083 6,170 

Jones, Lower/Upper* -- -- -- -- 4,457 4,457 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1,427 10,340 

Woodward 3,927 3.927 2.316 5.498 15,667 

Bacon* 3.375 3,375 1.492 2.580 10,822 

Andrus-Brannan* 5,334 5,334 301 -- -- 648 - 301 5,097 17,015 

Canal Ranch 5,920 5,920 1.021 12,860 

Bishop -- -- -- " 3,154 3,154 - - - 1.870 8,178 

Tyler* 3,718 3.718 -- 781 8.216 

Bradford - 4,811 4.811 -- -- -- -- - - 8,934 18.555 

Jersey -- -- 9,803 9,803 - - - -- -- 19.605 

Holland 6.580 6.580 -- - -- 778 3.624 17.562 

Sherman 25,190 25,190 -- 50,379 

McCormack-Williamson -- — -- -- -- -- 4.550 4.550 -- -- -- -- 767 9.867 

Deadhorse - 1,930 1.930 - -- -- 80 507 4.447 

King -- 4,824 4,824 -- -- - - 393 10.041 

Twitchell 13,759 13,759 -- - 11,931 39,448 

Staten 12,164 12,164 - - 10,701 35,029 

Palm 4,527 4,527 - -- 2.493 11,646 

Hotchkiss* 1.228 1.228 -- -- - 2,455 

Shima 3,294 3.294 -- -- 489 7.077 

Rio Blanco 1.626 1,626 -- - 47 3.299 

New Hope 9.733 9.733 -- -- -- 19.465 

Wright-Elmwood 3.211 3.211 658 6.979 

Victoria 5,443 5.443 1.232 12.117 

Coney 1.777 1,777 -- 3,553 

Pescadaro Area 4.621 4,621 - 9,242 

Sargent-Barnhart 1.846 1.846 283 3.974 

Bethel 15,018 15.018 1,489 31,525 

Orwood 3.700 3,700 1,066 8,466 

Atlas 1.260 1,260 -- 2,520 

Byron 9.291 9,291 -- 18.582 

Walnut Grove — -- -- — -- — — — -- — 624 624 -- 1,247 

Union 1.026 1.026 - 2.052 

Fabian -- - -- 4.378 4.378 - 8,756 

Flood Control Subtotal 29,859 29.859 24.566 29,390 34.823 40.130 59,037 59.301 46,329n 54,117 52.192 57.838 117.147 634.588 

Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 424 424 425 425 567 567 641 641 787 787 1.513 1,613 -- 8,712 

Flood Control Total 30,283 30.283 24.991 29,815 35,389 40,696 69.678 69.942 47.116 54.904 53,705 69,351 117,147 643,300 

Recreation 1.849 1.849 1.192 1,192 1.338 1.338 1.453 1.453 2.196 2,196 2,116 2,115 -- 20,283 

Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 3.525 3,526 4,205 4,205 3,707 3,706 4.328 3.330 3.385 2.667 2.629 3,626 13,312 56,650 

Project Total 35,666 35,656 30,388 35.212 40.434 45.740 65,459 64,725 53,197 59,766 58,449 65.092 130.459 720.233 
'Islands included in Federal plan. 



174 



Table A-22 

SCHEDULE OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS, SYSTEM PLAN ~ PROPOSED COST SHARING 
6 PERCENT ESCALATION RATE 
(In Thousands of Dollirs) 



IslMd or Trict 

Bouldtn* 

Venice 

Terminous* 

Empire* 

Veale 

Brack* 

Shin Kee 

Orwood, Upper 

Mandeville* 

McDonald* 

Rindge* 

Webb* 

Roberts, 

Lower/Middle/Upper* 
Drexler* 

Jones, Lower/Upper* 

Woodward 

Bacon* 

Andrus-Brannan* 

Canal Ranch 

Bishop 

Tyler* 

Bradford 

Jersey 

Holland 

Sherman 

HcCormack-Wi 1 1 iamson 

Oeadhorse 

King 

Twitchell 

Staten 

Palm 

Hotchkiss* 

Shima 

Rio Blanco 

New Hope 

Uright-Elfflwood 

Victoria 

Coney 

Pescadaro Area 

Sargent-Barnhart 

Bethel 

Orwood 

Atlas 

Byron 

Walnut Grove 

Union 

Fabian 



1989 1990 



1991 



11.683 
16,408 
7,986 
2,884 
3,431 
5,199 



12.384 
17,392 
8,465 
3,057 
3,637 
5,511 



3,212 
3,720 
5,447 
5,172 
6,121 
5.020 

12,725 
2,578 



1992 



9,157 



3,405 
3,943 
5,774 
5,483 
6,488 
5,321 

13,489 
2,733 



1993 



1994 



10,289 

1,053 

254 



1995 

5.280 



1996 



11.561 



1997 



1998 1999 2000 



12,990 

3,706 

430 

2,099 



2,062 
1.775 



261 



8,968 
7,901 
6,790 
10,733 
11,911 
6,346 
7,480 
9,680 



9,506 

8,375 

7,198 

11,377 

12,626 

6,727 

7,929 

10,260 



2,731 



5,236 
681 



22,163 
14,877 
56,951 
10,287 
4,364 
10,907 



1,745 



23,492 
15,769 
60,368 
10,904 
4,625 
11,561 



34,951 

30,901 

11,499 

3,119 

8,368 

4,131 

24,724 



37,049 

32,755 

12,189 

3,306 

8,870 

4.378 

26.207 



6,508 



2,240 
312 



4,515 
912 



2,354 
242 



9,164 
15,535 

5,071 
13,190 

5,268 
42.866 
10.560 

3,596 
26.520 

1,780 

2.929 
12.496 



9,714 
16,467 

5,375 
13,981 

5,584 
45.438 
11.193 

3,812 
28.111 

1.886 

3,104 
13.246 



Future 
Stiqe 

53.712 

228,832 

47.676 

7,865 



30,502 

23,614 

9,692 

41,832 



17,771 

8.685 
38.750 
16.446 
42.771 

9,346 
10,740 

5,341 
97,080 



29,575 

33,859 
4,112 
3,021 

100,256 

184,932 

21,530 

3,758 
771 



4,546 
15,998 



1,533 
14,449 
18,524 



Total 

89.568 
306.630 
68.885 
14,490 
7,067 
12,808 

6.616 
7,662 
41.723 
38,570 
22,614 
53,948 

26.474 
25.813 

27.159 
60,262 
34,950 
68,219 
33,884 
23.814 
20,751 
117,020 

45,655 
62,575 
117,319 
55,051 
13,343 
25,488 

172,266 

248,587 

45,218 

6,424 

20,996 

9,280 

50,931 

23,424 

48,000 

10,446 

27,171 

12,385 

102,753 

40.277 

7,409 

54,631 

3,666 

6,033 

25,742 



Flood Control Subtotal 47,591 50.446 43,995 55,792 70,070 85,594 133,476 142.118 117,692 145.724 148,974 174.996 1.127,521 2,343,988 

Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 675 716 760 806 1,140 1,208 1,450 1,537 1,999 2,119 4,318 4,578 -- 21,307 

Flood Control Total 48,266 51,162 44,755 56,598 71,210 86.802 134.926 143,655 119,692 147.843 153.292 179.573 1.127,521 2,365,295 

Recreation 2,946 3,123 2,134 2,262 2,692 2,854 3,284 3,481 5,579 5,912 6,038 6.399 -- 46,704 

Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 5,618 5,955 7,531 7,982 7,459 7.905 9.785 7.981 9,869 7,182 7,504 10,971 109.979 205.721 

Project Total 56.830 60,240 54,419 66.842 81.361 97,560 147,995 155.116 135,139 160,936 166,835 196,943 1,237,500 2,617,720 
*Is lands included in hederal plan. 



175 



Table A-23 

SCHEOaE OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS. SYSTEM PLAN - PROPOSED COST SHARING 

9 PERCENT ESCALATION RATE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 



Island or Tract 

Souldin* 

Venice 

Terminous* 

Empire* 

Veale 

Brack* 

Shin Kee 

Orwood, Upper 

MandeviHe* 

McDonald* 

Rindge* 

Webb* 

Roberts, 

Lower/Midd 1 e/Upper* 
Drexler* 

Jones, Lower/Upper* 

Woodward 

Bacon* 

Andrus-Brannan* 

Canal Ranch 

Bishop 

Tyler* 

Bradford 

Jersey 

Holland 

Sherman 

McCormack-Mi 1 1 i amson 

Deadhorse 

King 

Twitchell 

Staten 

Palm 

Hotchkiss* 

Shima 

Rio Blanco 

New Hope 

Uright-Elmwood 

Victoria 

Coney 

Pescadaro Area 

Sargent-Barnhart 

Bethel 

Orwood 

Atlas 

Byron 

Walnut Grove 

Union 

Fabian 



1989 

14,606 
20.512 
9,983 
3,606 
4.289 
6,499 



1990 

15,921 

22,359 

10,882 

3,930 

4,675 

7,084 



1991 



4,246 
4,917 
7.201 
6,837 
8,091 
6,636 

16,822 
3,408 



1992 



12,448 



4,628 
5,360 
7,849 
7,453 
8,819 
7,233 

18,336 
3.715 



1993 1994 



14,789 

1,513 

365 



1995 



7,805 



1996 



17,571 



1997 



1998 1999 



20,877 

5,956 

691 

3.373 



3.134 
2.698 



364 



12,535 
11,044 

9,492 
15,002 
16,650 

8,871 
10,456 
13.530 



13,663 
12,038 
10,346 
16,352 
18,148 
9,670 
11,397 
14.748 



4,036 



7,739 
1,007 



32,757 
21,989 
84,176 
15,205 
6,450 
16,120 



2,805 



35,705 
23.968 
91,752 
16,573 
7,030 
17.571 



54,625 
48.295 
17,972 

4,874 
13,078 

6.456 
38,641 



59,542 
52.641 
19,589 

5,313 
14,255 

7.037 
42,119 



2000 



11,060 



3,806 
531 



7.673 
1,549 



411 



15.144 
25,673 

8.380 
21,798 

8,705 
70.842 
17,451 

5,944 
43.827 

2,941 

4,840 
20,652 



16,507 
27,983 

9,134 
23,760 

9,489 
77,217 
19,022 

6,478 
47,771 

3,206 

5,275 
22,510 



Future 

167.822 

688,126 

155.763 

18,235 



106,827 
75,958 
37,440 

150,648 



54,476 

20.631 

105.840 

42,573 

137,426 

26,992 

24.811 

13,417 

359,549 



4,000 85.461 



207.739 
11.640 
8,023 

315,513 

877.594 

60.465 

9.982 
2.942 



12,416 
54,623 



3,445 
42,907 
72,720 



Total 

217,214 
796.682 
184,097 

26,827 
8,964 

16,957 

8,874 
10,277 

121,876 
97,188 
54,882 

167.214 

35.522 
65.635 

46,829 

136,662 

70,085 

174,142 

61,789 

43,351 

35,270 

387,827 

68,463 

135,418 

175,929 

239,517 

25,531 

41,715 

429.680 
978,531 
98,025 
10,187 
37,316 
16,434 
80,760 

44,068 

108,280 

17,514 

45,557 

21,639 

190,966 

109,193 

12,422 

91,598 

6.147 

10,115 

43.162 



Flood Control Subtotal 59,496 64,851 58,158 75,840 97,944 123,030 197,285 216,002 183,941 234,197 246,196 297,385 3,952,002 5,806,327 

Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 844 920 1,005 1,096 1,593 1,737 2,143 2,336 3,125 3.406 7.137 7.779 -- 33,120 

Flood Control Total 60,340 65.771 59,163 76,936 99,538 124,766 199,428 218.338 187.065 237.603 253.333 305.164 3,952,002 5,839.447 

Recreation 3,683 4,015 2,821 3,075 3,763 4.102 4,854 5,291 , 8,719 9,501 9.979 10,875 -- 70.677 

Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 7,024 7,656 9,955 10.851 10,427 11,362 14,463 12,129 15,425 11,542 12.401 18,644 339,613 481,490 

Project Total 71,047 77.441 71,938 90,861 113,728 140,230 218.745 235.758 211,209 258,646 275,713 334.683 4.291.615 6.391,614 
*ls lands included in Federal plan. 



176 



Table A-24 

SYSTEM PLAM 

ALLOCATION OF REPAYMENT OBLIGATION — PROPOSED COST SHARING 

(In Millions of Dollars) 





Total* 


State 


County 


Islands/Tracts* 

am unit 

694 1,070 
48 48 


Hater Pre 
and Hater 

6i/ii 

39 
3 


ijects 

■ Users 


Purpose 


**6«/9X 

1,450 
100 


9%/lZ% 

2,238 
100 


M/M 

717 
49 


9J/12X 

1,107 
49 


6im 


9S/1» 


H/IH 


Flood Control 
Percent 


61 
3 


Recreation 
Percent 


50 
100 


76 
100 


25 
SO 


38 
50 


25 
50 


38 
50 


•- 


•• 


._ 


" 


F1sh/Wildl1fe 
Enhancement 
Percent 


131 
100 


205 
100 


66 
50 


103 
50 


65 
50 


102 

50 


— 


— 


" 


— 


TOTAL PROJECT 
Percent 


1,631 
100 


2.519 
100 


807 
49 


1,247 
49 


90 

6 


140 
6 


694 
43 


1,071 
43 


39 
2 


61 
2 


* Includes rel 
**Percents of 


location 
Escalati 


betterments. 
on/Bond Rate. 



















177 



Table A-25 

SYSTEM PL AM 

ALLOCATION OF ISLAND OR TRACT REPAYMENT OBLIGATION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 

PROPOSED COST SHARING 
6 PERCENT ESCALATION / 9 PERCENT BOND INTEREST 











1988 


Bond Sale 






0(M Costs 






Annual 


1 Repayment 




Equivalent 


Annual Repayment** 
Per HHe Per 


(1989 


1 Price Level) 








Per Hlle 


Per 




Per Mile 


Per 


Island or Tract 


Total 


of Levee 

200,000 


Acre 

135 


Total 


of Levee 

158,000 


Acre 

107 


Total 

40.000 


of Levee 

3,911 


Acre 


Andrus-Brannan* 


2,018,000 


1,598,000 


3 


Atlas 


349,000 


113,000 


1,030 


195,000 


63,000 


575 


12.000 


3,748 


34 


Bacon* 


1,102,000 


77,000 


199 


873,000 


61,000 


157 


57.000 


3,981 


10 


Bethel 


4,398,000 


382,000 


1,250 


2,456,000 


214,000 


698 


268.000 


23,339 


76 


Bishop 


772,000 


133,000 


356 


611,000 


105,000 


282 


23,000 


4,007 


11 


Bouldin* 


1,806,000 


100,000 


299 


1,806,000 


100,000 


299 


71.000 


3,938 


12 


Brack* 


606,000 


56,000 


124 


606,000 


56,000 


124 


44.000 


4,088 


9 


Bradford 


1,591,000 


215,000 


743 


1,261,000 


170,000 


588 


29.000 


3,925 


14 


Byron 


3,248.000 


342,000 


468 


1,814,000 


191,000 


262 


38.000 


4,036 


6 


Canal Ranch 


1,271,000 


134.000 


424 


1,007,000 


106,000 


336 


38.000 


4,036 


13 


Coney 


495,000 


92,000 


530 


277,000 


51,000 


296 


21.000 


3,873 


22 


Deadhorse 


498,000 


199,000 


2,359 


351,000 


140.000 


1,663 


9.000 


3,718 


44 


Drexler* 


513,000 


58.000 


162 


457,000 


51.000 


144 


36.000 


4,047 


11 


Empire* 


399,000 


39,000 


107 


399,000 


39.000 


107 


41.000 


3,948 


11 


Fabian 


1,230,000 


65.000 


188 


687,000 


37,000 


105 


74.000 


3,955 


11 


Holland 


1,880,000 


173.000 


445 


1,326,000 


122,000 


314 


43,000 


3,944 


10 


Hotchkiss* 


316,000 


38,000 


94 


199.000 


24.000 


59 


63,000 


7,469 


19 


Jersey 


2,227,000 


143,000 


642 


1.570.000 


101.000 


452 


62,000 


3,948 


18 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


1,023,000 


57,000 


84 


810,000 


. 46,000 


67 


71,000 


3,982 


6 


King 


1,150,000 


128,000 


353 


811,000 


90,000 


249 


35,000 


3,873 


11 


Mandeville* 


760,000 


53,000 


145 


677.000 


47,000 


129 


72,000 


5,038 


14 


McCormack-Williamson 


1,070,000 


123,000 


653 


755,000 


87,000 


460 


35,000 


4.007 


21 


McDonald* 


790,000 


58,000 


129 


703,000 


51,000 


114 


53,000 


3.901 


9 


New Hope 


2,568,000 


209,000 


263 


1,611,000 


131,000 


165 


49,000 


3,968 


5 


Orwood 


1,203,000 


188.000 


493 


672.000 


105,000 


275 


26.000 


3,994 


10 


Orwood, Upper 


405,000 


90,000 


239 


360,000 


80,000 


212 


24,000 


5,422 


14 


Palm 


1,392,000 


178.000 


571 


873,000 


112,000 


359 


33,000 


4,171 


13 


Pescadero Area 


1,280,000 


55.000 


82 


715,000 


31,000 


46 


93.000 


3,972 


6 


Rindge* 


705,000 


45.000 


103 


628,000 


40,000 


92 


62.000 


3.922 


9 


Rio Blanco 


429,000 


134.000 


643 


269,000 


84,000 


403 


13,000 


3,994 


19 


Roberts, 




















Lower/Middle/Upper* 


1,368,000 


59.000 


42 


1,217,000 


52,000 


37 


202,000 


8,714 


6 


Sargent-Barnhart 


558,000 


223.000 


459 


311,000 


125,000 


256 


9.000 


3,718 


8 


Sherman 


5,781,000 


590.000 


555 


4.076,000 


416,000 


391 


43,000 


4,387 


4 


Shima 


894,000 


110,000 


373 


561,000 


69,000 


234 


31.000 


3,873 


13 


Shin Kee 


322,000 


170.000 


300 


287,000 


151,000 


267 


8,000 


4,281 


8 


Staten 


4,019,000 


158,000 


442 


2,521,000 


99,000 


277 


101,000 


3,964 


11 


Terminous* 


1,245,000 


77,000 


119 


1,245.000 


77,000 


119 


65,000 


4,041 


6 


Twitchell 


4,788.000 


504.000 


1,318 


3,004,000 


316,000 


827 


38,000 


4,036 


H 


Tyler* 


829,000 


77.000 


97 


656,000 


61,000 


76 


48,000 


4,452 


6 


Union 


284,000 


10,000 


11 


159,000 


6,000 


6 


101,000 


3,510 


4 


Veale 


351,000 


62,000 


270 


351.000 


62,000 


270 


22,000 


3,873 


17 


Venice 


4,627,000 


376,000 


1,437 


4,627,000 


376,000 


1.437 


49,000 


3,968 


15 


Victoria 


1,622,000 


107,000 


224 


906,000 


60,000 


125 


59,000 


3,924 


8 


Walnut Grove 


184,000 


92,000 


282 


103,000 


51,000 


158 


7,000 


3,486 


11 


Webb* 


839,000 


66,000 


153 


746,000 


58.000 


136 


50,000 


3,903 


9 


Woodward 


1,401,000 


161.000 


769 


1,109.000 


128.000 


609 


35,000 


4,007 


19 


Wright-Elmwood 


954,000 


140,000 


450 


533,000 


78.000 


251 


27.000 


3,930 


13 


* Islands and tracts in 


Federal plan. 


















** Common base for comparison of relat 


;ive financial obi i 


gation. 













178 



Table A-26 

SYSTEM PLAM 

ALLOCATION OF ISLAND OR TRACT REPAYMENT OBLIGATION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 

PROPOSED COST SHARING 
9 PERCENT ESCALATION / 12 PERCENT BOND INTEREST 











1988 


Bond Sale 






DIM Costs 






Annual Repayment 




Equivalent 


Annual Repav*ent** 
Per Hile Per 


(1989 


Price Level) 








Per Nile 


Per 




Per Hile 


Per 


Island or Tract 


Total 


of Levee 

373,000 


Acre 

251 


Total 


of Levee 

264,000 


Acre 

178 


Total 

49,000 


of Levee 

4,890 


Acre 


Andrus-Brannan* 


3,765,000 


2,667,000 


3 


Atlas 


756,000 


244,000 


2,230 


319,000 


103,000 


942 


15,000 


4,686 


43 


Bacon* 


2,060.000 


144,000 


371 


1,459.000 


102,000 


263 


71,000 


4,977 


13 


Bethel 


9,556,000 


831,000 


2.715 


4,037,000 


351,000 


1,147 


336,000 


29,178 


95 


Bishop 


1.437.000 


248,000 


663 


1,018.000 


176,000 


469 


29,000 


5,009 


13 


Bouldin* 


3,045,000 


169,000 


504 


3,045.000 


169,000 


504 


89,000 


4,923 


15 


Brack* 


997,000 


92,000 


205 


997,000 


92,000 


205 


55,000 


5,111 


11 


Bradford 


3.038,000 


411,000 


1,418, 


2,153,000, 


291,000. 


1.004, 


36,000 


4,907 


17 


Byron 


7,031,000 


740,000 


1.014 


2,970,000 


313,000 


428 


48,000 


5,046 


7 


Canal Ranch 


2,345,000 


247,000 


783 


1.661.000 


175,000 


555 


48,000 


5,046 


16 


Coney 


1.073.000 


199,000 


1,147 


453.000 


84,000 


485 


26,000 


4,842 


28 


Oeadhorse 


972.000 


389,000 


4,608 


580.000 


232,000 


2.748 


12,000 


4,648 


55 


Drexler* 


916,000 


103,000 


290 


771.000 


87,000 


244 


45,000 


5,060 


14 


Empire* 


668,000 


65,000 


179 


668.000 


65,000 


179 


51,000 


4,936 


14 


Fabian 


2,664,000 


142,000 


408 


1.125.000 


60,000 


172 


93,000 


4,945 


14 


Holland 


3.700.000 


339,000 


876 


2.206.000 


202,000 


522 


54,000 


4,931 


13 


Hotchkiss* 


648,000 


77,000 


193 


325.000 


39,000 


97 


78,000 


9,338 


23 


Jersey 


4,312.000 


276,000 


1,242 


2.571.000 


165,000 


741 


77,000 


4,935 


22 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


1.893,000 


106,000 


156 


1.341,000 


75,000 


110 


89,000 


4,978 


7 


King 


2,234,000 


248,000 


685 


1.332.000 


148,000 


409 


44,000 


4.842 


13 


Mandeville* 


1,355,000 


95,000 


259 


1.141.000 


80,000 


218 


90,000 


6.298 


17 


McCormack-Williamson 


2,091,000 


240,000 


1,276 


1.247.000 


143,000 


761 


44,000 


5.009 


27 


McDonald* 


1,408.000 


103,000 


229 


1.185.000 


86,000 


193 


67,000 


4.877 


,11 


New Hope 


5.259.000 


428.000 


539 


2.639,000 


215,000 


271 


61,000 


4,960 


6 


Or wood 


2,635,000 


412,000 


1,080 


1,113,000 


174,000 


456 


32,000 


4,993 


13 


Orwood, Upper 


702,000 


156,000 


413 


591,000 


131,000 


348 


31,000 


6,779 


18 


Palm 


2,899,000 


372,000 


1,190 


1,455,000 


187,000 


597 


41,000 


5,214 


17 


Pescadero Area 


2,772,000 


118,000 


177 


1,171,000 


50,000 


75 


116,000 


4,966 


7 


Rindge* 


1.232.000 


78,000 


180 


1,037.000 


66,000 


152 


77,000 


4,904 


11 


Rio Blanco 


879,000 


275,000 


1.318 


441.000 


138,000 


661 


16,000 


4,993 


24 


Roberts, 




















Lower/Middle/Upper* 


2.369.000 


102,000 


73 


1,994,000 


86,000 


61 


253,000 


10,894 


8 


Sargent-Barnhart 


1.211,000 


484,000 


997 


512,000 


205,000 


421 


12,000 


4,648 


10 


Sherman 


11,194,000 


1,142,000 


1,074 


6.674,000 


681,000 


641 


54,000 


5,484 


5 


Shi ma 


1.839.000 


227,000 


768 


923,000 


114,000 


386 


39,000 


4,842 


16 


Shin Kee 


559.000 


294.000 


520 


470,000 


247,000 


438 


10,000 


5,352 


9 


Staten 


8.458,000 


332,000 


931 


4,245,000 


166,000 


467 


126,000 


4,956 


14 


Terminous* 


2.105.000 


131,000 


201 


2,105,000 


131,000 


201 


81 ,000 


5,052 


8 


Twitchell 


9,997,000 


1,052,000 


2,752 


5,017,000 


528,000 


1.381 


48,000 


5,046 


13 


Tyler* 


1.529.000 


143,000 


178 


1,083,000 


101,000 


126 


60,000 


5,566 


7 


Union 


615.000 


21,000 


25 


260,000 


9,000 


10 


126,000 


4,388 


5 


Veale 


575.000 


101,000 


443 


575.000 


101,000 


443 


28,000 


4,842 


21 


Venice 


7.947.000 


646,000 


2,468 


7,947,000 


646,000 


2,468 


61,000 


4,960 


19 


Victoria 


3,543,000 


235,000 


489 


1,496,000 


99,000 


206 


74,000 


4,906 


10 


Walnut Grove 


398,000 


199,000 


611 


168,000 


84,000 


258 


9,000 


4,358 


13 


Webb* 


1,505,000 


118,000 


274 


1.267,000 


99,000 


231 


62,000 


4,880 


11 


Woodward 


2,636,000 


303,000 


1,447 


1.867,000 


215,000 


1,025 


44,000 


5.009 


24 


Wright-Elmwood 


2,077,000 


305,000 


979 


877,000 


129,000 


414 


33,000 


4.913 


16 


* Islands and tracts in 


Federal plan. 
















** Common base for comparison of relative financial obli 


gat ion. 













179 



Table A-29 
MODIFIED SYSTEM PLAN 
ALLOCATION OF SUMMED CAPITAL COSTS 
PROPOSED COST SHARING 

(In Thousands of Dollars. 1981 Prices) 



Item 



Project Federal Nonfederal 
Total Allocation Allocation 



Flood Control, 








Federal Participation Islands and 


Tracts 




Construction 








Mitigation 








Lands, Easements, 








Rights of Way 








Relocations 








Relocation Betterments 








Subtotal 


448,400 


285.800 


162,600 


Percent 


lOOX 


64« 


36X 


Flood Control , 








Nonfederal Participation Islands 


and Tracts 




Construction 


244,800 




244,800 


Mitigation 


5,800 




5,800 


Lands, Easements, 








Rights of Way 


19,800 




19,800 


Relocations 


6,200 




6,200 


Relocation Betterments 


7,200 




7,200 


Subtotal 


283,800 




283,800 


Percent 


lOOX 




100« 


Flood Control Subtotal 


732,200 


285,800 


446,400 


Percent 


lOOX 


39X 


61X 


Recreation and Fish and 


Wildlife 


Enhancement 




Recreation 


40,000 


20.000 


20,000 


Percent 


lOOX 


SOX 


SOX 


Fish and Wildlife 








Enhancement 


57.000 




57,000 


Percent 


lOOX 




lOOX 



PROJECT TOTALS 829,800 305,800 523,400 
PERCENT lOOX 37X 63X 



Table A-30 

MODIFIED SYSTEM PLAN 

ALLOCATIOH OF ESCALATED SUMMED CAPITAL COSTS, BY PARTICIPANT 

PROPOSED COST SHARING 



(In Millions of Dollars) 



Non-Federal 





Federal Total 




Total - 




State 






County 




Islands/Tracts 
19S1 Escalation 
Prices SX 9X 

215 787 1,874 
48 48 48 


Uaier Projecis/i 
1981 Escalal 
Prices SX 

12 44 
3 3 


Jsers 


Purpose 


IMl 
Prices 

286 


EscaTatfon 
H « 

1.119 2.369 


Prices 

447 
100 


Escalation 
SX « 

1,627 3.868 
100 100 


IMl 
Prices 

220 
49 


Escalation 
£X 9X 

796 1,887 
49 49 


1961 
Prices 


Escalation 
St 9X 


Hon 


Flood Control 
Percent 


107 
3 


Recreation 
Percent 


20 


42 59 


20 
100 


42 60 
100 100 


10 
50 


21 
50 


30 
50 


10 
50 


21 
50 


30 
SO 


- 


_ 


- 


_ 


. 


Fish/Wildlife 
































Enhancement 
Percent 


~ 


- 


57 
100 


206 498 
100 100 


29 

50 


103 
50 


249 
50 


28 
50 


103 
50 


249 
50 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


TOTAL 
Percent 


306 


1,161 2.428 


523 
100 


1.875 4,426 
100 100 


258 
49 


920 2 
49 


,166 
49 


38 

7 


124 

7 


279 

7 


215 
41 


787 1.874 
42 42 


12 
3 


44 
2 


107 
2 



181 



Table A-34 

SCHEDULE OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS. MODIFIED SYSTEN PLAN — PROPOSED COST SHARING 

(In Thousands of Dollars, 1981 Prices) 











. 
















Future 




Island or 


Tract 


1989 

7,330 


1990 

7,330 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


1995 

2.336 


1996 


1997 


1998 


Stage 

7,721 


Total 


Bouldin* 




24,717 


Terminous* 




5,010 


5,010 


.. 


-- 


-. 


493 


.. 


.. 





1.376 


5,208 


17.099 


Empire* 




1,810 


1,810 


.- 


-- 


-. 


119 


.. 


.. 


.. 


160 


1,490 


5,388 


Veale 




2.153 


2,153 


-- 


-. 


.. 


.. 





__ 


_. 


., 


._ 


4,305 


Brack* 




3,262 


3,262 





.- 


.. 


.. 


.. 


-. 


.. 


779 


._ 


7.303 


Shin Kee 




1,794 


1,794 


-- 





.. 





.. 


.. 


_» 


.. 


-. 


3,587 


Orwood, Upper 




2,077 


2,077 


.. 


.. 


.. 


.. 


.. 


.. 





-_ 


_. 


4,154 


Handeville* 




3,042 


3,042 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


3,453 


9,537 


McDonald* 




._ 


_, 


2,888 


2,888 


__ 


__ 


_. 


860 


__ 


__ 


3.267 


9,903 


Rindge* 




— 


— 


3.418 


3,418 


-- 


.. 





.. 





.. 


813 


7,649 


Webb* 




— 


— 


2,803 


2.803 


-- 


-- 


-. 


741 








4,377 


10,723 


Roberts, 




























Lower/MiddU 


•/Upper* 


-- 


-- 


7,106 


7,106 


129 





.. 


.. 


.. 


__ 


._ 


14,341 


Drexler* 




— 


— 


1,440 


1,440 


-. 


— 


1,208 


.- 


.. 





2.083 


6,170 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


-- 


-- 


4,457 


4.457 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


1,427 


10.340 


Woodward 




.. 


._ 


.. 


._ 


3,927 


3,927 


2.316 


.. 


._ 


_.. 


5,498 


15,667 


Bacon* 




— 


— 


.- 


-- 


3,375 


3.375 





-- 


.- 


.. 


4,073 


10.822 


Andrus-Brannar 


1* 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


5,334 


5.334 


301 


.- 


-- 


648 


5,398 


17,015 


Canal Ranch 




— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


5,920 


5.920 


-- 


-. 


-. 


-- 


1.021 


12,860 


Bishop 




— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


3,154 


3.154 


-. 





.. 





1,870 


8,178 


Tyler* 




— 


— 


-- 


-. 


3,718 


3.718 








.. 





781 


8,216 


Bradford 




— 


— 


.. 


.. 


4,811 


4.811 


.. 


.. 








8,934 


18,555 


Jersey 




" 


-- 


-- 


-- 


9,803 


9.803 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


19,605 


Holland 










_, 


__ 


__ 


__ 


6.580 


6,580 


._ 


_. 


4,402 


17,562 


McCormack-Will 


liamson 


— 


— 


.. 


— 





-- 


4,550 


4,550 





__ 


767- 


9,867 


Deadhorse 




-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


-- 


1,930 


1,930 


-- 


— 


587 


4.447 


King 




— 


-- 


-. 


-- 


-- 


-- 


4,824 


4,824 


— 


-- 


393 


10.041 


Staten 




— 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


.- 


12,164 


12,164 


— 





10,701 


35.029 


Palm 




— 


— 


-- 


-- 


— 


-. 


4,527 


4,527 








2,493 


11.546 


Hotchkiss* 




— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


.- 


1.228 


1,228 








-- 


2,455 


Shima 




— 


-- 


-- 


— 


— 


— 


3,294 


3,294 





-- 


489 


7,077 


Rio Blanco 




— 


— 


— 


-- 


— 


— 


1.626 


1,626 


-- 





47 


3,299 


New Hope 




— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


— 


9.733 


9,733 


— 


-- 


-- 


19,465 


Wright-Elmwooo 


1 


.. 


-« 


-- 


_. 


._ 


_. 


._ 


__ 


3,211 


3,211 


558 


6.979 


Victoria 




— 


— 


-- 


• - 


— 


— 


.- 


.. 


5,443 


5,443 


1,232 


12.117 


Coney 




— 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 





1,777 


1,777 


.- 


3.553 


Bethel 




— 


-- 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


-- 


-. 


15,018 


15,018 


1,489 


31,525 


Byron 


Subtotal 


-- 


-* 


~~ 


~* 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


9.291 


9,291 


-- 


18,582 


Flood Control 


26,477 


26,477 


22,111 


22,111 


40.168 


40,651 


56,615 


52,056 


34.739 


37,702 


80,572 


439,678 


Fish/Wildlife 


Mitigation 


377 


377 


334 


334 


614 


614 


941 


941 


500 


500 




5,531 


Flood Control Total 


26,854 


26,854 


22,445 


22,445 


40.782 


41,265 


57,557 


52,997 


35,238 


38,202 


80.572 


445,209 


Recreation 




2.913 


2,913 


1,535 


1,534 


2.166 


2,166 


1,958 


1,957 


1,572 


1,572 


-- 


20,283 


Fish/Wildlife 


Enhancement 3,969 


3,969 


4,728 


4,727 


4.207 


4,206 


4,930 


3,931 


4,445 


3,228 


14.310 


56,650 


Project Tot 


al 


33,736 


33,735 


28,707 


28,706 


47.155 


47,637 


64,444 


58,885 


41,255 


43,001 


94.882 


522,142 


•Islands incli 


ided in Federal plan. 























182 



Table A-35 
SCHEDULE OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS. MODIFIED SYSTEM PLAN — 
6 PERCENT ESCALATION RATE 
(In Thousands of Dollars) 



PROPOSED COST SHARING 

























Future 




Island or Tract 


1989 

11,683 


1990 

12,384 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


1995 

5.280 


1996 


1997 


1998 


Stage 

60.220 


Total 


Bouldin* 


89,568 


Terminous* 


7,986 


8,465 


-. 


.. 


.. 


1,053 


.. 








3,706 


47,676 


68,885 


Empire* 


2.884 


3,057 


— 


-■ 


.- 


254 


— 


— 


-- 


430 


7.865 


14,490 


Veale 


3,431 


3,637 














.. 


.. 


.. 


.» 


., 


7,067 


Brack* 


5,199 


5,511 





-- 


-. 


.. 


.. 





._ 


2,099 


__ 


12,808 


Shin Kee 


2,859 


3,030 


.- 


-- 


-- 


.. 


.. 


.. 





.. 


_. 


5,889 


Orwood, Upper 


3,310 


3,509 


-- 


.- 


-. 





.. 


.. 





«- 


., 


6,819 


Mandeville* 


4,848 


5,139 


-- 


— 


-- 


— 


" 


— 


— 


— 


27,146 


37,133 


McDonald* 


«. 


__ 


5.172 


5,483 


._ 


._ 


.,_ 


2.062 


__ 


__ 


25,853 


38,570 


Rindge* 


— 


— 


6.121 


6,488 


— 


— 


.. 











10,005 


22,614 


Webb* 


— 


— 


5.020 


5,321 


— 


-- 





1.775 








41,832 


53,948 


Roberts, 


























Lower/Middle/Upper* 


.- 


-. 


12.725 


13,489 


261 





.. 


.. 





_. 


-, 


26,474 


Orexler* 


— 


— 


2.578 


2.733 


— 





2.731 


-. 








17,771 


25,813 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


" 


-- 


7,981 


8.460 


— 


" 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


7,730 


24.171 


Woodward 


.. 


.. 





._ 


7.901 


8,375 


5,236 


._ 


_. 


__ 


38,750 


60,262 


Bacon* 


— 


— 


— 


— 


6,790 


7,198 








.. 


.. 


20.962 


34,950 


Andrus-Brannan* 


— 


— 


-. 


— 


10,733 


11,377 


681 








1.745 


43,683 


68,219 


Canal Ranch 


.. 


.- 


— 





11,911 


12,626 


.. 





.. 


-. 


9.346 


33.884 


Bishop 


.. 


— 


— 





6,346 


6.727 


.. 


.. 


«_ 





10.740 


23,814 


Tyler* 


.. 











7,480 


7,929 


_. 


__ 


__ 


.. 


5,341 


20,751 


Bradford 


— 


-- 


-• 


— 


9,680 


10,260 


.. 


— 


.. 





97,080 


117,020 


Jersey 


— 


— 


-- 


-- 


19,725 


20,908 


— 


— 


— 


" 


— 


40,633 


Holland 





.. 


__ 


.. 


__ 


.« 


14,877 


15.769 


__ 


__ 


31,929 


62,575 


McCornack-Wi 1 1 i amson 


— 


.- 


— 


— 





-. 


10.287 


10.904 








33,859 


55,051 


Deadhorse 


— . 


-- 


-. 


-- 


— 


— 


4,364 


4,625 








4,354 


13,343 


King 


— 


— 


-- 


— 


-- 


.. 


10,907 


11,561 








3,021 


25,488 


Staten 


-- 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


27,502 


29,152 








164,588 


' 221,242 


Palm 


— ' 


-- 


.- 


-- 


— 





10,234 


10,848 








19,161 


40,243 


Hotchkiss* 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


2.776 


2,942 


.- 


— 





5,718 


Shima 


— 


— 








.. 


.. 


7.447 


7,894 


.. 





3.345 


18,687 


Rio Blanco 


— 


-. 


— 











3.676 


3,897 


,- 





686 


8,259 


New Hope 


— 


-- 


-- 


" 




-- 


22,004 


23,325 


— 


-- 


— 


45,329 


Wright-Elmwood 








.- 


_. 


_. 





.. 


_« 


8,156 


8.645 


4,046 


20,847 


Victoria 


— 


— 


-- 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


13,826 


14,655 


14,238 


42.720 


Coney 


— 


-- 


-- 


— 


.- 











4,513 


4,784 


-- 


9.297 


Bethel 


— 


— 


— 








.. 


.. 





38,151 


40,440 


12,859 


91,450 


Byron 


-■ 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


— 


— 


— 


23,602 


25,019 


— 


48.621 


Flood Control Subtotal 


42,200 


44,732 


39,597 


41.973 


80,827 


86,707 


128.002 


124,754 


88,248 


101,523 


764,088 


1.542,651 


Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 


601 


637 


597 


633 


1.235 


1,309 


2,128 


2,256 


1,270 


1,346 





12,012 


Flood Control Total 


42,801 


45.369 


40.195 


42.607 


82,062 


88,015 


130.130 


127,010 


89,518 


102,869 


764,088 


1,554,663 


Recreation 


4.643 


4.921 


2,748 


2.912 


4,358 


4.619 


4.426 


4,690 


3.992 


4,232 


— 


41.540 


Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 6,326 


6.706 


8,467 


8.973 


8,465 


8.971 


11.146 


9.421 


11.292 


8,692 


118,174 


206,634 


Project Total 


53,770 


56.995 


51,410 


54.492 


94,885 


101,605 


145.702 


141.121 


104.802 


115.793 


882,262 


1,802,837 


♦Islands Included in Federal plan. 



183 



Table A-36 

SCHEDULE OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS. NODIFIED SYSTEM PLAN — PROPOSED COST SHARING 

9 PERCENT ESCALATION RATE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 

























Future 




Island or Tract 


1989 

14,606 


1990 

15,921 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


1995 

7.805 


1996 


1997 


1998 


Stage 

178,882 


Total 


Bouldin* 


217,214 


Terminous* 


9,983 


10,882 











1.513 


.- 


.. 


-- 


5,95C 


155,763 


184,097 


Empire* 


3,606 


3,930 


.- 


.- 


-. 


365 


.. 




.- 


691 


18.235 


26,827 


Veale 


4,289 


4,675 


-. 


-- 


-. 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-. 


-- 


-- 


8,954/ 


Brack* 


6,499 


7,084 


.. 


-- 


.- 


-- 


-- 


-. 


-- 


3,373 


-- 


16,957 


Shin Kee 


3,574 


3,895 





-. 


-. 


.. 


-- 




.. 





-- 


7,469 


Orwood, Upper 


4,139 


4,511 


._ 


.« 


_. 


-. 


.. 


.. 


.. 


-. 


-. 


8,650 


Mandeville* 


6.061 


6,606 


— 


— 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


~ 


— 


89,914 


102,581 


McDonald* 


^_ 


__ 


6,837 


7,453 


__ 


__ 


.. 


3,134 


__ 


__ 


79,764 


97,188 


Rindge* 


— 


— 


8,091 


8,819 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


37,971 


54,882 


Webb* 


— 


— 


6,636 


7,233 


— 


-- 


— 


2.698 


— 


• • 


150.648 


167,214 


Roberts, 


























Lower/Middle/Upper* 


.. 


.. 


16,822 


18,336 


364 


-. 


.. 


.. 


.. 


.. 


-. 


35.522 


Drexler* 








3,408 


3,715 








4.036 


-- 








54,476 


65,635 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


— 


" 


10,551 


11,500 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


17,365 


39,415 


Moodward 


.. 


_, 


__ 


.. 


11,044 


12,038 


7,739 


._ 


.. 


._ 


105.840 


136,662 


Bacon* 


_. 


._ 


_. 


__ 


9,492 


10,346 


__ 


_» 


,. 


,_ 


50,247 


70,085 


Andrus-Brannan* 














15,002 


16,352 


1,007 


-_ 





2,805 


138,975 


174,142 


Canal Ranch 














16,650 


18,148 


-. 


.. 





.- 


26,992 


61,789 


Bishop 














8,871 


9,670 


__ 


-_ 








24,811 


43,351 


Tyler* 








.. 





10,456 


11.397 


.. 











13,417 


35,270 


Bradford 





— 








13,530 


14,748 














359,549 


387,827 


Jersey 


— 


— 


" 


-- 


27,571 


30,053 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


57,624 


Holland 


_. 


.. 


._ 


._ 


__ 


__ 


21,989 


23,968 


.. 


__ 


89,462 ' 


135,418 


McCormack-Wi 1 1 iamson 








.. 


.- 


.. 





15,205 


16,573 








207,739 


239,517 


Deadhorse 








.. 











6.450 


7,030 


-, 


._ 


12,051 


25.531 


King 





.. 


.. 


-- 


-- 


.. 


16,120 


17,571 








8.023 


41.715 


Staten 


-- 


— 


.. 


.- 


-- 


-. 


40.649 


44,307 


— 





738.654 


823.610 


Palm 


— 


-. 


— 


— 


-. 


— 


15.126 


16.488 


— 


-- 


50.892 


82,506 


Hotchkiss* 


— 


— 


— 


.. 








4,102 


4.472 


.. 





.. 


8,574 


Shima 














-. 


.. 


11,008 


11.998 


._ 


_. 


8.402 


31,408 


Rio Blanco 


— 


— 


.- 


-- 








5,434 


5.923 


_- 


.. 


2.476 


13,832 


New Hope 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


-- 


32,523 


35.450 


-- 


-- 


-- 


67.974 


Wright-Elmwood 








.. 


.. 


-_ 


«. 


._ 


.. 


12.747 


13,894 


10.450 


37.091 


Victoria 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


-- 


-- 


.. 


21.608 


23,553 


45,975 


91.137 


Coney 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-. 


-- 


-. 


7.053 


7,688 


-- 


14.741 


Bethel 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-. 


.- 


-- 


59,626 


64,992 


36,114 


160.732 


Byron 


"- 


*" 


"" 


~~ 


"~ 


*- 


-- 


-- 


36,888 


40,208 


-- 


77,096 



Flood Control Subtotal 52,756 57,505 52,345 57,056 112.980 124.629 189.193 189,611 137,922 163,160 2,713,085 3,850,243 

Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 751 819 790 861 1,726 1,881 3,145 3,428 1,985 2.163 -- 17,550 

Flood Control Total 53.508 58,323 53,135 57,917 114.706 126,511 192.338 193.040 139.907 165,324 2,713.085 3.867,793 

Recreation 5,804 6,326 3,633 3,958 6.092 6,639 6,541 7.128 6.239 6.801 — 59.162 

Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 7,908 8,620 11,193 12,198 11,833 12,895 16,475 14,319 17,648 13,970 371.578 498.636 

Project Total 67.220 73,269 67,960 74,073 132.631 146,044 215.355 214.487 163,795 186.094 3,084,663 4,425,591 

*Is1ands Included In Federal plan. 



184 



Table A-37 

NODIFIED SYSTEN PLAN 

ALLOCATION OF REPAYMENT OBLIGATION ~ PROPOSED COST SHARING 

(In Millions of Dollars) 





Total* 


State 




County 


Islands/Tracts* 

W5S — mm 

456 678 
48 48 


Hater Pre 
and Hatei 

sfm — 

25 
3 


)Jects 

■ Users 


Purpose 


946 
100 


w/ia 

1.408 
100 


6i/9i 

465 
49 


692 
49 


6i/H 


9X/1» 


M/l« 


Flood Control 
Percent 


_. ■ 


38 
3 


Recreation 
Percent 


44 
100 


64 
100 


22 
SO 




32 

SO 


22 
50 


32. 
50 


.• 


.. 


•_ 


__ 


Fish/Wildlife 
Enhancement 
Percent 


126 
100 


194 
100 


63 
SO 




97 
50 


63 
50 


97 
50 


" 


" 


— 


" 


TOTAL PROJECT 
Percent 


1,116 
100 


1.666 
100 


550 
49 




821 
49 


85 
8 


129 
8 


456 
41 


678 
41 


25 
2 


38 
2 


* Includes relocation betterments. 
♦•Percents of Escalation/Bond Rate. 



185 



Table A-38 

MODIFIED SYSTEM PLAM 

ALLOCATION OF ISLAND OR TRACT REPAYMENT OBLIGATION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 

PROPOSED COST SHARING 
6 PERCENT ESCALATION / 9 PERCENT BOND INTEREST 











1988 


Bond Sale 






out Costs 






Annual 


Repavaent 




Equivalent 


Annual Repa^nent** 
Per Mile Per 


(1989 


Price Level) 








Per Mile 


Per 




Per Mile 


Per 


Island or Tract 


Total 


of Levee 

201.000 


Acre 

135 


Total 


of Levee 

159,000 


Acre 

107 


Total 

40,000 


of Levee 

3,911 


Acre 


Andrus-Brannan* 


2,027,000 


1,606,000 


3 


Bacon* 


1,110,000 


78.000 


200 


879.000 


61,000 


158 


57,000 


3,981 


10 


Bethel 


3.854,000 


335,000 


1.095 


2.418,000 


210,000 


687 


268,000 


23,339 


76 


Bishop 


778,000 


134,000 


359 


616,000 


106,000 


284 


23,000 


4,007 


11 


Bouldin* 


1,795.000 


100,000 


297 


1,795,000 


100,000 


297 


71,000 


3,938 


12 


Brack* 


602.000 


56,000 


124 


602.000 


56,000 


124 


44,000 


4.088 


9 


Bradford 


1.604,000 


217,000 


749 


1.271.000 


172,000 


593 


29,000 


3.925 


14 


Byron 


2,862,000 


301,000 


413 


1.795.000 


189,000 


259 


38,000 


4.036 


6 


Canal Ranch 


1.281.000 


135,000 


428 


1,015,000 


107.000 


339 


38,000 


4,036 


13 


Coney 


434.000 


80.000 


464 


272.000 


50,000 


291 


21,000 


3,873 


22 


Deadhorse 


502,000 


201.000 


2,378 


354.000 


142,000 


1.677 


9,000 


3,718 


44 


Drexler* 


507,000 


57.000 


160 


451.000 


51.000 


143 


36.000 


4.047 


11 


Empire* 


396,000 


38,000 


106 


396.000 


38.000 


106 


41.000 


3.948 


11 


Holland 


1,896,000 


174,000 


449 


1.336.000 


123.000 


316 


43,000 


3,944 


10 


Hotchkiss* 


280,000 


33,000 


84 


198,000 


24.000 


59 


63,000 


7,469 


19 


Jersey 


1,975,000 


127,000 


569 


1,564,000 


100.000 


451 


62,000 


3,948. 


18 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


911,000 


51,000 


75 


811,000 


46.000 


67 


71,000 


3.982 


6 


King 


1,160.000 


129.000 


356 


818,000 


91 .000 


251 


35,000 


3.873 


11 


Mandeville* 


682,000 


48.000 


130 


682,000 


48,000 


130 


72,000 


5.038 


14 


McCormack-Wi 1 1 i amson 


1,079,000 


124.000 


659 


761.000 


87,000 


464 


35.000 


4.007 


21 


McDonald* 


779.000 


57,000 


127 


694,000 


51,000 


113 


53,000 


3.901 


9 


New Hope 


2,276,000 


185.000 


233 


1,604.000 


130.000 


164 


49.000 


3.968 


5 


Orwood, Upper 


363,000 


81.000 


214 


363,000 


81.000 


214 


24.000 


5.422 


14 


Palm 


1,233,000 


158.000 


506 


869,000 


111.000 


357 


33.000 


4.171 


13 


Rindge* 


697,000 


44,000 


102 


620,000 


40,000 


91 


62.000 


3.922 


9 


Rio Blanco 


380,000 


119,000 


569 


268,000 


84.000 


401 


13.000 


3.994 


19 


Roberts, 




















Lower /Middle/Upper* 


1,351,000 


58,000 


42 


1.203,000 


52,000 


37 


202.000 


8.714 


6 


Shima 


792,000 


98,000 


331 


558,000 


69,000 


233 


31,000 


3,873 


13 


Shin Kee 


289,000 


152,000 


269 


289.000 


152,000 


269 


8,000 


4,281 


8 


Staten 


3,561,000 


140.000 


392 


2.510,000 


98,000 


276 


101,000 


3,964 


11 


Terminous* 


1,238.000 


77.000 


118 


1,238,000 


77,000 


118 


65.000 


4,041 


6 


Tyler* 


835.000 


78.000 


97 


662,000 


62,000 


77 


48,000 


4,452 


6 


Veale 


349.000 


61,000 


269 


349,000 


61,000 


269 


22,000 


3,873 


17 


Victoria 


1,420.000 


94,000 


196 


891.000 


59,000 


123 


59,000 


3,924 


8 


Webb* 


828.000 


65,000 


151 


737.000 


58.000 


134 


50.000 


3.903 


9 


Woodward 


1,412,000 


162,000 


775 


1.119.000 


129,000 


614 


35.000 


4.007 


19 


Wright-Elmwood 


836,000 


123,000 


394 


524,000 


77.000 


247 


27,000 


3.930 


13 


* Islands and tracts 1n 


Federal plan 


















** Coinmon base for comparison of relat 


ive financi 


al obligat 


Ion. 













186 



Table A-39 

MODIFIED SYSTEM PLAH 

ALLOCATIOH OF ISLAND OR TTIACT REPAYMENT OBLIGATION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 

PROPOSED COST SHARING 
9 PERCENT ESCALATION / 12 PERCENT BOND INTEREST 



1988 Bond Sale 



out Costs 





Annual 


Repayment 




Equivalent 


Annual Repa 


lyment** 


(1989 


Price Level 


' u 






Per Hile 


Per 




Per Hile 


Per 




Per Mile 


Per 


Island or Tract 


Total 


of Levee 

374,000 


Acre 

252 


Total 


of Levee 

265,000 


Acre 

179 


Total 

49,000 


of Levee 

4,890 


Acre 


Andrus-Brannan* 


3.782,000 


2.680.000 


3 


Bacon* 


2,073,000 


145,000 


374 


1.469.000 


103.000 


265 


71,000 


4,977 


13 


Bethel 


7,919,000 


689,000 


2.250 


3.974.000 


346.000 


1,129 


336,000 


29,178 


95 


Bishop . 


1,448,000 


250,000 


668 


1.026.000 


177.000 


473 


29,000 


5.009 


13 


Bouldin* 


3,026,000 


168,000 


500 


3,026,000 


168,000 


500 


89,000 


4,923 


15 


Brack* 


991,000 


92,000 


203 


991.000 


92,000 


203 


55,000 


5,111 


11 


Bradford 


3,062,000 


414,000 


1,429 


2.169,000 


293,000 


1,012 


36,000 


4,907 


17 


Byron 


5,859,000 


617,000 


845 


2,940,000 


310.000 


424 


48,000 


5.046 


7 


Canal Ranch 


2,363,000 


249.000 


789 


1,674,000 


176.000 


559 


48,000 


5.046 


16 


Coney 


889,000 


165.000 


950 


446,000 


83.000 


477 


26,000 


4.842 


28 


Deadhorse 


980.000 


392.000 


4.646 


584,000 


234.000 


2,770 


12,000 


4,648 


55 


Drexler* 


906,000 


102.000 


286 


762,000 


86,000 


241 


45.000 


5,060 


14 


Empire* 


664,000 


64,000 


178 


664.000 


64,000 


178 


51.000 


4,936 


14 


Holland 


3,731,000 


342,000 


883 


2.225.000 


204,000 


527 


54.000 


4.931 


13 


Hotchkiss* 


543,000 


65,000 


162 


324,000 


39.000 


96 


78.000 


9.338 


23 


Jersey 


3,619,000 


232,000 


1.043 


2.564.000 


164.000 


739 


77,000 


4.935 


22 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


1,594,000 


90,000 


131 


1.341.000 


75.000 


110 


89.000 


4.978 


7 


King 


2,252,000 


250,000 


691 


1.343.000 


149.000 


412 


44,000 


4,842 


13 


MandeviUe* 


1,150,000 


80.000 


220 


1,150.000 


80.000 


220 


90,000 


6,298 


17 


McCorraack-Williamson 


2.109,000 


242.000 


1.287 


1.258.000 


145.000 


767 


44,000 


5.009 


27 


McDonald* 


1,389,000 


101.000 


226 


1.169.000 


85,000 


190 


67,000 


4,877 


11 


New Hope 


4,407.000 


358.000 


452 


2.628.000 


214,000 


269 


61,000 


4.960 


6 


Orwood, Upper 


595.000 


132.000 


350 


595.000 


132,000 


350 


31,000 


6,779 


18 


Palm 


2,429,000 


311.000 


997 


1.448.000 


186,000 


595 


41,000 


5.214 


17 


Rindge* 


1,218,000 


78.000 


178 


1.026.000 


65,000 


150 


77,000 


4.904 


11 


Rio Blanco 


737.000 


230,000 


1.104 


439.000 


137.000 


658 


16,000 


4.993 


24 


Roberts, 




















Lower/Middle/Upper* 


2.342.000 


101,000 


72 


1,971,000 


85.000 


61 


253,000 


10,894 


8 


Shiraa 


1.541.000 


190,000 


544 


919,000 


113,000 


384 


39,000 


4.842 


16 


Shin Kee 


474.000 


249,000 


441 


474,000 


249.000 


441 


10.000 


5.352 


9 


Staten 


7.087,000 


278,000 


780 


4,226.000 


166.000 


465 


126.000 


4.956 


14 


Terminous* 


2,092,000 


130,000 


200 


2,092,000 


130.000 


200 


81.000 


5,052 


8 


Tyler* 


1,541,000 


144,000 


180 


1,091.000 


102.000 


127 


60.000 


5.566 


7 


Veale 


571,000 


100,000 


440 


571.000 


100,000 


440 


28.000 


4.842 


21 


Victoria 


2.934,000 


194,000 


405 


1.473.000 


98,000 


203 


74.000 


4.906 


10 


Webb* 


1.486.000 


116.000 


271 


1.251.000 


98.000 


228 


62.000 


4,880 


11 


Woodward 


2.657,000 


305.000 


1.458 


1.883.000 


216.000 


1,033 


44.000 


5,009 


24 


Wright-Elmwood 


1,721,000 


253.000 


811 


864.000 


127.000 


407 


33.000 


4.913 


16 


isianas and tracts in reaerai pian. 
** Common base for comparison of relat 


:1ve financial obllqat 


ion. 













187 



Table A-42 

INCREMENTAL PLAN 

ALLOCATION OF SUMMED CAPITAL COSTS 

PROPOSED COST SHARING 

(In Thousands of Dollars. 1981 Prices) 



Item 



Project Federal Nonfederal 
Total Allocation Allocation 



Flood Control, 

Federal Participation Islands and Tracts 

Construction 
Mitigation 
Lands, Easements, 

Rights of Way 
Relocations 
Relocation Betterments 



Total Flood Control 
Percent 



448,400 

loot 



285,800 
64S 



162,600 
36« 



Recreation and Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 



Recreation 



Percent 



40,000 
lOOX 



20,000 
SOS 



20,000 
SOX 



Fish and Wildlife 
Enhancement 49,000 

Percent lOOX 



49,000 
100« 



PROJECT TOTALS 537,400 

PERCENT 100< 



305,800 
57X 



231,600 
43X 



Table A-43 

INCREMENTAL PLAN 

ALLOCATION OF ESCALATED SUM1ED CAPITAL COSTS. BY PARTICIPANT 

PROPOSED COST SHARIN6 

(In Nllllons of Dollars) 





Federal Total 














Non-Federal 




















Total 






State 




county 




Tslands/Tracts 
1981 Escalation 
Prices SK W 

80 268 636 
49 49 49 


Water Projects/U 
1981 Escalat 
Prices 6S 

5 16 
3 3 


sers 


Purpose 


1981 
Prices 

286 


Escalation 
986 2,378 


19S1 
Prices 

163 
100 


Escalation 

548 1,304 
100 100 


1981 
Prices 

78 
48 


Escalation 
» 9X 

264 628 
48 48 


1981 Escalation 
Prices 6* K 


Ion 


Flood Control 
Percent 


40 
3 


Recreation 
Percent 


20 


38 51 


20 
100 


38 
100 


52 
100 


10 
SO 


19 
50 


26 
50 


10 19 
SO . 50 


26 
50 


- 


. 


. 


- 


- 


. 


Fish/Wildlife 
Enhancement 
Percent 


- 


ISO - 


48 
100 


44 

100 


414 
100 


25 
50 


22 
SO 


207 
50 


24 22 
50 50 


207 
50 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


- 


TOTAL 
Percent 


306 


1,154 2,429 


231 
100 


630 1 
100 


.770 
100 


112 
48 


305 
48 


861 
49 


34 41 
15 6 


233 
13 


80 
35 


268 
43 


636 
36 


5 
2 


16 
3 


40 
2 



189 



Table A-47 
SCHEDULE OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS. INCREMENTAL PLAN 
PROPOSED COST SHARING 
(In Thousands of Dollars, 1981 Prices) 

















Future 




Island or Tract 


1989 

7,330 


1990 

7,330 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


Stage 

10,057 


Total 


Bouldin 


24,717 


Terminous 


5,010 


5,010 


-. 


•- 


— 


493 


6,585 


17,099 


Empire 


1,810 


1,810 


-> 


-- 


-- 


119 


1,650 


5,388 


Brack 


3,262 


3,262 


-- 


-- 


-- 


— 


779 


7,303 


Mandeville 


3,042 


3,042 


— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


3,453 


9.537 


McDonald 


^^ 


^^ 


2,888 


2,888 


»^ 


_. 


4,127 


9,903 


Rindge 


-- 


-- 


3,418 


3.418 


-- 


-- 


813 


7,649 


Webb 


-- 


— 


2,803 


2,803 


— 


— 


5,117 


10,723 


Roberts, 


















Lower/Middle/Upper 


.. 


-- 


7,106 


7,106 


129 


-- 


-- 


14,341 


Drexler 


" 


" 


1,440 


1,440 


— 


— 


3,291 


6,170 


Jones, Lower/Upper 


sM 


__ 


»^ 


.. 


4,457 


4,457 


1,427 


10,340 


Bacon 


_- 


-. 


._ 


-. 


3,375 


3,375 


4,073 


10,822 


Andrus-Brannan 


.- 


-- 


-- 


.. 


5,334 


5,334 


6,348 


17,015 


Tyler 


— 


-- 


-- 


.- 


3,718 


3,718 


781 


8,216 


Hotchkiss 


-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


1,228 


1,228 


-- 


2,455 


Flood Control Subtotal 


20,454 


20,454 


17,654 


17,654 


18,240 


18,723 


48,500 


161,678 


Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 


147 


147 


157 


157 


130 


130 


-- 


869 


Flood Control Total 


20,601 


20,601 


17,812 


17,812 


18,370 


18,853 


48,500 


162,547 


Recreation 


3,035 


3,035 


3,526 


3,526 


3,581 


3,581 


-- 


20,283 


Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 5,039 


5,039 


5,346 


5,346 


5,691 


5,691 


16,525 


48,677 


Project Total 


28,675 


28.675 


26,683 


26,683 


27,642 


28,125 


65,025 


231,507 



190 



Table A-48 

SCHEDULE OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS. INCREMENTAL PLAN 

PROPOSED COST SHARING 

6 PERCENT ESCALATION RATE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 



Island or Tract 

Bouldin 

Terminous 

Empire 

Brack 

Mandeville 

McDonald 
Rindge 
Webb 
Roberts, 

Lower/Middle/Upper 
Drexler 

Jones, Lower/Upper 

Bacon 

Andrus-Brannan 

Tyler 

Hotchkiss 



1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 



11,683 
7,986 
2,884 
5,199 
4,848 



12,384 
8.465 
3,057 
5,511 
5,139 



5,172 5,483 

6,121 6,488 

5,020 5,321 

12,725 13,489 

2,578 2,733 



261 



8,968 
6,790 
10,733 
7,480 
2,470 



1,053 
254 



9,506 
7,198 
11,377 
7,929 
2,618 



Future 
Stage 

65,500 

51,382 

8,295 

2,099 

27,146 

27,915 
10,005 
43,607 



20,502 

8,685 
20,962 
46,110 

5,341 



Total 



89,568 
68,885 
14,490 
12,808 
37,133 

38,570 
22,614 
53,948 

26,474 
25,813 

27,159 
34,950 
68,219 
20,751 
5,089 



Flood Control Subtotal 32,600 34,556 31,616 33,513 36,702 39,934 337,549 546,471 

Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 235 249 282 299 261 277 — 1,602 

Flood Control Total 32,835 34,805 31,898 33,812 36,963 40,211 337,549 548,073 

Recreation 4,837 5,128 6,314 6,692 7,206 7,638 — 37,815 

Fish/Wildlife Enhancement 8,031 8,513 9,574 10,148 11,451 12,138 113,345 173,201 

Project Total 45,703 48,446 47,785 50,653 55,620 59,988 450,894 759,089 



191 



Table A-49 

SCHEDULE OF NON-FEDERAL COSTS, INCREMENTAL PLAN 

PROPOSED COST SHARING 

9 PERCENT ESCALATION RATE 

(In Thousands of Dollars) 



















Future 




Island or 


Tract 


1989 

14,606 


1990 

15,921 


1991 


1992 


1993 


1994 


Stage 

186,687 


Total 


Jouldin 




217,214 


ferminous 




9,983 


10,882 


-- 


-- 


~~ 


1,513 


161,718 


184,097 


impire 




3,606 


3,930 


-- 


-- 


-- 


365 


18,925 


26,827 


Jrack 




6,499 


7,084 


-- 


-- 


~~ 


-- 


3.373 


16,957 


^andeville 




6,061 


6,606 


— 


— 


-- 


-- 


89,914 


102,581 


McDonald 




^^ 


. _ 


6,837 


7,453 


» _ 


«. 


82,898 


97,188 


Rindge 




-- 


-- 


8,091 


8,819 


-- 


-- 


37,971 


54,882 


Mebb 




— 


— 


6,636 


7,233 


-- 


-- 


153,345 


167,214 


Roberts, 




















Lower/Middle/Upper 


-- 


-- 


16,822 


18,336 


364 


-- 


-- 


35,522 


Drexler 




— 


— 


3,408 


3,715 


-- 


— 


58,512 


65,635 


Jones, Lower/Upper 


__ 


_ . 


« « 


__ 


12,535 


13,663 


20,631 


46,829 


Bacon 




-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


9,492 


10,346 


50,247 


70,085 


Andrus-Brannan 


.- 


-. 


.. 


-- 


15,002 


16,352 


142,787 


174,142 


Tyler 




— 


-- 


-- 


-- 


10,456 


11,397 


13,417 


35,270 


Hotchkiss 




-- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


3,453 


3,764 


— 


7,217 



Flood Control Subtotal 40,755 
Fish/Wildlife Mitigation 293 



Flood Control 


Total 


41,049 


Recreation 




6,047 


Fish/Wildlife 
inhancement 




10,041 


Project Total 




57,136 



44,423 41,794 45,556 51,302 57,400 1,020,426 1,301,657 

320 372 406 365 398 — 2,154 

44,743 42,167 45,962 51,667 57,798 1,020,426 1,303,812 

6,592 8,346 9,097 10,072 10,979 — 51,133 

10,944 12,656 13,795 16,007 17.447 333,646 414,536 

62,279 63.169 68,854 77,746 86.224 1,354,072 1,769,481 



192 



Table A-50 

INCREMENTAL PLAN 

ALLOCATION OF REPAYMENT OBLIGATION ~ PROPOSED COST SHARING 

(In Millions of Dollars) 





Total* 


State 




County 




Islands/Tracts* 

144 199 
49 49 


Uater 

and Ua 

am 

8 
3 


Projects 

ter Users 


Purpose 


**fi</« 

290 
100 


402 
100 


am 

138 
48 


9«/12« 

191 
48 


am 


W/12« 


«/12< 


Flood Control 
Percent 


12 
3 


Recreation 
Percent 


40 
100 


54 
100 


20 
50 




27 
50 


20 
50 




27 
50 


— 


— 





— 


Fish/Wildlife 
Enhancement 
Percent 


104 
100 


156 
100 


52 

50 




78 

50 


52 
50 




78 
50 


— 


— 


— 


— 


TOTAL PROJECT 
Percent 


434 
100 


613 
100 


210 
48 




296 
48 


72 
17 




106 
17 


144 
33 


199 
33 


8 
2 


12 
.2 


* Includes rel 
**Percents of 


location betterments. 
Escalation/Bond Rate. 























Table A-51 

INCREMENTAL PLAN 

ALLOCATION OF ISLAND OR TRACT REPAYMENT OBLIGATION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 

PROPOSED COST SHARING 
6 PERCENT ESCALATION / 9 PERCENT BOND INTEREST 











198( 


( Bond Sale 






0U4 Costs 






Annual Repaynent 




Equivalent 


Annual Repayment** 
Per Hile Per 


(1989 Price Level) 








Per Hile 


Per 




Per Mile 


Per 


Island or Tract 


Total 


of Levee 

198,000 


Acre 

133 


Total 


of Levee 

157,000 


Acre 

105 


Total 

39,000 


of Levee 

3,899 


Acre 


Andrus-Brannan* 


1.997,000 


1,582,000 


3 


Bacon* 


1,086.000 


76,000 


196 


860,000 


60,000 


155 


57,000 


3,969 


10 


Bouldin* 


1,781,000 


99,000 


295 


1,781,000 


99.000 


295 


71,000 


3,925 


12 


Brack* 


598,000 


55,000 


123 


598,000 


55.000 


123 


44,000 


4,076 


9 


Drexler* 


506,000 


57,000 


160 


451,000 


51,000 


142 


36,000 


4,035 


11 


Empire* 


393,000 


38,000 


106 


393.000 


38,000 


106 


41,000 


3.936 


11 


Hotchkiss* 


240,000 


29,000 


71 


190,000 


23,000 


57 


63,000 


7,446 


19 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


1,005,000 


56,000 


83 


796,000 


45,000 


66 


71,000 


3,970 


6 


Mandeville* 


677,000 


47.000 


129 


677,000 


47,000 


129 


72,000 


5,022 


14 


McDonald* 


778,000 


57.000 


127 


693,000 


51,000 


113 


53,000 


3,889 


9 


Rindge* 


696,000 


44,000 


102 


619.000 


39,000 


91 


61,000 


3,910 


9 


Roberts, 




















Lower/Middle/Upper* 


1,349,000 


58,000 


41 


1,201,000 


52,000 


37 


202,000 


8,687 


6 


Terminous* 


1.228,000 


76,000 


117 


1.228,000 


76,000 


117 


65,000 


4,029 


6 


Tyler* 


815,000 


76,000 


95 


645,000 


60,000 


75 


47,000 


4,438 


6 


Webb* 


827,000 


65,000 


151 


736,000 


57,000 


134 


50,000 


3.891 


9 



r— 
** 



Islands and tracts in Federal plan. 

Common base for comparison of relative financial obligation. 



193 



il 



Table A-52 

INCREMENTAL PLAN 

ALLOCATION OF ISLAND OR TRACT REPAYMENT OBLIGATION AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 

PROPOSED COST SHARING 
9 PERCENT ESCALATION / 12 PERCENT BOND INTEREST 











1988 


Bond Sale 






DIM Costs 






Annual 


RepaMwnt 




Equivalent 


Annual Repayment** 
Per Hlle Per 


(1989 


Price Level) 








Per Mile 


Per 




Per Mile 


Per 


Island or Tract 


Total 


of Levee 

369.000 


Acre 

248 


Total 


of Levee 

261.000 


Acre 

176 


Total 

49.000 


of Levee 

4.875 


Acre 


Andrus-Brannan* 


3.727,000 


2,640,000 


3 


Bacon* 


2,029,000 


142,000 


366 


1,437,000 


101.000 


259 


71.000 


4.962 


13 


Bouldin* 


3,004,000 


167,000 


497 


3,004,000 


167.000 


497 


88.000 


4.907 


15 


Brack* 


984,000 


91.000 


202 


984.000 


91.000 


202 


55.000 


5.095 


11 


Orexler* 


904.000 


102.000 


286 


761.000 


86.000 


240 


45.000 


5,044 


14 


Empire* 


659,000 


64.000 


177 


659.000 


64,000 


177 


51.000 


4,921 


14 


Hotchkiss* 


440,000 


52.000 


131 


312,000 


37.000 


93 


78.000 


9,309 


23 


Jones, Lower/Upper* 


1,860,000 


105.000 


153 


1,318,000 


74,000 


108 


88,000 


4,963 


7 


Mandeville* 


1,141,000 


80.000 


218 


1,141,000 


80.000 


218 


90,000 


6,278 


17 


McDonald* 


1,387.000 


101,000 


226 


1,167.000 


85,000 


190 


67,000 


4.862 


11 


Rindge* 


1.217.000 


77,000 


178 


1.024,000 


65.000 


150 


77,000 


4.888 


11 


Roberts, 




















Lower/Middle/Upper* 


2,338.000 


101,000 


72 


1,968,000 


85.000 


60 


252,000 


10,861 


8 


Terminous* 


2,077.000 


129,000 


198 


2,077,000 


129.000 


198 


81,000 


5.037 


8 


Tyler* 


1.503.000 


140,000 


175 


1,065,000 


100.000 


124 


59,000 


5,549 


7 


Webb* 


1.483.000 


116,000 


270 


1,248,000 


98.000 


227 


62.000 


4,865 


11 


* Islands and tracts in 


Federal plan. 


















** Common base for compar 


ison of relat 


ive financia 


1 obligat 


ion. 













194 



Appendix B 



ENABLING STATE LEGISLATION 



197 



a 



194 



CONTENTS, APPENDIX B 

Page 

Water Code Section 12981, et. seq 199 

Water Code Section 12225, et. seq 200 

Water Code Section 12881.4, Sec. 3 202 



197 



//COPY// 



WATER CODE 



PART 9. DELTA LEVEE MAINTENANCE 



Part 9 was added by Stats. 1973, c. 717, p. 1292, § 1, urgency, eff. 
Sept. 24, 1973. 



12981. Unique resources with statewide significance; preservation 

The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the delta is endowed with 
many invaluable and unique resources and that these resources are of 
major statewide significance. The Legislature further finds and declares 
that the delta's uniqueness is particularly characterized by its hundreds 
of miles of meandering waterways and the many islands adjacent thereto, 
that in order to preserve the delta's invaluable resources, which include 
highly productive agriculture, recreational assets, and wildlife 
environment, the physical characteristics of the delta should be 
preserved essentially in their present form, and that the key to 
preserving the delta's physical characteristics is the system of levees 
defining the waterways and producing the adjacent islands. 
(Added by Stats. 1973, c. 717, p. 1293, § 1, urgency, eff. Sept. 24, 
1973.) 



199 



Senate Biii No. 1390 



CHAPTER 1302 

An act to amend Section 12987 of. and to add Chapter 3 fcommenc- 
ing with Section 12225i to Part 4.5 of Division 6 of. the Water Code, 
relating to Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta levees, making an appro- 
priation therefor, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect 
immediately. 

[Approved by Governor September 28. 19T6 Filed with 
Secretary of State September 29. 1976.) 

The people of the State of California do enact as follons: 

SECTION 1. Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 12225) is 
added to Part 4.5 of Division 6 of the Water Code, to read: 

Chapter 3. S.acramento-San Joaquin Delta Levees 

Article 1. Plan for Improvement 

12225. The plan for improvement of the Sacramento-San Joaquin 
Delta levees, as set forth in Bulletin No. 192 of the Department of 
Water Resources, dated .May 1975, is approved as a conceptual plan 
to guide the formulation of projects to preserve the integrity of the 
delta levee system. 

Article 2. Construction 

12226. The department may prepare detailed plans and 
specifications for the impro\ ement of the levees or levee segments 
specified in Section 12225. 

12226.1. The department shall report on its recommendations to 
the Legislature concerning the improvement of the levees specified 
in Section 12225, including, but not limited to, recommendations 
concerning construction, cost sharing, land use. zoning, fiood control, 
recreation, fish and wildHfe habitat, and aesthetic values. The 
department shall submit interim reports to the Legislature 
concerning the status of the delta levees program on or before 
January 15 of each year beginning in 197S, with the final report on 
its recommendations to be made on or before January 15, 1980. 

12226.2. The department may proceed immediateK with the 
improvement of a pilot le\ee project which the department 
determines, after a public hearing, is in critical need of improvement 
and which is highly susceptible to failure in the ab.sence of such 
immediate improvement. Prior to commencing such improvement. 
the department shall enter into an agreement uith a local agency 
whereby the local agency u ill bear at least 20 percent of the cost of 
the improvement. 

Article 3. Short Title 

12227. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the 
"Nejedly-Mobley Delta Levees .\ct". 

SEC. 2. Section 12987 of the \S'ater Code is amended to read: 
129S7. Local agencies maintaining nonproject levees shall be 



200 



Ch. 1302 

eligible for reimbursement pursuant to the pro\isions of this part 
upon submission to and approval by the board of plans for the 
maintenance and improvement of such nonproject levees, including 
plans for the annual routine maintenance of such levees, in 
accordance with the criteria adopted by the board. Such plans shall 
also be compatible wit.h the plan for improvement of the delta lc\ees 
as set forth in Bulletin No. 192 of the department, dated May. 1975, 
and as approved in Section 12225. and shall include such provision for 
protection of the wildlife habitat as the board deems proper Such 
plans shall also take into account the most recently updated Delta 
Master Recreation Plan prepared by the Resources .Agency. Upon 
approval of such plans by the board, the local agencies shall enter 
into an agreement with the board to perform the maintenance and 
improvement work, including the annual routine maintenance 
work, specified in such plans. In the event that applications for state 
funding in any year exceed the state funds a\ailable. the board shall 
apportion the funds among those le\ ees or le\ ee segments that are 
identified by the department as most critical and beneficial, 
considering the needs of flood control, water quality, recreation, and 
wildlife. 

SEC. 3. The sum of three hundred fiftv' thousand dollars 
($350,000) is hereby appropriated from the General Fund in 
accordance with the following schedule: 

Schedule: 

(a) To the Department of Water Resources for 
expenditure without regard to fiscal years for the 
purposes of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 

12225) of Part 4.5 of Di\'ision 6 of the Water Code S150,000 

(b) To the Department of Water Resources for 
expenditure during the 1976-1977 fiscal year for 
the purposes of Part 9, (commencing with Section 

12980) of Division 6 of the Water Code 8200,000 

SEC. 4. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the 
inunediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within 
the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into 
immediate effect. The facts constituting such necessity are: 

In order to make available for expenditure during the 1976-77 
fiscal year the funds appropriated by this act for the maintenance 
and improvement of levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and 
to pro\ide vitally needed flood protection at the earliest possible 
time, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately. 



201 



Assembly Bill No. 4193 



CHAPTER 970 



A.n act to authorize a levee subsidence program. <ind to amend 
Section 12881.4 of the Water Code, relating to water projects, 

(Approved b> Governor September 14. 1976 Filed '.vith 
Secretary of State September 14. 1976 j 



The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 

SECTION 1. Section 12881.4 of the Water Code is amended to 
read: 

12881 4. In the administration of this chapter, the department 
and the commission shail give preference to projects involving the 
development of new basic water supplies. If the water supply- 
function of a dam and reservoir facility is operationally limited or 
eliminated for dam safetv purposes, pursuant to Part 1 ■ commencing 
with Section 6000 1 of Division 3, the department and the commission 
may give consideration to projects which would rehabilitate the dam 
and reservoir for water supply purposes. The rehibiiitation of 
facilities may include comparable replacement facilities. 

SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that: 

(a) Peatlands in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Deit.i are subsiding 
up to three inches per year due to soil oxidation, compaction, and 
wind erosion. 

(b) Because of continued subsidence, much of the delta lands 
have fallen below sea level, and larger and la'-ger !es ees hu\ e had to 
be constructed in order to restrain tidal and flood waters from 
permanently inundating these valuable deltd agricultural lands. 

(c) Without major le% ee works or without preventing subsidence. 
local levee maintenance districts will have increased economic 
difficulties in maintaining a viable levee system. 

(d) A partial alternative to costly state and federal major \e\ee 
works would be a subsidence control program undertaken along the 
landside of levees, if such control is determined to be economically 
and engineeringly viable. 

SEC. 3. The Department o\ Water Resources is hereby directed 
to undertake an in\ estigation of the viabilitv of a subsidence control 
program in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The department shall 
report its findings to the Legislature. 



202 



Appendix C 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES COMMENTS ON 

U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA 



CONTENTS, APPENDIX C 

Page 

Letter: Colonel Arthur E. Williams, District Engineer, Sacramento 
District, Corps of Engineers, to Ronald Robie, Director, 
Department of Water Resources, October 13, 1982 207 

Letter: Ronald B. Robie, Director, Department of Water Resources, to 
Colonel Arthur E. Williams, District Engineer, Sacramento 
District, Corps of Engineers, November 5, 1982 208 

Letter: Ronald B. Robie, Director, Department of Water Resources, to 
Colonel Arthur E. Williams, District Engineer, Sacramento 
District, Corps of Engineers, December 9, 1982 210 



205 




DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

SACRAMENTO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

650 CAPITOL MALL 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 



REPLY TO 
ATTENTION OF 



SPKED-W 13 October 1982 



Mr. Ronald Robie, Director 
Department of Water Resources 
Resources Building 
1416 Ninth Street 
Sacramento, CA 95814 



Dear Mr. Robie: 



We will be releasing the draft feasibility renort concerning solutions to the 
flood problems of the Sacramento-San Joaquiu Delta in the near future. Prepa- 
ration of this report has been a successful example of cooperation between 
our respective agencies. 

For the past several years, we have looked to the non-Federal sponsor of studies 
or projects to chair public meetings in connection with these studies. However, 
we realize that your Department is working with local entities to develop 
mutually acceptable divisions of sharing non-Federal costs identified with any 
potential project to be participated in by the Federal Government. We realize 
that discussions of cost-sharing are being conducted by your staff with 
reclamation districts, recreationists, and other interests, and that final 
cost-sharing arrangements are yet to be determined. In view of these circum- 
stances, I believe it would be appropriate in this instance for the Corps of 
Engineers to conduct the public meetings concerning this study. We believe 
this approach would preclude addressing local cost-sharing, which is not 
relevant to the Federal interest in the Delta. 

We plan to hold two informal workshops on 9 and 10 November in Rio Vista and 
Stockton, respectively. These workshops will be followed by two formal public 
meetings on 17 and 18 November in Stockton and Rio Vista, respectively. Since 
this study has been a joint effort between the Department and the Corps, we 
would appreciate participation in the workshops and public meetings by your 
Department. In addition, we believe an expression of support from you for 
the potential plan of improvement is warranted, particularly since the 
Department of Water Resources will be expected to provide the local cooperation 
for the flood control and recreation features of a recommended plan. 

We sincerely appreciate the assistance and cooperation of your staff, and I am 
sure we can develop a mutually acceptable plan to protect the features of the 
Delta. 




ARTHUR E. WILLIAMS 
Colonel, CE 
District Engineer 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA — RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Govefnor 




DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

P.O BOX 388 
SACRAMENTO 

95802 » ^- '.i vr M 

(916) 445-9248 -*«^s3i^ 



November 5, 1982 



Colonel Arthur E. Williams 

District Engineer 

Sacramento District 

U. S. Corps of Engineers 

Department of the Army 

650 Capitol Mall, Room 6309 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Dear Colonel Williams: 

This is in response to your letter of October 13, 1982, regarding release 
of the Corps' draft feasibility report concerning solutions to the flood 
problems of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Subsequently, we received 
a number of copies of that report entitled "Draft Feasibility Report and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 
California", October 1982. We also received the information brochure under 
the same date describing the study and Corps' findings as a basis for the 
public meetings and workshops which you have scheduled. 

We agree that it would be appropriate for the Corps of Engineers to conduct 
the public meetings concerning your report. We concur that the matter of 
sharing nonfederal costs, on which our staff has been working, is not a 
proper subject for the public meetings on the Corps' report. We will address 
this issue in our report to the Legislature later this year. 

The Department would be pleased to participate in the workshops and public 
meetings. Our representatives will be Wayne MacRostie, Chief of the 
Central District, and members of his staff who have participated in the 
study with the Corps. 

Regarding your statement about support for the potential plan of improve- 
ment, we will also address this matter in our report to the Legislature. 
It is our intent to include in our report a description of the alternative 
plans of improvement that have been studied, an analysis of their costs 
and benefits, allocations of the costs between federal and nonfederal 



208 




Colonel Arthur E. Williams 

Page 2 

November 5, 1982 



interests and alternative means by which nonfederal costs might be shared 
among State and local interests. Since the cost of improvement is most 
significant, the Legislature must decide what plan to support and the degree 
to which the State will participate in any federal program. 

We do, of course, strongly support the maximum possible participation 

by the Federal Government in any Delta levee improvement project supported 

by the Legislature. 

We shall provide specific comments on the draft feasibility report and 
environmental impact statement before your deadline of December 3, 1982. 
We shall also discuss with you which of these comments are of a nature 
that would be appropriate to discuss in the workshops and the formal public 
meetings. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Ron 

Ronald B. Robie 
Director 



209 



\ 



OF CMIFORNIA- RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Governor 



ARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES /f^^ \ 

lOX 388 '-^ ^JJS^i < 

kMENTO 

5802 

i) 445-9248 



'wm 



December 9, 1982 

Colonel Arthur E. Williams 
District Engineer 
Sacramento District 
U. S. Corps of Engineers 
Department of the Army 
650 Capitol Mall 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

Dear Colonel Williams: 

This supplements our letter to you dated November 5, 1982, which responded 
to your October 13 letter regarding Department participation in the workshops 
and public meetings on your "Draft Feasibility Report and Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California", October 1982. 
The Department is hereby submitting written comments on this report as 
specifically requested in your letter of transmittal to "all interested 
parties" dated October 14. 

As you are aware, the Department has been working on its report on the 
investigation of alternative levee improvement programs in which the 
Corps and Department cooperated. We appreciate the assistance provided 
by your staff, particularly in making information available to us on descrip- 
tions of alternative plans, estimates of costs and benefits, cost 
apportionment between federal and nonfederal interests and other factors 
before your draft report was published so that we might have a starting 
point for our analyses. 

As our November 5 letter stated, our report will present alternative plans, 
cost-sharing possibilities for nonfederal costs and other information 
which will enable the California Legislature to decide what plan to support 
and the degree to which the State will participate financially in any 
federal program and in any supplemental nonfederal program. We believe 
that the Legislature must make these important public policy determinations 
in view of the most significant cost of improving Delta levees. The 
Legislature must also determine to what degree the State is willing to provide 
the various nonfederal assurances listed on pages 126 through 128 of the 
Corps' draft report. Further, as our letter stated, we hope that whatever 
overall plan is supported by the Legislature, it will receive the maximum 
possible degree of federal participation. 



210 




Colonel Arthur E. Williams 

Page 2 

December 9, 1982 



For our report, we have been focusing on the ways in which nonfederal 
costs might be financed and shared among the State and other benefited 
interests. This has required us to consider the benefits that would 
accrue to various functions or interests, both federal and nonfederal. 
These studies are the bases for the comments that follow. 

Analyses of the Corps' Alternatives 

A major part of our report will consist of descriptions and financial 
analyses of the "System", "Modified System" and "Incremental Flood 
Control Plans" identified by the Corps, but modified for the without 
Peripheral Canal conditions. For those analyses, we have used the 
basic federal -nonfederal flood control cost apportionments developed 
by the Corps for its Incremental Plan. Proceeding from the nonfederal 
costs for that plan and, for the other candidate plans, adding the 
respective supplemental flood control costs required to improve the 
present nonproject levees, we have made sample analyses of cost sharing 
among the State of California, local flood control beneficiaries, State 
and Federal water supply projects and consumers of Delta water. 

The initial cost allocations between flood control and water quality- 
water supply functions have been based on the respective benefits. The 
flood control benefits have been those estimated by the Corps based on 
the assumption that the base (without project) condition would be without 
the Peripheral Canal and with continued restoration of Delta islands when 
levees fail in the future. In the evaluation of benefits from reduction 
of adverse water quality and water supply impacts in the Delta and in areas 
to which Delta water is exported, when islands flood in low flow months, 
we have departed from the Corps' analysis. The benefits would be two-fold: 
reduction of fresh water loss and reduction of water quality problems created 
by a break. 

We now estimate that the net quantities of water needed to flush the Delta 
after repair of such breaks would be considerably less than the estimates 
used by the Corps. Under State Water Resources Control Board Water Right 
Decision 1485, the water in the western Delta and upper Suisun Bay would be 
less saline during future breaks in low flow periods than it was in 1972 
when Brannan and Andrus Islands flooded, the situation on which the Corps 
based its benefit estimates. Also, under the continued restoration 
assumption, the water quality-water supply effects would be short term. 



211 



Colonel Arthur E. Williams 

Page 3 

December 9, 1982 



Much of the volume of water in the flooded islands would be recovered later 
in the low flow months when the water is pumped from the islands and would 
be available to meet Delta demands and salinity control outflows. In 
most cases, this would largely compensate for flushing water released 
earlier from State Water Project and Federal Central Valley Project reservoirs. 
Finally, if the winter following the break is sufficiently wet to permit 
filling any net loss of storage in project reservoirs due to flushing 
releases, the project yields would be unaffected. 

The second category of benefits (reduction of water quality problems) was 
not considered by the Corps. The saline water resulting from a break, 
without the Peripheral Canal, that could not be flushed out would have 
to be used for irrigation or domestic purposes in the Delta or in export 
service areas. A reduction in the number of levee failures would reduce 
resulting economic losses. One method of measuring such benefits is to 
equate them to the costs of programs required to prevent or mitigate 
adverse quality impacts. 

The net result of accounting for these two benefit factors under the 
continued restoration assumption is to substantially reduce the water 
quality and water quantity benefits attributable to the lessening of the 
frequency of such events from a levee improvement program. If a Delta 
levee program is authorized by Congress, and the continued restoration 
assumption is adopted as the without project condition (see our recommendations 
below on this point and the Peripheral Canal), we believe that the Corps' 
post-authorization studies should account for these revised benefit factors. 
Of course if the nonrestoration assumption is adopted as the base condition, 
the analyses would have to consider both short and long term effects. 

There is one further aspect of the Corps' analyses described in the 
draft feasibility report that should be noted. It is our understanding 
that the annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for flood control 
and water quality presented in Tables 3, 4 and 5 represent total O&M 
costs between phases of staged construction. Further, we understand that 
total annualized costs of continuing staged construction are included as 
parts of the annual cost. If these views are correct, the annual capital 
and O&M costs are overstated and the resulting benefit-cost ratios are 
understated. The proper values of such costs to be compared with benefits 
should include only those costs in excess of the annual amounts presently 
expended for O&M and the raising of levees to compensate for settlement. 



212 



Colonel Arthur E. Williams 

Page 4 

December 9, 1982 



If such incremental O&M and staged construction costs were used, it is 
possible that benefit-cost ratios only slightly less than one to one would 
be increased to greater than unity and levee improvement on additional 
islands would be considered economically justified. This possible reduction 
in annual costs should also be addressed during the Corps' post-authorization 
studies if the project is authorized by the Congress. 

Alternative Without Project Assumptions 

We have also evaluated, largely from a qualitative viewpoint, the results 
of assuming the nonrestoration alternative as a without project condition. 
Under this assumption, the levees would not be repaired and the islands 
would not be pumped out after they are flooded. The Corps' sensitivity 
analysis of candidate plans (Table 10) indicates that the net benefits 
from all of the alternative plans would be greatest with this assumption 
combined with the without Peripheral Canal assumption. 

We believe that with the ever increasing costs of repairing levees and 
evacuating water from flooded islands, the decreasing availability of local 
and State funds and the serious questions that have been raised by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency about its financial participation in 
future island restorations after floods, the nonrestoration assumption 
should either be totally adopted by the Corps or given substantial weight 
in relation to the continued restoration assumption. Further, the adverse 
decision by the California voters at the June 1982 primary election on 
Proposition 9, which would have authorized the Peripheral Canal, makes it 
more logical at this time to assume as a without project condition that 
that proposed facility will not be built. With such revised assumptions, 
it appears that a levee improvement project more extensive than the Corps' 
Incremental Flood Control Plan would be found to have economic justification. 

Scope of Federal Participation 

In view of the foregoing and of the importance and broad value of the 
Delta from Federal, State, and local points of view, we return to our 
recommendation that the Federal Government participate to the greatest 
degree possible in any Delta levee improvement plan supported by the 
California Legislature. It is our opinion that the Corps' report adopts 
an unnecessarily restrictive approach to the determination of federal 
interest in Delta flood control improvements. We believe that there is a 
legitimate federal interest in the Delta. We believe that the State should 



213 



Colonel Arthur E. Williams 

Page 5 

December 9, 1982 



have the primary responsibility for selecting a plan for Delta levees 
improvement and that the California Legislature is the logical forum for 
selecting that plan. It is our opinion that the Corps could and should 
justify recom.mendation of the System Flood Control Plan. This is 
particularly significant because it is certain that if something less than 
the total Delta is covered by a levee improvement program, the levees 
remaining after successive flooding of islands would be subjected to greater 
wave wash, seepage and possibly other factors and be more susceptible to 
failure than with the present configuration of the Delta islands and channels, 

Possible Use of Polders 

Finally, our report will acknowledge the Legislature's policy declaration 
that the Delta should be preserved in its present physical form by means of 
a levee improvement program. However, we recognize that the cost of 
achieving this objective may be greater than the Federal, State, and local 
interests are able to afford. Our report will state without elaboration 
and analysis that the Legislature may choose to amend its policy so as to 
permit the further study of levee improvements to form large polders in 
order to preserve as many of the values of the Delta as possible, with 
some sacrifice of recreational, environmental and aesthetic factors because 
of financial limitations. 

We shall welcome discussions with you or your staff in regard to these 
comments. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Ronald B. Robie 

Ronald B. Robie 
Director 



214 



«PR»6 •« 

m i "' 



THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
STAMPED BELOW 



BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER 
ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL 



OCT 3 2008 
Physical Sctences Ubrtfj ' 



LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 



D4613-1 (5/02)M 



Quantity 



Length 



Area 



Volume 



Flow 



CONVERSION FACTORS 




3 175 0067 



892 



To Convert from Metric Unit 



To Customary Unit 



Multiply Metric 
Unit By 



Mass 

Velocity 

Power 

Pressure 

Specific Capacity 



Concentration 

Electrical Con- 
ductivity 



millimetres (mm) 

centimetres (cm) for snow depth 

metres (m) 

kilometres (km) 

square millimetres (mm') 

square metres (m') 

hectares (ha) 

square kilometres (km') 

litres (L) 
megalitres 
cubic metres (m') 
cubic metres (m') 
cubic dekametres (dam') 

cubic metres per second (mVs) 

litres per minute (L/min) 

litres per day (L/day) 
megalitres per day (ML/day) 

cubic dekrjmetres per day 
(damVday) 

kilograms (kg) 
megagrams (Mg) 

metres per second (m/s) 

kilowatts (kW) 

kilopascals (kPa) 

kilopascals (kPa) 

litres per minute per metre 
drawdown 

milligrams per litre (mg/L) 

microsiemens per centimetre 
(uS/cm) 



To Convert to Metric 

Unit Multiply 
Customary Unit By 



inches (in) 


03937 


25.4 


inches (in) 


03937 


2.54 


feet (ft) 


32808 


03048 


miles (mi) 


0.62139 


1.6093 


square inches (in') 


0.00155 


645.16 


square feet (ft') 


10764 


0.092903 


acres (ac) 


2.4710 


0.40469 


square miles (mi') 


3861 


2.590 


gallons (gal) 


026417 


3.7854 


million gallons (10" gal) 


26417 


3.7854 


cubic feet (ft') 


35.315 


0.028317 


cubic yards (yd') 


1.308 


076455 


acre-feet (ac-ft) 


08107 


1 2335 


cubic feet per second 


35.315 


0.028317 


(ftVs) 






gallons per minute 


0.26417 


3.7854 


(gal/min) 






gallons per day (gal/day) 


026417 


3.7854 


million gallons 


0.26417 


3.7854 


per day (mgd) 






acre-feet per day (ac- 


0.8107 


1.2335 


ft/day) 






pounds (lb) 


2.2046 


045359 


tons (short, 2,000 lb) 


1.1023 


90718 


feet per second (ft/s) 


3.2808 


03048 


horsepower (hp) 


1.3405 


0.746 


pounds per square inch 


14505 


6.8948 


(psi) 






feet head of water 


033456 


2.989 


gallons per minute per 


008052 


12419 


foot drawdown 






parts per million (ppm) 


1.0 


1.0 


micromhos per centimetre 


1.0 


1.0 



Temperature 



degrees Celsius (°C) 



degrees Fahrenheit (°F) 



(18X°C) + 32 (°F-32)/1.8 



state of California— Resources Agency 
Department of Water Resources 

P.O. Box 388 

Sacramento 

95802 





38. 






v^oiiK^tt 



CIP^SS ww^