WILLIAM R.

GIANELLJ
CONSULTING CIVIl.. ENGINEER

973 PION6E::A ROAD

PESBLe Sf;;ACH. CA 93953

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

l!arch 18, 1993

Mr. David Kennedy, Director

Department of Water Resources
F. O. Box 942836
Sacramento, CA 94236-0001

Dear DilVe:

There is an old saying referred to as "Murphy's Law· which

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

Reflecting back I can well recall the then State ~ngineer

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

Now, some more than 40 years laterH the project's integrity

is being threatened with public trust doctrines, the
endangered species Act, section 404 provisions of PL 92-500,
and a myriad of other enviromental laws which have only come
into being in recent years. In effect, the 'ground rules'
have changed since the enactment of Burns-Porter and the
vote of the electorate over 30 years' ago, and since 31 water
supply contr8cts were entered into with the State to assure
performance. SOmething is radically wrong with a system
which will allow this to happen. ~/e don't allOW changes to
be made i.e.: When we buy a house under a 30 year
repayment contract or do We allow changes in building codes
to require all existing structures in non-compliance to be
torn down, etc.
 -2-

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta has been studied more than

any other area in the State. Those who advocate returning
the Delta to its original Vpristine" state prior to the
construction of the CVP and the SWP seem to purposely ignore
the facts. prior to the turn of the century the Delta l{aS
largely a sl{alUpy wetland wi th fel' identifiable channels.
Following the 19005 much of the rich peat swampland I{as
reclaimed for agricultural purpo$es by local entities. In
the process defined Delta channels were created largely to
build levees around the reclaimed lands, radically changing
the hydraulic characteristics of the Delta Area. The
hydraulic characteristics were further~ltered by aeposition
of material from upstream areas and by the construction of
the deep water channels to serve the deep water ports of
Stockton and Sacramento. Changing of its hydraulic
characteristics has had a major impact on the intrusion of
ocean salinity into 'the area.

Extending back at least into the 1920s, State water

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

Initially, it was recognized that the CVP could operate its

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

Initially it was believed that the existing channels of the

Delta could be altered to provide Delta area protection and
increasing export demands. The boating, recreational, and
fishery entitles violently objected to alteration of the
Delta channels and hence, after much study and consultation
the peripheral Canal concept was adopted a$ the best
facility to meet the required objectives. The fishery
entities were strongly in support of the Peripheral Canal.
The Pat Brown Administration strongly supported the
peripheral Canal as the Delta Transfer Facility authori=ed
under the BurnS-Porter Act. III fact, Bill Warne officially
designated the canal as the Delta Facility under the
authorizing act. The Reagan Administration also supported
the Peripheral Canal although our studies at that time
indioated it would not be needed for a number of years. III
addition, the SWP was under stress due to a shortage of
funds to complete the basio project. In order to insure its
future oonstruction, however, I entered into an agreement
with sam Nelson. the then State Transportation Director. to
use borrow material from the peripheral Canal alignment to
build the section of Interstate Highway 5 between Stockton
~nd sacramento. If one flies over the route of the
Peripheral canal today you will observe sections of the
Canal already exoavated. The Jerry Brown Administration
whioh followed. while supporting the Peripheral Canal. made
the tragic mistake of allowing it to become embroiled with
the legislative log-rolling and the SUbject of unnecessary
further legislation.

The referendUm on the legislation in 1982, which oontained

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

I have been very disappointed recently in Governor Wilson's

appointment of still another committee to look into the
Delta transfer issue. The prospects of such a committee
oontributing to our wealth of knowledge seems very minimal.
The Governor's action seems to defer a politically sensitive
issue to another entity until after the 1994 election. 1f
the Ve1ta pumps create a problem for the Delta fishery. an
isolated channel to the pump intakes is the obvious answer;
hence the Peripheral Canal which is the answer arrived at
some 25 gears ago and supported by three separate state
administrations after long and detailed stUdies. What is
really needed is a deoision to move ahead despite the
political unpopularity and the heat which will be generated.
Failure to do so could well result in the destruotion of
both the CVP and the SWP with the resultant catastrophic
economic impact upon the state.
 -4-

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

In retrospect, I believe the prablems yau h/lve had to face

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

I have alsa been greatly disturbed by the position of some

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

David, I suspect the reason I've written this letter is

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

Best regards,

~
William R. Gianelli

cc: Various Parties