Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to supervise the maintenance and operation of dams and reservoirs as necessary to safeguard life and property. Under existing law, the department operates the State Water Resources Development System, also known as the State Water Project, composed of the state water facilities, including Oroville Dam.

This bill would create the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam within the Natural Resources Agency. The bill would require the commission to consist of specified members of state agencies or their designees, including the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency or his or her designee serving as chairperson. The bill would require the chairperson to invite persons appointed by specified local agencies to serve as members of the commission, as prescribed.

This bill would require the department to, among other things, provide the commission with onsite tours of the dam and its grounds and provide the commission with all information reasonably requested by the commission regarding the construction, rehabilitation or reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and management of the dam. The bill would set forth the organization and duties of the commission and would require the commission to meet as necessary to carry out the purposes and duties of the commission. The bill would require the commission to publish a report at least once every 3 years that provides, among other things, an overview of ongoing maintenance and improvements made at the dam and its site. The bill would prohibit the commission from making regulations or rules to bind operations at the dam.

Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to supervise the maintenance and operation of dams and reservoirs as necessary to safeguard life and property. Under existing law, the department operates the State Water Resources Development System, also known as the State Water Project, composed of the state water facilities, including Oroville Dam.

This bill would create the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam within the Natural Resources Agency. The bill would require the commission to consist of specified members of state agencies or their designees, including the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency or his or her designee serving as chairperson. The bill would require the chairperson to invite persons appointed by specified local agencies to serve as members of the commission, as prescribed.

This bill would require the department to, among other things, provide the commission with onsite tours of the dam and its grounds and provide the commission with all information reasonably requested by the commission regarding the construction, rehabilitation or reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and management of the dam. The bill would set forth the organization and duties of the commission and would require the commission to meet as necessary to carry out the purposes and duties of the commission. The bill would require the commission to publish a report at least once every 3 years that provides, among other things, an overview of ongoing maintenance and improvements made at the dam and its site. The bill would prohibit the commission from making regulations or rules to bind operations at the dam.

Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to supervise the maintenance and operation of dams and reservoirs as necessary to safeguard life and property. Under existing law, the department operates the State Water Resources Development System, also known as the State Water Project, composed of the state water facilities, including Oroville Dam.

This bill would create the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam as an independent entity within the department. within the Natural Resources Agency. The bill would require the commission to consist of 14 members, appointed as prescribed, and including the member of the California State Senate representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee, the member of the California State Assembly representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee, and members appointed by the City of Oroville, specified counties, and county sheriffs. By imposing new duties on the City of Oroville, counties, and county sheriffs in connection with the appointment of members to the commission, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. specified members of state agencies or their designees, including the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency or his or her designee serving as chairperson. The bill would require the chairperson to invite persons appointed by specified local agencies to serve as members of the commission, as prescribed.

This bill would require the department to to, among other things, provide the commission with onsite tours of the dam and its grounds and to provide the commission with all information reasonably requested by the commission regarding the construction, rehabilitation or reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and management of the dam. The bill would set forth the organization and duties of the commission and would require the commission to meet at least once every 3 months or, on the call of the chairperson, as often as necessary. necessary to carry out the purposes and duties of the commission. The bill would require the commission to publish a report at least once every 3 years that provides, among other things, an overview of ongoing maintenance and improvements made at the dam and its site. The bill would prohibit the commission from making regulations or rules to bind operations at the dam.

Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to supervise the maintenance and operation of dams and reservoirs as necessary to safeguard life and property. Under existing law, the department operates the State Water Resources Development System, also known as the State Water Project, composed of the state water facilities, including Oroville Dam.

This bill would create the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam as an independent entity within the department. The bill would require the commission to consist of 27 14 members, appointed as prescribed to 3-year terms of office, prescribed, and including 7 the member of the California State Senate representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee, the member of the California State Assembly representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee, and members appointed by the City of Oroville, specified cities and 3 members representing specified counties. counties, and county sheriffs. By imposing new duties on cities and counties the City of Oroville, counties, and county sheriffs in connection with the appointment of members to the commission, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would require the department to provide the commission with quarterly onsite tours of the dam and its grounds and to clarify and respond to early comments provided by provide the commission on certain reports about the dam. all information reasonably requested by the commission regarding the construction, rehabilitation or reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and management of the dam. The bill would set forth the organization and duties of the commission, including a requirement that the commission establish bylaws specifying commission authority and making determinations regarding identified issues, including the privacy of information released to the commission by the department. The bill commission and would require the commission to meet at least once every 3 months or, on the call of the chairperson, as often as necessary, and would authorize the commission to hold a closed meeting at the request of the chairperson for the purposes of disclosure of sensitive information regarding the safety or security of the dam. necessary. The bill would require the commission to publish a report at least once every 3 years that provides, among other things, an overview of ongoing maintenance and improvements made at the dam and its site. The bill would prohibit the commission from making regulations or rules to bind operations at the dam. The bill would provide that its provisions are not to be construed to require the disclosure by the department of information that may threaten the security of the dam or the safety of the surrounding community.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to supervise the maintenance and operation of dams and reservoirs as necessary to safeguard life and property. Under existing law, the department operates the State Water Resources Development System, also known as the State Water Project, composed of the state water facilities, including Oroville Dam.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would create a citizens advisory commission create the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam. Dam as an independent entity within the department. The bill would require the commission to consist of 27 members, appointed as prescribed to 3-year terms of office, and including 7 members appointed by specified cities and 3 members representing specified counties. By imposing new duties on cities and counties in connection with the appointment of members to the commission, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires the Department of Water Resources to supervise the maintenance and operation of dams and reservoirs as necessary to safeguard life and property.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would create a citizens advisory commission for Oroville Dam.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 955

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 9-0, 4/16/18

AYES: Hertzberg, Stone, Allen, Hueso, Jackson, McGuire, Monning, Stern, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/25/18

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 5/31/18

AYES: Allen, Anderson, Atkins, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Bradford, Cannella, De León, Dodd, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Newman, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 8/29/18 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill creates the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam (commission) as an independent entity within the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and specifies, among other things, membership, term limits, and meeting requirements.

Assembly Amendments

move the commission from DWR to the Natural Resources Agency, add representatives of five state agencies to the commission, and make other technical and clarifying changes.

ANALYSIS: Existing law provides that DWR owns and operates Oroville Dam.

This bill:

1. Creates within the Natural Resources Agency, the commission.
   1. The commission will consist of the following:
      1. The Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency or his or her designee, who shall be the chairperson.
      2. The director of the department or his or her designee.
      3. The director of the Department of Parks and Recreation or his or her designee.
      4. The director of the Office of Emergency Services or his or her designee.
      5. The commander of the Department of the California Highway Patrol field division that services the County of Butte or his or her designee.
      6. Two members appointed by the City of Oroville.
      7. Three members appointed by the County of Butte.
      8. Two members appointed by the County of Sutter.
      9. Two members appointed by the County of Yuba.
      10. One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Butte County.
      11. One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Sutter County.
      12. One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Yuba County.
      13. The member of the California State Senate, representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee.
      14. The member of the California State Assembly, representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee.
   2. In selecting members, the city and county appointing bodies are required to strive to appoint members that reflect the broad interests of the community they represent.
   3. All members serve three year terms, except those who are members of the Legislature.
2. Requires the commission to meet as necessary to carry out the purposes and duties of the commission.
3. Requires the meetings to be open to the public and held in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
4. Requires the commission to do all the following:
   1. Serve as a nonlegislative representative to the public for the purposes of providing public input and receiving information from the dam operator.
   2. Act as a unified voice from the communities surrounding Oroville Dam to provide public feedback, advice, and best practices to the dam operator.
   3. Publish a report at least once every three years that provides all of the following:
      1. An overview of ongoing maintenance and improvements made at the Dam and its site.
      2. A register of communications received from DWR and other parties to the commission.
      3. Notice of upcoming plans made by DWR for the Dam and its site.
      4. An overview of flood management projects on the Feather River affecting public safety and flood risk reduction.
5. Requires DWR to do all of the following for the commission:
   1. Provide onsite tours of the Dam and its grounds.
   2. Provide the commission all information reasonably requested by the commission regarding the construction, rehabilitation or reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and management of the Dam, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
      1. Asset management plans regarding facilities and equipment of the Dam.
      2. Scheduled or anticipated repairs, restoration, or replacement of facilities or major equipment.
      3. Changes in flood management rules.
      4. Provide updates of Feather River flood management activities, including site visits and briefings.
6. Authorizes the commission to visit the Dam, its site, and site personnel in furtherance of the goals of this part.
7. Provides that the commission may receive in-kind assistance or funds, or both, from public and private sources. These funds are available to the commission upon appropriation by the Legislature.

Background

Construction of Oroville Dam began in 1961 and was ready for use in 1968. Lake Oroville and Oroville Dam are part of a complex which includes the Hyatt Powerplant, Thermalito Diversion Dam and Powerplant, the Feather River Fish Hatchery, Thermalito Power Canal, Thermalito Forebay, Thermalito Pumping- Generating Plant, Thermalito Afterbay, and the Lake Oroville Visitors Center.

In February 2017, a series of events at Oroville Dam ultimately lead to emergency evacuations, significant local damages, and mental trauma to many of those affected. The Senate Natural Resources Committee’s background for an April 25, 2017 Special Order of Business on “An Update on the Oroville Dam” lays out in greater detail the history of Oroville Dam and a timeline of events at Oroville. (http://sntr.senate.ca.gov/content/2017-informationaloversight-hearings).

Comments

What we’ve got here is failure to communicate. No one can deny that during the events at Oroville last year, the information flow from DWR to the local communities was less than ideal. Coming after years of feeling neglected by DWR, it is small wonder that many of those in the greater Oroville area see last year’s events at Oroville Dam as just further evidence that DWR cares more about the Dam and the water supply it provides to State Water Project Contractors than to them.

That said, much of what has been labeled as lies from DWR were actually true, it’s just that folk used similar words to mean significantly different things. For example, the frequent statements from DWR that Oroville Dam is sound and poses no danger to the public. When DWR said that, they meant the Dam structure itself. When many in the public heard that Oroville Dam is sound, they thought about the chasm forming in the main spillway and the severe erosion encroaching on the base of the emergency spillway, and were likely a bit bewildered. They may have also wondered why water overtopping the “emergency spillway” wasn’t in and of itself an “emergency”. That an unexpected evacuation order came not long after water started to flow over the emergency spillway just reinforced that confusion.

The commission that willbe created by this bill is intended to reopen the lines of communications between DWR and the local community in the hopes of avoiding such future misunderstandings.

Numerous examples of well-functioning advisory committees. This bill create a new citizens advisory commission to provide public input to and to receive information from DWR about the Dam, its condition, plans for the future, and its operations. This would not be the first time the Legislature created such an advisory group. Examples include the Upper Sacramento Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Advisory Council created in 1986 by SB 1086 (Nielson) and the various prison advisory committees created by Penal Code Section 5056. This proposal is a sort of melding of those two examples.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local: No

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1) Increased annual DWR costs of approximately $200,000 (GF) to provide the commission onsite tours and specified information “reasonably requested.”

2) Unknown ongoing GF costs, likely in the $150,000 range for commission meeting costs, travel expenses, material development, reports etc. This bill authorizes the use of GF for the costs of organizing and operating quarterly meetings of the commission, but allows the commission chair to call an unlimited number of meetings.

3) Potential unknown state-mandated local costs for the activities of the local agency members of the commission.

To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on a local agency, the local agency could claim reimbursement for those costs (GF). The magnitude of those costs is unknown.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/29/18)

American Whitewater

City of Marysville

City of Oroville

City of Yuba City

Exchange Club of Oroville

Northern California Guides and Sportsmen’s Association

Northern California Water Association

Oroville Chamber of Commerce

Sutter County Board of Supervisors

Yuba County Board of Supervisors

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/29/18)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “Since its completion in 1968, the Oroville Dam has provided water and power to millions of Californians, including through the State Water Project, provided recreational facilities, and supported native ecosystems. Local residents, however, are most immediately affected by operations at the Dam and bear the disproportionate burden of risk from any potential natural or man-made disaster.

“In an effort to provide local stakeholders … and the DWR with a forum for discussing challenges and opportunities at the Dam, SB 955 would the Citizens Advisory Commission (CAC) for Oroville Dam and provide local residents representing a wide cross section of the community, operators of the Dam itself, and water users the opportunity to gather at a regularly appointed time to discuss maintenance, findings, reports, and upcoming actions, and to conduct other communications regarding operations, maintenance, and all other activities at the site.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 80-0, 8/29/18

AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rivas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

Prepared by:

8/31/18 9:18:37

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 955

Author:(Nielsen)

As Amended Ver:August 20, 2018

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 39-0

SUMMARY: Creates the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam within the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). Specifically, this bill:

1. Creates within the CNRA the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam.
2. Designates the Secretary of the CNRA or his or her designee, to be the chairperson.
3. The commission will include representatives of state government (or their designees) including: the directors of the Department of Water Resources (DWR); Department of Parks and Recreation; Office of Emergency Services; California Highway Patrol field division that services the County of Butte; the members of the State Senate and Assembly representing the City of Oroville; and, any other state agency representatives should the chairperson request their participation, and if particular expertise or input is warranted.
4. The chairperson is required to invite specified local members to participate in the commission including:
   1. Two members appointed by the City Council of the City of Oroville;
   2. Three members appointed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte;
   3. Two members appointed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sutter;
   4. Two members appointed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Yuba;
   5. One county deputy sheriff from each of the counties, appointed by the respective of Sheriff the counties of Butte, Sutter and Yuba.
5. Requires the commission to meet as necessary to carry out the purposes and duties of the commission. Provides for the terms of office for all commissioners and requires the meetings to be open to the public and held in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
6. Requires the commission to publish a report at least once every three years that provides information related to ongoing maintenance and improvements to the dam, communications related to the commission, upcoming plans for the dam and its site, and updates related to the Feather River levees and flood risk, among others.
7. Requires the DWR to provide onsite tours of the dam and its grounds, specified information related to the reconstruction of the dam and spillway, and through the Division of Flood Management, information related to Feather River levees and levee-related flood risk.
8. Prohibits the commission from making rules or regulations that bind the operations of the dam.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Creates the State Water Resources Development Program (State Water Project or "SWP"), via the 1959 Burns-Porter Act (which was later ratified by voters in November 1960) which includes the Feather River system and main reservoir at Oroville. The SWP is managed by the Department of Water Resources (DWR).
2. Requires dam owners to adhere to rules and regulations regarding dam safety.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Increased annual DWR costs of approximately $200,000 (General Fund [GF]) to provide the commission onsite tours and specified information "reasonably requested."
2. Unknown ongoing GF costs, likely in the $150,000 range for commission meeting costs, travel expenses, material development, reports etc. This bill authorizes the use of GF for the costs of organizing and operating quarterly meetings of the commission, but allows the commission chair to call an unlimited number of meetings.
3. Potential unknown state-mandated local costs for the activities of the local agency members of the commission. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on a local agency, the local agency could claim reimbursement for those costs (GF). The magnitude of those costs is unknown.
4. Unknown, likely absorbable costs to the CNRA.

COMMENTS: This bill will create a citizens advisory commission in order to give stakeholders in and around Oroville Dam a forum for engagement with the state regarding dam operations.

Background: The State Water Project. The SWP is the state's main water conveyance system – mostly from Northern California to parts of the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, and Southern California. The SWP was initiated by legislation in 1959 under the Burns-Porter Act, with voters ratifying in November 1960 the $1.75 billion bond for the project authorized in the act. A major feature of the project was the damming of the Feather River upstream of the City of Oroville. Oroville Dam, at 770 feet high, is the tallest earthen dam in the United States and impounds 3.5 million acre-feet of water when full. The dam provides water supply to the SWP, as well as electric generation and flood control.

Flood Conditions in 2017. The heavy rainstorms in 2017 mostly ended the five-year drought in Northern California. Much of the Sierra Nevada saw its rainiest and snowiest October-February period on record. The heavy precipitation has caused flooding, levee breaks, and sinkholes throughout the state. Snowpack has been measured at over 160 percent of normal water content. Even after the rains stopped, the record high snowpack in the mountains generated high flows in the summer in many parts of the state.

Oroville Dam Disaster. On February 7, 2017, with heavy rains and runoff impacting reservoir levels at Oroville Reservoir, authorities discovered a massive break in the spillway at Oroville Dam. On February 12, 188,000 people in towns downstream were evacuated due to the possibility of a failure of the emergency spillway. Water levels decreased and on February 14 residents were allowed to return to their homes. The DWR, in April 2017, sought bids to repair the main spillway over a two-year period, shored up the emergency spillway, and brought the main hydropower plant back online. As of January 2018, phase one of the construction repair has been completed in time for the rainy season. The repair project is on track to be completed by December 2018. The DWR is continuing to work with local residents to rebuild community trust of its operations.

Legislative Oversight. Following the dam disaster, several legislative oversight hearings were conducted to determine what happened, how the state planned to recover from the disaster, and lessons to be learned from the disaster. These included:

1. January 10, 2018, Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committee and Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee: Joint Oversight Hearing - Oroville Dam Update and Safety Efforts.
2. May 11, 2017, Joint Informational and Oversight Hearing – Update on the Oroville Dam: Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife, Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review, and Budget Subcommittee No. 3.

Concerns About Communication. As discussed in the Senate Natural Resources analysis of this bill, "What we have here is a failure to communicate. No one can deny that during the events at Oroville last year, the information flow from DWR to local communities was less than ideal." In fact, as the disaster continued, other agencies were brought in to assist with communications, including CalFIRE and the Office of Emergency Services—two agencies with a long history of communication during disasters, including where evacuations are required.

As the state, and the DWR in particular, moves forward, communication is key to improving both safety and good will with the community. Some strides have already been made, with open community meetings held within the Oroville area, a marked increase in outreach for recreation at the dam, and increased communication both about the pace of the spillway reconstruction and restoration of the river.

However, there are many areas where a citizen's advisory committee might improve local knowledge of dam operations. For example, the committee might continue to discuss downstream sedimentation caused by both the initial spillway failure and subsequent emergency spillway damages. The committee also could discuss the initial purposes of the dam including for flood control of the downstream communities of Oroville, Yuba City and Marysville and how this is balanced by competing needs including recreation, water supply and ecological needs. These forums might help to broaden community understanding of the multi-purpose dam and its uses.

Prior and Related Legislation:

SB 1086 (Nielsen), Chapter 885, Statutes of 1986, created the Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Advisory Council.

AJR 38 (Mathis), Resolution Chapter 76, Statutes of 2018, would urge the Congress of the United States to implement revised dam safety and inspection requirements, with specified components, for all federally operated and regulated dams and reservoirs for the purpose of ensuring public safety.

AB 1270 (Gallagher), Chapter 3, Statutes of 2018, increased requirements for dam safety.

Analysis Prepared by: Catherine Freeman / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0004245

Date of Hearing: August 8, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 955

Author:(Nielsen) – As Amended Ver:April 18, 2018

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill creates the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam (commission) as an independent entity within the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and specifies, among other things, membership, term limits, and meeting requirements. Specifically, this bill:

1. Creates the commission consisting of 14 members as follows:
   1. Two members appointed by the City Council of the City of Oroville.
   2. Three members appointed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte.
   3. Two members appointed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sutter.
   4. Two members appointed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Yuba.
   5. One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Butte County.
   6. One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Sutter County.
   7. One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Yuba County.
   8. The member of the California State Senate, representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee.
   9. The member of the California State Assembly, representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee.
2. Requires the commission to meet at least once every three months or, upon the call of the chairperson, as often as necessary to carry out the purposes and duties of the commission.
3. Requires the meetings to be open to the public and held in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act.
4. Requires the commission to do all the following:
   1. Serve as a representative to the public for the purposes of providing public input and receiving information from the dam operator.
   2. Act as a unified voice from the communities surrounding Oroville Dam to provide public feedback, advice, and best practices to the dam operator.
   3. Publish a report at least once every three years regarding DWR activities, as specified.
5. Requires the DWR to do all of the following for the commission:
   1. Provide onsite tours of the dam and its grounds.
   2. Provide the commission all information reasonably requested by the commission regarding the construction, rehabilitation or reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and management of the dam, including, but not limited to, asset management, repairs, restoration, and changes in flood management, among others.
6. Authorizes the commission to visit the dam, its site, and site personnel in furtherance of specified goals.
7. Authorizes the use of General Fund monies for the costs of organizing and operating quarterly meetings of the commission, but does not make an appropriation for this purpose.
8. Prohibits the commission from making rules or regulations that bind the operations of the dam.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Increased annual DWR costs of approximately $200,000 (GF) to provide the commission onsite tours and specified information “reasonably requested.”
2. Unknown ongoing GF costs, likely in the $150,000 range for commission meeting costs, travel expenses, material development, reports etc. This bill authorizes the use of GF for the costs of organizing and operating quarterly meetings of the commission, but allows the commission chair to call an unlimited number of meetings.
3. Potential unknown state-mandated local costs for the activities of the local agency members of the commission.

To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on a local agency, the local agency could claim reimbursement for those costs (GF). The magnitude of those costs is unknown.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. A major feature of the State Water Project (SWP) is the damming of the Feather River upstream of the City of Oroville. The Oroville Dam provides water supply to the SWP as well as electricity generation and flood control.

On February 7, 2017, with heavy rains and runoff filling reservoir levels at Oroville Reservoir, DWR increased flows through its main spillway to 54,500 cubic feet per second (cfs). A large amount of debris was found coming out of the spillway and, after shutting down the spillway, authorities discovered a massive break in the spillway. As inflows increased, the lake reached capacity at 901 feet and water began flowing over the emergency spillway for the first time in history. Erosion progressed rapidly up the hillside on the emergency spillway and, on February 12, 188,000 people in towns downstream were evacuated due to the possibility of a failure of the emergency spillway.

1. Purpose. According to the author:

SB 955 would create the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam and provide local residents representing a wide cross section of the community, operators of the dam itself, and water users the opportunity to gather at a regularly appointed time to discuss maintenance, findings, reports, and upcoming actions, and to conduct other communications regarding operations, maintenance, and all other activities at the site.

1. Comments. This bill establishes a quasi-governmental agency at DWR, to receive state funds, but does not establish a funding mechanism. It is unclear how the funds would be appropriated or to whom. Further, this bill relies on General Fund. Since the Oroville Dam is part of the SWP, SWP funds may be a more appropriate funding source.

This bill contains codified findings and declarations. In the interest of code clarity and efficiency, staff recommends this bill be amended to place the findings and declarations in an uncodified section of the bill.

Lastly, this bill awkwardly requires the commission to report on DWR activities, such as providing an overview of the maintenance and improvements made at the dam and its site and DWR’s upcoming plans for the dam. It does not seem appropriate for the commission to assume this reporting role.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 26, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Eduardo Garcia, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 955

Author:(Nielsen) – As Amended Ver:April 18, 2018

SENATE VOTE: 39-0

SUBJECT: Oroville Dam: Citizens Advisory Commission

SUMMARY: Creates a Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam as an independent entity within the Department of Water Resources (DWR). Specifically, this bill:

1. Creates as an independent entity within DWR, the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam.
   1. The commission will consist of 14 members as follows:
      1. Two members appointed by the City Council of the City of Oroville.
      2. Three members appointed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte.
      3. Two members appointed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sutter.
      4. Two members appointed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Yuba.
      5. One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Butte County.
      6. One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Sutter County.
      7. One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Yuba County.
      8. The member of the California State Senate, representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee.
      9. The member of the California State Assembly, representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee.
   2. In selecting members, the city and county appointing bodies are required to strive to appoint members that reflect the broad interests of the community they represent.
   3. Requires the commission to select its own chairperson by majority vote.
   4. All members serve three-year terms, except those who are members of the Legislature.
2. Requires the commission to meet at least once every three months or, on the call of the chairperson, as often as necessary to carry out the purposes and duties of the commission.
3. Requires the meetings to be open to the public and held in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
4. Requires the commission to do all the following:
   1. Serve as a representative to the public for the purposes of providing public input and receiving information from the dam operator.
   2. Act as a unified voice from the communities surrounding Oroville Dam to provide public feedback, advice, and best practices to the dam operator.
   3. Publish a report at least once every three years that provides all of the following:
      1. An overview of ongoing maintenance and improvements made at the dam and its site.
      2. A register of communications received from the DWR and other parties to the commission.
      3. Notice of upcoming plans made by the DWR for the dam and its site.
5. Requires the DWR to do all of the following for the commission:
   1. Provide onsite tours of the dam and its grounds.
   2. Provide the commission all information reasonably requested by the commission regarding the construction, rehabilitation or reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and management of the dam, including, but not limited to, asset management, repairs, restoration, and changes in flood management, among others.
6. Authorizes the commission to visit the dam, its site, and site personnel in furtherance of the goals of this part.
7. Authorizes the use of General Fund monies for the costs of organizing and operating quarterly meetings of the commission, but does not make an appropriation for this purpose.
8. Prohibits the commission from making rules or regulations that bind the operations of the dam.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Creates the State Water Resources Development Program (State Water Project or “SWP”), via the 1959 Burns-Porter Act (which was later ratified by voters in November 1960) which includes the Feather River system and main reservoir at Oroville. The SWP is managed by the Department of Water Resources (DWR).
2. Requires dam owners to adhere to rules and regulations regarding dam safety.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS: This bill will create a citizens advisory commission in order to give stakeholders in and around Oroville Dam a forum for engagement with the state regarding dam operations.

Author’s Statement:

Since its completion in 1968, the Oroville Dam has provided water and power to millions of Californians, including through the State Water Project, provided recreational facilities, and supported native ecosystems. Local residents, however, are most immediately affected by operations at the Dam and bear the disproportionate burden of risk from any potential natural or man-made disaster.

In an effort to provide local stakeholders, subject matter experts, and the DWR with a forum for discussing challenges and opportunities at the Dam, SB 955 would create the Citizens Advisory Commission (CAC) for Oroville Dam and provide local residents representing a wide cross section of the community, operators of the dam itself, and water users the opportunity to gather at a regularly appointed time to discuss maintenance, findings, reports, and upcoming actions, and to conduct other communications regarding operations, maintenance, and all other activities at the site.

Each of the CAC’s members would serve for a term of no more than 3 years. Membership would be made up of appointees from a wide selection of the local public and Administration. The CAC would publish a report at least once every three years that provides an overview of ongoing maintenance and improvements made at the Dam and its site, as well as a register of communications received and upcoming site plans. The CAC will not be empowered to make regulations or rules to bind operations at the Dam.

Background: The State Water Project. The SWP is the state’s main water conveyance system—mostly from Northern California to parts of the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, and Southern California. The SWP was initiated by legislation in 1959 under the Burns-Porter Act, with voters ratifying in November 1960 the $1.75 billion bond for the project authorized in the act. A major feature of the project was the damming of the Feather River upstream of the City of Oroville. Oroville Dam, at 770 feet high, is the tallest earthen dam in the United States and impounds 3.5 million acre-feet of water when full. The dam provides water supply to the SWP, as well as electric generation and flood control.

Flood Conditions in 2017. The heavy rainstorms in 2017 mostly ended the five-year drought in Northern California. Much of the Sierra Nevada saw its rainiest and snowiest October-February period on record. The heavy precipitation has caused flooding, levee breaks, and sinkholes throughout the state. Snowpack has been measured at over 160 percent of normal water content. Even after the rains stopped, the record high snowpack in the mountains generated high flows in the summer in many parts of the state.

Oroville Dam Disaster. On February 7, 2017, with heavy rains and runoff impacting reservoir levels at Oroville Reservoir, authorities discovered a massive break in the spillway at Oroville Dam. On February 12, 188,000 people in towns downstream were evacuated due to the possibility of a failure of the emergency spillway. Water levels decreased and on February 14 residents were allowed to return to their homes. The DWR, in April 2017, sought bids to repair the main spillway over a two-year period, shored up the emergency spillway, and brought the main hydropower plant back online. As of January 2018, phase one of the construction repair has been completed in time for the rainy season. The repair project is on track to be completed by December 2018. The DWR is continuing to work with local residents to rebuild community trust of its operations.

Legislative Oversight. Following the dam disaster, several legislative oversight hearings were conducted to determine what happened, how the state planned to recover from the disaster, and lessons to be learned from the disaster. These included:

• January 10, 2018, Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review Committee and Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee: Joint Oversight Hearing - Oroville Dam Update and Safety Efforts.
• May 11, 2017, Joint Informational and Oversight Hearing – Update on the Oroville Dam: Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife, Assembly Accountability and Administrative Review, and Budget Subcommittee No. 3.

Concerns About Communication. As discussed in the Senate Natural Resources analysis of this bill, “What we have here is a failure to communicate. No one can deny that during the events at Oroville last year, the information flow from DWR to local communities was less than ideal.” In fact, as the disaster continued, other agencies were brought in to assist with communications, including CalFIRE and the Office of Emergency Services—two agencies with a long history of communication during disasters, including where evacuations are required.

As the state, and the DWR in particular, moves forward, communication is key to improving both safety and good will with the community. Some strides have already been made, with open community meetings held within the Oroville area, a marked increase in outreach for recreation at the dam, and increased communication both about the pace of the spillway reconstruction and restoration of the river.

However, there are many areas where a citizens advisory committee might improve local knowledge of dam operations. For example, the committee might continue to discuss downstream sedimentation caused by both the initials spillway failure and subsequent emergency spillway damages. The committee also could discuss the initial purposes of the dam including for flood control of the downstream communities of Oroville, Yuba City and Marysville and how this is balanced by competing needs including recreation, water supply and ecological needs. These forums might help to broaden community understanding of the multi-purpose dam and its uses.

Prior and Related Legislation:

SB 1086 (Nielsen), Chapter 885, Statutes of 1986, created the Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Advisory Council.

AJR 38 (Mathis and Gallagher), Chapter 76, Statutes of 2018, would urge the Congress of the United States to implement revised dam safety and inspection requirements, with specified components, for all federally operated and regulated dams and reservoirs for the purpose of ensuring public safety.

AB 1270 (Gallagher), Chapter 3, Statutes of 2018, increased requirements for dam safety.

Arguments in Support: Supporters argue that this bill will create a venue to discuss and resolve important local issues regarding operations and upkeep at the Oroville dam. They see this as a step toward creating an environment of trust between state stakeholders and local communities within the footprint of the dam.

Arguments in Opposition: None on file.

Future Amendments: The author is considering amending the bill to include participation from other state entities such as the Office of Emergency Services, California Highway Patrol, Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of Parks and Recreation. The addition of these agencies would likely increase costs to the state but would bring in the state voices already engaged in dam and reservoir operations.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

City of Marysville

City of Yuba City

Exchange Club of Oroville

Northern California Water Association

Sutter County Board of Supervisors

Yuba County Board of Supervisors

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Catherine Freeman / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 955

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 9-0, 4/16/18

AYES: Hertzberg, Stone, Allen, Hueso, Jackson, McGuire, Monning, Stern, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/25/18

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill creates the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam as an independent entity within the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and specifies, among other things, membership, term limits, and meeting requirements.

ANALYSIS: Existing law provides that DWR owns and operates Oroville Dam.

This bill:

1. Creates as an independent entity within DWR, the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam (commission).
   1. The commission will consist of 14 members as follows:
      1. Two members appointed by the City of Oroville.
      2. Three members appointed by the County of Butte.
      3. Two members appointed by the County of Sutter.
      4. Two members appointed by the County of Yuba.
      5. One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Butte County.
      6. One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Sutter County.
      7. One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Yuba County.
      8. The member of the California State Senate, representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee.
      9. The member of the California State Assembly, representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee.
   2. In selecting members, the city and county appointing bodies are required to strive to appoint members that reflect the broad interests of the community they represent.
   3. All members serve three year terms, except those who are members of the Legislature.
2. Requires the commission to meet at least once every three months or, on the call of the chairperson, as often as necessary to carry out the purposes and duties of the commission.
3. Requires the meetings to be open to the public and held in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
4. Requires the commission to do all the following:
   1. Serve as a nonlegislative representative to the public for the purposes of providing public input and receiving information from the dam operator.
   2. Act as a unified voice from the communities surrounding Oroville Dam to provide public feedback, advice, and best practices to the dam operator.
   3. Publish a report at least once every three years that provides all of the following:
      1. An overview of ongoing maintenance and improvements made at the dam and its site.
      2. A register of communications received from DWR and other parties to the commission.
      3. Notice of upcoming plans made by DWR for the dam and its site.
5. Requires DWR to do all of the following for the commission:
   1. Provide onsite tours of the dam and its grounds.
   2. Provide the commission all information reasonably requested by the commission regarding the construction, rehabilitation or reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and management of the dam, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
      1. Asset management plans regarding facilities and equipment of the dam.
      2. Scheduled or anticipated repairs, restoration, or replacement of facilities or major equipment.
      3. Changes in flood management rules.
6. Authorizes the commission to visit the dam, its site, and site personnel in furtherance of the goals of this part.
7. Authorizes the use of General Fund monies for the costs of organizing and operating quarterly meetings of the commission.

Background

Construction of Oroville Dam began in 1961 and was ready for use in 1968. Lake Oroville and Oroville Dam are part of a complex which includes the Hyatt Powerplant, Thermalito Diversion Dam and Powerplant, the Feather River Fish Hatchery, Thermalito Power Canal, Thermalito Forebay, Thermalito Pumping- Generating Plant, Thermalito Afterbay, and the Lake Oroville Visitors Center.

In February 2017, a series of events at Oroville dam ultimately lead to emergency evacuations, significant local damages, and mental trauma to many of those affected. The Senate Natural Resources Committee’s background for an April 25, 2017 Special Order of Business on “An Update on the Oroville Dam” lays out in greater detail the history of Oroville Dam and a timeline of events at Oroville. (http://sntr.senate.ca.gov/content/2017-informationaloversight-hearings).

Comments

What We’ve Got Here Is Failure To Communicate. No one can deny that during the events at Oroville last year, the information flow from DWR to the local communities was less than ideal. Coming after years of feeling neglected by DWR, it is small wonder that many of those in the greater Oroville area see last year’s events at Oroville Dam as just further evidence that DWR cares more about the Dam and the water supply it provides to State Water Project Contractors than to them.

That said, much of what has been labeled as lies from DWR were actually true, it’s just that folk used similar words to mean significantly different things. For example, the frequent statements from DWR that Oroville Dam is sound and poses no danger to the public. When DWR said that, they meant the Dam structure itself. When many in the public heard that Oroville Dam is sound, they thought about the chasm forming in the main spillway and the severe erosion encroaching on the base of the emergency spillway, and were likely a bit bewildered. They may have also wondered why water overtopping the “emergency spillway” wasn’t in and of itself an “emergency”. That an unexpected evacuation order came not long after water started to flow over the emergency spillway just reinforced that confusion.

The commission that would be created by this bill is intended to reopen the lines of communications between DWR and the local community in the hopes of avoiding such future misunderstandings.

Numerous Examples Of Well-Functioning Advisory Committees. This bill create a new citizens advisory commission to provide public input to and to receive information from DWR about the Dam, its condition, plans for the future, and its operations. This would not be the first time the Legislature created such an advisory group. Examples include the Upper Sacramento Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Advisory Council created in 1986 by SB 1086 (Nielson) and the various prison advisory committees created by Penal Code §5056. This proposal is a sort of melding of those two examples.

This Bill Is A Work In Progress. As this bill move forward, the author should continue to work to resolve a number of outstanding questions. Some of these include:

• Where should the commission be housed? This bill proposes to put it in DWR – the very agency whom the commission is to advise. It might make more sense to place it within a more neutral agency. Potential agencies include the California Water Commission and the Resources Agency.
• Should the terms of commissioners be staggered? This bill would have all the non-legislative members’ term expire at the same time. If the commission is intended to be an ongoing entity, some sort of staggering of terms might make sense.
• Should state and/or federal agencies be formally a part of the commission? If the goal is to improve communication, it might make sense to bring all the major interests to the table.
• How often should the commission issue a report? This bill suggests once every three years. The California Water Commission is required to do an annual report on the progress and construction of the State Water Project. It might make sense to somehow join those two efforts.
• Compensation for non-governmental appointees? It is not unusual to provide a per diem and/or travel expenses for those appointed to state advisory commission.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, unknown, likely significant costs (General Fund and special fund), as follows:

• Ongoing costs of approximately $200,000 to DWR for staff time necessary to interact with the commission and implement commission requests, plus additional costs resulting from commission-related work (e.g., travel expenses, per diem, and educational).
• Unknown, potentially minor to significant ongoing costs (General Fund) for commission work (e.g., meeting costs, per diem, material development, etc.) depending on commission decisions and management.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/25/18)

American Whitewater

City of Marysville

City of Oroville

Exchange Club of Oroville

Northern California Guides and Sportsmen’s Association

Northern California Water Association

Sutter County Board of Supervisors

Yuba County Board of Supervisors

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/25/18)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “Since its completion in 1968, the Oroville Dam has provided water and power to millions of Californians, including through the State Water Project, provided recreational facilities, and supported native ecosystems. Local residents, however, are most immediately affected by operations at the Dam and bear the disproportionate burden of risk from any potential natural or man-made disaster.”

“In an effort to provide local stakeholders … and the DWR with a forum for discussing challenges and opportunities at the Dam, SB 955 would the Citizens Advisory Commission (CAC) for Oroville Dam and provide local residents representing a wide cross section of the community, operators of the Dam itself, and water users the opportunity to gather at a regularly appointed time to discuss maintenance, findings, reports, and upcoming actions, and to conduct other communications regarding operations, maintenance, and all other activities at the site.”

Prepared by:

5/26/18 14:28:29

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

SB 955 (Nielsen) - Oroville Dam: Citizens Advisory Commission

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary: SB 955 creates the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam (commission) as an independent entity within the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and specifies, among other things, membership, term limits, and meeting requirements.

Fiscal Impact: Unknown, likely significant costs (General Fund and special fund), as follows:

Ongoing costs of approximately $200,000 to DWR for staff time necessary to interact with the commission and implement commission requests, plus additional costs resulting from commission-related work (e.g., travel expenses, per diem, and educational).

Unknown, potentially minor to significant ongoing costs (General Fund) for commission work (e.g., meeting costs, per diem, material development, etc.) depending on commission decisions and management.

Background: 

The Department of Water Resources (DWR). The California State Legislature established DWR in 1956 to protect, conserve, develop, and manage California's water supply. DWR, among other things, is credited with constructing and operating the State Water Project (SWP)—the nation’s largest state-built water conveyance system. Spanning approximately 700 miles, the SWP supplies water to almost 27 million Californians and 750,000 acres of farmland (via 29 long-term SWP Water Supply Contractors), and generates on average 600 billion kilowatt hours of energy annually. Though water supply is the SWP’s primary function, it also provides a multitude of other benefits including recreational opportunities, fish and wildlife habitat, and flood control. These ends are achieved through an intricately-designed water conveyance and storage infrastructure of aqueducts, power plants, pumping plants, and reservoirs. The Oroville Dam, an earthfill embankment dam located on the Feather River, is a critical part of this infrastructure.

Oroville Dam. Oroville Dam was ready for use in 1968 after only seven years of construction. Lake Oroville and Oroville Dam are part of a complex which includes the Hyatt Powerplant, Thermalito Diversion Dam and Powerplant, the Feather River Fish Hatchery, Thermalito Power Canal, Thermalito Forebay, Thermalito Pumping- Generating Plant, Thermalito Afterbay, and the Lake Oroville Visitors Center. In On February 7, 2017, during an otherwise normal flood control release of about 50,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), a large cavity developed in the Oroville Dam’s main spillway. This lead to a sequence of events that included massive damage and erosion of the dam’s main spillway, uncontrolled releases due to concerns of failure of the dam’s emergency spillway, and mandatory evacuations downstream of Oroville Dam.

The Senate Natural resources and Water Committee’s background for the April 25, 2017 Special Order of Business “An Update on the Oroville Dam” details the events at Oroville: http://sntr.senate.ca.gov/content/2017-informationaloversight-hearings.

Proposed Law: This bill:

Codifies findings and declarations related to the Oroville Dam failure.

Defines the following:

“Commission” means the Citizens Advisory Commission created pursuant to Section 6604.

“Dam” means Oroville Dam, its appurtenant structures, the Feather River Fish Hatchery, and the Thermalito complex.

Creates the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam as an independent entity within DWR and specifies, among other things, Commission member terms, meeting requirements, and membership (specified below):

Two members appointed by the City Council of the City of Oroville.

Three members appointed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte.

Two members appointed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sutter.

Two members appointed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Yuba.

One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Butte County.

One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Sutter County.

One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Yuba County.

The member of the California State Senate representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee.

The member of the California State Assembly representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee. 

In selecting members, the appointing bodies identified in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (b) shall strive to appoint members who reflect the broad interests of the community they represent.)

Provide all information reasonably requested by the commission regarding the construction, rehabilitation or reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and management of the dam, including: (1) Asset management plans regarding facilities and equipment of the dam; (2) Scheduled or anticipated repairs, restoration, or replacement of facilities or major equipment and (3) Changes in flood management rules.

Requires reimbursement of local expenditure if the local Commission on State

Mandates determines that there are mandated state costs.

Makes findings and declaration detailing the events after the breach in the dam and

the resulting flooding of the nearby town of Oroville.

Staff Comments:

According to the author, “Since its completion in 1968, the Oroville Dam has provided water and power to millions of Californians, including through the State Water Project, provided recreational facilities, and supported native ecosystems. Local residents, however, are most immediately affected by operations at the Dam and bear the disproportionate burden of risk from any potential natural or man-made disaster.”

“In an effort to provide local stakeholders…and the DWR with a forum for discussing challenges and opportunities at the Dam, SB 955 would the Citizens Advisory Commission (CAC) for Oroville Dam and provide local residents representing a wide cross section of the community, operators of the Dam itself, and water users the opportunity to gather at a regularly appointed time to discuss maintenance, findings, reports, and upcoming actions, and to conduct other communications regarding operations, maintenance, and all other activities at the site.”

It’s not always what you say, but how you say it. It is widely believed that DWR and others participating in the emergency response failed to effectively communicate with the local communities at critical times during the incident response. This exacerbated years of local residents feeling neglected by DWR and, to some, provided evidence that DWR’s interests are more deferent to the SWP Contractor’s and infrastructure than to the residents living nearby who are disproportionately impacted by the behemoth.

It’s important to note that many of what residents believed to be “lies from DWR” were actually true, highlighting another cause of frustration and concern among residents. Accounts indicate that, even after regular communications with resident were implemented, they often created more confusion than clarity (e.g., industry terms used without proper definition). The commission created by this bill intends to reopen the lines of communication between DWR and the local community in the hopes of avoiding such future misunderstandings.

Concurrence with policy analysis and suggested amendments. Staff notes and concurs with the policy analysis’s assertion that this bill is a “work in progress”. Staff recommends that, if the bill is to move forward, it is amended to include language detailing the state’s fiscal responsibilities related to the working group as well as language indicating that the working group make every effort to secure no- or low-cost venues for meetings and minimize expenses to the extent possible.

Codified findings and declarations. This bill contains codified findings and declarations. In the interest of code clarity and efficiency, staff recommends this bill be amended to place the findings and declarations in an uncodified section of the bill.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Senator Robert Hertzberg, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 955 Hearing Date: April 16, 2018

Subject: Oroville Dam: Citizens Advisory Commission

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

The Department of Water Resources (DWR) owns and operates Oroville Dam as a part of the State Water Project.

Construction of Oroville Dam began in 1961 and was ready for use in 1968. Lake Oroville and Oroville Dam are part of a complex which includes the Hyatt Powerplant, Thermalito Diversion Dam and Powerplant, the Feather River Fish Hatchery, Thermalito Power Canal, Thermalito Forebay, Thermalito Pumping- Generating Plant, Thermalito Afterbay, and the Lake Oroville Visitors Center.

In February 2017, a series of events at Oroville dam ultimately lead to emergency evacuations, significant local damages, and mental trauma to many of those affected. This committee’s background for an April 25, 2017 Special Order of Business on “An Update on the Oroville Dam” lays out in greater detail the history of Oroville Dam and a timeline of events at Oroville. (http://sntr.senate.ca.gov/content/2017-informationaloversight-hearings) The following is a brief summary of the initial events a year ago February.

February 2017

7th DWR discovers large area of concrete erosion in Oroville Dam’s main spillway, stops releases.

8th DFW begins evacuating fish from Feather River Hatchery due to muddy water flows.

DWR’s News Release states “The dam is sound, and no imminent threat to the public exists.”

9th DWR suspends operations at Hyatt Powerplant due to accumulation of debris.

DWR’s News Release “announced late Thursday that the reservoir’s emergency spillway likely will be used, perhaps as soon as the early hours of Saturday.”

DWR’s News Release also states “There is no imminent or expected threat to public safety or the integrity of Oroville Dam.”

10th DWR’s News Release states “While there is still a chance the emergency spillway at Lake Oroville may be used this weekend, reservoir operators say that if current releases from the nearly full reservoir can be maintained, it is less likely the lake will rise to the point where water flows into the emergency spillway channel.”

DWR’s News Release also states “Whether the emergency spillway is used or not, Oroville Dam itself is sound and there is no imminent threat to the public.”

11th DWR’s News Release states “The relatively light flow of water that began washing into Lake Oroville’s auxiliary spillway Saturday morning is expected to continue flowing for the next few days. Total releases from the reservoir do not threaten the dam or downstream communities and fall well within the capacity of the Feather River and other downstream channels.”

12th DWR’s News Release states “Based on information received from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the incident command team managing Lake Oroville, counties and cities near Lake Oroville and the surrounding area issued evacuation orders for residents. The concern is that erosion at the head of the auxiliary spillway threatens to undermine the concrete weir and allow large, uncontrolled releases of water from Lake Oroville. Those potential flows could exceed the capacity of downstream channels.”

DWR’s News Release also states “Oroville Dam itself is sound and is a separate structure from the auxiliary spillway.”

Governor declares state of emergency for Butte, Sutter, and Yuba counties.

13th DWR begins round-the-clock work to repair emergency spillway. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requires DWR to begin repair design and convene an independent Board of Consultants (BOC).

14th DWR continues main spillway releases and lake levels drop.

Butte County Sheriff downgrades evacuation order to evacuation warning.

18th Lake level drops and DWR reduces main spillway releases. DWR begins removal of debris from pool beneath spillway.

27th DWR stops main spillway releases, increases debris removal efforts.

March 2017

1st BOC holds first meeting.

5th DWR resumes operation of Hyatt Powerplant.

17th DWR resumes some main spillway releases to accommodate lake inflows.

19th Governor requests federal disaster declaration and financial assistance, for emergency response.

22nd Butte County Sheriff lifts all evacuation warnings and advisories.

PROPOSED LAW

This bill would:

1. Create as an independent entity within the department the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam.
2. The commission would consist of 14 members as follows:
   1. Two members appointed by the City of Oroville.
   2. Three members appointed by the County of Butte.
   3. Two members appointed by the County of Sutter.
   4. Two members appointed by the County of Yuba.
   5. One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Butte County.
   6. One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Sutter County.
   7. One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Yuba County.
   8. The member of the California State Senate, representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee.
   9. The member of the California State Assembly, representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee.
3. In selecting members, the city and county appointing bodies would be required to strive to appoint members that reflect the broad interests of the community they represent.
4. All members would serve three year terms, except those who are members of the Legislature.
5. The commission would be required to meet at least once every three months or, on the call of the chairperson, as often as necessary to carry out the purposes and duties of the commission.
6. Meetings of the commission would be open to the public and held in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
7. The commission would be required to do all the following:
   1. Serve as a nonlegislative representative to the public for the purposes of providing public input and receiving information from the dam operator.
   2. Act as a unified voice from the communities surrounding Oroville Dam to provide public feedback, advice, and best practices to the dam operator.
   3. Publish a report at least once every three years that provides all of the following:
      1. An overview of ongoing maintenance and improvements made at the dam and its site.
      2. A register of communications received from the department and other parties to the commission.
      3. Notice of upcoming plans made by the department for the dam and its site.
8. DWR would be required to do all of the following for the commission:
   1. Provide onsite tours of the dam and its grounds.
   2. Provide the commission all information reasonably requested by the commission regarding the construction, rehabilitation or reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and management of the dam, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
      1. Asset management plans regarding facilities and equipment of the dam.
      2. Scheduled or anticipated repairs, restoration, or replacement of facilities or major equipment.
      3. Changes in flood management rules.
9. The commission would have the power to visit the dam, its site, and site personnel in furtherance of the goals of this part.
10. Authorize the use of General Fund monies for the costs of organizing and operating quarterly meetings of the commission.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

According to the author, “Since its completion in 1968, the Oroville Dam has provided water and power to millions of Californians, including through the State Water Project, provided recreational facilities, and supported native ecosystems. Local residents, however, are most immediately affected by operations at the Dam and bear the disproportionate burden of risk from any potential natural or man-made disaster.”

“In an effort to provide local stakeholders … and the DWR with a forum for discussing challenges and opportunities at the Dam, SB 955 would the Citizens Advisory Commission (CAC) for Oroville Dam and provide local residents representing a wide cross section of the community, operators of the Dam itself, and water users the opportunity to gather at a regularly appointed time to discuss maintenance, findings, reports, and upcoming actions, and to conduct other communications regarding operations, maintenance, and all other activities at the site.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: None received

COMMENTS

What We’ve Got Here Is Failure To Communicate. No one can deny that during the events at Oroville last year, the information flow from DWR to the local communities was less than ideal. Coming after years of feeling neglected by DWR, it is small wonder that many of those in the greater Oroville area see last year’s events at Oroville Dam as just further evidence that DWR cares more about the Dam and the water supply it provides to State Water Project Contractors than to them.

That said, much of what has been labeled as lies from DWR were actually true, it’s just that folk used similar words to mean significantly different things. For example, the frequent statements from DWR that Oroville Dam is sound and poses no danger to the public. When DWR said that, they meant the Dam structure itself. When many in the public heard that Oroville Dam is sound, they thought about the chasm forming in the main spillway and the severe erosion encroaching on the base of the emergency spillway, and were likely a bit bewildered. They may have also wondered why water overtopping the “emergency spillway” wasn’t in and of itself an “emergency”. That an unexpected evacuation order came not long after water started to flow over the emergency spillway just reinforced that confusion.

The Commission that would be created by this bill is intended to reopen the lines of communications between DWR and the local community in the hopes of avoiding such future misunderstandings.

Numerous Examples Of Well-Functioning Advisory Committees. This bill create a new citizens advisory commission to provide public input to and to receive information from DWR about the Dam, its condition, plans for the future, and its operations. This would not be the first time the Legislature created such an advisory group. Examples include the Upper Sacramento Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Advisory Council created in 1986 by SB 1086 (Nielson) and the various prison advisory committees created by Penal Code §5056. This proposal is a sort of melding of those two examples.

This Bill Is A Work In Progress. Should this bill move forward, the committee may wish to urge the author to continue to work with committee staff and consider how to resolve a number of outstanding questions. Some of these include:

• Where should the commission be housed? This bill proposes to put it in DWR – the very agency whom the commission is to advise. It might make more sense to place it within a more neutral agency. Potential agencies include the California Water Commission and the Resources Agency.
• Should the terms of commissioners be staggered? This bill would have all the non-legislative members’ term expire at the same time. If the commission is intended to be an ongoing entity, some sort of staggering of terms might make sense.
• Should state and/or federal agencies be formally a part of the commission? If the goal is to improve communication, it might make sense to bring all the major interests to the table.
• How often should the commission issue a report? This bill suggests once every three years. The California Water Commission is required to do an annual report on the progress and construction of the State Water Project. It might make sense to somehow join those two efforts.
• Compensation for non-governmental appointees? It is not unusual to provide a per diem and/or travel expenses for those appointed to state advisory commission.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: See attached mock-up

SUPPORT

American Whitewater

Northern California Guides and Sportsmen’s Association

Sutter County Board of Supervisors

Yuba County Board of Supervisors

OPPOSITION: None Received

Mock-up As Proposed To Be Amended

Amended IN Senate March 14, 2018

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2017–2018 REGULAR SESSION

Senate Bill No. 955

Introduced by Senator Nielsen

Co Author: Senator Hertzberg

Co Author: Assemblymember Gallagher

January 30, 2018

An act to add Part 3 (commencing with Section 6600) to Division 3 of the Water Code, relating to water.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 955, as amended, Nielsen. Oroville Dam: Citizens Advisory Commission.

<snip>

Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Part 3 (commencing with Section 6600) is added to Division 3 of the Water Code, to read:

PART 3. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR OROVILLE DAM

6600. The Legislature finds and declares as follows:

(a) The residents in the communities most immediately affected by the Oroville Dam and its delivery of resources bear the disproportionate burden of risk from any potential natural or manmade disaster as well as daily operations at the dam.

(b) On February 7, 2017, those risks were very clear as a crack in the primary spillway following the release of water precipitated a week-long panic as residents were unsure of what action to take or where to go should the dam collapse or emergency spillway fail.

(c) After days of uncertainty about whether the dam was still safe and how the dam might continue to degrade and conflicting information coming from the Department, its advisors, emergency responders, and the press, nearly 200,000 residents were forced to evacuate their homes and flee for safer ground with little notice to either the evacuees or emergency response personnel.

(d) Now the state has undertaken a project to repair the damaged spillway and is considering further renovations at the 50-year old site and on the many appurtenances required for the functioning of the State Water Project. The Citizens Advisory Commission created by this part is necessary to provide residents representing a wide cross section of the community, operators of the dam itself, and water users the opportunity to gather at a regularly appointed time to discuss maintenance, findings, reports, and upcoming actions, and to conduct other communications regarding operations, maintenance, and all other activities at the site.

6602. As used in this part, the following terms have the following meanings:

(a) “Commission” means the Citizens Advisory Commission created pursuant to Section 6604.

(b) “Dam” means Oroville Dam, its appurtenant structures, the Feather River Fish Hatchery, and the Thermalito complex.

6604. There is hereby created as an independent entity within the department the Citizens Advisory Commission for Oroville Dam.

(a) The commission shall consist of 14 members as follows:

(1) Two members appointed by the City of Oroville.

(2) Three members appointed by the County of Butte.

(3) Two members appointed by the County of Sutter.

(4) Two members appointed by the County of Yuba.

(5) One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Butte County.

(6) One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Sutter County.

(7) One county deputy sheriff appointed by the Sheriff of Yuba County.

(8) The member of the California State Senate, representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee.

(9) The member of the California State Assembly, representing the City of Oroville, or his or her designee.

(b) In selecting members, the appointing bodies identified in paragraphs (1) through (4) of subdivision (a) shall strive to appoint members that reflect the broad interests of the community they represent.

6606. (a) The commission shall selects its own chairperson by a majority vote of its members.

(b) The term of office of all members, except those who are members of the Legislature, shall be three years. If a vacancy occurs due to resignation, death, or absence from three consecutive meetings, the appointing power shall fill the vacancy following receipt of written notification that a vacancy has occurred.

(c) The commission shall meet at least once every three months or, on the call of the chairperson, as often as necessary to carry out the purposes and duties of the commission.

(d) Meetings of the commission shall be open to the public and held in accordance with Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

6608. (a) The commission shall do the following:

(1) Serve as a nonlegislative representative to the public for the purposes of providing public input and receiving information from the dam operator.

(2) Act as a unified voice from the communities surrounding Oroville Dam to provide public feedback, advice, and best practices to the dam operator.

(3) Publish a report at least once every three years that provides all of the following:

(A) An overview of ongoing maintenance and improvements made at the dam and its site.

(B) A register of communications received from the department and other parties to the commission.

(C) Notice of upcoming plans made by the department for the dam and its site.

(b) The commission shall not make regulations or rules to bind operations at the dam.

6610. The department shall do all of the following for the commission:

(a) Provide onsite tours of the dam and its grounds.

(b) Provide the commission all information reasonably requested by the commission regarding the construction, rehabilitation or reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and management of the dam, including, but not limited to, any of the following:

(1) Asset management plans regarding facilities and equipment of the dam.

(2) Scheduled or anticipated repairs, restoration, or replacement of facilities or major equipment.

(3) Changes in flood management rules.

6612. The commission shall have the power to visit the dam, its site, and site personnel in furtherance of the goals of this part. The power of visitation specified in this section shall not extend to a situation where institutional security would be jeopardized.

6614. Funds may be appropriated from the General Fund for the costs of organizing and operating quarterly meetings of the commission.

SEC. 2. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

-- END --