Included in the Center staff is a full-time resident technician at a satellite flood center located in Eureka, California. The Eureka employee participates in the installation, maintenance and monitoring of a vast telemetry system of streamflow precipitation gages located throughout the North Coast Hydrological Region, and he is instrumental in providing an effective flood warning system for residents and industries of that flood prone area.

The Flood Operations Center, because of its facilities and experience and diversity of its staff can be adapted to coordinate other natural disasters including droughts.

In closing, because of California's varied climate we can say with certainty that some place and at some time we can expect a flood to occur each year in California, whether it be from a heavy rain storm from the Pacific in the winter, a tropical storm from Mexico in the summer, or a snowmelt flood in the spring.

We are, therefore, constantly trying to improve our hydrologic data network, our forecast models, and our response capabilities so that we can hopefully produce more timely warnings of flood threats to the citizens of California, and be better prepared when Mother Nature calls.

PRESENTED BY W. M.

STATEMENT IN BEHALF OF THE CITY OF NEEDLES.
CLAYPOOL III, MEMBER OF THE NEEDLES UTILITY BOARD.

My name is W. M. Claypool III, a member of the City of Needles' Utility board, and I have been asked by the City to explain why they, along with Mohave County and the Fort Yuma Indian Tribe, asked for an injunction in Federal Court to keep the Bureau of Reclamation from raising the River to a flood stage until they proved that it was necessary. To explain why we did this, what we found out, and where we stand at the present time.

This request was the result of the fact that the Bureau had been hiding the truth from us for the previous weeks and months, and we felt that they were still hiding the fact that they had made massive errors, or had mismanaged the River. We felt that they had been lying.

We requested an Injunction, and here is a copy for the record of our request.

At 6 o'clock on Monday night, June 20th, Judge Manual Real gave a Temporary Restraining Order limiting the release at Hoover to 31,000 c.f.s. until a hearing on Friday.

us

The Bureau panicked, and by 9 the next morning personal attacks upon myself in the Parker area caused us to believe that they were truly in bad shape, and were on the verge of losing control of the River.

We tried to find the truth, but couldn't. But we did learn enough to voluntary lift the T.R.O. at 1 o'clock on Tuesday, June 21, and until the scheduled court hearing on Friday, June 24. It was voluntary, and we held up the increased releases for only five hours.

On Thursday evening, June 23rd, we received a copy of the Memorandum in Opposition to our application for an injunction from the government, and here is a copy for the record.

This told us many things, and including that:

1. The River was being managed by a bad Plan that was not even a Flood Control Plan, but a Maximum Water Storage Plan, and actually says "to hell with all who live on the River South of Hoover Dam." 2. This Working Agreement being used hasn't even been offically approved.

3. This bad Plan, which is actually a "Blueprint for Disaster", was not the fault of Bureau personnel, but was the result of extreme political pressure from single purpose and selfish water interests in both the Lower and Upper Basins.

4. The Bureau had tried to make room for expected excess water in January, but pressure and threats of lawsuits from water users in Fetusy the Upper Basin stopped their necessary releases in March and April.'

5. A new Weather Forecasting system was in affect, actually a silly attempt to forecast 100% via a computer model based upon conceptual parameters, and which eliminated the consideration of actual snow measurements until April 1st. Please check page VI-2 of the Water Control Manual for Flood Control for Hoover Dam.

6. Knowing that they were going to flood this spring, the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau had actually requested an Environmental Assessment for this flooding on October 12, 1982. But they did not tell the potential flood victims, and the approval wasn't signed until 2 days after we got our T.R.O.

And it goes on and on.

Realizing how bad shape the River was in, at the hearing on Friday, June 24th, we asked that Judge Laughlin Waters withdraw our request for an Injunction.

The U. S. Attorney refused to go along with our request unless the Judge ruled that it be withdrawn with Prejudice

or that the

government was not at fault for the mismanagement of the River.

Judge Waters would not accept this, and a further hearing was scheduled in 30 days, and each party was to give the Court additional arguments.

The government did not present any additional arguments.

The City presented the attached documents, here is a copy for the record, and which includes factual reports from experts Dr. Larry Paulson and W. S. Gookin that showed that this was not a record runoff year, the same amount of water had been safety handled many times before, that there was no need to release more than 28,000 c.f.s. at Needles if the original management plan was still being used, and that the present disaster was the result of a ridiculous management Plan.

Our testimony included the fact that their Memordum of Opposition proves that the present plan will result in continued damages in the years ahead, that we were not warned, and that the Corps of Engineers had estimated that a release of 40,000 c.f.s. would result in $604,000 in damages, which was off by at least 60 million dollars (100 times) and 6 deaths. Errors like this leaves doubt as to the creditability of their studies.

After the Bureau received our arguments, they asked for another 30 day extention.

We later asked for an additional 30 day extention as the hearing had been scheduled in Los Angeles last Tuesday, the day before the Yuma Hearing.

Last week we received an additional 250 pages of data from the Bureau, and which we haven't as yet had time to study.

If we had not asked for the Injuction we would not now know that: 1. The Bureau was hiding the fact that the dams were ready to overflow, and we had not been warned.

2. This dangerous condition was the result of a bad management a Maximum Water Storage Plan, not the Flood Control called for by the Boulder Canyon Project Act, and therefore actually an illegal

Plan ·

plan.

3. This bad plan is the result of extreme pressure upon the Bureau by old fashioned single minded water users. People out of step

with the needs of today's young voters.

4. The various Agencies within the Interior Department haven't been communicating with each other for a number of years, and this resulted in much additional damage.

5. The present snowmelt forecasting entirely by computer, and without human judgment, is both stupid and criminal, and as shown by the damages and deaths during the past 10 weeks.

6. If the present "Blueprint for Disaster" is not changed to

a plan allowing for prudent maximum water storage, prudent maximum power production, and prudent flood control, the area south of Hoover Dam will be wiped out as a recreational resource for the 14 million people who live and vote in Southern California and urban Arizona, as well as the private farms and properties. The River south of Hoover will be nothing more than a sterile unusable irrigation ditch. Disgraceful and all unnecessary.

There is no reason for all of this to have happened, nor for it to happen again, nor for the River south of Hoover to be wiped out as a recreational resource for America in the years ahead.

26-099 0-83--33