- Share via
- A newly released government memo sheds light on how the Army Corps of Engineers responded to President Trump’s order directing federal agencies to “maximize” water deliveries in California.
- It details how Army Corps officials abruptly decided to release water from two California dams, and the many concerns raised by local water managers and lawmakers.
When President Trump called for the federal government to “maximize” water deliveries in California, commanders of the Army Corps of Engineers quickly found two dams where they could carry out that order. And even though the officials knew the water couldn’t be moved out of the Central Vally as Trump wished, they released billions of gallons anyway, according to a newly released government document.
The Feb. 3 memo by Col. Chad Caldwell, the corps’ regional commander, provides the most detailed account to date of how the agency responded to Trump’s order directing federal agencies to increase water deliveries in California. The document recounts how corps officials suddenly decided to dump water from the dams in January, and how they encountered questions and opposition from local water managers and lawmakers, who were concerned that letting out water didn’t make sense and that the high flows posed risks of flooding.
“It was cavalier and an extremely high-risk decision, and wasteful,” said Ann Willis, California regional director of American Rivers, a nonprofit environmental organization.
Willis, who worked for the corps in 2007 and 2008, said there was no reason to dump water that farmers and cities were depending on, and that releasing water unexpectedly like this could have unleashed flooding and put people at risk.
“To intentionally create a situation where that could have been the outcome, it’s depraved and mind-blowing,” Willis said.
Indeed, many California water officials and experts agreed that the plan had the potential to be ruinous. Local water managers pushed back when they learned of the plan by corps officials to release water from the dams, telling the agency that the water wasn’t needed this time of year and that the abrupt surge of water could do damage.
In response to the concerns, the memo says, federal officials scaled back their initial plan and released significantly less water than they had originally intended.
The plan took shape five days after Trump issued his order. The corps on Jan. 29 “was tasked to review existing authorities and water levels within our area of responsibility,” wrote Caldwell, who leads the agency’s Sacramento District
The goal: Trump had said he intended to increase the flow of water to the Los Angeles area after the devastating wildfires. But that idea clashed with inconvenient realities. L.A. water managers said they already had ample water on hand for firefighting. And federal officials charged with carrying out the president’s order knew that the state — not the federal government — controls the aqueducts and pump stations that deliver water to Southern California’s cities.
In his memo, Caldwell said the staff at the corps’ regional office noted that the water held in two San Joaquin Valley reservoirs, Success Lake and Lake Kaweah, was available but “could not be delivered to Southern California directly.”
Moving water to Southern California’s cities, he wrote, would require coordination with the state Department of Water Resources to pump water through a rarely used connection to the aqueducts of the State Water Project, and “otherwise the water would remain in the Tulare Lake Basin” — where farmers typically rely on water stored in the reservoirs to supply crops during the summer.
Caldwell said in the memo that he “has authority to release water” based on flood control procedures. And on Jan. 30, “in conversation with” Lt. Gen. William “Butch” Graham, Jr., the corps’ commanding general, and Col. James Handura, commander of the South Pacific Division, Caldwell said he was “tasked to release” water from the two dams.
The memo was obtained by The Times in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act. It was first reported by the Washington Post.
Army Corps officials have not publicly responded to those criticisms, and declined to comment on the details in the memo. The document is titled Memorandum for Record, which under Army regulations is to “show the authority or basis for an action taken.”
According to the memo, after the plan was decided, Caldwell began to inform managers of other agencies about the plans to release water. About 3:30 p.m. on Jan. 30, he called two other key water managers, California Department of Water Resources Director Karla Nemeth and Karl Stock, the Federal Bureau of Reclamation’s regional director, both of whom “indicated that it would take more time for them to activate their systems and they likely could not utilize the additional water with such short notice.”
The corps team also contacted local “water masters,” including managers of agricultural irrigation districts that use water from the dams. Based on concerns raised by one of those officials, the memo says, the corps “significantly reduced the initial estimated outflows.”
The area’s water managers, who were caught off-guard by the decision, have said they convinced federal officials to let out less water than originally planned.
Members of Congress and state lawmakers who represent farming areas near the dams also got involved.
According to the memo, several lawmakers contacted the corps “to ask why the water was being released as it was typical to reserve as much water as possible for the summer growing season.” They included Reps. Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield), David Valadao (R-Hanford) and Jim Costa (D-Fresno), as well as state Assemblymember Alexandra M. Macedo (R-Tulare). Caldwell noted in the memo that the legislators also “expressed concerns from their constituents about potential flooding of downstream lands.”
The colonel said he “affirmed that the water was being released per [President Trump’s] Executive Order” and that after consultation with local water officials, “flows would be limited to safe levels that would not result in downstream impacts.”
After reading the memo, Willis, of American Rivers, called it troubling that officials of the Army Corps of Engineers “did not feel that they could exercise their discretion to delay releases until the water could actually be used.”
On the evening of Jan. 30, Army officials began opening gates and releasing flows from Schafer Dam and Terminus Dam, sending water coursing through river channels near Porterville and Visalia. The flows increased during the night.
By that time, local officials in Tulare County had scrambled to prepare. Denise England, a county official who manages the local flood control district, said she had learned of the plan to release water in an email earlier in the day of Jan. 30, and the sudden notification was alarming.
“It was very unusual, and it was very concerning,” England said in an interview. “It seemed very unnecessary.”
England said people were on edge at the sudden prospect of floodwaters surging because nearly two years earlier, intense storms triggered major flooding in the same area, inundating thousands of acres of farmland and reforming the long-dry Tulare Lake.
“It triggered a little bit of anxiety because of the March 2023 storm events,” England said. During those storms, floodwaters surged into the Tulare Lake Basin, submerging roads, breaking through levees and inundating farmlands, where workers rushed to move equipment to high ground.
She said she was puzzled by a decision that “made no sense.”
“We were just scratching our heads. ‘What is happening here?’” England said. Because everyone knew the water wouldn’t be transported to L.A., she said, it was “just creating a problem locally.”
Fortunately, she said, those who run water agencies reacted quickly. They managed to capture water from the swollen Kaweah and Tule rivers, routing flows to basins where the water percolated underground.
Managers of agricultural water districts said they used the water to replenish the area’s groundwater. “It wasn’t wasted. Water was put to groundwater recharge,” said Aaron Fukuda, general manager of the Tulare Irrigation District.
But if leaders of local agencies hadn’t acted swiftly, England said, the result might well have been flooded farmlands.
“They were able to put that water to use, which is great news,” she said. “A lot of people scrambled to react, and it didn’t need to happen that way.”
On Jan. 31, Trump posted a photo of water streaming from one of the dams, declaring it “beautiful water flow that I just opened in California.” He called it a “long fought Victory!” He didn’t mention where the water went.
That same day, the corps decreased the flows from both dams after “further coordination” with local water managers “to minimize risk of downstream impacts,” Caldwell wrote in the memo.
Later, on Feb. 2, a superior directed Caldwell and his team to reduce the flows from the dams to normal low levels.
Trump had said on social media that within three days, 5.2 billion gallons of water would be released from the dams. But Caldwell said in the memo that by the time the operation ended, the total amount released was about 2.5 billion gallons.
Democratic members of Congress have strongly criticized the corps over its handling of the water releases. Graham, the commanding general, was grilled about what happened by Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Juan Capistrano) during an oversight hearing last month, and struggled to answer questions about the decision, saying: “I don’t know what happened to the water.”
Levin and fellow Democratic Reps. Jared Huffman of San Rafael and Laura Friedman of Glendale demanded answers this week in a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, saying they are very concerned about “the politically motivated, uncoordinated, unscheduled, and opaque water releases.”
They said the water flowed into the dry lake basin, “sacrificing vital resources in a drought-prone state,” and that the water should have been saved in reservoirs for use when it’s needed in the summer. “It is vital that decisions related to water management be transparent and properly coordinated,” the lawmakers wrote.
Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla also criticized the unplanned water releases, saying there must be close coordination with local officials, safety personnel and agricultural water users to reduce flood risks, and that “gravely insufficient notification was given, recklessly endangering residents downstream.”
The Trump administration has also come under criticism for ordering firings and buyouts at the Bureau of Reclamation, which operates other dams and water infrastructure in California.
Employees said recently that the bureau, which employs about 1,000 people in the state, was set to lose about 100 employees through terminations and buyouts. But after managers of Central Valley water agencies warned that making such major reductions would jeopardize the agency’s ability to safely and reliably deliver water, 12 of those employees — some who already had been fired and others who had been slated for termination — have been reinstated or retained, respectively, according to an employee who wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
“We’re grateful that there has been movement to restore some of the reported staff cuts at the Bureau of Reclamation in California,” Nemeth, the state’s top water official, said in an email. “Those staff are necessary to operate California’s water supply system safely and effectively.”
Nemeth’s department confirmed she had received a “courtesy call” from the Army Corps of Engineers on Jan. 30, the day the releases from the dams began.
But, Nemeth said, since then, the agency has “not yet seen any details from the federal government about how they plan to implement the President’s executive orders on California water management.”
The Trump administration’s ongoing changes at agencies that manage water are occurring at a time when California’s water supplies are in relatively good shape. The snowpack in the Sierra Nevada remains smaller than average. But water levels in the state’s major reservoirs stand at 112% of the historical average, and statewide precipitation is about average for this time of year.
Times staff writer Jessica Garrison contributed to this report.
