<DOC>
[106th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:57837.wais]
CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 20, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 106-27
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-837 WASHINGTON : 1999
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado Virgin Islands
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana JAY INSLEE, Washington
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania TOM UDALL, New Mexico
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina MARK UDALL, Colorado
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado RUSH D. HUNT, New Jersey
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California, Chairman
KEN CALVERT, California CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California GEORGE MILLER, California
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington
GREG WALDEN, Oregon DONNA CHRISTIAN-CHRISTENSEN,
MIKE SIMPSOM, Idaho Virgin Islands
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
Robert Faber, Staff Director/Counsel
Joshua Johnson, Professional Staff
Steve Lanich, Minority Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held May 20, 1999........................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Dooley, Hon. Calvin M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 3
Doolittle, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Radanovich, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, prepared statement of............. 192
Statement of Witnesses:
Babbitt, Hon. Bruce, Secretary, Department of Interior,
accompanied by Patricia Beneke, Assistant Secretary,
Department of Water and Science, Department of Interior.... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Gartrell, Gregory, Assistant General Manager, Contra Costa
Water District, Concord, California........................ 133
Prepared statement of.................................... 136
George, Hon. Merv, Jr., Chairman, Hoopa Tribe, Hoopa,
California................................................. 164
Prepared statement of.................................... 165
Gleick, Peter, President, Pacific Institute, Oakland,
California................................................. 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
Guy, David J., Executive Director, Northern California Water
Association, Sacramento, California........................ 65
Prepared statement of.................................... 67
Kaniewski, Donald J., Legislative Director, Laborer's
International Union of North America, LIUNA-AFLCIO,
Washington, DC............................................. 63
Prepared statement of.................................... 64
King, Dennis, Senior Research Scientist, University of
Maryland, Center for Environmental Sciences, Solomons
Island, Maryland........................................... 103
Prepared statement of.................................... 106
McCormick, Steve, Vice President, Western Division, The
Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, California.............. 73
Prepared statement of.................................... 76
Nelson, Barry, Senior Fellow, Save the San Francisco Bay
Association, San Francisco, California..................... 147
Prepared statement of.................................... 150
Nelson, Dan, Executive Director, San Luis and Delta Mendota
Water Authority, Los Banos, California..................... 170
Prepared statement of.................................... 173
Nichols, Mary D., Secretary for Resources, State of
California................................................. 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Sprague, Stan, General Manager, Orange County Municipal Water
District, Fountain Valley, California...................... 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
HEARING ON CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY WATER MANAGEMENT
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:10 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Doolittle
[chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Doolittle. Subcommittee on Water and Power will come to
order. We're meeting today to hear testimony on the California
Central Valley Water Management. First session of the hearing
will be devoted to issues regarding the California Bay-Delta
program. And during the second half the hearing, we'll discuss
the implementation of the Central Valley Improvement Act.
This hearing concerns water management in the Central
Valley of California, it involves some of the most important
issues we will consider in this Congress. It represents a major
Federal, State and local commitment to solving California's
water needs and sets the stage for future water management
policies and facilities in the State of California.
I believe that the participation of Secretary Babbitt and
Secretary Nichols indicates both the importance of this issue
as well as an opportunity to discuss among some of the major
policy leaders the steps we need to take to provide for
California's water management future.
While I recognize that there are other pressing issues we
will discuss, it is encouraging to see that the stakeholders
have agreed that $35 million of the CALFED funding for next
year should be allocated for activities that address water
quality and water supply issues. Although I don't believe that
this sum goes far enough in addressing the needs for additional
water supply, it does represent an important acknowledgment and
commitment for augmenting California's future water supplies.
Today I would like to address four areas of specific
interest to the Subcommittee regarding water management and the
Central Valley of California. These areas include ecosystem
criteria, and performance standards, the development of a
cross-cut budget, augmenting our current water supply and
addressing where we are going with the CALFED program.
We need to ensure that there are adequate criteria to
evaluate the effectiveness of CALFED's restoration program. Not
only do we currently lack many of the project descriptions to
be undertaken by CALFED, but we have a shortage of measuring
sticks to determine when we have achieved a specified goal once
the money has been spent. The CALFED program must incorporate
milestones and objective measurements that define the future
essentials of success as well as when specific goals have been
met.
The Committee is concerned that the Federal agencies
involved in the CALFED program are not coordinating the myriad
of activities going on in the watersheds under restoration. I
am currently discussing with the congressional support agencies
a way to determine how fundings are currently being accounted
for and how an effective cross-cut budget should be prepared.
Last night we receive the long-awaited program-level cross-cut
budget for the expenditures dedicated to the CALFED program.
Today I seek Secretary Babbitt and Secretary Nichols'
commitment to develop the more comprehensive project-level
cross-cut budget, which identify all Federal and State
expenditures being allocated to achieve the objectives being
pursued by the CALFED program.
Our existing water management systems can no longer provide
a sufficient reliable water supply to meet the needs of the
environment and our current water users. How are we going to
develop the process to meet the future California urban, rural,
agriculture, business, labor and environmental water needs if
we can't even meet our current needs? Conservation, transfer
and adaptive management are part of the solution, but they are
not enough by themselves.
Storage needs must be addressed immediately for two
reasons. First, the demand for water in California currently
exceeds the supply during normal years, and according to the
California Department of Water Resources and CALFED's own
documents, this shortage will grow to between 3 and 7 million
acre-feet a year in the year 2020. If we do not immediately
begin to address these needs, we will lose the valuable time
necessary to prepare for this occasion.
Twenty years ago computer programmers knew the phenomenon
we now call the Y2K bug, and they knew that would have to be
addressed, yet policymakers failed to act until very recently.
The results are far greater costs and the risks of significant
dislocations. Surely we have the wherewithal to avoid these
mistakes in water.
I do not believe that these concerns present insurmountable
obstacles. Rather, they represent reasonable attainable goals
which should reflect the way government conducts its business.
The CALFED partnership represents potential funding in the
billions of dollars. It has the potential to be used to enhance
the water quality and environmental resources in the Bay-Delta
as well as for other water resource activities in California.
Yet how it is administered will be a test of government's
ability to transition to a smarter, more efficient, less
coercive mode of operation.
Finally, I believe that we need to continue our scrutiny of
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. The implementation
of this Act not only has a significant impact on the CALFED
program, but it also is an indication of whether or not the
government can approach these water problems in a constructive
manner or will continue to do so with a heavy hand.
In my conversation yesterday with Secretary Nichols I was
encouraged with the spirit of cooperation that she extended. I
look forward to hearing the testimony and discussing the future
of California's water management with the witnesses and will
now recognize our Ranking Member Mr. Dooley for his statement.
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
STATEMENT OF HON. CALVIN M. DOOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Dooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for holding this hearing today to review the status of the
CALFED process and the implementation of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act. These two efforts are closely
interwoven, and both will have a profound impact on the future
of California.
I would also like to thank all of our witnesses today for
their participation. My constituents are greatly affected by
the CVPIA and have been active participants in the CALFED
process because they recognize that resolving the environmental
problems associated with water project development is the key
to restoring and ensuring an adequate and reliable water supply
for the future.
I continue to believe that a well-functioning,
collaborative process such as CALFED remains the most effective
approach to finding a long-term solution that addresses
California's water supply and water quality needs while
simultaneously protecting and restoring this State's unique
ecosystems. From my perspective, a well-functioning process is
a balanced one that produces tangible benefits for all
participating stakeholders.
It is clear to me, as I hope it is to all those involved,
that this process will not succeed if major concerns of key
stakeholders remain unaddressed. It is also important that we
recognize that all policy decisions affecting California's
water supply have an impact on our ability to devise a long-
term solution through the CALFED process. In that regard I have
been impressed and encouraged by the cooperative spirit
displayed by the stakeholders with respect to the
appropriations request, and I have also greatly appreciated
remarks by Secretary Babbitt in recent months which indicated a
continued commitment to a balanced process that addresses water
supply and quality concerns while we pursue ecosystem
restoration. And I would just like to recognize that if it
wasn't for the active and personal involvement of Secretary
Babbitt, I think we might not have had the CALFED process
maintain the momentum that it was able to achieve in the last
year, and I am deeply gratified and indebted to your effort
there.
I'm also very pleased with the new State administration in
California, who is represented here today by Secretary Nichols,
who also in the first few months of their administration have
been very constructively engaged, and I'm very confident about
the leadership that you're going to provide in the upcoming
years. I look forward to this leadership and being a partner in
this effort and as we move towards a balanced, long-lasting and
environmentally sound response to California's water supply and
water quality needs.
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Miller. So I don't shock people, but I would like to
associate myself with Mr. Dooley's remarks, and if I could
include my opening statement in the record.
Mr. Doolittle. Yes, without objection, so ordered. And that
will certainly be the case for any of the other Members who
wish to incorporate their statements into the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Statement of Hon. George Miller, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the participation of Interior
Secretary Bruce Babbitt, Assistant Secretary Patricia Beneke,
California Resources Secretary Mary Nichols, and all other
witnesses who will participate in today's hearing. We have an
ambitious schedule today, and my remarks will be very brief.
The timing of this hearing is certainly interesting:
<bullet> A Federal judge in Fresno has just ordered the
Interior Department to comply with the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act.
<bullet> The United States Supreme Court just refused to
intervene in the case involving the Friant Unit contracts.
<bullet> The long-awaited Flow Study for the Trinity River will
be released, perhaps as early as next week.
<bullet> And CALFED will reach another milestone in a few weeks
when the revised draft EIS/EIR is released along with the draft
preferred program alternative.
The convergence of these California water events is a
reminder that California water issues are a reflection of the
vibrant growth and energized nature of our State. Nowhere else
in the West is water truly a statewide issue with direct
impacts on the daily lives of tens of millions of people. We
have a real opportunity in California to demonstrate our
ingenuity and to devise the best and most creative ways to use
our water resources responsibly. The CVPIA and CALFED are the
tools we have at our disposal, and we have to make them work
together.
I continue to support the goals of the CALFED program, and
I will work hard to secure the funding we have requested for
the coming fiscal year. I hope we can get the entire California
delegation to support us. The CALFED team has very effectively
responded to the concerns raised during the last budget cycle.
I also look forward to working with Chairman Doolittle, the
California Delegation, and the CALFED stakeholder community, to
promptly enact legislation to extend the spending authority for
the CALFED Bay-Delta programs. We cannot put this critical
program at risk by allowing the funding authority to expire.
While there are many benefits associated with the CALFED
process, we have to keep a close eye on where we are regarding
implementation of the CVPIA. The CVPIA is designed to make
basic changes in the priorities of Federal water policy in
California, changes that inevitably impact traditional water
uses and water users. Implementation of the law has been
proceeding, but at a slower pace than many of us would prefer.
I am working closely with Secretary Babbitt as we close the
gaps on CVPIA implementation, and I am confident the
fundamental precepts of this law are sound and that challenges
to the implementation of the law will not prevail.
There are too many issues, and not enough time. I
appreciate the cooperation of everyone who participates in the
development of CALFED and the constructive implementation of
the CVPIA. I look forward to hearing the statements of our
witnesses today.
[The information may be found at the end of the hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. We have our distinguished first panel. I
would like to ask them to please rise and take the oath, and
then we'll begin.
Will you raise your right hands, please.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
We welcome you both here today and appreciate your making
yourselves available to address these important issues.
Our first witness will be our Secretary of the Interior,
the Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Secretary Babbitt.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE BABBITT, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY PATRICIA BENEKE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman and Committee members, I
come today grateful for the Committee's hearing and inquiry
into the status of these related issues. I think it is very
important and very timely, and I think I speak on behalf of all
the CALFED participants in saying we welcome the increasing
involvement of this Subcommittee and other portions of the
United States Congress in this issue.
The reason I emphasize that is because this is, in fact, a
new type of water management and development. It is a--what is
going on here represents a quite dramatic break from the
tradition of water development, which occupied so much time of
all the participants during the century past. Now, it's not
surprising that California becomes, if you will, the lead ship
in making this transition precisely because of the importance
of water resources in the State of California.
The process that gave rise to CALFED and which now drives
this new kind of water project, in my judgment, is working
very, very well. The stakeholders, for reasons that I will
comment upon, are actively and deeply involved. It began in the
Wilson administration with a strong commitment from the
political leadership, the Governor and the legislature. We have
made a remarkably effective and seamless transition with the
coming office of the Davis administration, and I am
particularly pleased with the Governor's choice of Mary Nichols
as his resource Secretary. We have worked together on these
issues for many, many years, and I'm confident that together we
are going to make this process work and, with your help, bring
in to being an entirely new way of meeting the needs of all of
the stakeholders in a process which you have emphasized
correctly, I think, that we need to see improvement on all
fronts in terms of the needs of all the stakeholders.
The reason, if I may elaborate briefly, that this process
and this departure, if you will, this new chapter of water
resource management opened in California is precisely because
we had reached an absolute impasse in water future of the State
through years of contention, of impasse, of litigation.
Finally, all of the stakeholders came to one very basic
conclusion, and that was simply that each one of the
stakeholder groups has absolute power to frustrate any motion
in any direction. Every stakeholder here today has demonstrated
beyond a doubt its veto power over motion in any direction, and
the stakeholders have finally discovered that that's not just a
temporary phenomenon. That veto power that has been given to
stakeholders by the people of California represents a cultural
change which is here to stay. And out of that we have put
together a process which recognizes that reality and says we
are going to sit down in this most excruciating process and
find consensus, which is in the manifest interest of each
group. I elaborate on that because I think it's of
extraordinary importance in the dynamic of this.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I see a yellow light, and if I am held
to that, I will simply stop right there.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Secretary, let me say for this first
panel with you and Secretary Nichols, we will be liberal in our
application of those lights. So you can just continue and just
whatever you want to say----
Secretary Babbitt. That is the first time I have ever heard
that word from your lips----
Mr. Doolittle. And you won't hear it often.
Secretary Babbitt. [continuing] with a positive
connotation. Okay.
Now, the progress that we're making in the CALFED process
brings us back to the United States Congress with some very
different sets of issues that I think very much are going to
challenge our ability to keep this going, because it's going to
require a different kind of process and response not only in
the administration, but also in the Congress, because what we
have moving forward now is a process of multiple parties which
gives rise to some extraordinary budget issues, which you have
very properly identified, which in turn call forth a lot of new
motion on the concept of cost-sharing.
The reason that I believe California is moving to the head
of the line is because of--well, in part, I guess, nobody has
overlooked the fact that there are 54 Members of Congress from
California. Is that the current figure? Correct? But it's not a
lot more than that. It's about a message from Sacramento, and
the message is cost-sharing. And I believe that that fact is
going to increasingly drive priorities in this Congress. And
the State of California under the Wilson administration and the
Davis administration has demonstrated extraordinary capacity,
the bond issue of 1994, in the forthcoming bond debate and in
the appropriation process, that it is committed to that
partnership. Now, in the last 2 or 3 years, that commitment on
both sides of this partnership, in the Congress and in
Sacramento, has been made on the basis of continuing confidence
in the progress that we can make with this consensus-driven
process.
You have already mentioned the concepts that are working on
a daily basis in this process: efficiency, markets, systemic
changes, the integrated supply study, which I'm sure you will
want to talk about at some more length. And the fact is that
you can see the progress that's being made out on the ground.
It's happening right now. The increased flexibility of the
Delta issues that have been dealt with in the south Delta in
terms of improving the conveyance system are now under way. The
fish screening process is working. Go up to Butte Creek, you'll
see something really extraordinary. If I were to say to the
press and to Californians, you want one specific example of
what's happening, go to Butte Creek. It is a sight to behold.
It is a statement that we can restore these fisheries
consistent with stabilizing and guaranteeing agricultural water
supplies and stabilizing and making more predictable the urban
water supplies as well.
Now, what I would like to do is leave CALFED, because your
resource secretary will devote her remarks to some of the
details that are unfolding in this very powerful and very
unique state of Federal partnership. I would like to just say a
word about two other components. One is the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act, and the third is the Trinity River.
The CVPIA is now unfolding at an accelerated rate. This has
been a very tough issue. It's been at the top of my agenda for
7--nearly 7 years. I find it hard to believe that I have been
coming up here for 7 years, and I don't know whether to
celebrate or lament the fact that I am now near the end of this
process. But nonetheless, in the 7 years we have worked this
stakeholder process to the point that the programmatic EIS
framework for implementation of the Central Valley Improvement
Project will be completed during this year for accelerated
implementation in 2000 and beyond.
As you look across the landscape, you will see the
negotiations over water service contracts are now under way,
and I believe taking shape nicely. That's a tough issue because
it involves the water resource for 90 percent of the
agricultural water delivered by the Central Valley Project. If
you go out into Westlands, I think you will see a remarkable
arrangement there that was worked out under the mandate of the
land retirement issue out there, which was mandated by the
CVPIA because of the drainage and salinity problems in that
district. We have worked out a process in which land has been
retired, support of the land owners and the district, and the
water has been redeployed in a way that I believe is generous
to the district and helpful to the stability of agricultural
water supplies. So to put it more directly, we bought the land,
and the district retains the water. It is, I believe, a
thoughtful and useful way of going about this.
There is now (b)(2) water flowing in the system in aid of
fisheries. There are a variety of other issues. There is
litigation over the exact extent of the so-called (b)(2)
obligation. I don't think there's any reason to get too excited
about that. There is always litigation. I guess my ultimate
dream is the consensus would reach the point where we
absolutely all of us foreswore hiring litigators or even going
near the courts. We're not quite there, but the CVPIA is
working. It can be made to work. The process is under way. And
we are acutely aware of the need to interface the CVPIA with
the CALFED process, because in the final analysis, they are
both aimed in the same direction. And I would just repeat that
one more time, that is that we can manage this system with not
just a few tools; all the tools at our disposal, conservation,
efficiency, reuse, transfers, and storage.
Lastly, a word about the Trinity River. The hydrological
studies of the Trinity River Basin will be released next week.
Now, briefly a bit of history. The Trinity River studies have
been under way for nearly 20 years. This is not a new issue.
There was both legislation and administrative action taken
clear back in 1980. The issue was simply this: The Trinity
Diversion Project, which takes water from the Trinity River
into the--into Trinity Lake and across to Whiskey Town and down
the Sacramento River in some years was--was and is diverting as
much as 90 percent of the flow of the Trinity River.
That was a project which was authorized and completed under
the rules of the century past, and what I mean by the rules of
the century past is that project was authorized and completed
with no consultation with the Yurok and Hupa tribes as to their
entitlement under the Federal reserve rights doctrine. It was
completed with no studies about the fisheries issues, and the
fisheries have collapsed. The reduction in anadromous fish in
the system, I think, is about the same as the water, about 90
percent, and that's what gave rise to the studies. Now, the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act mandated, didn't ask, it
didn't encourage, it gave us an explicit mandate to restore the
fisheries. That's what this study is about.
Now, lastly, a word about the study. I predict that the
California press, although it is among the most enlightened,
progressive, insightful, studious of all media people in the
entire world, is going to be sorely tempted to write a story
saying X acre-feet of water are put back into the Trinity
River, and that means the following reduction in supply to the
Central Valley. Anybody want to take me on that, lay some odds?
That's the headline next week. Now, that's not what this is
about. This is about a study showing hydrographic models
related to fisheries biology. That study will be translated
into an environmental impact statement which will be done in
the course of this year and will be the predicate for a
decision.
There will be a lot of issues between the boat and the dock
in this case that relate to how you manage stream flows: The
profile of the stream hydrograph, the amount of water that's
necessary in dry years versus wet years, and the relationships
between the storage capacity in the Trinity-Whiskey Town system
and how that relates to annual flows. So what I am saying is
before people pick up weapons and head into battle, remember
it's not anything more than a study. It has lots of possible
scenarios, and we are dedicated to trying to make this process
work.
Mr. Chairman, I have egregiously exceeded my time. I think
even I know that there are limits to liberalism. So thank you
very much.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I haven't often
heard that acknowledgment, but I'm pleased to note it.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Babbitt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.016
Mr. Doolittle. We are now pleased to have our Secretary of
Resources of the State of California, the Honorable Mary
Nichols testify.
Madam Secretary.
STATEMENT OF MARY D. NICHOLS, SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Ms. Nichols. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for inviting me here today to testify in support of the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program. I also want to thank you and the Committee
for your continued support of the program, and I am looking
forward to continuing to work with you to ensure its success.
I, too, want to pay tribute to Secretary Babbitt's
leadership in this process as well as to the good work that was
done by my predecessors in the Wilson administration, including
Secretary Wheeler, in paving the way for the seamless
transition that Secretary Babbitt referred to; and particularly
to thank my colleagues in the Federal Government, including
Assistant Secretary Patty Beneke and all of the directors of
the regional offices within the Interior Department for having
helped to make the seamless transition, at least appear to be
seamless.
I think I could have done, though, without the Secretary's
reference to the many years that we have been working together
on these issues. I like to think of myself as brand new on the
scene, but, of course, I have had a history of working on these
issues in the past as well in other contexts.
I would just like to quickly move to the status of the
program now, and to try to address some of the comments that
you have made and your earlier questions to us. In particular,
in these several months since the Phase II report was issued
last December, I think we've made some very significant
progress in a number of program areas, and that based on the
briefing materials that we have been able to provide to date as
well as the reports that will be coming out in June, that you
will see that we have been able to develop an integrated
storage investigation program that breaks the gridlock over
competition between how groundwater and surface storage
projects will be evaluated and how we will proceed to move
forward on addressing the storage issue.
We've also developed a draft finance plan that lays out
both the commitment that there will be a user-paid principle
applied and some of the options for assuring adequate funding
for this program. And we've developed a comprehensive set of
environmental indicators in the design for the development of a
comprehensive monitoring assessment and research program that
will really enable us to measure the success of the program. We
agree with you that if we can't define success in measurable
terms, we can't say that we've achieved it.
As I have indicated earlier we do intend to release the
draft EIR/EIS in late June for public comment. It will have
been developed with a very widespread stakeholder process, but
the document as a whole, of course, needs widespread review.
And there will be a series of workshops held around the State.
The program will be further defined and developed, and then the
final plan is due out in June of next year. And, of course, we
have a period then of years afterwards in which we will be
spinning off specific projects and specific EIR/EISs on those
projects.
I want to call special attention to the level of scientific
review and the commitment to developing measures of success for
this program. CALFED has relied on expert advice from some of
the Nation's leading scientists and natural resource managers
to critique and refine this program. The panel drew from
expertise drawing on the Chesapeake Bay, the South Florida/
Everglades, Columbia River and other programs in developing
specific recommendations as part of our strategic plan for
implementing the Ecosystem Restoration Program. The plan
contains a comprehensive set of restoration goals and
objectives, measurable performance standards that define the
success of the program, and similar efforts are under way to
establish such measures for the water quality, water supply
reliability and other elements of the CALFED program.
We're also looking at ecological indicators that will
measure the integrity of the Bay-Delta system itself. The
restoration program includes three general types of indicators,
indicators of ecological integrity or health, scientific and
management-oriented indicators on the restoration program
performance itself, and more public-oriented major indicators
of progress on the program's goals. These are laid out in the
draft EIR/EIS and will be available obviously for public
comment in June. And assuming that we survive that process, we
intend to use them throughout the remainder of the process in
our communications with the public as well as with the
stakeholders and the scientific community.
I also want to highlight the emphasis that has been a
hallmark of this process from the very beginning in
partnerships with local interests and landowners to find
projects that have multiple benefits. You'll be hearing more
from the stakeholder groups represented here today. And, of
course, the CALFED program itself has showcased some of the
major projects that combined fisheries and habitat restoration,
flood plain management, water quality, and water supply
reliability.
Secretary Babbitt referred to the Butte Creek Restoration
Project as one of our signal success stories. Five point six
million dollars has been approved there for fish screens, fish
passage and small dam removal, watershed support, and general
restoration activities on this tributary watershed. Last year
more than 20,000 adult spring run salmon returned to the creek
after a low of only 200 to 1,000 in recent years, a really
extraordinary recovery for the fish.
We could also point to the Consumnes River Project,
Sacramento River Conservation area, San Joaquin National
Wildlife Refuge and the Battle Creek Restoration Project as
very specific examples where combined physical actions are
working to improve water quality and water reliability and to
improve the habitat for fish.
And I think that it's important to again reference the fact
that none of the individual agencies that are represented in
the CALFED process would have had the financial resources or
the expertise in-house to have addressed these projects and
worked with the local communities as successfully as they have
if it hadn't been for the umbrella of CALFED bringing them
together.
Finally I need to emphasize the importance of continued
funding to maintain the momentum behind this program as well as
to further support the projects that are vital to the economy
and the environment of California. As you know, the fiscal year
2000 appropriation will provide the third year of Federal
funding under the Bay-Delta Act authorization of $430 million
for this program. To date the program has approved $150 million
out of the $160 million that have been appropriated for
projects and programs that will have a lasting benefit for
farms, families, and fisheries throughout the Bay-Delta
watershed.
The State's share of this program has been provided through
passage of Proposition 204 in 1996, which allocated $60 million
for ecosystem restoration and an additional $390 million upon
completion of the final environmental documentation in fiscal
year 2000. In addition, Governor Davis announced last Friday
that he is asking for another $10 million in this year's budget
to support the program's integrated storage investigation,
including site-specific work on storage.
The administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request,
therefore, is essential to maintaining the Federal share and
commitment to this program. As you also know, we've worked
closely with stakeholder groups to develop a consensus in
support of the administration's fiscal year 2000 budget year
request for $25 million for support of the CALFED program. As a
result of the discussions with the stakeholders, a broad-based
coalition of these groups has developed a consensus in support
of allocating $60 million for ecosystem restoration programs
and $35 million for water quality, levee system integrity, and
water supply reliability programs. I urge you to support this
consensus recommendation.
I recognize, as does Secretary Babbitt, the difficulty of
funding this program solely through Energy and Water
appropriations, and in response to this Committee's strong
urging, we are working closely with the Department of Interior
and other CALFED agencies to develop a meaningful project-level
cross-cut budget to identify major expenditures that are
directly related to the CALFED program.
In conclusion, I just wish to repeat my thanks for your
continued support of this program and for inviting me here
today, and I'm pleased to answer any questions that you may
have.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nichols follows:]
Statement of Mary D. Nichols, Secretary for Resources, State of
California
Introduction
Thank you for inviting me here today to testify in support
of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. I also want to thank you for
your continued support of the Program, and I look forward to
working with the Congress, Secretary Babbitt, and the
stakeholder groups in California to ensure its success.
Secretary Babbitt has outlined the key elements of the
Program in his testimony, and the CALFED staff have prepared
extensive briefing materials, so I will focus my comments on
the areas of special concern to the State.
Importance to the Davis Administration
First, I want to emphasize the importance of this effort to
the Governor and his administration. In the area of environment
and resources, there is no higher priority than moving this
program forward. Certainly, the level of staffing and financial
resources devoted to CALFED far exceeds that of any other
environmental program in the state.
The Governor demonstrated his strong interest in water
policy and the CALFED Program early on by forming an
Agricultural and Water Task Force from the leaders of the
agricultural and conservation communities. I served on the task
force together with CALEPA Secretary Winston Hickox and Bill
Lyons, Secretary of the California Department of Food and
Agriculture, before we were appointed by the Governor. I think
it is a measure of the importance the Governor places on water
policy that he drew three cabinet members from this task force.
The Task Force developed a set of recommendations that formed
the basis for many of the key elements of the Phase II Report
issued by the CALFED Program last December.
As the Secretary for Resources, I now co-chair the CALFED
Policy Group, the principal decision-making body for the CALFED
Program, together with Assistant Secretary Patty Beneke of the
Department of Interior, and I have met several times with
Secretary Babbitt to discuss the key issues surrounding the
program. The other members of our leadership team include Tom
Hannigan, the new Director of the Department of Water
Resources, Linda Adams from the Governor's office, who as a
consultant with the State Senate was a lead negotiator and the
principal drafter of Proposition 204, the bond Act that has
provided the State's share of funding for CALFED, and Patrick
Wright, my Deputy Secretary for Policy Development, who
formerly served as the Federal chair of the CALFED Management
Team. In summary, we have a strong and growing management team
at the State, and we are committed to provide the leadership
necessary to effectively manage the program.
Commitment to Move Forward
Second, I wish to emphasize our commitment to move
aggressively forward with the key elements of the program. Just
in the last several months since the Phase II Report was issued
in December, we have made significant progress in several
important program areas:
<bullet> We have developed a programmatic-level preferred
alternative that provides benefits for all interests in the
areas of water quality, water supply reliability, and
environmental restoration.
<bullet> We have developed a comprehensive plan to address
water quality, fisheries, and water supply reliability issues
in the South Delta, the key to the State's plumbing system;
<bullet> We have developed an integrated storage investigation
program to break the gridlock over how groundwater and/or
surface storage projects will be evaluated and constructed.
<bullet> We have developed a conservation strategy that will
provide regulatory certainty for all parties under the State
and Federal Endangered Species Acts as the program moves
forward;
<bullet> We have developed a draft finance plan to secure
adequate funding for the Program; and
<bullet> We have developed a comprehensive set of environmental
indicators and a design for the development of a Comprehensive
Monitoring Assessment and Research Program (CMARP) to measure
the success of the Program.
In late June, we intend to release a draft EIR/EIS for public
comment and hold a series of workshops throughout the state. We expect
to further refine the program and release the final plan in June of
next year.
Goals, Objectives, and Measures of Success
Third, I want to call special attention to the level of scientific
review and commitment to develop measures of success for the program.
CALFED has relied on expert advice from some of the nation's most
respected scientists and natural resource managers to critique and
refine the program. The panel drew from their collective expertise in
the Chesapeake Bay, South Florida/Everglades, Columbia River, and other
programs in developing specific recommendations as part of a Strategic
Plan for implementing the Ecosystem Restoration Program. The Plan
contains a comprehensive set of restoration goals and objectives, the
measurable performance standards that define the success of the
program. Similar efforts are underway to establish clear measures of
success for the water quality, water supply reliability, and other
elements of the CALFED program.
The Program is also developing a comprehensive set of ecological
indicators to measure the ecological integrity of the Bay/Delta system.
The Ecosystem Restoration Program will include three general types of
indicators:
<bullet> indicators of ecological integrity or health;
<bullet> scientific and management oriented indicators of
ecosystem restoration program performance and success; and
<bullet> more public oriented major indicators of our progress
in meeting the program's goals
These indicators will be fully described in the draft EIR/EIS to be
released in late June. They will then be used to describe and present
information to the public, stakeholders, and the scientific community
on ecological trends and conditions, and to translate the program's
goals and objectives into measurable benchmarks of success.
Partnerships with Local Communities
The fourth major point I want to highlight is our continued
emphasis on partnerships with local interests and landowners on
projects that have multiple benefits. As you will hear from some of the
stakeholder groups represented here today, the CALFED Program has been
a showcase for projects that combine fisheries and habitat restoration,
floodplain management, water quality and water supply reliability. Some
of the most prominent examples include:
<bullet> The Consumnes River project, where more than 35,000
acres of riverside habitat along the lower floodplain of the
Consumnes have been protected within a rapidly urbanizing area.
The preserve is a multifaceted program combining land
acquisition, land use planning, compatible economic
development, agricultural preservation, and community outreach
and education.
<bullet> The Sacramento River Conservation Area, which
encompasses approximately 213,000 acres along 222 miles of the
main stem of the Sacramento River between Keswick Dam and
Verona. This voluntary program, which grew out of State
legislation calling for development of a management plan for
the river, seeks to balance existing land uses and needs with
preservation and restoration actions. CALFED has dedicated more
than $36 million towards preserving and protecting riparian
habitat, building fish screens, and conducting research within
the Conservation Area.
<bullet> Expansion of the San Joaquin National Wildlife Refuge
to reduce flooding, protect farmland, restore valuable wildlife
habitat, and provide other local benefits. CALFED has provided
more than $10.5 to widen the floodplain, increase storage of
flood water, recharge groundwater, and restore wildlife
habitat.
<bullet> The Butte Creek Restoration project. More than $5.6
million has been approved for fish screens, fish passage and
small dam removal, watershed support and general restoration
activities on this tributary watershed. Last year more than
20,000 adult spring run salmon returned to the Creek from a low
of 200-1,000 in recent years.
<bullet> The Battle Creek Restoration Project, which seeks to
improve fish passage for four races of steelhead and salmon in
the only Sacramento River tributary with exceptionally high
flows during the dry season and drought periods. The project
includes removal of five dams, screened diversions, increased
flows, and other actions to improve water quality and access to
42 miles of historical anadromous fish habitat. To date, CALFED
agencies have provided $28 million in funding for the project.
These are just a few of the most prominent examples of projects
developed and implemented by local agricultural and conservation groups
to provide multiple benefits. These partnerships would not have been
possible without coordinated technical and financial assistance from
the CALFED program. None of the individual agencies would have had the
resources or the expertise to work with local communities in putting
together large scale projects with multiple purposes and funding
sources.
CALFED Funding
Finally, I want to emphasize the importance of continued funding to
maintain the momentum behind the program, and to further support
projects and programs vital to the economy and environment of
California. As you know, the fiscal year 2000 appropriation will
provide the third year of Federal funding under the Bay-Delta Act
authorization of $430 million for the CALFED Program. To date, the
Program has approved $150 million from the $160 million appropriated to
date on projects and programs that will have lasting benefits for
farms, families, and fisheries throughout the Bay-Delta watershed.
The State's share has been provided through passage of Proposition
204 in 1996, which allocated $60 million for ecosystem restoration, and
an additional $390 million upon completion of the final environmental
documentation in fiscal year 2000. In addition, the Governor announced
last Friday that he is including $10 million in the State's fiscal year
1999-2000 budget to support the Program's Integrated Storage
Investigation. The Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request,
therefore, is essential to maintain the Federal share and commitment to
the program.
As you may know, we have worked closely with stakeholder groups to
develop a consensus in support of the Administration's fiscal year 2000
budget request for $95 million to support the CALFED Program. As a
result of those discussions, a broad-based coalition of these groups
has developed a consensus in support of allocating $60 million for
ecosystem restoration programs and $35 million for water quality, levee
system integrity, and water supply reliability programs. I urge you to
support this consensus recommendation.
I recognize, as does Secretary Babbitt, the difficulty of funding
this program solely through Energy and Water appropriations. Therefore,
in response to the Committee's request, we are working closely with the
Department of Interior and other CALFED agencies to develop an
interagency cross-cut budget to identify all major expenditures
directly related to the CALFED Program.
Conclusion
In closing, I wish to reiterate my thanks for your continued
support of the CALFED Program, and for inviting me to appear before you
today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Doolittle. There is so much to talk about, I'm sure
we'll not be able to get it all accomplished in one round of
questions. But, Mr. Secretary, I infer from your comments you
believe that the matter of the Trinity River flow is going to
have to be integrated into the CALFED and the whole the Bay-
Delta program; is that a fair statement?
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, the Trinity River mandate
is a distinct, defined, specific mandate in law which says I
must make a decision about water flows sufficient to restore
the fishery. That's the baseline. Now, obviously, that decision
has impacts in the Sacramento River Valley and indeed the
entire system. And having made--having once made the decision
about what's necessary for the flow regimes and the hydrograph,
I think it is then possible and indeed imperative that we look
at the management regimes in a way that is designed, to the
extent possible, to minimize the impact in the Central Valley.
Mr. Doolittle. Can you--could you indicate what steps you
feel are likely to be taken to mitigate for the loss of water
in the Sacramento River system?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think mitigation
comes in two packages. The first one is, as I suggested, that
is, how we manage the system and how it is the storage capacity
in Trinity Lake and Whiskey Town Reservoir is used in a
multiyear mode that buffers some of these impacts. The other
thing I think we will need to examine very carefully is I can
tell you, without being familiar with the report, just from our
prior experience with these, the amount of water, the reduction
in diversions in and through the Central Valley will be largest
in times of large flow, and the impact will be smallest in
times of drought. I think that's a very important fact because
that does play into the operating flexibility of the system, of
the CALFED system, and the storage capacity and flexibility. It
isn't just about what kinds of relationships in a given year.
It really does play into that. So that would be the second
piece of it, sure.
Mr. Doolittle. So you would contemplate, then, using stored
water in those reservoirs to provide--to augment some of the
flow presently that goes down to the Trinity so as to minimize
or reduce the impacts on the Sacramento River system.
Secretary Babbitt. What I'm saying is that is one of the
operational flexibility issues that absolutely must be looked
at.
Mr. Doolittle. Okay.
Secretary Nichols, tell us--I would like to hear what the
Davis administration thinks about the need for additional water
storage shed. It's my understanding that the administration
indeed recognizes the need for that and supports it.
Ms. Nichols. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Governor has stated, I
believe on a couple of occasions, that he believes that
additional storage will be needed for California's present and
future needs. He has not made any commitments to any particular
sites or types of storage, but he certainly recognizes that as
we manage the system better, one feature of that management is
providing for storage.
Mr. Doolittle. So I take it he has not ruled out on-stream
storage as one of the possible solutions?
Ms. Nichols. He has not specifically ruled out any
particular type of storage, that's correct, although clearly
both cost and environmental impacts will play a role in making
a decision about what types of storage will be chosen.
Mr. Doolittle. Can you--how about you, how do you feel
about on-stream storage?
Ms. Nichols. I think right now we're in a peculiar
situation where we're looking at actually eliminating some dams
that in the past were thought to be useful for various reasons.
We have got a lot of other dams that are being looked at for
reoperation.
Probably the biggest single activity that's going on in the
area of storage right now in California is the debate over the
future of the PG&E system and what will be done with that. I
think we need to take a look at that before we start talking
about additional construction. But, again, as a matter of
principle and in fairness to the debate, there have been no
solutions that have been eliminated from potential
consideration in this process.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Secretary, you want to jump in on this?
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, if I might just elaborate
by reference to the CALFED proposal for the integrated storage
studies. The integrated storage studies have narrowed--they
deal, obviously, with both groundwater and surface water.
Now, with respect to surface water, the possibilities have
been whittled down to about, I think, 14 sites--Lester, am I
about right--for detailed feasibility studies. Now, there are
no new on-stream storage sites in those 14. I think that's an
important distinction. There are modifications to existing on-
stream sites, specifically raising Shasta Dam, and there are a
goodly number of off-stream surface storage sites in that 14,
essentially the balance of them.
Mr. Doolittle. I might mention that the witness lights
appears to be not working--we better get these lights going, or
we'll be here forever. But I don't think I have gone much over
my 5 minutes. Did you want to add something?
Ms. Nichols. No. I think that was a helpful elaboration,
because I certainly wouldn't want it to be thought that we were
moving outside of the integrated storage investigation.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, I'm well aware there are no new on-
site storage sites discussed in CALFED, a fact that I find
disappointing. But in any event, there are--I have an interest
in that, and I think some of our Committee members do.
Let me just ask you in your experience do fish ladders
generally accomplish their intended purpose or not?
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, there is no simple answer
to that. We have been dealing with fish ladders now since
really the 1920s and I would say that the extravagant
expectations with which fish ladders were viewed as mitigation
have really not been met, and there have been a goodly number
of failures.
That said, in some cases, within some constraints, fish
ladders work pretty well. They never replicate 100 percent the
predam conditions, but there are circumstances in which they
are certainly worthy of consideration.
Mr. Doolittle. I have been told that the Scandinavian fish
ladders are built differently than ours. Typically they're much
longer and the----
Mr. Miller. Field trip.
Mr. Doolittle. Yeah, field trip.
But not only are they longer, but the dams are somewhat
differently configured. But apparently they have a much higher
success rate than our American fish ladders do. I just wanted
to pose that question to you if you have ever looked into that
or considered the possibility that maybe we could improve in
this area.
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, the Fish and Wildlife
Service has a fish ladder research facility, I believe, in West
Hadley, Massachusetts. They will be absolutely elated after
years of working in total obscurity to hear of your interest,
and I am sure there will be a request for budget support in the
mail tomorrow morning.
But, seriously, Mr. Chairman, the design and technology of
fish ladders is really a very sophisticated subject. And you're
correct, this isn't just sort of a cookie-cutter kind of deal.
It really involves a lot of physics and hydrodynamics and stuff
like that, and we would be happy to have your support for the--
for that laboratory.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, I only raise that matter because we're
now hearing the proposal to tear down some of the dams and as a
way of improving the fisheries, but I was not aware of the
situation in Scandinavia apparently where that's one way
they've addressed this problem, that it appears to be working.
I would just like to ask you to look into that and perhaps get
back to the Committee with what your findings are. Maybe this
research laboratory already has those answers.
With that, although I have other questions, I am going to
recognize Mr. Dooley for his questions.
Mr. Dooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the point I
want to stress, I think that one of the greatest
responsibilities that all of us have that have been following
this process, as well as, I think, the Federal and the State
administrations have, is to, you know, exercise our influence
in keeping this CALFED process on track, because I do believe
that regardless of, you know, what constituency that we might
represent, this is the best alternative for us to resolve some
of these long-standing problems we faced with California water
issues.
And my first question to both Secretaries is a very general
one. Is that one of the critical issues, then, is to ensure
that we can offer a process, whether you're in an environmental
community or agricultural community or municipal community, is
that this is a process that allows us all to perhaps get better
together? And is this, you know, an accurate depiction, I
guess, of what you think the CALFED process offers, Secretary
Babbitt?
Secretary Babbitt. I believe Secretary Nichols and I would
give exactly the same answer, Congressman, and that is yes.
These processes must proceed in parallel. Now, what I would
emphasize is that doesn't mean there isn't a mathematical
formula to determine that. And there--certainly I think it's
misleading to think of it as some kind of equivalence in which
the subvention grants are given a label of fisheries,
agriculture, water quality, and judged by the relative level--
the relative amounts of funding are driven by the scheduling of
events. Some have lead time, some have virtually no lead time,
others have 5 or 10 years' worth of lead time.
Congressman, if I might, I would just like to interject one
more thing that I think relates to this. There is something, I
think, quite new in water management and development that
arises out of this, and that is that this Committee and the
energy and water appropriation committees are now in the
business of making block grants to the Interior Department, and
most--and indeed virtually all of which is then awarded on a
competitive, peer-review basis to an enormous variety of
Federal and predominantly State organizations. The money that
gets appropriated in turn is subvented out in this process.
I'm very comfortable with that, because I think the day in
which the Bureau of Reclamation sort of shows up in town and
says, clear out of here while we do everything, are gone. But
it is quite different, and I would respectfully suggest that it
is working and acknowledge that it puts a very important burden
on us to be reporting back and setting benchmarks so that you
can judge the efficacy of this process.
Ms. Nichols. Maybe I could just add a word or two. The
phrase ``getting better together'' was part of what launched
CALFED, and at the end of the day, unless the stakeholders who
have given so much of their time to this process all feel that
they've gotten something that has made them better as a result,
I think we will not have succeeded.
The thing that I'm most optimistic about is that the
projects that have been funded to date through the mechanism
that Secretary Babbitt alluded to are projects that really have
multiple benefits. And one of the great accomplishments, I
think, of the process and the learning that people have engaged
in together is that people are seeing that projects that might
have fallen into just one category in the past really will have
benefits for other people's agendas as well, and that's what we
need to be looking for in the future.
Mr. Dooley. Great. And I guess--that's where I think many
of us are very pleased in the message that the Governor is
sending to the agricultural community and the municipal
community in terms of the commitment in moving forward with the
ISI as well as on specific sites, too. Certainly that is
important in terms of the water supply and water quality.
And, Secretary Babbitt, I appreciated your comments in the
past on that issue, too, and that's important in terms of
sending the message to users that this process still holds a
lot of promise and opportunity to resolve some of their issues.
I guess also moving to the CVPIA side, on a similar
question is that part of the CVPIA in 3406, the (d)(5), dealing
with the refuge water supplies, also had a provision in it that
requested or required the Department to look for alternative
supplies to those water amounts that were provided and taken
from contractors to the refuges. And I guess what is in terms
of the state of affairs and progress the Department has made in
terms of identifying those alternative supplies?
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, the major innovation that
has begun to emerge out of this intense negotiations and
discussion is what CALFED is now calling an environmental water
account, which is a way of looking at a variety of different
water sources and sort of setting it up the way you would put,
you know, capital in a bank, ready to be drawn down as a part
of this process. It's still under way, and there is--and I'll
be frank with you, there is an ongoing discussion which we
should acknowledge about what we mean when we say ``acquiring
water.'' Does it mean purchasing water? Does it mean the added
increment of benefit from efficiencies that are driven by
pricing structure or by that kind of thing? To what extent are
water transfers involved? I think these are all legitimate
issues.
Mr. Dooley. Just one last question on that line. The recent
court decision that was dealing with the (b)(2), does the
Department--and part of the basis of that decision was a
determination that there was some uncertainty in terms of how
the Department was accounting for water and how they were
making up for water. Do you see this as being--well, do you
acknowledge that the Department needs to do a better job there,
and do you also view, perhaps, this environmental water account
as also being a component of that to provide greater
transparency to both the environmental community as well as the
water-user community in terms of, you know, what water is being
utilized for what purposes and how is it being adjusted in
terms of the contractor's interest, I guess?
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, it's not about whether or
not the Department has done a good job. We have done our normal
peerless, unparalleled effort. Seriously. It is about a
continuing difference about the best way to deal with (b)(2)
water and other water accounts.
One school of thought, which I would call the bean-counting
school, says you can go back and find a baseline and then start
counting and showing precisely how all subsequent actions have
added to or potentially subtracted from the--from this magical
baseline.
Now, with all due respect to Congressman Miller and Senator
Bradley and the other fathers of this Act, it ain't possible.
Mr. Miller. I thought you were going to say supporters.
Secretary Babbitt. We are examining the court decision very
carefully, and I will hasten to comply--add that we will comply
with the court's mandate. But there is--I think what the
Department tried to do in the (b)(2) thing was say, let's get
beyond the bean counting and look at the maximum efficient
deployment of all these resources, and we're not quite at
closure on that, frankly.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Calvert is recognized.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm from southern California, so I'm kind of interested in
getting that water someday. And as you know, Mr. Secretary,
we're having a problem down south. All our friends are moving
to Arizona and Nevada, and they're wanting all the water from
the Colorado River. And I'm kind of curious in that where our
negotiations are, because this kind of all, as you know,
relates to one another at one point in time, with the Imperial
Irrigation District negotiation with the Cochelo Water District
in San Diego on transfer of water to San Diego and how that's
going to affect MWD for if we can get additional water.
I say that because that may be needed, it seems, sooner
rather than later if, in fact, this--the progress on the
California Bay-Delta, which we hope will continue until
delivery is in effect or made down south to make up for some of
these supplies that are being lost, not only from the Colorado
River, but, as you know, from restoring Owens Lake, Mono Lake,
and other environmental priorities.
And in that context, the President's fiscal year 2000
budget requested funding, as we know, $75 million for ecosystem
restoration efforts and $20 million for nonecosystem
restoration such as water use efficiency, water quality and
groundwater storage. But, in fact, the administration requested
$65 million--or, excuse me, $75 million and $20 million,
whereas the California Bay-Delta Water Coalition was a 65/35.
Where did the administration come in with the number of $15
million rather than the $20-?
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, let me, if I may--first say
a word about your southern California concerns. The parties to
this issue have at my request been sequestered in Arizona where
they are currently meeting with Dave Hayes of my staff to see
if we can kind of coax people to see the light. I'm actually
optimistic that we are getting together. That is the central
and crucial issue for southern California. And with all
respect, I would urge all of the southern California people to
say to their constituents it is imperative that we close on
this Imperial Valley transfer issue, and there should be no
escape for any of the parties. We got to get it done.
Now, the legislature and the Governor have been very strong
on this issue through both administrations. The legislature in
Sacramento put up a couple hundred million dollars for the
lining of the All-American Canal to help ease this transition.
They put up $30 million to help the Met with feasibility
studies for a conjunctive use site out in that area. And we
need to squeeze the parties and say this is about the public
good, and you got to emerge with an agreement.
Now, with respect to the 65, 75, 35, 25, whatever it is,
really goes back to my earlier comments. These are judgment
calls. And the original numbers came in from CALFED. There was
some subsequent churning around, and the numbers came out a
little different. I think what the administration will say--I
have not cleared this with the Office of Management and Budget,
and therefore everything I say from hereon is subject to
immediate retraction and disciplinary action--but it's not
important if everybody has come to an agreement on a slightly
different allocation, that's fine, we'll support it.
Mr. Calvert. Obviously from--we understand the work that
has to be done on ecosystem restoration as far as part of the
negotiations to put this agreement together, but I guess from
our perspective is we want to make sure that there's water
storage for times in need and that the availability and the
quality of the water is not compromised and can be delivered.
That's one of the reasons why we have this interesting
coalition working together to get this thing funded.
Secretary Babbitt. I understand. And in that spirit we
agree.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Miller is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Mr. Secretary and Mary, to the Committee. Just
quickly go back to the Trinity River decision. And I think
that--I'm glad to hear we're getting to the point where--to
make a decision there. I think the earlier that decision is
made so that it can then be factored in to the rest of this
process--I don't think it should be part of this process, and
there's clearly no requirement, and the burden on you to make
this decision is outside of this, outside of this process, but
clearly it will have to be taken into account as we think about
the resources available to us.
Let me, if I could, just make sure I have some
clarification of what you said. The decision is made for the
purposes of restoring the fisheries in the river; is that
correct?
Secretary Babbitt. That's correct.
Mr. Miller. That's the requirement and that's the burden?
Secretary Babbitt. That's correct.
Mr. Miller. There is no requirement to minimize--I mean, to
play that off against what the impact is on the CVP?
Secretary Babbitt. That's correct.
Mr. Miller. I mean, I think it's rational that we would try
to do that, but that is not a requirement of the law.
Secretary Babbitt. That's correct.
Mr. Miller. And there is no requirement that--of mitigation
for this decision?
Secretary Babbitt. That's correct.
Mr. Miller. Okay. Because I think that's very important.
You laid out how this water got into the system. It's not very
pretty in terms of the political history, but just make sure
that somehow we don't fall into the notion that there is some
responsibility here to mitigate that or that this is a
balancing act between the CVP and/or the fisheries.
And on the question that was raised on (b)(2), Mr.
Secretary, the problem that the court has is with the ambiguity
in the accounting system, as I understand that; that the law
requires you take--you take 800,000 acre-feet and no more, no
less, no more. And an accurate accounting system is sort of
what the court is now telling us we need. Is that correct?
Secretary Babbitt. I'm tempted to refer that to counsel,
but, yes, I think in simplified form that's correct.
Mr. Miller. Essentially the court is affirming the law, but
is saying you have got to be able to account for----
Secretary Babbitt. Yeah. That's right. Sure.
Mr. Miller. Okay. On the--you all mentioned in your opening
statement that the process on contract renegotiations under
CVPIA is under way. Can you elaborate where you are in that
process and what your expectations are?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, I think the important thing is
that those negotiations, wrapping them up is explicitly tied to
the completion of the PEIS. And I don't have the exact--I
believe that we anticipate getting that wrapped up and going to
a record of decision this fall, I think in the October-November
time frame. Now, the negotiations obviously are going along in
parallel, but we cannot close and make the final cuts until we
have signed the record of decision.
Mr. Miller. And your expectation would be what, then, after
the record of decision, that we would start renegotiating and
consummating new 25-year contracts?
Secretary Babbitt. Absolutely.
Mr. Miller. If that doesn't happen, where do we go?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, I haven't thought about that. I
mean, we intend to get it done.
Mr. Miller. So your expectation at this point is that those
negotiations will be for the long-term contracts, not one-year
rollover contracts.
Secretary Babbitt. Not at all. It's time to bring this to
closure. And I believe that we can do that in late 1999 and
then on into the early part of 2000.
Mr. Miller. The other--I think one of the basic tenets is
we have--we discussed it when we were all in Senator
Feinstein's office. I assume we're still operating under the
theory that much of what comes out, what finally comes out of
CALFED in terms of construction and costs is on a beneficiary
pay. Is that still holding in this process as you understand
it?
Secretary Babbitt. Yes. But, let me suggest, again, that
that doesn't automatically translate into a bean-counting
process, because the benefits of virtually every piece of this
are distributed in--to multiple stakeholders, and there is also
a factor here of the larger public benefits that accrue from
all of this. So the documents, I think, in the CALFED process
are quite clear; yes, beneficiary's pay is the guiding
principle. There are going to be judgment calls on the margins
of those decisions, and I absolutely think there should be.
Mr. Miller. I assume there would be some delineation
project by project or feature by feature as to what those
beneficiaries and who those beneficiaries are. There would be--
not all projects in the system would be treated the same.
Secretary Babbitt. Oh, yeah, I think, sure, it will go down
to that level of analysis.
Mr. Miller. Your first statement reminded me of a former
Member of Congress from California on this Committee at one
time--actually two of them who were actually very good at
getting these resources, Mr. Sisk and Ms. Johnson. And when it
came time that we were going to apportion out the costs for
some of these expensive projects in California, they would put
on their environmental hat and say, 89 percent of this project
is for the environment, he says, and we--the fish don't have
any mailboxes, there's nowhere to send the bill. We will have
to send it to the public. We'll just write this off. And it
worked, much to the chagrin of some of the taxpayers in some
other parts of the country.
But I think it's very important in recognizing what you
said, there clearly will be a general benefit to the State of
California if we can iron this all out. And there will be
benefits that flow into more than one direction, if you will;
the environment, the water users, municipal, agricultural, what
have you. But I think it's also very important that we keep in
mind that where we can, we do have cost-sharing arrangements,
we have asked others to do that, and that we would work to try
and delineate how those--how those costs are borne. I know that
there's been a number of suggestions, one by some rather large
water users, that they are in no way prepared to pay, nor can
they pay, for some of the projects that they want.
There has also been discussions in the State legislature--
and correct me if I'm wrong, Secretary Nichols--but in the
State legislature that some of this would just be covered by a
bond issue. And the State is certainly free to make that
decision, but at some point in this process I think we have to
demonstrate to the public what the costs are going to be and
where the burdens of those costs lie, and when--we get down to
the end here. I take it there's no disagreement here.
Secretary Babbitt. Well, yes, I--I'm a little hesitant to
subscribe to that eloquent monologue in every nuance. I think
there might, in fact, be a--some space between us on how far
you go in an attempt to count the beans. Now, let me just say
that----
Mr. Miller. These are very, very significant dollars, Mr.
Secretary.
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand
that. I have been through these exercises before, and I'm just
cautious. I have seen these cost allocations misused in many
ways, and I've seen them become highly artificial. And I
believe that it is an important point of departure to attempt
to identify costs and benefits, but I do not believe that that
can be a mechanical process.
And I believe that in the final analysis, that in this
consensus process there will be judgments made as part of the
consensus process. To the extent that you find that
unsatisfactory, I hasten to remind you that I will be long gone
from my job as Secretary of the Interior by the time this
process starts. So my opinions----
Mr. Miller. You're abandoning the Gore Administration? That
can't be.
The fact is that I agree with everything you just said,
that very often, in fact, these allocations have been misused,
inflated, speculated about and all the rest, and they've cut
both ways. Sometimes it's hard on the taxpayer, sometimes it's
hard on the user, and back and forth.
All I'm saying is that we use that kind of judgment and we
provide--we use some transparency in this process, because I
don't think we want to simply go out and make this kind of
commitment of money and believe that we're going to let the
guidelines of the old 1902 Reclamation Act tell us how we're
going to do this or something. That's all I'm saying. I think
there's an obligation here, because at some point CALFED is
going to add up, you know, to a very substantial amount of
money, and I just think that that transparency has to be there,
the delineation has to be there. And it's not about, you know,
goring somebody's ox, it's about laying out where, in fact,
these burdens lie, and let the people of the State decide
whether or not that's a reasonable alternative or not.
Secretary Babbitt. Well, I think----
Mr. Miller. I agree with you, but you don't agree with me.
Secretary Babbitt. I can come pretty close to that.
Ms. Nichols. I just wanted to add with respect to the water
bond discussions that are going on in California right now, I
think it's a good illustration of the principle that the two of
you are sort of honing from your respective chairs here in that
as we work on developing a potential water bond to go on the
ballot, it's clear that projects that will be included in such
a bond are projects where multiple beneficiaries can be
identified and where people will come together and agree on how
the allocations of those benefits should be viewed.
And I think that reflects the fact that while we do need to
keep improving both the quantity and the quality of analysis
that we're doing on costs and benefits, that there will be an
element of political judgment that gets brought to bear in the
end on whether anything actually gets done.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Pombo.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you.
Mr. Babbitt, I would like to get back to the storage issue.
We've talked a little bit about on-stream and off-stream
storage and what the administration's position both at the
State and Federal level is on that. One issue I am curious
about is the groundwater recharge issue in terms of water
storage and environmental restoration on some of the
overdrafted areas. I know that in some of the planning
documents for CALFED, they have talked about doing groundwater
recharge projects. I would like you to address that in terms of
the support of the administration for those kind of projects.
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Pombo, groundwater recharge is one
of the most underutilized, most efficient and effective ways of
managing water systems for all kinds of reasons, not the least
of which is there is no evaporation losses. It has long-term
flexibility. You are effectively refilling the lake.
There are some really striking examples of the efficacy of
groundwater recharge. Without waving the flag of localism, the
best current example is in Arizona. The amounts of water that
are being recharged into groundwater storage is now up in the
hundreds of thousands of acre-feet per year.
Now, my sense in California is that it's difficult because
there is not a regulatory framework that defines a meaningful
approach to the rights to groundwater, and it's going to be
much more complicated in California, and we're going to have to
work that. But I believe that it's a vastly underutilized tool,
and we should support it to the limits of its efficacy and
economic viability.
Mr. Pombo. So we should expect support out of you and the
administration on some of these groundwater recharge projects
that have been discussed over the past several months?
Secretary Babbitt. Would you be referring to Madera Ranch
by any chance?
Mr. Pombo. No. I'm waving the flag of locality as well. I
have a couple in my district that I believe are very, very
important for a number of reasons for the region.
Secretary Babbitt. Okay. Well, the reason I asked about
Madera Ranch is because I think it's a--it's a case study in
what happens when we get ahead of the process and start a
debate which is not centered on the facts and the comparative
analysis.
So the answer is yes, I support it. You should send your
advocates to CALFED to make sure that this analytical process
and the ISA process is looking carefully at your particular
projects.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Snow and I have had a number of discussions
on that, and I know that my local people have had a number of
discussions with him on that. I would like to turn to a
somewhat different issue and--involving the CALFED process. I
have supported the CALFED process because I do believe that it
is one of the only ways that we are going to have any kind of
movement on water policy in California. But one issue that does
concern me is the issue of land retirements. In my area it is a
significant number of acres that would fit into the definition
of CAL--within CALFED of lands to be retired, to the effect
that the number of acres that would be retired would have a
severe impact on agriculture in my area. I represent an area of
California that is predominantly agriculture, that is its
economy, whether you're looking at the city of Stockton or any
of the neighboring communities is predominantly driven by
agriculture.
If we had the numbers of acres of land retired from
agriculture and into ecosystem restoration, wetlands, whatever
they would be retired into, there would be a severe impact not
only on the economy of my area, but also a severe impact on
local government as a result of that. How would you and the
administration propose that you mitigate the impact on local
government and on the surrounding communities of retiring what
would literally be hundreds of thousands of acres of land?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, I don't share that conclusion, and
I would respectfully suggest that the hundreds of thousands of
acres is nowhere to be found in the CALFED documents.
Mr. Pombo. If I could interrupt you there. That is taken
directly from testimony from a previous hearing that up to
400,000 acres of land would be retired.
Secretary Babbitt. Well, it's not in the CALFED documents.
The CALFED documents do contain some estimates. Now, there may
be some confusion here as a result of other issues. There's a
separate provision in the CVPIA legislation, for example, with
respect to land retirement in the Westlands District. But
that's a separate issue and that's a----
Mr. Pombo. That is a separate issue that has nothing to do
with this particular issue.
Secretary Babbitt. Good. Good.
So we go back to CALFED. The CALFED documents and
discussions and the reality, the estimates are that we may be
talking in the ecosystem restoration piece about impacts on
about 30,000 acres, and of that 30,000, about 26,000 would not
be taken out of agricultural production.
So the best estimates right now are that the ecosystem
restoration issues would impact by taking out of production
several thousand acres, 4 or 5,000 acres. The economic benefits
that will flow from that will--to all the communities, I think,
will overwhelm any conceivable argument that there's any
detriment. I don't see it.
Mr. Pombo. What you're testifying to today is in direct
conflict to testimony we have received earlier in this
Committee. It's in direct conflict to what a number of people
have testified to in terms of what's included in the CALFED
document. If we are talking about 4- to 6,000 acres of land
that would be retired, I think that--although it would still
concern me, I think it would be manageable in terms of an
economic impact. But your numbers of 4- to 6,000 aren't even in
the ballpark of what everyone else that has testified before
this Committee has come up with. It's not even close.
Secretary Babbitt. Well, Mr. Pombo, I think you will be
happy and satisfied because those are the numbers. They appear
on either page 6 or 7 of my testimony, and I would be happy to
back them up. I think you're going to be quite pleased.
Mr. Pombo. I would like you to do that. Because the--and I
would provide to you--as a matter of courtesy, I would provide
to you previous testimony that we have had before this
Committee, and you can run it through your shop and----
Secretary Babbitt. Sure.
Mr. Pombo. [continuing] and try to see how you come up with
so different figures.
But just--I know my time is up. Just in conclusion of that,
if the numbers are what has been estimated by everyone else to
be substantially higher than to what you are testifying, I
would just like to say that has a substantial impact on my
area; and the Department of Interior, the Federal Government
and the State government are going to have to be very aware of
what kind of an impact that is going to have on my particular
area of the State. So I do want, as a matter of the record, to
have that noted, that if everybody else that testified is
accurate, it would have a severe impact on our region.
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Pombo, it may be--the discrepancy
may in part be--I just want to acknowledge that I am talking
about lands which have been impacted by specific site-specific
plans that have been approved in the process. Now, I concede
that there may be a variety of estimates about what the future
holds.
Mr. Pombo. I'm talking about long term in the future. I'm
not talking about what's been approved up to this point.
Secretary Babbitt. Okay. I misunderstood you. And I guess
what I would say is that the estimates about the future are
pretty speculative. I understand your concerns and will be
responsive to them.
Ms. Nichols. Mr. Pombo, could I add a comment on behalf of
the State?
Mr. Pombo. Yes, please.
Ms. Nichols. I met with Secretary Lyons of the California
Department of Food and Agriculture this week actually, and Mr.
Snow, to discuss this issue and how we're going to reconcile
the State's commitment to preservation of prime agricultural
land, which is a policy of this administration as it has been
in the past, and indeed we have significant programs in my
agency that are designed to encourage preservation and
protection of agricultural land. And we certainly don't want to
be in any way suggesting that we're encouraging people to
convert that kind of land to noneconomic purposes where it's
productive.
I would just say that the environmental impact report is
going to be spelling out how that--I believe the number that
you gave is the extreme end of what I have heard as a worst-
case assessment that will be looked at under the EIR/EIS for
purposes of evaluating what could be the worst environmental
possible case, if every person who had agricultural land chose
to sell the water away from that land and to fallow it for
purposes of selling their water for, you know, a higher
economic use if that was what they chose to do.
I don't think anybody believes that that's a realistic
scenario, but we need to clarify what our policies are in that
respect. And I think it is clear that it's not something that
CALFED is looking to--CALFED is not about the business of
trying to encourage good agricultural land to be idled in
California.
Mr. Pombo. Well, and I realize you were not yet in office,
but the testimony on the 400,000 acres was an official person
who testified to that. The extreme end of that I believe was a
million acres, was a different definition of what could be
retired, that up to a million acres could be retired out of
that.
Most of this would be within my congressional district,
within the area that I represent. I would only tell you that
there are only approximately 650,000 acres of irrigated land
within my congressional district, and they're looking at
somewhere in the neighborhood of 400,000 acres that would fit
into the definition of what could be retired under CALFED. When
we receive that kind of testimony, it's obviously going to be a
huge concern to the people that I represent because that would
have a severe impact on my region of the country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Mrs. Christensen is recognized.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the only member here present who is not from California,
unless you want to count my year of internship in San
Francisco, I really don't have any questions. I just--I am here
to listen. Because even in my small district that is surrounded
by water, water supply and distribution is an important issue
for us. And primarily I want to just welcome you, Secretary
Nichols, and of course our Secretary of the Interior, Secretary
Babbitt, good friend of my district and of all of our
districts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, the PEIS that was supposed to be released
almost four years ago, is now scheduled to come out in
September, correct?
Secretary Babbitt. Yeah.
Mr. Doolittle. So--and it's my understanding there have
been some modeling problems----
Secretary Babbitt. That's correct----
Mr. Doolittle. [continuing] which may result in further
delay. Do you contemplate that it may delay it beyond September
as you go through the modeling problems and then once you come
up with what you think is the answer, is this going to be
recirculated again? And finally, what's likely to be the
possible impact of delay on this?
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, I think the modeling issue
has been resolved to the satisfaction of all of the
participants. So that's already been factored in.
Mr. Doolittle. Okay.
Secretary Babbitt. I think we'll be okay.
Mr. Doolittle. So are you quite confident, then, you would
be able to get that done and get the timetable for these--
renewing the contracts under the long-term renewal would be--
was it December of this year you were saying?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, my estimate in response to
Congressman Miller's question was that I believe we move to a
record of decision approximately November.
Am I okay on that?
Hearing no dissent, it's November.
Mr. Doolittle. Okay.
Secretary Babbitt. Now, what I would like to do is--what
we're aiming at is to get those long-term contracts finished up
before the beginning of the next water year, which means early
on in the year 2000.
Mr. Doolittle. Okay. Mr. Secretary, you won't be here for
the third panel's testimony, but that is written testimony
submitted, and it will be oral testimony when we get there.
Could I just read you a paragraph from Daniel G. Nelson's
testimony, who is the Executive Director of the San Luis and
Delta-Mendota Water Authority? I would like to get your
response to it, if I might. It's on page 5 of his testimony.
It says, ``Now the most recent PEIS data suggests that even
before full implementation of CVPIA, the CVP is so inflexible
that water available to contractors will be decreased to zero
in all water years that are less than normal years. The wide
discrepancy between this data and earlier information contained
in a draft PEIS threatens to derail the current work plan
schedule. That is, the new PEIS data appears to indicate that
the assumptions that have guided the PEIS give the fish and
wildlife obligations of the CVP significant priority over
contractual obligations, contrary to the CVPIA's purpose of
achieving balance between project purposes.''
Could you comment on that?
Secretary Babbitt. Sure. I have great regard for Mr. Nelson
and his advocacy and his judgments. But he is an advocate, and
even Dan Nelson can get a little bit overheated from time to
time. And, you know, the mandate of CVPIA is to put wildlife
restoration on parity as a project purpose. And----
Mr. Doolittle. But not superiority.
Secretary Babbitt. No, parity. Now, that's what this
process is all about. And we will in due course have a document
out in the light of day for everyone to judge the quality of
our efforts.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, do you share Mr. Nelson's conclusion
that the water available to contractors will be decreased to
zero in all waters years that are less than normal years?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, I would have to go back and look
at it, but I'm a little skeptical of that sweeping a
conclusion.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, even if it weren't zero, it's likely
to be substantially reduced, right?
Secretary Babbitt. Well, implicit in CVPIA is some water
reallocation. I mean, that's the whole premise of the exercise.
And our job is to see if we can do that in a reasonable way,
consistent with the statutory mandate.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Dooley, are you ready to begin your
questions?
Mr. Dooley. Yeah. I just wanted to revisit this issue in
terms of, you know, the CVPIA and the actions that are supposed
to be undertaken to provide for offsetting the yield that might
be lost for environmental purposes. And I guess I go back to
the 3408-I where it basically states that in order to minimize
adverse effects, if any, upon existing Central Valley Project
contract water contractors resulting from water dedicated to
fish and wildlife under this Title such and such, the Secretary
shall, not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of
this Title, develop and submit to Congress a least cost plan to
increase within 15 years after the date of enactment of this
Title the yield of the Central Valley project by the amount
dedicated to fish and wildlife purposes under the Title, which
would seem to be a pretty specific, you know, mandate that the
Secretary and the Department determine, you know, how we do
increase the yield offset allocations that might be lost to the
environment.
I guess, you know, what progress has the Department made in
terms of identifying these, you know, opportunities for
enhanced yield?
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, that really takes us back
into the CALFED process inevitably it seems to me. Because
that's the purpose of this exercise, is to find ways to
reoperate the system, to store water, to find efficiencies,
to--precisely this purpose for all users, including CVP users.
Mr. Dooley. And I appreciate that. But the point I guess I
want to clarify is that there is a mandate within the CVPIA for
the Department in which you are now using the CALFED process as
a way to achieve that outcome to identify ways in which we can
increase yield to offset water that has been utilized for the
environment. And you would agree with that.
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, I hear you. I agree. I
think we owe you a response that is specific to the mandate of
the statute, even if the major part of the response is a
discussion of the CVPIA impacts.
I am also advised by my loyal staff that that report was
done 3 years ago and is now under consideration by CALFED. My
previous answer is inoperative.
Mr. Dooley. If we could move on. There's been some
discussion in terms of the renewal, long-term renewal of the
contracts; and I share those concerns because the PEIS has not
been completed.
You know, the first draft had some modeling assumptions in
it which I think were determined by all parties to be flawed,
and we put in place some new modeling that is going to be
embodied in the PEIS. But I'm a little concerned that that is
going to be released, and I have to believe it's going to be
subject to some controversy and discussion. And yet we're
expecting that we can get through that exercise and have a
final rule on this thing accepted and then be able to get the
long-term contracts renewed prior to the next water year. And
as being involved in this, you know, in previous years, I'm
very, very cautious about and not necessarily optimistic we can
achieve that.
And, in part, my concern on this is that I'm not convinced
that we have given adequate consideration to some of the issues
that are going to be a part of the long-term contract renewals.
And with specific issues there is that, as I understand it, the
Department of Interior is involved in a process to determine
the basis of negotiations, which I think is appropriate, but
what I'm concerned about is how can you make a determination
what the basis of negotiation is for an issue such as tiered
pricing when there hasn't necessarily been that dialogue and
interchange between users and the Department that can really
allow us to come to some level of consensus on tiered pricing.
And what I would also say, that that has a direct impact in
the earlier discussion we had on underground recharge, which
you've acknowledged is one of the best alternatives for water
storage. And yet if we're not careful to how we structure this
tiered pricing, we are in fact putting one of the, you know,
the greatest, you know, disincentives in place for water
contractors to engage in conservation measures and storage
measures that utilize the underground.
And I'm a little concerned that the Department hasn't
engaged in a process to allow us to address some of these
critical policy issues prior to identifying a basis of
negotiations that will have a significant impact on how the
long-term contracts are negotiated and renewed.
Secretary Babbitt. Congressman, I hear your concerns; and
I'll do my best to factor them into this process. I do think
that we are ready to proceed to conclusion on that time frame,
and I will do my best to make sure we deal with these issues in
a, you know, public or in a stakeholder communication process
that gives everybody a chance to be heard.
Mr. Dooley. I guess my specific concern again on this
tiered pricing, though, is, if I understand the Department's
process, if you do in fact determine a basis of negotiations as
it relates to tiered pricing, you are setting the parameters
there. And it's an arbitrary decision by the Department to set
the parameters in negotiation as it deals with tiered pricing.
I'm a little concerned that the Department makes a decision
like that before--on a difficult policy issue such as this
which has ramifications on water conservation as well as
utilization that--before we really have had this dialogue. And
I'm hopeful that the Department would have a process to allow
us to engage in a discussion on this issue prior to that
finalization of the basis of negotiation and prior to us
entering into the negotiations on long-terms contracts.
Secretary Babbitt. I will do my best to do just that.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Secretary, I assume from your testimony
and responses to questions you believe that CALFED's
cooperative approach to problem solving is better than the
traditional government command and control approach that's been
used in the past to solve these problems.
Secretary Babbitt. I do.
Mr. Doolittle. Can you commit to having your department
using its discretion to minimize the negative impacts on water
users when attempting to reach the goals of water management in
California?
Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that
this afternoon if you question the stakeholders as to my
involvement in this issue, you will hear answers that reassure
you on that score. Of course. Of course.
Mr. Doolittle. There's so many things here, as you pointed
out, about the Trinity River and so forth in your answers to
Mr. Miller's questions. I mean, we've got so many laws involved
in all of this that--in fact, that's the whole reason we had
the Bay-Delta Accord and CALFED, is to resolve the apparent
conflicts in managing for single purpose objectives and trying
to coordinate the whole thing.
But to a certain extent we still have this tension because
of what happens in the Trinity River, as you and others have
acknowledged, is going to impact what happens in the whole
Central Valley. So while there may be no legal requirement,
there may never not have been a legal requirement dealing with
the Trinity, but at least it's reassuring I think to hear your
commitment to try and minimize any adverse impacts to the
extent that that's possible within the parameters.
Secretary Babbitt. That is certainly my intention.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, I think this has been a very useful
hearing for us. I'm going to call on Mr. Dooley one more time
if he would like to--okay. You're set.
I am sure we may have further questions by way of follow-
up. I appreciate and express to our distinguished guests our
appreciation for their appearance here, and the length of the
questioning so forth has been useful to this Subcommittee as we
seek to make progress in this most important issue of the
Central Valley water management. So we will now excuse this
panel, and thank you again for your appearance.
Secretary Babbitt. Chairman, thank you very much. I do very
much appreciate the spirit in which this hearing has been
conducted. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Ms. Nichols. Thank you for your support.
Mr. Doolittle. We'll call up the second panel and ask them
to assemble themselves at the table. And just to announce, just
for everybody's information, there is supposed to be a vote in
5 or 10 minutes. So at that point we will take a 15-minute
recess. If that vote doesn't happen, I think at least by 1:30
or so we'll take a recess anyway for that time. But I'm
anticipating that everybody can get a break at the time the
vote happens.
So do we have everybody assembled up there? I think we do.
Okay. Let me ask you gentlemen, please, who are forming
Panel II, if you would rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Doolittle. Let the record reflect each answered in the
affirmative.
Gentlemen, we welcome you as our second panel on this
hearing today. And in the first go-around we were a little
liberal in how we ran the lights. I think just because of the
time of the afternoon and the size of the panel we'll try and
adhere a little more strictly to it. But don't cut off in mid-
sentence if the light goes on and you're not finished. We want
to hear your testimony. And appreciate your making yourselves
available to the Committee.
We'll begin this panel with the testimony of Mr. Stan
Sprague, who is General Manager of the Orange County Municipal
Water District from Fountain Valley, California. Mr. Sprague.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF STAN SPRAGUE, GENERAL MANAGER, ORANGE COUNTY
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Sprague. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee.
As you already mentioned I am from the Municipal Water
District of Orange County. I am here today as a representative
of the Bay-Delta Urban Coalition, which consists of the 11
major urban water supply agencies in California, providing over
22 million people with their water supplies in California. I
would also mention if I were just here representing the
municipal water district solely from Orange County my comments
would not be much different.
The Coalition really represents a unified voice of both
southern and northern California urban water agencies. In fact,
we've moved to the concept that we are urban water agencies and
we don't in our discussions even depict where we come from.
Northern California now is in Redding for the purposes of our
urban discussions.
The basic urban message regarding the CALFED process is
supportive and optimistic. We believe that CALFED continues to
have the highest potential of any alternative for achieving a
comprehensive plan for restoring the Delta and establishing a
long-term management plan which balances all interests which
depend on water from the Bay-Delta region.
During the last part of last year the Federal agencies,
under the leadership of Secretary Babbitt and under former
Governor Wilson, moved forward with a significant effort of
investing time in what was called the so-called Phase II
report, which is essentially a draft preferred alternative for
a long-term plan. A completion of the Phase II document should
be considered as a significant accomplishment.
Our positive views about CALFED programs, however, are not
without qualification. One of the principal reasons it was
possible to get closure on this document was that many of the
toughest Bay-Delta issues simply were not decided. These
include several issues which relate to the single most
important objective to urban water suppliers and the
improvement of drinking water quality. Urban agencies accepted
this deferral of decision on the basis that these programs
would be resolved shortly into the beginning of this year. We
have not seen that significant closure on those particular
issues at this time.
Following the release of the report, however, promised
action on water quality issues have not been forthcoming, as I
mentioned. As a result, the urban agencies are deeply concerned
that the draft EIS/EIR will not adequately address the process
to solve water quality issues in the long term and will not
initiate a substantive step, steps essential to improving
drinking water quality.
To assist the Committee in understanding our concern, let
me remind you that as a drinking water source the Delta is a
very poor quality compared to the national average. Poor
quality source water increases public health risks and requires
more costly treatment without the safeguards of source quality
protection.
In addition, natural components in the Delta when treated
create products that are potential hazards in themselves. In
plain terms, treatment has defined limitations both chemically
and in terms of costs. We have no choice but to judge the
success of CALFED program on its ability to resolve the water
quality issues.
To hold the continued support of the urban communities,
CALFED agencies must begin making some of the key decisions on
water quality. The key elements can simply be stated as
follows:
Increased commitment from EPA and other key agencies
to help urban agencies achieve drinking water quality
goals; timely achievement of a long-term target for
bromate or bromates for total organic compound and for
total dissolved solids through a combination of higher
source quality protection and new treatment technology;
the creation of a Delta Drinking Water Council, a Delta
Ecosystem Restoration Authority and an overall CALFED
management entity with fair and balanced stakeholder
representation on each; keeping the dual conveyance
option on the table for further study; completing
feasibility studies and beginning construction of a
North Delta diversion to mitigate environmental actions
detrimental to water quality.
The urban agencies have made it clear in the CALFED process
that these are the water quality issues that must be addressed.
We remain helpful and optimistic this will be done.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I have also
included in my written testimony an additional list of issues
which relate to those elements of concern to urban California
and that is water supply reliability. And I will only respond
to those if you ask for additional comments.
I would like to thank you and your Committee for the
continued support for holding this hearing and to indicate the
urban support for continued funding and the continued oversight
of this CALFED activity. Thank you very much.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sprague follows:]
Statement of Stanley E. Sprague, General Manager, Municipal Water
District of Orange County on behalf of the Bay-Delta Urban Coalition
Representatives of the Bay-Delta Urban Coalition\1\ have
been active participants in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to
develop a long-term, broad-based consensus agreement for
improving the California Bay-Delta Estuary. Our Coalition,
consisting of 11 urban water agencies, collectively supplies
water to over 22 million people in urban communities around the
State of California; communities that form a cornerstone in the
state's thriving economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bay-Delta Urban Coalition consists of 11 agencies representing
over 22 million people in urban communities throughout California.
Coalition agencies include Alameda County Water District, Central Coast
Water Authority, City and County of San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission, Coachella Valley Water District, East Bay Municipal Utility
District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Municipal
Water District of Orange County, San Diego County Water Authority,
Santa Clara Valley Water District, Solano County Water Agency and
Central/West Basin Municipal Water District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Urban Coalition remains supportive and optimistic about
CALFED, and continues to believe that this process retains the
highest potential for resolving the complex issues surrounding
the Delta. We commend Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt,
former Governor Pete Wilson, and the Federal and state
participants of CALFED for extraordinary efforts in 1998 to
gain closure on the draft preferred alternative (outlined in
the Revised Phase II Report released in December, 1998). We
believe the draft reflects progress on a number of policy
issues affecting the Delta and that CALFED remains committed to
achieving continuous improvements in the four interrelated
problem areas affecting the Delta (ecosystem restoration, water
quality, water supply reliability and levee system integrity)
and to measurable milestones to be used as indicators of this
continuous improvement.
Our positive view about the program, and the results thus
far, however, are not without qualification. First, it should
be recognized that one of the principal reasons it was possible
to get closure on the Revised Phase II Report was that many of
the toughest issues were not decided. Among those issues were
several which relate to the one objective which urban water
suppliers must achieve in the Delta if the CALFED Program is to
be judged successful. That objective is the improvement of
drinking water quality. Because of the burden placed on our
public agencies to continue to provide a reliable supply of
safe drinking water to the residents of California's most
rapidly growing areas, we have no choice but to judge the
success of the CALFED Program on its ability to resolve these
issues, and help us meet the demands placed on our agencies. We
believe the CALFED Program remains the best forum for solving
problems of the Delta, but unless we and our constituents are
convinced that it can and will solve water quality challenges,
both drinking water and improved source water, we will not be
able to continue to support CALFED.
As previously stated, closure on the Revised Phase II
Report required tempering and deferring a number of important
issues, particularly those important to urban agencies. This
result was accepted, however, on the basis of representations
in the CALFED process that the bypassed issues would be
expeditiously resolved in the period following the Revised
Phase II Report. Following release of the Revised Phase II
Report, however, there has been little or no progress on the
water quality issues which are central to the urban
communities' support of CALFED. The process has become passive
as Federal and state agencies focus exclusively on the pending
release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) due this June.
Now, we are deeply concerned that the revised Draft EIS/EIR
will not adequately address the water quality issues most
important to urban California. In fact, CALFED has stepped back
from promises made to the urban community during the
negotiations that led up to the Revised Phase II Report, both
as to the process to address water quality issues and the
substance of the issues themselves. In plain terms, EPA and
other key agencies have yet to move forward on any of the key
decisions regarding urban communities' drinking water quality
issues.
Let me be more specific as to some aspects of the water
quality problem for urban water agencies, and why it is
increasingly difficult for many of us to answer the tough
question posed to us by our Boards--``what is in the CALFED
Program for us?'' Generally, as a drinking water source, water
diverted from within the Delta is of very poor quality compared
to national averages. Poor quality source water increases
public health risks and requires far more costly treatment that
drives up water rates and affects the state's economy. In
addition, natural components in Delta water, when treated,
create byproducts that are potential health hazards.
The 22 million people we serve expect and demand adequate
supplies of healthy drinking water at an affordable cost. We
have continually attempted to convince our communities that
CALFED would deliver what they expect in balance with other
legitimate Bay-Delta objectives. As public water managers, we
have a duty to be honest and forthright in providing our
customers with the facts concerning their water supplies. If
CALFED is unsuccessful at addressing our water quality and
supply concerns, we must not only communicate this to our
public but reluctantly begin to look elsewhere for solutions,
most of them more expensive alternatives. To hold the continued
support of urban communities in California, Federal and state
agencies and CALFED must renew their commitment to ensuring
public health by making some of the tough decisions on water
quality. For the most part, this does not mean making final
decisions, but rather including in the preferred alternative,
for further study and comment, those elements of a CALFED
solution which are most important to achieving urban water
quality objectives. These key elements include:
<bullet> Increasing commitments from EPA and other key agencies
to help urban agencies achieve water quality goals for human
consumption.
<bullet> Providing for the timely achievement of long-term
targets of 50 ug/l for bromide, 3 mg/l for total organic carbon
and 150 mg/l for total dissolved solids through a combination
of higher quality source water and new treatment technology.
Timely means prior to the time that EPA or CDHS require
additional treatment based on source quality which exceeds
these levels.
<bullet> Creating a Delta Drinking Water Council, Delta
Ecosystem Restoration Authority and overall CALFED management
entity with fair and balanced stakeholder representation on
each.
<bullet> Keeping the dual conveyance option on the table. Begin
planning and feasibility studies for the isolated facility
portion of the dual conveyance option in Stage 1 and define a
clear procedure for the decisions on construction.
<bullet> Completing feasibility studies and beginning
construction of a North Delta diversion to mitigate
environmental actions detrimental to water quality. Such
diversion must first be assessed and mitigations identified for
its impacts on the Mokelumne fishery.
It is imperative urban water agencies see action in the
CALFED Program in the near-term to address water quality
issues. We must be able to demonstrate to our Boards and
consumers that CALFED, state and Federal agencies are serious
about public health protection as it relates to water quality.
Continued support for the CALFED Program hinges on our ability
to show CALFED action in this direction.
Other Priority Issues of Concern:
Lack of progress on other promises made to urban water
agencies during the negotiations that led up to the Revised
Phase II Report, particularly those affecting water supply
reliability, cause us concern about the potential success of
the CALFED Program. This furthers our belief that the CALFED
Program is unbalanced in its approach to resolving issues
important to urban stakeholders. We believe restoring balance
to the CALFED Program is essential to keeping all stakeholders
at the table. Restoration of balance should include:
<bullet> Extending the Accord through Stage 1.
<bullet> Improving water supply reliability for exporters of
Bay-Delta water by creating an Environmental Water Account and
other mechanisms which provide regulatory insulation from the
Endangered Species Act.
<bullet> Assuring balanced, staged implementation of Stage 1
and its sub-stages such that progress must be made equally in
all areas or none at all.
<bullet> Continuing planning, site selection and environmental
documentation including Programmatic 404 finding under the
Clean Water Act of the need for surface storage and of the
conditions that will trigger the need for conveyance and other
program actions.
<bullet> Agreeing on South Delta improvements and flexible
operations to allow export pumps to operate at full capacity
during certain times.
<bullet> Construction of at least one new south of Delta
groundwater storage project.
<bullet> Creating a cost allocation and financing program that
reflects the proportional share from each party commensurate
with the benefits derived.
<bullet> Providing financing for water use efficiency measures
beyond those that are cost-effective at the local level.
<bullet> Creating a healthy water transfers market.
The Bay-Delta Urban Coalition remains committed to a successful
Bay-Delta solution that achieves a healthy environment and meets the
needs of urban water users in California. To secure support from public
agencies responsible for providing drinking water to the large urban
areas in California, CALFED must move quickly to make critical
decisions on commitments made last December in CALFED's Revised Phase
II Report. In particular, these decisions must address actions required
to protect public health as it relates to improved source water quality
diverted from the Delta. We look forward to working with the CALFED
agencies and stakeholders to put the CALFED Program on a track that
will allow us to maintain our support.
Mr. Doolittle. Our next witness is Dr. Peter Gleick,
President of the Pacific Institute, from Oakland, California.
Welcome, Dr. Gleick.
STATEMENT OF PETER GLEICK, PRESIDENT, PACIFIC INSTITUTE,
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
Dr. Gleick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
I am a scientist by training. I direct the policy research
activities at the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development,
Environment and Security in Oakland. I have served on a wide
range of boards and committees, including the Public Advisory
Forum of the American Water Works Association, the
International Water Resources Association, scientific panels of
the American Geophysical Union, and AAAS, although I represent
today here the Pacific Institute.
The Institute is an independent, nonpartisan research
center looking at a wide range of national and international
water issues. We have worked extensively on California water
policy issues and provide analysis and policy recommendations
about those problems.
We have reviewed the Department of Water Resources Bulletin
160 process. We have offered formal comments and
recommendations. We were asked by the U.S. Department of the
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation to do a formal
independent review of CALFED's water-use efficiency technical
appendix. We recently published a new report called Sustainable
Use of Water: California Success Stories. I provided executive
summaries of that for the Committee, and the full report is
here as well.
This report presents 40 different detailed case studies of
what works in California, the good news about smart activities
already under way. These are the elements, the pieces of what
needs to be done in California, although more broadly and more
consistently than is already under way. Unintentionally, albeit
somewhat fortuitously, these 40 case studies span the districts
of every one of the California members of this Committee.
Despite rhetoric to the contrary, there is no major water
crisis in California. At least, there doesn't have to be. There
is a wide range of innovative and successful projects and
activities already under way showing how to address
California's diverse water problems.
The bad news is that there is a crisis in California water
policy making. This are real problems at the upper levels of
California water planning and management in the way we think
about water policy. In particular, the official California
water plan, the Bulletin 160 process, is failing to do what it
should do.
The CALFED process is doing much better. I fully support
the CALFED process. But its forecasts of future water use and
demand in California have unfortunately adopted some of the
worst parts of the Bulletin 160 process.
I would be happy to address these issues later if you wish,
but what I would like to do is talk a little bit about the good
news, what seems to be working in California and what I think
it means.
Out of the limelight, every single economic sector in
California is working to resolve water problems and having some
success. Water use is becoming more efficient in every sector.
Smart collaborations are finding ways of restoring natural
ecosystems while at the same time maintaining California's
excellent agricultural productivity and protecting landowners.
California's farmers are continuing to innovate and
modernize, using less water while producing more food and fiber
and profit. Urban water-use efficiency improvements are keeping
ahead of population growth. In other words, even as population
grows in California, the amount of water each person is using
is dropping; and in some cases even total water use in
California is dropping. The potential for even greater
improvements in efficiency is enormous.
This kind of good news means that the number of successful
tools we have for solving California's water problems is
growing, and let me offer a few specific examples.
In the urban areas, cities are becoming much more
efficient, breaking the link between population growth and
water use. San Diego County is using less water, 13 percent
less than it was using 10 years ago, even though its population
has grown 10 percent. Los Angeles in 1970 used 590,000 acre
feet of water. In 1998, they used about 590,000 acre feet of
water and yet Los Angeles's population has grown 32 percent.
Figure 1 in my written testimony shows this.
Industrial, commercial, and institutional water use
efficiency is rising dramatically. Between 1980 and 1990 in
California industrial water use dropped 30 percent, while
industrial revenue and income increased 30 percent; and that
trend has continued in the 1990s.
Despite the statements over the need for new surface
storage--which I can address later if you wish--new storage in
the form of massive groundwater banks is already being created.
In the past 20 years at one facility alone near Bakersfield,
nearly a million acre feet of water have been stored. The
Semitropic Water District groundwater banking program has
stored 500,000 acre feet of water in the past decade.
In the agricultural area, with relatively little official
policy or recognition, growers have been moving toward higher
valued crops that use less water per acre and produce even more
money. And figure 2 in my written testimony shows this trend,
the drop in field crops and grain crops and the increase in
California in vegetable crops and fruit crops.
Growers are moving toward more efficient irrigation
technologies, saving water, money, and energy and increasing
yields. And yet much more potential exists. Figure 3 in my
written testimony shows that, while we have moved toward drip
irrigation and more efficient irrigation, there's considerable
more potential there.
The technological and communications revolution sweeping
the country and the world is also having an effect on
agriculture. And the more farmers learn about their water use
the more efficient they become.
In the environmental area, local landowners are working
with environmentalists to improve water quality, restore
waterfowl habitat, protect endangered species, and maintain
food production.
Now, there are many more examples. There are 40 detailed
case studies, and I can't go into them all.
There is also some bad news. As I mentioned, the
California's water planning process is--I believe has some
fundamental flaws. It uses methods and data and assumptions
that are either wrong or outdated. And the previous Department
of Water Resources has shown great reluctance to address these
problems and to learn from these kinds of successes.
Let me close with a couple of lessons learned.
Existing technologies for improving water efficiency and
improving water supply reliability have enormous untapped
potential.
Regulatory incentives and motivations can be effective
tools. Smart regulation is better than no regulation.
Economic innovation leads to cost-effective changes. The
power of proper pricing of water has been underestimated.
Ignorance is not bliss. The more water users know about
their own water use and options and alternatives, the better
decisions they make.
Finally, the most successful water projects have
individuals and groups with different agendas working together.
CALFED is a very good example of this. But on the local level
the examples are legion. Every successful example has local
stakeholders working together to solve these problems.
Thank you for the opportunity to address these issues, to
appear before you, and I would be happy later to answer
questions you might have.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gleick follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.025
Mr. Doolittle. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have some good
news and some bad news. The good news is you're going to get to
have an hour off for lunch. The bad news is it's an hour that
we'll have to interrupt at this point. There are a series of
votes. The first one is a 15-minute vote, then two 5-minute
votes, a little discussion, and then another 15-minute vote, so
it makes sense at this point to suspend operations.
When we do come back there will be no more votes out on the
floor, so we should be able to move fairly expeditiously
through the remainder of the hearing.
So, with that, we stand in recess until 2:15.
[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the Subcommittee recessed, to
reconvene at 2:15 p.m., the same day.
Mr. Doolittle. The Subcommittee will reconvene. We're going
to begin.
I don't see Mr. Guy here. We'll start with Mr. Don
Kaniewski.
STATEMENT OF DONALD J. KANIEWSKI, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
LABORER'S INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LIUNA-AFLCIO,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Kaniewski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee, for inviting me to testify today.
My name is Donald Kaniewski. I serve as Legislative and
Political Director for the Laborers International Union of
North America. Our California affiliate is an active
participant in the Bay-Delta Funding Coalition and the CALFED
process. We strongly support moving the Bay-Delta program
forward in a balanced fashion to meet the environmental water
supply and water quality needs of California. Our members, in
addition to being beneficiaries of adequate and reliable water
supplies, look forward to bringing their skills in building
infrastructure as part of the implementation of the CALFED Bay-
Delta program.
While this is an oversight hearing, we would like to draw
your attention to our support for the President's request of
$95 million in fiscal year 2000 and urge your support for the
stakeholder recommendation of allocating $60 million for
ecosystem restoration programs and $35 million for water
quality levee system integrity and water supply reliability
programs.
In addition, we support Governor Davis' recent commitment
to a balanced Bay-Delta program whose inclusion of $10 million
in the State's fiscal year 1999-2000 budget to support the
integrated storage and investigation segment of CALFED.
Why is California's Bay-Delta so important? The San
Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the hub of
California's water system. It provides two-thirds of the
State's drinking water, irrigates 7 million acres of the
world's most productive farmland, is home to 130 species of
fish, 225 species of birds, 52 types of mammals and 400 plant
species. The Bay-Delta has fueled the trillion dollar economy
of California farms and cities for the past half century.
However, this vital estuary has been in decline as a water and
environmental resource for many years.
In 1994, the Bay-Delta Accord signed by State and Federal
agencies and stakeholders brought a truce to decades of
divisive conflict over use of Bay-Delta water. The Accord has
been extended through the end of 1999. It established the
CALFED Bay-Delta program to develop a long-term water solution
for California and a new era of cooperation among stakeholder
groups.
Why is our union strongly supporting the CALFED process?
Through our own recent experience with cooperative strategies,
we value CALFED's emphasis on consensus and accomplishment. The
Laborers International Union is a recognized leader and
innovator in developing labor-management cooperation programs.
These programs are designed to maximize our contractor's
ability to be competitive in securing work and provide for the
economic security, health and safety of our members. Through
these programs, our members deliver the finest construction
manpower product in the Nation.
This emphasis on cooperation has manifested itself in other
successful ways, including resolving complex interagency issues
involving Superfund. We are proud of our record of bringing
parties together to resolve issues in a non-bureaucratic way,
and the CALFED program is a logical extension of this
philosophy of cooperation. The CALFED process is bringing
stakeholders together throughout California to craft water
solutions for California.
With helpful funding from Congress, CALFED is making
progress within the ecosystem component of the program.
Partnerships with local interests are resulting in projects
that have multiple benefits. You will hear from other
stakeholders today as to how the program is providing projects
that combine water supply adequacy and reliability, water
quality, and ecosystem restoration benefits.
CALFED is also fulfilling its mission towards balanced and
comprehensive long-term water plans. Developing solutions that
will provide for the State's expected population growth is
vital for California's and the Nation's future.
My presence here today is to reaffirm our commitment to the
CALFED process. CALFED is an important forum for us to balance
our interests in order to provide water, secure jobs, and a
brighter future for California.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of the
Committee, and ask that as part of the record I submit a
document prepared by the California business labor and water
leaders coalition on the Bay-Delta solution.
With that, I thank you very much; and I'll entertain any
questions at the appropriate time.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. And the document, without
objection, you submit will be entered into the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kaniewski follows:]
Statement of Donald J. Kaniewski, Laborers International Union of North
America
Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for
inviting me to testify today. My name is Donald J. Kaniewski
and I serve as Legislative and Political Director for the
Laborers International Union of North America. Our California
affiliate is an active participant in the Bay-Delta Funding
Coalition and the CALFED process. We strongly support moving
the Bay-Delta program forward in a balanced fashion to meet the
environmental, water supply, and water quality needs of
California. Our members, in addition to being beneficiaries of
adequate and reliable water supplies, look forward to bringing
their skills in building infrastructure as part of the
implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta program.
While this is an oversight hearing, we would like to draw
your attention to our support for the President's request of
$95 million in Fiscal Year 2000 and urge your support for the
stakeholder recommendation of allocating $60 million for
ecosystem restoration programs and $35 million for water
quality, levee system integrity, and water supply reliability
programs. In addition, we support Governor Davis's recent
commitment to a balanced Bay-Delta program through his
inclusion of $10 million in the State's Fiscal Year 1999-2000
budget to support the Integrated Storage Investigation (ISI)
segment of CALFED.
Why is California's Bay-Delta so important? The San
Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the hub of
California's water system. It provides two-thirds of the
state's drinking water, irrigates 7 million acres of the
world's most productive farmland, is home to 130 species of
fish, 225 species of birds, 52 types of mammals, and 400 plant
species. The Bay-Delta has fueled the trillion-dollar economy
of California farms and cities for the past half-century.
However, this vital estuary has been in decline as a water and
environmental resource for many years.
In 1994, the historic Bay-Delta Accord signed by state and
Federal agencies and stakeholders brought a truce to decades of
divisive conflict over use of Bay-Delta water. The Accord has
been extended through the end of 1999. It established the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program to develop a long-term water solution
for California, and a new era of cooperation among stakeholder
groups.
Why is our union strongly supporting the CALFED process?
Through our own recent experiences with cooperative strategies,
we value CALFED's emphasis on consensus and accomplishment. The
Laborers International Union of North America is a recognized
leader and innovator in developing labor-management cooperation
programs. These programs are designed to maximize our
contractor's ability to be competitive in securing work and
provide for the economic security, health, and safety of our
members. Through these programs, our members deliver the finest
construction manpower product in the nation.
This emphasis on cooperation has manifested itself in other
successful ways, including resolving complex inter-agency
issues involving Superfund. We are proud of our record of
bringing parties together to resolve issues in a non-
bureaucratic way. The CALFED program is a logical extension of
this philosophy of cooperation.
The CALFED process is bringing stakeholders together
throughout California to craft water solutions for California.
With helpful funding from Congress, CALFED is making
progress within the ecosystem component of the program.
Partnerships with local interests are resulting in projects
that have multiple benefits. You will hear from other
stakeholders today as to how the program is providing projects
that combine water supply adequacy and reliability, water
quality, and ecosystem restoration benefits.
CALFED is also fulfilling its mission towards developing a
balanced and comprehensive long-term water plan. Developing
solutions that will provide for the state's expected population
growth is vital for California's and the nation's future.
My presence here today is to reaffirm our commitment to the
CALFED process. CALFED is an important forum for us to balance
our interests in order to provide water, secure jobs, and a
brighter future for California.
Mr. Doolittle. Our next witness, we'll go back and pick up
Mr. David J. Guy. Mr. Guy.
STATEMENT OF DAVID J. GUY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Guy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee.
My name is David Guy. I am the Executive Director for the
Northern California Water Association. The Northern California
Water Association represents 65 agricultural water suppliers in
northern California as well as counties and local business
leaders.
I am today going to give you an agricultural perspective on
the CALFED process and would like to start off by indicating
that we are also part of this coalition that supports the
fiscal year 2000 appropriation.
One of the reasons that we support the fiscal year 2000
appropriation is that we see a shift towards a more balanced
program, as just indicated by the previous panelist; and we
think that this is very significant and very important for the
agricultural community.
There are three pieces of this program that I would like to
talk a little bit about that are particularly significant; and
this will, I think, shed some light on both the successes and
some of the potential shortfalls in the CALFED process as we
see it.
One of the most positive efforts we have seen in the State
are the fish passage improvements that have been made
throughout the State. Secretary Babbitt this morning mentioned
Butte Creek and held that out as a great example, and he's
right. In the Appendix A to our written testimony we list a
sample of the water and the fish passage improvements that have
been made in the Sacramento Valley; and these have been true
win-win type solutions and are really, I think, the essence of
what CALFED should be all about. It improves the ecosystem, and
it improves water supply reliability. This has been real
positive, and we need to build upon this part of the program.
The second piece is the integrated storage investigation,
and although we feel that in the past that not enough attention
has been paid to storage within the CALFED process, we are very
encouraged that we are starting to see some progress, and the
integrated storage investigation is a good indication of that.
The bottom line is that we need to augment the supplies in
the State of California to meet not only current demands but
also future demands in the State. This will require storage not
only north of the Delta, but in the Delta, south of the Delta
and in southern California, and that will be essential to
maintain this balanced program as part of the CALFED program.
Finally, the third point that I want to touch on is land
acquisition. Land acquisition is, again, something that we have
significant concern with, and there's a lot of concern in the
rural communities in California about the land acquisition part
of CALFED. Because what we would like to suggest is that we
recognize that there is some land acquisition that will take
place and needs to take place and that we make sure that we
have responsible land acquisition.
We have outlined in our testimony some steps that we
believe are important to assure that we have, in fact,
responsible land acquisition as part of CALFED. Some of these
measures are under way and others will need to be pushed as we
go forward in the CALFED process.
The most important thing about the land acquisition is that
we try to avoid the redirected impacts. And that's, of course,
one of the solution principles in the CALFED process and is
really essential to assure that rural communities are protected
in California in the CALFED process.
We're also encouraged that public lands are being looked at
rather than private lands when that is possible and when it's
conceivable.
We're looking forward to the EIS/EIR that will be coming
out, and we are hoping that this document will give adequate
attention to the agricultural and rural resources in
California. We think that this is very important, and it will
send a strong message to rural California about how we are
going to treat those resources.
So, with that, I would just like to say that we are very
positive about CALFED. We recognize that there are some serious
shortfalls, but we feel positive that we can overcome that and
that we will and that the fiscal year 2000 appropriation is a
good starting place to begin that process. We'll have to keep
moving forward to ensure that we have a balanced program that
will, in fact, benefit not only agriculture but also all the
other sectors of the California economy and the environment.
Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guy follows:]
Statement of David J. Guy, Executive Director, Northern California
Water Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is
David Guy. I am the Executive Director of the Northern
California Water Association (NCWA). NCWA is a non-profit
association representing sixty-five private and public
agricultural water suppliers and farmers that rely upon the
waters of the Sacramento, Feather and Yuba rivers, smaller
tributaries, and groundwater to irrigate over 850,000 acres of
farmland in California's Sacramento Valley. Many of our members
also provide water supplies to state and Federal wildlife
refuges, and much of this land serves as important seasonal
wetlands for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds and other
wildlife. I appreciate the Subcommittee's inclusion of my
written testimony in today's hearing record.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide the Northern
California perspective on CALFED. NCWA has actively
participated in the CALFED process, as a signatory to the 1994
Bay-Delta Accord and a participant in the development of
California's Proposition 204, the Federal Bay-Delta Security
Act (Pubic Law 104-333) and the CALFED Revised Phase II Report.
Two representatives of NCWA's Board of Directors, Chairman Don
Bransford and Director Tib Belza, currently serve on CALFED's
Bay-Delta Advisory Council (BDAC). NCWA is also a member of the
Ecosystem Roundtable--the entity chartered to allocate state
and Federal ecosystem restoration funds.
The Subcommittee's interest in water management in
California's Central Valley and particularly the CALFED Bay-
Delta Program (CALFED) is appropriate given the importance of a
successful resolution to the environmental and water supply
problems in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and San
Francisco Bay (Bay-Delta). The Bay-Delta is a tremendous
economic and environmental resource to California and the
Nation, and there is much at stake in how CALFED implements its
numerous ecosystem restoration and water management actions.
Both the Department of Interior and the California Resources
Agency's testimony today before this Subcommittee will be very
useful for private interests participating in this process.
NCWA has been invited today to discuss the status of the
CALFED program from an agricultural perspective. It was a year
ago (May 12, 1998) that we provided testimony to this
Subcommittee on the CALFED program and particularly the
allocation of Federal funds for ecosystem restoration. Since
that time, there has been good progress in certain parts of the
CALFED program and very little progress in others.
Most notably, CALFED late last year issued its Revised
Phase II Report. This report was significant for several
reasons. First, it gave CALFED a needed boost to sustain the
program. More importantly, the discussions leading up to the
report revealed the need for CALFED to begin broadening its
scope to show progress not only for the ecosystem, but also
with respect to water management and the water supplies that
will be necessary to satisfy the growing demands for water in
California.
Like many others, we will provide detailed comments to
CALFED when it releases its draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS)/Enviromnental Impact Report (EIR) and another
revised Phase II report this summer. Our testimony cannot and
will not cover every CALFED issue. Today, we will focus on the
four general CALFED programs that most directly affect the
farms, cities and the environment in Northern California: (1)
fish passage improvements; (2) surface and groundwater storage;
(3) rural land acquisition and (4) water acquisition.
1. Sacramento Valley Fish Passage Improvements
A major success in Central Valley water management is the
fish passage efforts in the Sacramento Valley to jointly
improve the ecosystem and water supply reliability. These
projects are the type of programs that CALFED was formed to
develop and implement. These projects also embody CALFED's
overall mission ``to develop a long-term comprehensive plan
that will restore the ecosystem health and improve water
management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta ecosystem.'' If
successful, CALFED will rehabilitate native fish and wildlife
species and their habitat in the Bay-Delta system, and increase
water supplies and reliability for California's cities,
businesses and farms. One measure of success in the overall
program is an improving environment, achieved in part by
implementation of restoration projects that resolve known
problems. A good example is the installation of fish screens on
agricultural diversions to prevent the entrainment of fish
species. Program success can be measured by decreasing
regulatory disruption of water project operations, and reduced
regulations on individual agricultural water suppliers and
farmers.
Many of the private interests following CALFED, such as
Sacramento Valley agricultural water suppliers and farmers, are
financially participating in cost-share arrangements with
CALFED agencies on specific restoration projects. Nearly a
dozen water suppliers throughout the Sacramento Valley are
engaged in the study, design or construction of a fish screen
or passage project to protect candidate, threatened and
endangered fisheries. Rather than describe every project in
detail, we have instead enclosed Appendix A--a sample of the
fishery projects that have either been completed or are
underway by NCWA members in the Sacramento Valley.
Some of these projects are now complete, such as Western
Canal Water District's Gary N. Brown Butte Creek Siphon
Project. This unique project resulted in the installation of a
concrete siphon to convey agricultural water supplies under
Butte Creek, allowing the removal of several small dams that
historically hindered spring-run salmon migration to spawning
habitat. Completion of this project illustrates the
effectiveness of restoration actions in providing immediate
benefits to the environment; in this case for spring-run
salmon, presently listed as a threatened species under
California law and proposed for Federal listing--and for the
local community and area farmers who benefit through
development of a more reliable water supply.
As with Western Canal's farmers, other agricultural water
users in the Sacramento Valley have a vested interest in
ensuring state and Federal funds are effectively managed to
ultimately improve the fishery, and alleviate regulatory
mandates. Their participation is based on the belief the
projects will succeed, and are an effective way to restore
fisheries and protect landowners from burdensome regulations.
Although many projects are either completed or underway, there
are many more similar projects that can serve both the
environment and water supply reliability. CALFED has been and
can continue to be successful in promoting and encouraging
these types of projects.
2. Integrated Storage Investigation
One of the shortcomings in the CALFED program has been the
lack of progress in providing more reliable water supplies for
water users in California. In the early stages of the CALFED
process, water users have committed to improve the ecosystem as
evidenced by the Bay-Delta Accord, Proposition 204 and the Bay-
Delta Security Act. After several years improving and investing
in the ecosystem, water users are now adamant that there must
be an equivalent commitment by Congress, the California
Legislature and the CALFED agencies to improve the state's
water supplies for both existing and future water users.
The CALFED Revised Phase II Report was significant in that
it strongly recommended the study and ultimate development of
new surface and groundwater storage projects in California.
This led to the CALFED ``Integrated Storage Investigation''
which will look at surface and groundwater storage, as well as
the opportunities for reoperating existing facilities to
maximize water use in California. For CALFED to succeed in the
next century, we believe that there must be significant
progress in developing a range of water supply alternatives
that will improve water supply reliability throughout the
state. In Northern California, this should include continued
studies and planning for Sites reservoir, raising the existing
dam at Lake Shasta, locally driven pilot projects for the
conjunctive management of surface and groundwater and water
efficiency measures to maximize the local use of water
resources.
These water supply options must complement efforts now
underway to study and then develop measures to protect citizens
and property from the devastating floods that have historically
ravaged California's Central Valley. While CALFED must work
toward improved water management in the state, it is equally
important that CALFED not be used to delay or otherwise stifle
significant opportunities to improve water supply reliability
on both the regional and local level.
3. Rural Land Acquisition
CALFED plans to implement projects that will replicate
natural processes associated with instream flows, stream
channels, watersheds and floodplains. CALFED proposes to
accomplish this objective primarily by the acquisition of
farmland and water supplies to create river meander corridors,
riparian forests, and increased instream flows. As an example,
CALFED's Ecosystem Restoration Program recommends the
implementation of nearly 700 actions over a thirty-year period;
however, work has already begun on several of the program's
main elements. As a further example, CALFED's earlier draft
environmental impact report and impact statement, released in
March 1998, recommended the acquisition of roughly 200,000
acres of Central Valley farmland (30,000 acres in the
Sacramento Valley) to meet certain goals outlined in the
Ecosystem Restoration Program.
The proposed implementation of these particular actions
raises legitimate concerns for upstream and downstream
communities, landowners and water suppliers. In this regard, it
is important that Congress and CALFED understand the
groundswell of opposition and concern that is developing in
agricultural and rural communities throughout California in
response to the large-scale land acquisition program that is
being undertaken as part of CALFED and several other programs
in California. The Wall Street Journal article entitled ``U.S
Land-Buying Program Leaves County in the Dark--and Furious''
provides a glimpse into this problem in Northern California.
(See May 5, 1999, CAl.)
CALFED's staff acknowledges the scientific uncertainty
underlying the potential benefit to fish and wildlife from
these actions. River meander and riparian forest projects
necessarily require the acquisition of land along a river or
stream in order, for example, to allow the river to inundate
land during high flow periods. There are numerous consequences
that may arise as a result of these projects, including river
level and flow fluctuations and increased sediment and debris
loading, which threaten existing water diversions and fish
screens. Due to the unpredictable nature of these projects, and
the risks they present, NCWA encourages CALFED to initially
focus on restoration actions that fix known fish and wildlife
problems. NCWA recognizes, however, a limited number of actions
that attempt to replicate natural processes may be necessary to
restore habitat for at-risk species.
There are several specific steps CALFED should consider
before embarking on a large-scale river meander plan in order
to avoid adverse social, economic or environmental affects to
local communities, landowners, and water suppliers. This is
consistent with CALFED's stated principle of implementing
actions and a long-term plan that does not result in the
redirection of adverse impacts.
As a first step, CALFED must attempt to utilize public
lands with similar ecological characteristics prior to
acquiring private property to achieve restoration measures. If
public lands are unavailable, conservation easements, rather
than outright fee title acquisition, should be a priority, and
all acquisitions must be voluntary
Second, there is concern that the EIS/EIR has not
adequately analyzed the potential impacts to the existing
environment, which specifically includes agricultural resources
under both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CALFED actions have
and will result in significant impacts to the agricultural
resource base in California, including agricultural land,
agricultural water supplies and water quality. In a nutshell,
this is the existing environment as it is utilized for
agriculture. These actions will have socioeconomic impacts to
local communities, local jurisdictions and local economies.
CALFED should develop a plan to either avoid or to adequately
mitigate for agricultural impacts. A meaningful plan will be
critical for CALFED to gain confidence in rural areas and to
assure that long-term environmental goals are accomplished in
CALFED. Completion of both CEQA and NEPA requirements should be
initiated before the acquisition of private property.
Third, CALFED's top-down approach to land-use planning
where Federal and state agencies, by either purchasing land or
by funding land acquisition, are dictating local land use
policies with little local participation in this process. Put
differently, there is a deep concern in local communities that
CALFED and its member agencies are usurping the land use
authority that has traditionally resided in local governments,
including counties and cities. There has been progress made by
CALFED to incorporate local governments in the funding process
for ecosystem projects, but much more effort needs to be made
in this regard. Establishment of a representative public
process to ensure local involvement must be a cornerstone of
any land acquisition program.
Fourth, there has been little, if any, progress on
developing assurances that water suppliers and landowners will
not be adversely affected by CALFED or its member agencies
acquiring adjacent or nearby lands for habitat purposes. NCWA
in concert with water users in Northern California has
developed an assurances package that we believe will protect
and encourage cooperating landowners and local agencies that
allow restoration projects on their lands or on nearby lands.
We believe that this is a very constructive approach to advance
the ecosystem goals in the CALFED process while providing
reasonable and necessary assurances to landowners and local
water suppliers. The bottom line is that CALFED must adopt
clear assurances, or legal guarantees, that address issues of
liability for future damage resulting from project
implementation, as well as local tax and assessment
responsibility. We look forward to working with CALFED and
other interested parties on this proposal.
Finally, in this regard, NCWA has encouraged CALFED to
consider adoption of a pilot program that may serve as a model
for its future projects involving land acquisition. Although
the specific principles of our recommendation are still under
development, our goal is to accomplish restoration actions
compatible with economic activities, including farming, water
district operation and flood control protection.
4. Water Acquisition
The CALFED Revised Phase II Report developed the so-called
``Environmental Water Account'' (EWA). NCWA strongly supports
this flexible management approach to address complex delta
issues as opposed to the traditional regulatory approach. Like
the other parts of CALFED, however, the EWA must be defined so
that water users benefit in its implementation. From the
Northern California perspective, we have concerns that this
program relies too heavily on upstream flow contributions to
the delta. The EWA seems to assume that upstream water will be
available as an asset to meet EWA demands, which is not a sound
assumption. This is particularly a concern when EWA water is in
addition to flows required under the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act (CVPIA) Anadromous Fish Restoration Program and
other environmental programs.
5. Conclusion
With respect to FY 2000 funding, NCWA has joined this year
with a coalition of California business, labor, water users and
the environment to request and support a $95 million Federal
(FY 2000) appropriation consistent with the Federal Bay-Delta
Security Act and other relevant authorizing legislation. This
request includes $60 million for ecosystem purposes and fishery
improvements and $35 million for water management, including
the Integrated Storage Investigation (ISI). (See April 16, 1999
coalition letter.)
From the Northern California perspective, the CALFED
process was intended to address problems in the Bay-Delta which
are largely associated with water uses south of the delta. NCWA
endorsed the CALFED process to address these problems, as long
as CALFED, in seeking solutions, does not redirect impacts and
problems northward. NCWA's support of CALFED is predicated upon
CALFED and its member agencies fully recognizing the senior
water rights held by entities and individuals within the areas
of origin. Unfortunately, these fundamental water rights seem
to get lost in the zeal to move forward with the CALFED
program. Unless these rights are, in fact, recognized and
honored by CALFED and its member agencies, NCWA's support for
CALFED, including support for future funding, will not
continue.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this
further, please call me or Dan Keppen in our office.
Northern California Water Association
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 335
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.442.8333
Appendix A
NCWA: Local Fishery Projects in the Sacramento Valley
The Sacramento Valley's initiative and effort to help
protect salmon and other aquatic species is unprecedented and
is now recognized as one of the most exciting and progressive
voluntary salmon restoration efforts in the United States.
Today, over a dozen NCWA members, representing over 500,000
acres of irrigable land, are in various stages of developing
screens to prevent fish entrainment at their diversions. As a
result, nearly 75 percent of all agricultural water use from
the Sacramento River will soon flow through new, state-of-the-
art fish screens. On Butte Creek, local water users have
addressed--or will address--nearly every fishery impediment
identified by regulatory agencies.
Since 1994, many NCWA members have initiated far-reaching
efforts to screen diversions, refurbish fish ladders, construct
siphons, remove dams and implement other habitat improvement
projects to enhance the environment. These projects include:
1. Browns Valley Irrigation District
Browns Valley Irrigation District (BVID) has started
construction on its Yuba River Diversion Fish Screen. The
completion of this project, designed to protect salmon in the
Yuba River, was delayed due to inclement weather. Browns Valley
has secured complete funding for its project from various
sources, including Yuba County Water Agency, Yuba River PG&E
Mitigation Account, Category III, CV-PIA Restoration Fund,
Tracy Pumps Mitigation Fund and BVID's own funds. BVID will
independently build and install the fish screen project.
2. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) broke ground on its
Hamilton City Pumping Plant screening project in April of 1998.
GCID diverts a maximum of 3,000 cubic feet per second (cfs)
from the Sacramento River, with the peak demand occurring in a
dry spring year at the same time as the peak out-migration of
juvenile salmon. Key components of the project include a 600-
foot extension to the existing fish screen and a stabilizing
gradient facility in the mainstern of the Sacramento River.
Total construction cost of the screen and gradient facility is
estimated at $50 million. This project will minimize losses of
all fish in the vicinity of the pumping plant diversion,
including endangered winter-run chinook salmon, and will
maximize GCID's capability to divert the full quantity of water
it is entitled to utilize to meet its water supply delivery
obligations.
3. M & T Chico Ranch
M & T Chico Ranch environmental restoration activities
included relocating and screening the M & T Pumping Station
from the mouth of Big Chico Creek to the Sacramento River,
recently completed for a total cost of $5 million. This project
will ensure a guaranteed water supply to over 8,000 acres of
permanent wetlands and over 1,500 acres of seasonal wetlands.
Additionally, it also protects habitat for migrating spring-run
chinook salmon. One other important benefit of this project is
M & T Ranch's agreement to provide fish flows in the amount of
40 cubic feet per second to Butte Creek, one of the most
important and last remaining spawning areas for the Spring-run.
4. Maxwell Irrigation District
The Maxwell Irrigation District now operates a state-of-
the-art positive barrier fish screen, one of the first of its
kind installed on the Sacramento River. Completed in 1994, the
new pumping plant and screen facility divert approximately 80
cfs at a completed cost of nearly $1.6 million. The screens are
intended to protect all fish, but primarily steelhead and
endangered winter-run chinook salmon. The State of California
recently retroactively reimbursed Maxwell ID for much of their
expenditures.
5. Natomas Central MWC
Preliminary engineering studies have commenced to
investigate the feasibility of screening the 700 cfs Natomas
Central Mutual Water Company diversion on the Sacramento River.
Natomas Central has already undertaken feasibility studies and
will receive CVPIA Restoration Fund monies to help cover the
estimated $10-$15 million capital costs associated with this
project. The screened diversion is an integral component for
future integrated water resources management in the American
River basin.
6. Pelger Mutual Water Company
In 1994, the Pelger Mutual Water Company completed
construction of its new pumping station and positive barrier
fish screen in the Sacramento River near Knight's Landing. This
facility includes pumps with a discharge capacity of 60 cfs and
was completed for a total cost of $350,000. While Pelger MWC
financed the original project, the State of California recently
reimbursed the water company for much of the original expense.
Pelger MWC also recently received additional CALFED ecosystem
funding to undertake an innovative evaluation of entrainment
potential of unscreened small diversions.
7. Princeton-Codora-Glenn Irrigation District/Provident
Irrigation District
In August 1997, the Princeton-Codora-Glenn and Provident
irrigation districts began construction of an $11 million fish
screen and pump consolidation project on the Sacramento River.
The new 605 cfs diversion will protect endangered winter-run
chinook and spring-run chinook salmon. The new facility, which
eliminates three unscreened diversions, was originally
scheduled to be operational by spring 1998. Delays in
construction, primarily resulting from the high water
conditions in the Sacramento River last year, have pushed back
project completion to later this year.
8. Reclamation District 108
Reclamation District 108 began construction in 1997 of a
new $10 million screen. The project, located at the district's
Wilkins Slough diversion, will protect migrating endangered
winter-run chinook salmon, as well as the spring-run chinook.
The design for the new screen facility was chosen after several
years were spent examining the performance of alternate screen
technologies. The district will hold dedication ceremonies for
the completed project this spring.
9. Reclamation District 1004
Reclamation District 1004 began construction of its $7
million screen last summer. Poor weather and adverse river
conditions delayed the start of construction in 1997. The
proposed project includes relocation of the Princeton Pumping
Plant and necessary conveyance facilities to a more stable
location along the Sacramento River, in addition to
construction of a positive barrier fish screen. This project
will eliminate significant adverse impacts to fish inhabiting
the Sacramento River, including juvenile winter-run chinook
salmon and steelhead.
10. Richter Brothers
The Richter Brothers diversion on the Sacramento River near
Knights Landing is located along a reach of the river that
hosts several species of salmon, steelhead trout and the
recently listed Sacramento splittail minnow. Richter Brothers
have received CALFED funding for feasibility studies and
preliminary design for an improved diversion that will provide
an important protective role for fish in this critical stretch
of the river.
11. Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority
The water users that make up the Tehama-Colusa Canal
Authority (Authority) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation have
addressed fish passage problems at Red Bluff Diversion Dam
since 1985 by modifying dam operations. The installation of
rotary drum screens in 1990 and the $22 million research
pumping plant in 1995 furthered these efforts. The CALFED Bay-
Delta Program is also exploring plans for improved fish ladders
at Red Bluff or a new screened facility on the Sacramento
River. Last year, the Authority obtained $340,000 in state and
Federal funding through the Ecosystem Roundtable to investigate
the feasibility of installing state-of-the-art screening and
pumping at Red Bluff to replace the diversion dam gravity
intake system.
12. Western Canal Water District
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act and the
Anadromous Fish Screen Program have identified several projects
within the Butte Creek watershed that would improve fishery
resource conditions, specifically spring-run chinook salmon and
steelhead trout. A number of these projects at Durham-Mutual,
Rancho Esquon (Adams Diversion Dam), and Gorrill Land Company
(Gorrill Diversion Dam) are scheduled to be constructed during
1998 and 1999. The Western Canal Water District $11 million
siphon project completed last year features construction of a
siphon under Butte Creek to transport irrigation water across
the creek without impacting migrating salmon, including the
spring-run chinook--a fish recently designated as a threatened
species by the California Fish and Game Commission. As a direct
result of this work, several existing barriers to migrating
fish will be removed.
13. Lower Butte Creek Project--Sutter Basin Butte Sink Water
Users Association, Reclamation District 1004, RD 70, Butte
Slough Irrigation Company, RD 1500, Butte Sink Waterfowl
Association, Western Canal, RD 1660.
Lower Butte Creek, Butte Sink and Sutter Bypass: On the
main migration corridor for Butte Creek spring-run salmon, The
Nature Conservancy, California Waterfowl Association and NCWA
are working with local water users and fishery agencies to
determine the feasibility of reducing or eliminating fish
passage and entrainment problems. The group has already
completed the first phase of this project, and is moving into
the second phase, which will include preliminary engineering
and design that may lead to construction by the year 2000.
CALFED will fund the second phase efforts up to $750,000.
14. Yuba County Water Agency
The Yuba County Water Agency is working with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
evaluate options to improve fish passage upstream and
downstream of Daguerre Point Dam on the Yuba River. While the
existing fish ladders appear to be working properly, a study
will assess whether the facilities can be further improved.
Yuba County Water Agency has also received CALFED and CVP
Restoration funds to study the life history and stock
composition of steelhead trout on the Yuba River.
Mr. Doolittle. Our next witness is Mr. Steve McCormick.
Mr. McCormick.
STATEMENT OF STEVE McCORMICK, VICE PRESIDENT, WESTERN DIVISION,
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm the Executive Director of the Nature Conservancy of
California, and we are dedicated to preserving the best
examples of the original natural landscape. We do that by
working in local communities and cooperatively with private
landowners. It has been our privilege to participate in shaping
the ecosystem restoration program of CALFED and, I think more
importantly, engaging in its implementation.
While I will focus my remarks on that aspect of our
participation in CALFED, I do want to say that one of the
distinguishing features of the program is that it is a single
integrated plan; and it's really an elegant vision in that
respect to address exceedingly complex issues involving the
most important resource in California, water. But it is
important to regard every one of the components that--in
context and as part of a whole. So my remarks on the ecosystem
restoration program should be regarded as such.
In that program, we have been delighted to see that it is
truly an ecosystem program focusing on whole systems, entire
watersheds, not just individual species or isolated and
fragmented pieces of property. It has indeed elevated the
vision of all participants and I think ennobled us to think big
and systematically.
What I would really like to concentrate on are the tangible
results that are being accomplished that far exceeded anyone's
original expectations. I have been working on preserving
landscape for 20 years. I have never seen anything approaching
the success of CALFED implementation.
I'm going to give two examples, the Sacramento River and
the Consumnes River, and they're really just illustrative I
think of again almost unimaginable things that can be
accomplished.
The Sacramento River. We, along with public agency partners
and, most significantly, with local landowners, have been
working to create a meander zone that would not only re-
establish and reconnect some of the most fragmented and
disrupted and reduced habitat in California which is uniquely
California but would also provide benefits for landowners. This
meander zone would allow flood waters to flow more harmlessly
in areas that would not affect agriculture or residential
development. It would also provide valuable recreation to an
area that is experiencing increasing population growth.
I do want to stress the involvement of local landowners.
Candidly, when we began in this area prior to CALFED there was
a great deal of opposition to increased land acquisition; and
we made a commitment to working with that local community.
You'll see from the supplemental materials that we have
distributed with my testimony a sample letter from Chuck Crain,
who was an outspoken opponent of CALFED and now is an
enthusiastic supporter. He sees that this program is bringing
in benefits in the form of real money that enables landowners
willing to sell property to sell those portions of their lands
that are not particularly productive, to put that money into
better lands and better production, to lease back from those
organizations and private institutions that are buying land
agricultural properties that are still productive. And we have
a very large leaseback program that is putting money back into
the local community, and local farmers are being hired to do
the restoration work of natural habitat.
About a month ago, I was out turkey hunting with one of the
landowners that we work with. And after we were finished in the
morning we went to see his walnut facility. As we were having
lunch, we walked on an area that he has undertaken as a
restoration project. He said, you know, I actually get more
pleasure out of watching these trees grow than my walnuts know.
Because I know they're going to be there long after I die and
that my kids will enjoy their shade and recreation, the hunting
opportunities there, and they enhance the quality and value of
my farm.
And, again, that was really just one example of many that
we're seeing on the Sacramento River, people really converting
to the value, the multiple values derived from the ecosystem
restoration program.
On the tributaries of the Sacramento River, there are local
land conservancies formed by local landowners that are coming
up with watershed plans. We have already heard about the
tremendous success of Butte Creek--1,000 salmon run, now almost
as many as 20,000. Forests are being re-established, as I
mentioned, which is providing habitat not only for listed
species but species that could be listed in the future.
On the Consumnes River we have also had great success with
CALFED. We have engaged local farmers. In one case, as you'll
see in the supplemental material, we joined with a local farmer
to buy property with him which otherwise he wouldn't have been
able to afford it. We stripped off the development rights but
give him a permanent opportunity to farm that property. He
couldn't have been more delighted.
We have preserved almost 10,000 acres of additional
productive farm land that's compatible with habitat there and
demonstrating compatible uses as a blend with preservation of
habitat. The concepts really are turning into reality.
The final thing we have done to the Consumnes most recently
is the completion of the final phase of a non-strucutural flood
control operation which has opened up flood land not only for
habitat but allowed otherwise dangerous flood waters to shunt
harmlessly onto land that is used during summer months for
agriculture but during winter months is fallowed.
Some observations and recommendations on the program. I
heard that the process is slow, but it is necessarily slow. It
is collaborative and inclusive. That is an inherently slow
process. It is inherently a better process because people come
to consensus and final decisions. The process should continue
to be integrated. As I mentioned, I think its great beauty and
its elegance is the fact that it is integrated and should not
be separated into its component parts. Every part is of a
piece--ecosystem restoration, water storage, water quality, et
cetera. Ideally, there would be a single implementation agency.
We have seen some of the shortcomings of having the existing
entities try to multi-manage the process, and that provides
some difficulties.
And, finally, funding is critical to maintain the momentum
and the real traction that has been realized just in the last
couple of years and is gaining every day. So we
enthusiastically support the appropriations that are requested
for this year. I think this is really one of the finest hours
in California history addressing an issue which the chairman
said earlier which is really one of the most significant facing
Congress. I hope that future Californians will look back at
this as a time when Californians of all different concerns,
issues and backgrounds came together to solve what seems to be
an intractable issue which I think, showing through CALFED, can
be done.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCormick follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.051
U.S. Water News
Water Supply
Farmers, conservationists forge new alliance to restore
Sacramento River.
New approach to land management brings economic benefits to
farmers.
RED BLUFF, Calif.--Bert Bundy has farmed land along this
stretch of the Sacramento River all his life.
Formerly the executive director of a local landowners
association, he may seem an unlikely candidate to lead
conservation efforts that depend on retiring agricultural land
to recreate river meanders. Those efforts, in turn, will help
reconnect the natural flood plain of the 200-mile stretch of
the Sacramento River between the Bay-Delta and Shasta Dam.
But that is what he is doing. Bundy has just been hired--
through a CALIFED grant--as a coordinator for the Sacramento
River restoration project, an effort he has been involved in as
a landowner for the past 12 years.
``I'm very sold on the program,'' he says of the 12-year
public/private partnership that has recently gained the support
of the CALFED program, which includes restoration of rivers and
watersheds in the Central Valley.
Twelve years ago, in 1987, Bundy was among 25 local
stakeholders who formed the core of what is now called the S.B.
1086 Group. In that year Senate Bill 1086 was passed to
facilitate a consensus-based approach to restoration of the
upper Sacramento fisheries, which is habitat for 4 races of
chinook salmon.
As a result of that process, he said, some 20
recommendations for improving the operation of the river to
benefit fish runs were implemented, but the riparian
restoration called for in the plan languished until 1993, when
it was revived by Doug Wheeler, who was then California
Secretary of Resources.
Out of this process came the goal of restoring ``limited
meanders'' on this stretch of the Sacramento, wherever
practically feasible.
``It's taken some time for all these stakeholders to agree
to the limited meander concept, but people now realize its a
win/win,'' said Sam Lawson, who is Sacramento River project
director for The Nature Conservancy, the private non-profit
organization that purchased land along the Sacramento 10 years
ago as part of its on-going program to reestablish wetlands in
the Central Valley. ``We've worked hard to find practical
solutions that benefit everyone.''
The Nature Conservancy became part of the process when it
donated land it purchased here to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for inclusion in a wildlife refuge on the river. The
non-profit organization has long been a leader in the public/
private collaboration to reconnect the river to its flood
plain, a concept recently endorsed by the CALFED program in its
goal of sustainable resource management.
Restoring meanders to selective stretches of the Sacramento
will reconnect the flood plain, said Lawson, thus creating a
healthier ecosystem and improving wildlife habitat. But the
benefits don't stop there, he added. Meanders also provide
flood control by both absorbing the river's energy and slowing
down rushing water. And they offer superior in-stream storage
in times of high water.
This ``geologic'' approach to flood control, he said, is
far superior to man-made structures like levees, because these
natural features improve with time, due to the cumulative
effect of natural processes, whereas levees must be
continuously maintained, repaired, and replaced.
The restoration requires the sacrifice of some farmland
(mostly orchard acreage), but Lawson explained that the land
taken out of production is ``marginal land'' that is no longer
productive.
Because the restored meanders and reconnected flood plain
are limited to a corridor less than a mile wide--rather than
the 10-15 mile width of the original flood plain--farmers are
assured that the loss of farmland will be minimal. In addition,
the orchards selected to be replanted as riparian habitat are
already close to the end of their productive farming life.
The Nature Conservancy purchases available land from the
farmers, giving them the capital to reinvest in new orchard
property, then leases the land it bought back to the same
farmer, who continues to farm the best land of the acreage he
previously owned. The Conservancy also pays the farmer to
replant the acreage now designated as riparian habitat.
``It's a plan that makes sense--economic sense--for
everyone,'' said Lawson. ``It would actually cost the farmers
more to keep the levee system in place, or to deal with flood
damage to these marginal lands.''
Bundy agrees.
``Much of that land right next to the river shouldn't have
been planted in the first place,'' he said, adding that ready
access to river water, as well as the lure of fertile bottom-
land made sense in earlier times. But the continuing damages to
natural resources and the ecosystem are clearly not worth the
cost of such outdated farming practices, he said.
``We have yet to convince some landowners of this,'' he
added. ``But after 12 years of working together, Sacramento
farmers and conservationists are beginning to understand we
have more in common than we once thought.''
Both farmers and conservationists view urban and suburban
sprawl as a common threat that can only be contained by
unconventional alliances and practical mechanisms like those
worked out in this public/private partnership, he said.
Of the 20,000 acres of land authorized for a refuge on the
Sacramento River, 10,000 acres have already been acquired, and
of that, 1700 acres of marginal farmland have been restored to
riparian habitat.
``We have just closed up a block between two creeks that
will allow us to abandon about 3000 feet of levee,'' said
Lawson. ``This year alone we will restore another 850 acres of
riparian habitat.''
Lawson points out that the total cost of reclaiming the
ecosystem on this stretch of the Sacramento is approximately
$100 million, including both land acquisition and restoration--
not a high price to pay considering the Sacramento is the major
source of water for a large percentage of the state's
population, as well as being the home to a number of endangered
species, including winter run chinook, which are found no where
else on Earth.
``When you take all that into consideration,'' he said.
``It's a bargain--and an opportunity we can't afford to lose.''
Mr. Doolittle. The final witness in this panel is Dr.
Dennis King. Dr. King.
STATEMENT OF DENNIS KING, SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, UNIVERSITY
OF MARYLAND, CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, SOLOMONS
ISLAND, MARYLAND
Mr. King. Thank you. My name is Dennis King. I'm senior
research scientist at the University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science, and direct that Center's Natural Capital
Research Group. I am also managing owner of a consulting firm,
King & Associates, where we specialize in natural resource
accounting and environmental assessment and mitigation trade
scoring.
A great deal of my research, consulting and teaching
involves the economic aspects of environmental restoration. I'm
currently working on projects related to wetland mitigation,
riparian buffer construction, prioritizing investments in
noxious weed eradication and fishery habitat problems. I'm also
writing a book for Columbia University Press entitled,
Economics of Ecological Restoration.
I currently live in Maryland, but until 10 years ago I was
a California resident. I also have family out there, so I have
some personal interest in the issue of California ecosysytem
restoration.
I'm here simply to encourage the use of clearly defined
investment indicators to prioritize and manage CALFED
ecological restoration investments and to recommend perhaps
that CALFED be managed as an exercise in what Wall Street
investors or businessmen would call integrated risk management.
My written testimony has some details on the differences
between investment indicators versus performance indicators.
The basic difference is that investment indicators are leading
indicators of success. The analogy on Wall Street would be the
criteria used to pick stocks which include risks and expected
financial returns, as opposed to the performance criteria,
which would pretty clearly be defined as the rate of return in
your investment.
The concept of integrated risk management is described in
more detail in my written testimony. It's really just a
practical way to implement adaptive ecosystem management. It
involves managing individual investments in ecosystem
restoration as part of a portfolio, managing those risks that
can be managed, carefully monitoring indicators of those risks
that are uncontrollable and, mostly importantly and most
difficult, responding quickly when risk factors change. This is
particularly difficult in the case of ecosystem restoration
which involves applications of technologies and science that
are relatively new; and subject to lots of vagaries related to
floods, droughts, fire, invasive species, water diversion and
so on.
I have arrived at this conclusion that using investment
criteria is more important than using performance criteria
based on three general experiences dealing with the failure of
ecosystem restoration which I think were a result of an
inability of restoration managers to lay out clear decision-
making criteria.
The first is related to Prince William Sound and the
aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill. There were billions of
dollars spent on restoration. It provided good public relations
for Exxon and for some regulators. It transferred a lot of
wealth to Alaska. It satisfied a public need to punish Exxon.
It did a lot of other things. However, in terms of a public
investment and restoration a lot of it was a waste and in some
cases it did more harm than good.
My second experience included 8 years on the Scientific
Committee of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. These
regional fishery councils are composed of scientists and
regional stakeholders. Over the last 20 years the scientists
have studied fish, and the stakeholders have liquidated them.
In that case, too, we in the process didn't provide good
investment criteria; and we basically allowed an industry to
liquidate a publicly owned asset and called it economic
production, even though the scientists and stakeholders were in
a regional organization and approved the decision. So that sort
of made me think again that we really need more public
investment criteria even though I completely understand the
need for stakeholder consensus and limits of benefit cost
analysis and so on.
The third experience is one I'm involved in right now,
which is scoring wetland mitigation trades and looking at the
cost and success of wetland mitigation projects. Like most
other environmental economists, I have been pushing for market-
based environmental solutions my entire career. But now what we
find is that when you're dealing with environmental goods where
the units of exchange and debit/credit criteria are vague, the
risks associated with these environmental trades are enormous.
So much so, that even scientists and people who have argued in
this context that all wetlands are unique and special and
wanted ad hoc negotiating criteria are beginning to beg for
clear debit/credit criteria. There is so much money and
political risk involved that in ad hoc negotiations scientists
and resource managers tend to lose.
Based on this experience, I have three recommendations for
CALFED. First is that it be viewed as an exercise in integrated
risk management. Again, that means considering the success of
the overall program, not just individual projects, and
providing incentives for project managers to take on the same
consideration.
To consider the sufficient conditions, not just necessary
conditions. It's very common for managers of restoration
projects to focus on creating the necessary condition that they
are responsible for without monitoring whether the other
necessary conditions are evolving. They should be encouraged to
blow the whistle on their own projects if the likelihood to
success gets so low that the money would be better diverted to
somewhere else.
It means rewarding people who manage those risks and
rewarding those people for monitoring risks that cannot be
managed and, most importantly, responding to those things. We
found in our review of restoration projects it's very
difficult.
Second, CALFED should use investment indicators to select
and manage projects. The stakeholder role, I know they're
enormously important, need to be managed to put preferences on
outcomes, not on investments. They're too complicated for
stakeholders to select.
Scientists can help define opportunities and constraints
and the need for projects to generate new information. But,
again, the management of these complex projects is too
complicated for scientists and involves more decision-making
under uncertainty than they prefer--Third, and perhaps most
importantly, is these indicators provide some cover for the
ecosystem restoration manager to manage for outcomes and to
minimize waste. What I'm finding in wetland mitigation is that
if there is a lot of squirm room in what success criteria are
used, the people trying to manage these projects have very
little justification or particular technical cover for stopping
wasteful projects.
And so I think, whether you call it adaptive ecosystem
management or integrated risk management, investment indicators
are needed to provide restoration managers with the ability to
deal with two very substantial challenges. One is the fact that
ecosystem restoration investments are enormously risky and
involve unavoidable risks that science is not going to be able
to reduce very much. Two, the fact that they result in benefits
that are very difficult to measure in conventional dollar terms
and may take many years to appear. We cannot demand the
impossible. Even if we can't guarantee that an investment will
suceed or has succeeded, we can certainly guarantee that we're
using all the best criteria for allocating our investments and
management risks.
There are eleven exhibits attached to my written testimony
which help clarify and expand some of these points, and I
welcome any questions. [See attached Exhibits.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.070
Mr. Doolittle. Dr. King, as you look at the CALFED
operation in the light of your experience, and I took note of
how difficult you indicated it was in some cases to actually
ascertain performance, but how do you think CALFED measures up,
based on your knowledge of these issues?
Dr. King. I have to say that I just this morning got a look
at the indicator draft, and I thought it was very thorough and
covered the conventional types of indicators. However, they're
basically performance indicators.
Occasionally, there will be an indicator listed there that
will say, for instance, a life requisite for a salmon might be
water quality, habitat and so on and so on. The difference
there is that if you're managing investments the hard choices
require you to say, we're improving this necessary condition
but we can only--that can only reach any meaningful goal if
these other necessary conditions exist. And if we have a 5-year
program and in the beginning of year one, one of the other
necessary conditions doesn't exist, the likelihood of success
changes, and we need to change our investment strategy.
Those are the kind of indicators, these risk indicators,
leading indicators of success and failure, which I think build
on what are in those indicators that represent primarily
scientific definitions of performance.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Let me throw this question out to the members of the panel
and see what your answer is. Many of you--all of you I think
have supported CALFED and indicated that it's doing good
things; and if you want to elaborate on that, I would invite
that. But I guess, conversely, what is it about CALFED that
isn't in your opinion going as it ought to go? Where could it--
where is it falling down or where does it need to improve?
Anybody want to take a stab at that?
Mr. Sprague. Mr. Chairman, I'll be bold and take a first
shot.
Mr. Doolittle. Okay. Mr. Sprague, for the record, is going
to volunteer his opinion. Good.
Mr. Sprague. You know, there is kind of a group of what
I'll call inside baseball players that have been following this
CALFED, and I would even include this Committee in that group.
But then there's a whole another sundry of people that are
outside, for example, my own board of directors that are
locally elected that really make the decisions and the
consumers that they supply with water. I don't think we have
collectively and I think we have to collectively take part of
that blame with CALFED. They have the wrong expectations of
what CALFED is going to deliver at the end of the day. They're
measuring the beef of the success in many instances in the
wrong way, and I think we need to work with CALFED and try to
get a broader understanding. For example----
Mr. Doolittle. I didn't understand something you said. You
said they're measuring the what for their success?
Mr. Sprague. They're measuring kind of ``Where's the beef''
in the whole effort.
Mr. Doolittle. Oh. That was Mondale's slogan, right?
``Where's the beef?''
Mr. Sprague. Yeah. I believe so. I learned it from a little
old lady in Pasadena.
Mr. Doolittle. Okay.
Mr. Sprague. But I think one of the difficulties that we
have right now is many of us are more used to EIRs and EISs
that come out that are very project oriented. So you're going
to put a pipeline in the ground, you're going to put a
reservoir in place, you're going to put a treatment plant in
place, you're going to put a bridge in place, so you're doing
an EIR in that fashion.
What we're really going to see coming out of this upcoming
document really is a foundation that we use then to build on
for the next 30 years. And my biggest fear is that, when this
EIR is released, our public is not going to see the beef in
that document and so, therefore, they're going to declare it a
failure.
And so I think somehow or other we collectively need to
work together to help them understand what the process is.
Let's get an EIR that gives us the foundation to do the
necessary permitting. And then when we go to the individual
projects that are necessary, those get dealt with in a separate
EIR document. So it's more of a public outreach issue than it
is a technical issue where they're bringing the stakeholders
together.
Mr. Doolittle. So you think they're falling down in not
doing enough public outreach.
Mr. Sprague. I think so.
Mr. Doolittle. Okay. Anybody else want to volunteer an
opinion?
Mr. Guy. Well, I'll----
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Guy.
Mr. Guy. [continuing] reaffirm--talked a little bit earlier
about both I think the impatience that you're starting to see
in the water user community that we're going to have some water
supply reliability and some real water supply reliability. I
just think that we need to make some things happen. And there
needs to be a balanced package where the water users see some
immediate benefit. Otherwise, I think people's patience is
going to grow very thin.
I also made some suggestions on the land acquisition side.
I think that that so far--there's been some shortfalls in that,
but I think we have seen some progress, and I think there's
some ways to get around that. But I think we need to work a lot
harder in that area.
Mr. Doolittle. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Dooley is recognized for his question.
Mr. Dooley. I guess on this land acquisition, I'm
struggling with this just a little bit. Mr. Guy, what problems
are you talking about that have already occurred?
Mr. Guy. Well, I think some of the--they come in a lot of
forms. But I think there's been a real feeling that the
counties particularly have not been involved in the process.
Mr. Dooley. But isn't this a voluntary sale? I mean, a
willing seller to a willing buyer? So if I'm a private
landowner and I want to participate in this program, I just
exercise my property rights and--I mean, is--are those being
infringed upon in any way?
Mr. Guy. Well, it is being well-premised on voluntary
sales. But the county, of course, typically has some land use
authority and has been granted that by the legislature. And
they have revenue issues, of course, that when you convert land
to habitat purposes there are some revenue losses that occur to
the county. And there's been some problems with in-lieu taxes
not being paid. I think those are legitimate concerns.
Mr. Dooley. Is that the issue? Because, as a farmer myself
and a property owner, if I choose to sell to this program, I
don't want the county or anyone else saying, no, I can't do it.
So I want to make sure we're defining the issues. Is the
problem, then, a lack of tax revenue that you're most concerned
with?
Mr. Guy. That's one piece of it, yes. I think you hit it
right on the head. I don't think anybody, at least that I'm
hearing, wants to stand in the way of a transaction. That's
not, I don't think, what anybody is saying.
The second piece of this is if you take, for example, some
riparian land and make it into setback levees or put trees in
the flood plains, what does this mean for existing diversions
for water supply? That can create some real problems whether
the diversion may get washed out, it may get silted up. That
poses some problems. And those issues really, I think, need to
be worked out. And so far have--there's really not been a
process to do that. I think there will be, though.
Mr. Dooley. Those are very valid points, and I appreciate
that.
Dr. Gleick, I appreciated your testimony. I guess, though,
a lot of the folks I represent which are south of the Delta are
concerned about whether or not we do have adequate supplies of
water. And where you're--your figures I do not contest. I think
they're accurate. But some of the concerns are even with the
upcoming PEIS is that there's some modeling that's been doing
there that would show just even on almost normal years or
slightly below normal years that there could be significant
reductions, very significant reductions to agriculture
contractors. I guess that's, you know, the concern that some of
us have is, you know, how do we ensure that we do have an
adequate supply of water that can maintain an agriculture base
even when we have these critically dry years? I don't know if
you have a comment on that.
Dr. Gleick. Well, I have been critical in the past of the
long-term water planning process in California, as many people
in this room know, in particular the way we project future
demand, the way we actually try and calculate what the demand
for water is going to be in the different sectors. There are
real problems there.
Having said that, I think the way to think about this is
not to separate out the different pieces but to think about it
in an integrated way. Our goal is not new storage. Our goal is
not individual pieces of this. Our goal is a safe and reliable
water supply for our users with a healthy environment.
And there are a whole series of tools that we have
available to us to achieve those goals; and they can only be
achieved, we think, in the way CALFED is trying to do it, by
bringing together all of the parties and thinking about the
alternatives.
And the Trinity River came up this morning. And I realize
no decision has been made about the Trinity River and
reallocations of water, but it's an interesting issue. Because
the assumption I think of some of the Committee members has
been that it's a win-lose situation. You take water out of the
Trinity--you put water back into the Trinity River and somebody
downstream in the Sacramento River is going to lose.
And I would like to suggest that, in fact, there might be
another way to think about that. To give you an example, if you
look at the Mono Lake situation, the decision was made, legally
to return water to the ecosystem. That meant many people
believed you lose water in Los Angeles. But the truth of it is
that when you get together with the users in Los Angeles and
you think about ways of meeting the ecosystem needs required by
law, without losing water for users or without losing what the
water provides, they were able to figure out ways of increasing
the efficiency of water use and providing the same level of
services.
So it was not a win-lose situation; it was a win-win
situation. And there are a lot of those. And I think in the
agricultural area in particular there are lot of them. I think
that's what we have to look for.
Mr. Dooley. And I think you're right, and I think we're
seeing some evidence of that to some extent. It's just--but
just even like in a year such as this where we've had 120
percent of rainfall in the--you know, the northern California
and, you know, the Westlands water district that I represent is
at 70 percent of allocation. Their concern and, I guess,
willingness to accept that, you know, we--even with the Trinity
decision and other decisions that take more water out of the
system, you know, they don't have a whole lot of confidence
that I guess that this thing can be, you know--that that can be
replaced. But I think you're right about the process in terms
of that's the best way to deal with it is in its totality.
Dr. Gleick. I also don't dispute your point. In a very dry
year, in which--I mean, California has dry years. It's a
regular part of our system. Not every user is going to get all
of the water they might demand. And that's always been true,
and it's going to be true in the future. And the question is,
how do you reallocate during dry years to meet the needs you
really want? And there are economic ways of doing that, and
there are regulatory ways of doing that, and it's got to be in
a balanced, discussed approach.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Miller is recognized.
Mr. Miller. Thank you.
Dr. Gleick, let me follow up on your first discussion on
the Trinity River. Would you care to expand on why you think
this might not be a win-lose situation?
Dr. Gleick. I raise that only as an idea to think about.
Obviously, no decision has been made about how much water might
have to be reallocated into the Trinity or where that water is
going to come from. But downstream in the Sacramento River
there are many users, urban and agriculture users; and there is
enormous potential, we believe, for improving the efficiency
with which those users use their water. That may reduce their
long-term demand. I think the potential is quite significant to
reduce long-term demand and still meet the needs with less
water.
Now, if that's part of the decision, you decide how much
water can be reallocated for ecosystem needs at the same time
you're figuring out where that water is coming from, I think
that's what you have to do. But I can't speak specifically to--
--
Mr. Miller. I just--I didn't know if you had something
particular in mind. I agree with you that there is a lot of
alternatives to be explored in terms of whether or not people
end up actually using, as you say, the purposes for which the
water was delivered. There's other ways to do it.
Let me take you back to your discussion some months ago on
the question of Bulletin 160. What has been done to address
some of the concerns that you raised with respect to this
demand that would be driven by this bulletin and the
assumptions that were made in the bulletin?
Dr. Gleick. Umm----
Mr. Miller. When I say what has been done, I'm asking about
in the CALFED process.
Dr. Gleick. Let me address two pieces. The comments we made
and continue to make about Bulletin 160 to the Department of
Water Resources addressed the assumptions and the methods and
the data they used to project future demand in California. And
our conclusion then and today was that their assumptions about
future demand are very much wrong, that their methods are
wrong, their data are wrong, their assumptions are wrong. The
final Bulletin 160-98 did not adequately, in my opinion,
address the errors in the draft.
Now, CALFED in its first draft--we were asked by the Bureau
of Reclamation to do an independent assessment of their water
use efficiency numbers. In the first round, they pretty much
assumed the same things Bulletin 160 assumed. They adopted the
assumptions, they adopted the data. I would have to say even in
their first draft they did somewhat of a better job than did
the Department of Water Resources.
And, in addition, after receiving our comments and other
people's comments, I think the CALFED staff has made a very
serious effort to understand the nature of the problems in
Bulletin 160 and to try and correct them.
My feeling, based on what I have seen of the latest
version, is that they have still not adequately completely
addressed this problem of projecting future demand, with the
result being that I think they are still overestimating 2020
demand in California. But they are technical issues that I find
them open to discuss. I find them open to trying to resolve
some of these issues.
Mr. Miller. I raise that because in conversations after
your initial criticisms and concerns with the Bulletin and its
estimates of demand, with the number of people--because I think
that it's absolutely crucial that this point get cleared up.
I'm not suggesting how or what the conclusion is. But if at
some point we envision ourselves going to the taxpayers and
asking for very substantial amounts of money, and this is still
an ambiguity or certainly the criticism remain credible, that
we're sizing the system for demand that is not there. I think
you are going to have a lot of difficulty in that measure if
you then have opponents to that measure who can use that
argument. Because usually those kinds of questions which are
deeply imbedded with economic decisions don't do well when
they're raised inside the debate on a bond issue or such an
effort.
So, you know, I don't know whether people want to hold on
to these assumptions or you indicate that you think there's
some honest review going on here, and I find that very
encouraging. Because I think if that doesn't happen, this can
be fatal to what some people envision will be part of this
process, which is a substantial bond issue to fund these
projects. But if the basis of which those decisions are made is
flawed, I suspect you--it would not take a lot of effort to
discourage voters from voting for that bond issue. So I'm glad
to hear that you suggest that there is some correction and some
ongoing discussion about these matters but apparently not yet
completely resolved.
Dr. Gleick. Ultimately, the California water plan is the
Bulletin 160 process. And I think that process is broken, and I
think it needs to be fixed.
There was a meeting yesterday at the Department in
Sacramento on Bulletin 160, and the next one which will be in
2003. I don't think we can believe the current Bulletin 160-98
demand productions. I think they're not useful for policy
making. And I agree entirely with your point if we are planning
for a demand that either isn't going to materialize or doesn't
have to materialize with relatively inexpensive, relatively
simple measures, we could be making very expensive mistakes.
Mr. Miller. Well, I just notice that Mr. Gartrell's
testimony in the next panel, you know he talks about the fact
that in Contra Costa, in the congressional district I
represent, the water district, their service area has declined
almost 15 percent since 1990, despite a substantial population
growth, is--currently is about 25,000 acre feet annually below
the level it would have been if he had just taken 1990 and run
it out. You know--and I don't know what's going on in other
water districts or other users of any kind. But, again, you
know, before you're able to go to the taxpayers and ask for
hard dollars, I think you better have the justifications for
that based upon solid and correct evidence.
Dr. Gleick. That trend is not unique. In my testimony, I
provide data for Los Angeles, for San Diego, the East Bay
Municipal Utilities, every water district showing continued
population growth and leveling off of total demand and a
decline in per capita water use.
Mr. Miller. I some time ago met with a group of bankers in
San Francisco to talk about water in California and about the
questions of long-term contracts, water marketing and pricing
and all the rest of it. And after long, long discussions their
conclusion was that if, you know, if you had a real water
market in the State you'd probably have a substantial surplus
of water and not terribly high-priced water, not the estimates
that you see that are as wild as they suggested.
I don't know if they're right or not, but their economic
model suggested to them that there were a lot of ways to manage
demand and deal with it. And the question of how far out they
would be driven that aren't consistent with just this, you
know, glide path that suggests that you're never really going
to be able to catch up to it with supply was sort of the story
we first heard about energy.
When I first came on this Committee, if we didn't build a
thousand nuclear power plants the country was going to go
black. All the lights would be turned out. That went on here
for almost a decade. Obviously, we find the story of
electricity is entirely different than that.
Thank you very much for your help.
And, Mr. Kaniewski, let me say Max would be proud of you
today. It was sterling testimony.
Mr. Kaniewski. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. You're welcome. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Mr. McCormick, after I concluded it was pointed out to me
that you were about to answer my question, I guess, which was
where is CALFED falling down or where could it improve. Did you
want to take a stab at that?
Mr. McCormick. Yeah, thank you very much. Not so much
falling down but some areas to pay attention to.
Although a significant amount of money has been awarded for
the ecosystem restoration program, the process for getting that
money spent is cumbersome, and I think it hasn't caught up,
really, with the demand, and it's a consequence of a number of
agencies trying to manage the process. I think a single
contracting entity would help enormously. I also----
Mr. Doolittle. Let me just ask, so you're recommending a
single contracting entity. How many contracting entities do we
have now?
Mr. McCormick. Well, there are the State contracts and
Federal agencies' contracts and sort of borrowing staff, as it
were, from those various agencies.
Mr. Doolittle. Okay. Dr. Gleick, I find your testimony
interesting and useful in the way you've laid out the
remarkable strides made with conservation in those examples for
LA water demand, but, in general, you make that point very
effectively.
One thing I have wondered about, we're going increasingly
towards permanent crops now. Well, I think in the San Joaquin
Valley--maybe that trend is in the Sacramento Valley. But, in
any event, there is some trend toward that which I guess may
use less water than field crops but which demand water every
year without having the ability to not use it in a given year.
How do--as you see meeting our water needs, how do you think we
should address that situation?
Dr. Gleick. You're right. There is that trend. Figure 2 in
my written testimony shows that trend. I also agree that that
trend means some of those crops are going to need water with a
higher level of reliability.
Now, I think that's an interesting issue. I think it hasn't
adequately been addressed, and I think there's a real
legitimate discussion that needs to happen about how to
guarantee higher levels of reliability for certain kinds of
crops. And I don't know whether that's an--economic measures
are appropriate for that or some sort of regulatory measure,
which I'm a little reluctant to recommend. I do think it's
valid.
California's cropping patterns are still--I mean, the vast
majority of the acreage is still in grains and field crops, and
that I think still has enormous potential for--all of the crops
still have potential for improving the efficiency for which
they use water. And that--I mean, there are different ways of
doing that. One is, you reduce the amount of water to grow a
certain amount of crops or you keep the amount of water
constant and you grow more crops. The productivity of the farms
goes up. Those are all relevant issues that need to be
discussed.
Mr. Doolittle. So are you of the opinion that the potential
for further conservation in the urban areas is still
substantial or do you feel maybe they've just about reached
their potential to conserve?
Dr. Gleick. I think they have nowhere near reached their
potential to conserve. I think the potential in urban areas is
still enormous. And that includes not just doing what we do
more efficiently but there's also enormous potential for much
more widespread use of reclaimed recycled water. There is even,
in our case, studies, examples of reclaimed water being used
for agricultural use. And that's a very reliable source of
supply, that you will get that water in drought years as well
as wet years. So that's--I think that's an interesting issue
that is also--I mean, there are examples already under way. I
think it needs to be more widely looked at.
Mr. Doolittle. Examples of agricultural reuse?
Dr. Gleick. Sure. Now, that water tends to be relatively
more expensive. You want to use it--it's got to be relatively
close to where it's been reclaimed because you can't move it
very far. But there are already examples of farms in rural or
areas near urban areas using reclaimed water.
Mr. Doolittle. Would you just as a supplement to your
testimony today, if you have this available, forward that to
the Committee?
Dr. Gleick. Sure. In the executive summary of the case
studies we have, there are brief descriptions. I will leave
with you the full report which has the detailed case studies as
well.
Mr. Doolittle. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Sprague, did you want to comment?
Mr. Sprague. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One of the things that we have to keep in mind as we move
forward with conservation particularly in urban areas, we can
do much more, but one of the things that is very critical to us
is water quality. As we get a poor quality water, once you move
that water through the domestic cycle once, you may not be able
to have the second use. So the better we can receive as far as
a source water quality, this is going to give us second uses
and even third uses of that reclaimed water. So water quality
plays a very high role in long-term water use efficiency,
particularly in the areas of conservation in the urban areas.
Earlier this morning we were talking--the Secretary was
talking about conjunctive use and groundwater efforts. There
are a great number of opportunities for conjunctive use of
groundwater basins. But just in Orange County, we are
experiencing problems there. In effect, Colorado River water
that's brought into southern California can't be discharged
even onto crops, in theory, or onto land because it exceeds the
basin plan.
However, we have come up with strategies to overcome some
of that. So salinity issue as an element of water quality is
extremely important for success in the area of conservation,
and I know it's an extreme importance to agriculture. So
there's a clear partnership there, and I believe it has the
same impacts on agriculture as it relates to conservation as
well.
Mr. Doolittle. Gentlemen, I thank you for your appearance
before the Committee. The testimony has been very useful. We
may have further questions. We'll keep the record open to
receive your responses. And, with that, we'll excuse this
panel.
I would just like to announce that, contrary to what I had
announced previously, apparently we are supposed to have one
more vote. So I don't know when that is going to happen, but I
guess we'll just roll on through until it does.
We'll invite our third and final panel to come forward and
begin the discussion of CVPIA.
We welcome the members of our third panel. Let me ask you
to rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Doolittle. Let the record reflect that each answered in
the affirmative. And I thank you very much for your patience
and joining us today for this important hearing where we'll now
focus more on the Central Valley Improvement Project Act.
We will begin with our Secretary--oh, Miss Beneke is
available to answer questions. So we'll begin with Mr. Gregory
Gartrell. Mr. Gartrell, welcome.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY GARTRELL, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT, CONCORD, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Gartrell. Thank you very much, Chairman Doolittle,
members of the Committee. It's a pleasure to be here this
afternoon.
I'm going to briefly summarize the text that I submitted.
I'm representing Contra Costa Water District. Contra Costa
Water District has been a supporter the CVPIA and its goals
from the beginning. In fact, the District was the first to
renegotiate its own CVP contract under the CVPIA and has
already incorporated many of the provisions within its
contract.
Contra Costa Water District represents and serves about
400,000 customers in eastern and central Contra Costa County,
including 10 major industries. About a third of our demand is
industrial. We are the largest municipal and industrial CVP
contractor. We're entirely dependent on the Delta for our water
supplies and have a long history of a strong commitment to
water quality and the environment in the Delta.
I'm going to hit just a few of the issues in my summary. I
would be happy to answer questions on any of them.
The first one I would like to touch upon is the contract
renewal issue. The Contra Costa Water District and other urban
CVP contractors are very concerned at the moment about the
shortage provisions that are being envisioned within the PEIS
for the CVPIA. We are now looking at shortages up to 50 percent
for urban areas.
Previously, the maximum shortage level was down to a 75
percent supply under the urban reliability paper of the
Garamendi process. Our current contract calls for an 85 percent
supply except under the most extreme droughts, 75 percent. The
50 percent supply is simply well below the limits that are
needed to sustain health and safety and would result in major
economic disruption. For example, in our district, 30 percent
of the supply--approximately 30 percent of our supply goes to
industrial use, or, of our current demand of 120,000 acre feet,
about almost 40,000 acre feet.
A 50 percent cutback down to 60,000 acre feet would result
in a choice of either cutting off the major industries--and
these include refineries for Shell and Tosco and others, Dow
Chemical, U.S. Steel-Posco, or putting the full burden on our
other customers, the municipal customers, which would leave
them, out of a normal demand of about 80,000 acre feet, down to
about 20,000 acre feet, well below that needed for a simple
toilet flushing and usual health and safety measures that are
needed.
So we are very concerned about this coming forward at this
late time in the PEIS process. We think they are not going to
leave that just with that. We believe there are solutions that
need to be worked out with Reclamation, and the Department of
the Interior.
There are a number of assumptions going into these studies
that are being made that have not been well examined. I think a
number of those need reconsideration. But, most importantly, I
think the process of the CVPIA needs to be tied closely to
CALFED to address the impacts that are coming out. This is
going to be a theme throughout my discussion, that it is, I
think, very important for both the CVPIA and CALFED to be
moving together towards a regional solution for the State.
The second issue is related to (b)(2), as mentioned
previously today. This is a very contentious and technically
difficult issue. The 800,000 acre feet is now embroiled in a
lawsuit. We are very concerned that this not get into a death
spiral of lawsuits which could easily affect CALFED and other
water issues.
We suggest that the Federal Negotiated Rulemaking Act may
be one solution to this, the 1990 Act which provides for a
binding consensus building on which that rule is based. This
would be an ideal situation, I think, in which to use that Act
to get stakeholders in the room and work out a solution on the
accounting for the 800,000 acre feet.
Another item of concern is tiered pricing, also mentioned
earlier today. This is one area where one size does not fit
all. In particular, tiered pricing can be used, if not
carefully put together, to penalize those who seek to take more
water in the CVP in wet years, store it and then use that to
reduce their burden on the CVP in dry years. If you're in a
situation like ours where Contra Costa is well below our full-
contract amount, by taking more in a wet year and storing it
you could be end up paying in the higher tiers and end up with
an overall financial penalty.
The other problem is the high fixed costs of the CVP. We're
finding that the more we conserve the higher our rate goes, so
that the financial benefits of conservation don't accrue at 100
percent. This is the something that Reclamation and Interior
are going to have to implement very carefully.
Finally, with respect to the PEIS and the CVPIA, we all
know the PEIS is very late. It has still a number of issues to
resolve with respect to baseline ensuring that impacts are
fully disclosed, and it is showing some serious impacts that
are significant with respect to endangered species, in
particular to winter run. We're very concerned about the
studies that are showing Shasta levels at very, very low levels
at the same time agricultural users are getting no water
supply, urban areas are getting a 50 percent supply. It's not
clear that that's an implementable solution with respect to
winter run.
Probably the single most important thing we have done for
winter run in raising their numbers from a few hundred a couple
of years ago into the thousands now has been having a good
supply of cold water in Shasta. Lowering Shasta to very low
levels will put that in jeopardy.
Again, I think the solution here is an integration of these
issues with CALFED. It was mentioned earlier by Secretary
Babbitt that they're both moving down--both CALFED and the
CVPIA are moving in the same direction. Our concern, I guess,
is it is almost like two big trains moving on parallel tracks.
You look down the line there, you're not quite sure whether
those tracks intersect or not. If they do and they are not well
timed and well coordinated, you're going to have a big
collision. And we would like to ensure that those trains end up
on the same track pulling each other along.
Again, the--for a number of issues with respect to CALFED
and the CVPIA, related to 404 permits, the ESA, the Anadromous
Fish Restoration Program--and the general assurances may again
lend themselves to a discussion and a resolution through the
Negotiated Rulemaking Act. Other issues certainly will not. But
I think the focus now should really be put on the Record of
Decision where all of these issues have the opportunity to come
together.
And that concludes the summary of my statement.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gartrell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.082
Mr. Doolittle. Our next witness is Mr. Barry Nelson.
STATEMENT OF BARRY NELSON, SENIOR FELLOW, SAVE THE SAN
FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Barry Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Barry Nelson, and I am a Senior Fellow
with Save the Bay. I've been active in the CVPIA since its
inception and also am very active in the CALFED process.
I would like to summarize a few points in my written
testimony and then pick up a few threads that we have heard
earlier today that link CVPIA and CALFED. The CVPIA is a very
ambitious piece of legislation, and it's certainly--and
implementing such far-reaching pieces of legislation takes
time. This Act, however, is taking more time certainly than we
thought it would. But the CVPIA was passed because it would
strengthen, we believe, the State's economy and environment. We
think that's proving to be the case.
We also think that the CVPIA--that the untold story of the
CVPIA is that, in some areas, it's generating substantial
benefits for multiple interests and that many of those benefits
in particular are for the agricultural community.
I would like to summarize briefly five points in my written
testimony, then pick up another point.
The first is that the CVPIA we believe laid the groundwork
both for the Bay-Delta Accord and for the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program. Without the CVPIA, frankly, we don't see how those two
efforts would have come together, and that together those three
very important processes really are succeeding in changing the
way California addresses water and environmental issues and
manages both of those problems. It's an extremely encouraging
development.
The second is that, despite a great deal of contention
regarding particularly (b)(2) but some other members--some
other provisions of the CALFED, the CVPIA program, a tremendous
amount of progress is being made in the CALFED ecosystem, the
CVPIA--I'm sorry, Ecosystem Restoration Program. And to give
two examples of that, first, in implementing the CVPIA
restoration fund we've seen some substantial contributions that
some other members of earlier panels have discussed. But I
would like to emphasize here that many of those expenditures
have benefited far more than the environment. There have been
substantial beneficiaries in the agricultural community and
particularly in the power community. So there really have been
multiple benefits from the CVPIA restoration funds.
Progress, unfortunately, has been much slower on
implementing (b)(2), 3406(b)(2), the 800,000 acre foot
provision. We have finally a week ago started seeing some of
the (b)(2) water implemented in the Delta for Delta measures.
We think this is just a start. We think, frankly, that
Interior's plans to date don't meet the requirements of the law
or the requirements of the recent Federal court decision in
Fresno. But we have at least begun implementation now of
3406(b)(2).
Third, there are some sections of the CVPIA that were
originally seen as controversial and were being described as
theoretical. And some of those areas are still controversial,
areas such as land retirement and transfers, but what I think
has changed in the last six and a half years is that many of
those areas are now being adopted on the ground. There's still
a policy debate going on, but if you look at what's happening
on the ground we're seeing that the ideas in the CVPIA are
being embraced on the ground today.
Two examples of that: Water transfers. There's been a lot
of concern from the agricultural community regarding the
potential impacts of water transfers on agriculture. The flip
side of that is that the lessons of the six and a half years
have shown benefits to agriculture from transfers. The Bureau,
since the CVPIA was passed, has approved 1.57 million acres of
transfers; and the vast majority of those have been ag water
districts to ag water districts. And within districts there
have been many, many additional examples of those kinds of
transfers.
The other example is land retirement, where there's now an
ambitious land retirement program within agriculture itself.
I see that my yellow light is flashing. I'll move on to my
fourth point, and that is the connection between the Trinity
River and CALFED. What we're seeing there is that it's easy to
promise environmental benefits from new water facilities, and
that was done 40 years ago on the Trinity. It's very difficult
to make those benefits real. We need to look at the lesson of
the Trinity and make sure we don't make that same mistake again
with regard to CALFED.
My fifth point for my testimony is with regard to the role
of Federal funding. The CVPIA provided water and funding, and a
lot of that funding--not all of it--but a lot of that funding
was user dollars, user fees for ecosystem restoration.
Proposition 204 and Federal funding have brought substantial
public resources into that debate, and they're critical to
enable us to keep moving forward, not just for ecosystem
restoration but water supply as well. And the next step in that
is for CALFED to integrate those and bring in user fees for the
non-CVP water users in the State who currently aren't
contributing to the environmental solutions out there.
Just very briefly to pick up a thread, Mr. Chairman, that
some other panelists and you have discussed, and that is the
questions regarding measures of success, performance
objectives, specific goals, fiscal accountability in the
ecosystem program. There's been a lot of discussion of that. I
think it's an appropriate discussion.
What I would like to suggest is that we need to have that
same discussion with regard to CALFED's water supply
reliability program and that the lessons of the ecosystem
program are very applicable to water supply. And, frankly, when
it comes to measurable objectives and so forth, the ecosystem
program is ahead of water supply reliability. And we think what
CALFED needs to move towards is not simply a gross measure of
additional water developed--and I would agree with Peter
Gleick's comments regarding that--but to measure cost
effectiveness, real benefits to water users not just in acre
foot terms but real benefits to water users and compatibility
with an ecosystem restoration program. We think if we can get
the same kind of scrutiny for the water supply reliability
program that we have seen for the ecosystem program, we think
CALFED can make a tremendous amount of progress.
And I would like to close with just one general
observation, and that is that the premise of the CVPIA was that
the CVP has been in place for 50 years and that since
California's water needs have changed dramatically during that
time that the operating rules of the CVP needed to change.
I think what we've seen in the last six and a half years,
not just with CVPIA but Bay-Delta Accord and CALFED as well, is
that that premise is absolutely true and we are changing the
way we do business in California.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.097
Mr. Doolittle. Our next witness will be the Honorable Merv
George, Jr.
Mr. George.
STATEMENT OF HON. MERV GEORGE, JR., CHAIRMAN, HOOPA TRIBE,
HOOPA, CALIFORNIA
Mr. George. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. On behalf of the entire Hoopa Valley Indian
Reservation it's a pleasure to be here before you today.
As it was stated, my name is Merv George, Jr.; and I am the
tribal chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe; and I am prepared to
testify on the Trinity River.
The Hupa people have occupied the Hoopa Valley, the site of
our reservation, since time immemorial. The Trinity River,
which traverses the Hoopa Valley, is the lifeblood of our
culture, religion and economy. Everything we are and do as a
people is oriented to the Trinity River.
My testimony today is intended also to give voice to our
friends and neighboring communities who more often than not
have not--or who have been overlooked in the great debates over
California's priceless water resources.
The Trinity River is the only source of imported water to
the Central Valley. In 1955, Congress authorized construction
of the Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project. In
order to protect the fish and wildlife of the Trinity River
Basin, Congress specifically limited the Secretary's discretion
to divert water to the Central Valley by requiring that in-
basin flows needed for the Trinity River take precedence over
uses to be served in the Central Valley.
Between 1964 and 1996, the Bureau of Reclamation diverted
31,780,400 acre feet of Trinity water to the Central Valley
with devastating effects on Trinity River fish and wildlife.
The river we had known for thousands of years transformed
itself in less than a decade following completion of the
Trinity River Division. Gone were its broad, braided channel
with well-washed gravels for spawning. Gone were its pools,
shallows, and shade for juvenile rearing. Gone were the
velocity, volume and frequency of flows essential to fish
migration and to maintain the dynamic equilibrium of a living
river and its riparian ecology. And, more importantly, gone
also are the days when my people could fish as they always have
without the threat of their harvest being reduced because of an
endangered species listing.
None of this was intended or foreseen by project planners.
The politicians promised that not a bucket of water needed in
the Trinity River basin would be exported to the Central
Valley. Others testified of their expectation that construction
of the Trinity River Division would actually improve the
Trinity River fishery and that the hatchery built at the base
of Lewiston Dam would fully mitigate the loss of upstream
habitat.
Today, most Trinity River fish populations are either
listed, proposed for listing, or under status review for
listing under the Endangered Species Act. For example, the
Trinity River coho salmon was listed as a threatened species in
May of 1997. The Trinity River steelhead is a candidate for
listing, and the Trinity River chinook is under status for
review. From my tribe's perspective, extinction of fish species
or their mere recovery to some minimum population is not an
option.
The Hoopa Valley tribe has worked closely with the
Department of the Interior on the Trinity River flow evaluation
report and associated recommendations by co-authoring them with
the Fish and Wildlife Service. Please note our appreciation for
the cooperation and consultation of the California Department
of Fish and Game, the geological survey, the Bureau of
Reclamation and the National Marine Fisheries Service in the
preparation of the report and recommendations.
We are pleased that the report and recommendations have
been completed as required by the CVPIA. We are informed that
the report and recommendations will be published by the
Department next week. The report and recommendations provide
for an increase of releases to the Trinity River from the
Trinity River Division. The increased releases would bring the
diversions from the Trinity River to the Central Valley in line
with the volumes of water originally contemplated for use in
the Central Valley by the Bureau of Reclamation in its 1952
ultimate plan report and by the committees of Congress when the
project was authorized in 1955.
It is important to note that the report and recommendations
still provide for the lion's share of Trinity River to be
diverted to the Central Valley. The law of the Trinity River is
clear that the current condition of the Trinity River fishery
was never intended to occur. The best available science we have
incorporated into the report and recommendations demonstrates
that the condition need not continue.
Finally, we urge you to support appropriation of sufficient
funding to meet the restoration goals as well as the Federal
trust responsibilities to the Indian reserve rights in the
Trinity River fishery.
In conclusion, every Interior Secretary and every
Congressman from the first district, irrespective of party
affiliation, has recognized the need to fulfill the original
promise of the Trinity River Division for the north coast. I
ask that from this day forward the north coast no longer be
considered the forgotten region of California but be remembered
as the home of a just people who shared their river without
sacrifice.
Thank you. And I will answer any questions when the time is
appropriate.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. George follows:]
Statement of Mervin George, Jr., Chairman, Hoopa Valley Tribe
Chairman Doolittle and members of the Subcommittee, on
behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, thank you for inviting me to
participate in today's hearing. You have asked that my
testimony address the implementation of the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575 Title XXXIV
(October 30, 1992) (CVPIA), particularly with regard to the
Trinity River provision in subsection 3406(b)(23).
The Trinity River rises in the Trinity Alps region of
California's Coast Range and flows to its confluence with the
Klamath River and then to the Pacific Ocean. For the last 60
miles of their course to the sea, the waters of the Trinity
River traverse the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Indian reservations.
The Hupa people have occupied the Hoopa Valley, the site of our
reservation, since time immemorial; scientists have been able
to date our presence back as far as 10,000 years. The Trinity
River is the life blood of our culture, religion and economy.
Everything we are and do as a people is oriented to the Trinity
River.
In the last 150 years, California's population and economy
have grown and expanded into the North Coast region. Today, the
Trinity River remains not only essentially important to the
Hoopa Valley, Yurok, and Karuk Indian Tribes, but also to the
commercial and sport fishing industry, recreation and tourism
businesses, and the towns and cities throughout Humboldt,
Trinity and Del Norte Counties. So while I am here today
officially on behalf of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, my testimony is
intended also to give voice to our friends and neighboring
communities who more often than not have been overlooked in the
great debates over California's priceless water resources.
The Trinity River is the only source of imported water to
the Central Valley. In 1955 Congress authorized construction of
the Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project (CVP).
In order to protect the fish and wildlife of the Trinity River
basin, Congress specifically limited the Secretary's discretion
to divert water to the Central Valley by requiring that in-
basin flows needed for the Trinity River take precedence over
uses to be served in the Central Valley. This special ``area of
origin'' protection for the Trinity River in Federal law is in
addition to state county of origin restrictions on export of
Trinity River water to the Central Valley.
The Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes have reserved rights in
the Trinity River fishery that have been affirmed by the
Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce, and
upheld by the courts. In addition, the CVPIA Trinity River
provision includes an express declaration of the Federal trust
responsibilities to protect the fishery resources of the Hoopa
Valley Tribe. It is a well-established principle of Federal
Indian law that secretarial discretion is limited by trust
responsibilities for Indian resources. The trust responsibility
operates in this case to reinforce the Secretary's obligation
to operate the Trinity River Division for the benefit of fish
and wildlife in the Trinity River.
Between 1964 and 1996 the Bureau of Reclamation diverted
31,780,400 acre-feet of Trinity River water to the Central
Valley with devastating effects on Trinity River fish and
wildlife. The river we had known for thousands of years
transformed itself in less than a decade following completion
of the Trinity River Division. Gone were its broad, braided
channel with well-washed gravels for spawning. Gone were its
pools, shallows, and shade for juvenile rearing. Gone were the
velocity, volume, and frequency of flows essential to fish
migration and to maintain the dynamic equilibrium of a living
river and its riparian ecology. Upstream of the project, the
destruction was absolute: Fish passage to 109 river miles of
prime fish habitat was barred forever.
None of this was intended or foreseen by project planners.
The politicians promised that not a bucket of water needed in
the Trinity River basin would be exported to the Central
Valley. Others testified of their expectation that construction
of the Trinity River Division would actually improve the
Trinity River fishery and that the hatchery built at the base
of Lewiston Dam would fully mitigate the loss of upstream
habitat.
The construction and operation of the Trinity River
Division have devastated the ecology of the Trinity River, as
well as the customs, traditions, and culture of the Hoopa
Valley, Yurok, and Karuk Tribes, and the economies of the North
Coast communities. Most Trinity River fish populations are
either listed, proposed for listing or under status review for
listing under the Endangered Species Act. For example, the
Trinity River coho salmon was listed as a threatened species in
May, 1997; the Trinity River steelhead is a candidate for
listing; and the Trinity River chinook is under status review.
From my Tribe's perspective, extinction of fish species, or
their mere recovery to some minimum population is not an
option.
By the end of the 1970s the adverse effects on the fishery
were clear and Congress and the Secretary of the Interior took
the first steps toward fulfilling the promise--and the legal
mandate--that no harm would come to the Trinity River fish and
wildlife from construction of the Trinity River Division:
1979--The Interior Department Solicitor confirms the precedence
of water for Trinity River fish and wildlife over diversions to
the Central Valley under Federal law.
1980--The Trinity River Stream Rectification Act is enacted to
address sediment accumulation in the absence of flushing flows.
Public Law 96-335.
1981--Interior Department Secretary Andrus directs increased
releases to the Trinity River from the Trinity River Division
in the amount of 340,000 acre-feet annually in years of normal
water supply. (This amount, although an increase, represents
the third lowest volume on record for the Trinity River at
Lewiston which dates from 1912; in effect, the water available
under severe drought conditions). The Secretary also orders a
long term-study to assess the water requirements of the
fishery.
1984--The Trinity River Restoration Act (Public Law 98-541) is
enacted which establishes restoration goals to ensure
preservation and propagation of fish and wildlife in order to
restore them to, and maintain them at, ``levels approximating
those which existed immediately before the start of
construction'' of the Trinity River Division.
1991--Interior Secretary Lujan directs that not less than
340,000 acre-feet of water be released to the Trinity River for
fishery purposes in all water year types pending the conclusion
of the long-term study originally ordered by Secretary Andrus.
1992--The CVPIA is enacted, including the Trinity River
provision (section 3406(b)(23)) which: confirms the
administrative decision to release not less than 340,000 acre-
feet annually pending completion of the study; mandates the
completion of the study based on the best available scientific
information; requires development of recommendations for
permanent in stream fishery releases; if the Secretary and the
Hoopa Valley Tribe concur in the recommendations, requires that
they be implemented accordingly; and makes the costs of
implementation reimbursable as operation and maintenance
expenditures pursuant to existing law.
1996--The Trinity River Restoration Act is amended and extended
(Public Law 104-143). The restoration goal is revised
explicitly to achieve ````mitigation of fish habitat loss above
Lewiston Dam while not impairing efforts to restore and
maintain naturally reproducing anadromous fish stocks within
the basin.'' The Act also adopts the goal of the ``resumption
of commercial, including ocean harvest, and recreational
fishing activities.'' In addition, funding requests are
authorized for the purpose of monitoring, evaluating and
maintaining program investments in fish and wildlife
populations.
The Hoopa Valley Tribe has worked closely with the Department of
the Interior on the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Report and associated
recommendations by coauthoring them with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Please note our grateful appreciation for the cooperation and
consultation of the California Department of Fish and Game, the
Geological Survey, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service in the preparation of the Report and recommendations.
We are pleased that the Report and recommendations have been completed
as required by the CVPIA. We are informed that the Report and
recommendations will be published by the Department next week.
Thereafter the Report and recommendations will be forwarded to the
Resources Committee and the Senate Indian Affairs and Energy and
Natural Resources Committees as required by the CVPIA.
The Report and recommendations provide for an increase of releases
to the Trinity River from the Trinity River Division. The increased
releases would bring the diversions from the Trinity River to the
Central Valley in line with the volumes of water originally
contemplated for use in the Central Valley by the Bureau of Reclamation
in its 1952 Ultimate Plan Report and by the Committees of Congress when
the project was authorized in 1955. It is important to note that the
Report and recommendations still provide for the lion's share of
Trinity River water to be diverted to the Central Valley.
The law is clear that the current condition of the Trinity River
fishery was never intended to occur. The best available science we have
incorporated into the Report and recommendations demonstrates that that
condition need not persist.
Finally, we are committed to ensuring that the Administration
requests and the Congress appropriates sufficient funds to meet the
mandates in existing law for restoration of the Trinity River, as well
as for the future implementation of the recommendations in the Report.
Sufficient funding is essential to meet the restoration goals, as well
as the Federal trust responsibilities to the Indian reserved rights in
the Trinity River fishery.
In conclusion, every Interior Secretary and every congressman from
the first district, irrespective of party affiliation, has recognized
the need to fulfill the original promise of the Trinity River Division
for the North Coast. I ask that from this day forward the North Coast
no longer be considered the Forgotten Region of California but be
remembered as the home of a just people who shared their river without
sacrificing it.
This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to address any
questions you Committee members may have for me.
Mr. Doolittle. At this point, we're going to recess the
Committee. We'll go vote and come back as quickly as possible.
It's just one vote, so it shouldn't be more than 15 minutes.
Maybe it will be less.
Mr. Dooley is going to have to leave to catch a plane, so
I'm going to let him ask his question now.
Mr. Dooley. And this goes Miss Beneke as well as Mr.
Nelson. Mr. Gartrell might want to comment.
On the completion of the PEIS, which I think both of these
individuals representing urban and agricultural districts have
some concerns about and about its impact, and we have heard
some of the modeling and some of the concerns about whether or
not we have critically dry years or even just a little bit
below normal dry years, what it does in terms of water
deliveries, you know, are concerning--and also this issue of
the tiered pricing, which I talked to the Secretary and you
were there listening to that, in terms of this basis in
negotiation, does the Department, in fact, you know, feel
compelled to at least engage in a dialogue with some of the
contractors prior to engaging in a negotiation process on some
of these issues?
Mrs. Beneke. Let me, first off, start by addressing the
PEIS. We're on a track to have a supplemental draft document
released, I believe, next month, or at least early this summer.
There will be an opportunity for the public to review that
document, and we are on a track to go final with the document
this fall with the record of decision.
I would like to remind the Subcommittee and the
stakeholders, if I could, that this is a NEPA document and, as
such, it displays a full range of alternatives, bookends, if
you will, and does not necessarily mean that we're going to end
up at one extreme and or the other. But, of course, under NEPA
we do look at a full range of alternatives. And I would
encourage people to keep that in mind as they're looking at our
modeling numbers and the like.
Mr. Dooley. Doesn't that in itself make it then more
difficult to enter into the negotiations process if we haven't
come to a consensus on that?
Mrs. Beneke. Well, we are on the verge of completing the
basis of negotiation for the long-term contracts. We have had a
scoping process where there was public input as part of our
NEPA process on this. And we also, as I understand it, have
been engaged in informal discussions with members of the water
user community and also stakeholders with respect to the basis
of negotiation.
Mr. Dooley. I guess I'm still a little bit, you know, a
little bit--I don't quite get it yet. How can you even complete
a basis of negotiation when the PEIS isn't completed, when
there's going to be a range of alternatives in there that have
markedly different impacts and you haven't come to a conclusion
on which one of these--you know, where we're building some
consensus on. This looks to me like a very--you know, a moving
target here. Am I missing something?
Mrs. Beneke. Well, we feel that we have adequate analysis
available to be able to craft the basis of negotiation. Now
there won't be any final determinations on the contracts until
after the final PEIS is completed and until the record of
decision is signed.
Mr. Dooley. Mr. Nelson, you want to comment on that?
Mr. Barry Nelson. Thank you. Yes, I would. A couple
thoughts----
Mr. Dooley. Excuse me. I meant the other Nelson.
Mr. Barry Nelson. Mr. Dooley, your choice.
Mr. Dan Nelson. Thank you, cousin Barry.
The water contractors have a dilemma here. On the one hand,
we want to get on with the long-term contacting process along
with the Interior because it's only under long-term contracts
that we have the certainty that we need and are able to do
long-term planning and financing. So, on the one hand, we are
with the Department of Interior to get moving on the long-term
contract renewals.
However, they are premised by doing a legitimate PEIS; and
we are concerned with the PEIS and the drafts that are out
right now. Just to refresh your memory on the process to date,
a draft PEIS has been released after which it was acknowledged
it was based on a fundamentally flawed model that those changes
to the model have been done. So the question for us is, are
those significant enough changes, which our sense is that they
are, that we may want to recirculate that document for a round
of comments prior to going out to final?
Again, the dilemma that we have is that delays the long-
term contract renewal process that we would like to get started
on as well. I guess, fundamentally, we're feeling somewhat
jammed. We--and we need to make sure that the contract renewal
process is done right. There's a lot at stake here for all of
us, and they need to be done right, and they need to be done on
a proper foundation. And we're not convinced that PEIS is the
proper foundation yet.
Mr. Dooley. Mr. Nelson, if you could briefly respond.
Mr. Barry Nelson. I will briefly respond on the issue of
projected shortfalls and deliveries and on the issue of tiered
pricing.
On the first issue, I would like to remind folks here that
shortages began to be seen during the 1987 to 1992 drought
before the CVPIA was passed. The CVP is an over-subscribed
system, and coming to terms with that is a painful process.
Yes, there has been some reallocation to the environment, but
the overallocation problem is much bigger than that. That's why
we think it makes sense to look beyond CVP contract deliveries
solely as strategies to provide the water users with the water
supply benefits that they need.
The environmental community is taking that very seriously.
We have prepared a blueprint regarding water supply reliability
for urban and agriculture that I have provided to the
Subcommittee staff. And I would like to emphasize here that we
think the only way CALFED will deliver an ambitious ecosystem
restoration program is if it can deliver improved water supply
reliability for users.
Finally, very briefly, with regard to tier pricing, we
think that more realistic pricing sends the right signals to
encourage conservation, encourage efficient water use. We're
very supportive of conjunctive use programs that's endorsed in
environmental community's blueprint. We don't see tiered
pricing as a big obstacle to those programs, but we're very
eager to sit down and spend more time rolling our sleeves up
and making those programs work.
Mr. Dooley. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Okay. The Committee will recess and be back
shortly.
[Recess.]
Mr. Doolittle. The Subcommittee will reconvene. Mr. Nelson,
last but certainly not least.
STATEMENT OF DAN NELSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAN LUIS AND DELTA
MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY, LOS BANOS, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Daniel Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the Committee for inviting me to appear before you today. I
would let the record show that I am the first volunteer for the
Scandinavian fish ladder study. I look forward to working with
the Chairman on that.
I am the executive director of the San Luis & Delta-Mendota
Water Authority, a joint powers authority comprised of 32
member agencies with CVP contracts. Our service on the west
side of the San Joaquin Valley covers about 1.1 million acres
of the world's most productive and efficiently operated
farmland, approximately 200,000 acres of prime wetland habitat,
and serves over 600,000 urban users including the high-tech
industries of the Silicon Valley.
As you know, we have many concerns with the CVPIA, not with
its goals, but with some of the provisions and the way that
they are being implemented. Interior's approach to carrying out
the CVPIA is flawed in three ways. First, it seeks to solve the
Central Valley's many environmental problems at the expense of
one group of water users. Second, the Department is
implementing the law in isolation from the larger CALFED
program. And third, the Department ignores the flexibility
built into CVPIA to allow the law's environmental goals to be
met in a way that minimizes adverse impacts on water users.
The effects of this approach can be seen in our water
supply this year. We currently have a 70 percent allocation to
our Agricultural Service contractors and this is in the fifth
wet year in a row. In fact, it's the fifth year of the 5
wettest years on record. The CVPIA focuses exclusively on a
small group of CVP contractors mainly in our area who use only
10 percent of the water diverted from the Bay-Delta. Let me say
that again to emphasize the point. The Agricultural Service
contractors in our area have contracts for about 1.8 million
acre-feet. Those are the folks that are taking on the lion's
share of the water supply of CVPIA. The total diversions of the
San Joaquin Sacramento River System Bay-Delta are over 17
million acre-feet. And so again, the lion's share of the
impacts are born by 1.8 million acre-feet of those water users.
These contractors have been reduced to an average supply of
about 65 to 70 percent of our contractual entitlement. No other
water user community has had to deal with a sustained cutback
of this magnitude.
I would like to describe some of the changes in our area
over the last decade which have been more widespread and
substantial than I think the authors of the CVPIA ever dreamed
possible. Dramatic increases in water prices, widespread
improvements in irrigation efficiency, crop shifts to higher
value crops and perennials, substantial reductions in drainage
discharges and land retirement. All of these changes advocated
by the environmental community are well underway in our area.
Water rates in our area have increased tenfold in the last
decade. These increases, coupled with the chronic shortage of
water in our area, produce significant shifts in irrigation
practices and cropping patterns. Our farmers are making major
capital investments in high-tech irrigation technology and
perennial plantings.
In Westlands, for example, investments in drip-and-trickle
systems has grown eightfold between '85 and '97, and permanent
plantings of tree and vine acreage have more than doubled. We
have also made dramatic progress in drainage management over
the last few years.
In 1996 we formed the regional drainage entity to implement
a drainage management plan called the Grassland Bypass Project.
Through this project, drainage water has been removed from 93
miles of wildlife refuge conveyance channels, selenium load
discharges have been reduced by 44 percent below water year
1996 levels, and average selenium concentrations and salt
slough have been reduced from 16 parts per billion to water
quality objective of 2 parts per billion in 28 out of the last
29 months.
All of these changes have helped our farmers cope with the
restricted water supply and help meet the CVPIA's environmental
goals. But the trend toward permanent crops, combined with the
high capital and operating cost our farmers have incurred to
use new irrigation technology actually increases their
dependence on an adequate water supply.
I'm afraid the danger of this dependence has been masked by
the string of wet years we have experienced over the last
decade. Even in these years we have only received a full supply
in one year. That's over the last 5 years since we signed the
accord. We were able to stretch our supplies during this wet
period with some water purchases, but only at a cost of 50 to
100 percent higher than our average costs, and these purchases
are nonsustainable as demand increases.
In conclusion, our farmers have stepped up to the
challenges imposed by the higher prices and reduced supplies
resulting from the CVPIA. But they are on the edge now and are
at the limit of what they can do in response to these
pressures. They will go over the edge as soon as we once again
begin into normal weather patterns. We do not believe the
situation was the intent of the CVPIA but it's how the law is
currently being administered.
There is, in fact, a great deal of discretion in how the
CVPIA can be interpreted and administered. Rather than trying
to maximize the environmental gains through the CVPIA alone,
Interior should be working with CALFED to help accomplish the
CVPIA's environmental goals in a manner that reduces the
economic burdens it has placed on one relatively small group of
water users. In the long run, this will provide a far stronger,
more stable program of environmental protection.
CALFED can build on CVPIA in three key areas:
Number one, it can provide financial assistance for
on-farm and district-level water management strategies
to help mitigate and cope with the supply impacts of
the CVPIA.
Number two, it can improve the flexibility of the
system through an environmental water account which can
provide increased protections and increased supplies
through operational change. This is as opposed to a
regulatory process that just simply reallocates this
water.
Number three, it can develop new water, increase the
size of the pie through surface and groundwater
storage, premised on the sharing of water between
environmental and water needs.
In closing, I would also like to add my support for the
Federal funding. Again, as the dust settles on the
implementation of CALFED and the integration of some of the
CVPIA measures into CALFED, the funding is going to be very
critical and we are in support of the current efforts for that
funding.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I'm available for questions.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daniel Nelson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57837.113
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Gartrell, I don't think in the years I
have been sitting here as chairman I have ever heard--I don't
think that I have ever heard much criticism at all, especially
from the urban water users, of the future for water in terms of
the cutbacks. You have graphically portrayed that today. You do
know, Mr. Dan Nelson, I assume, right?
Mr. Gartrell. Yes.
Mr. Doolittle. You two ought to get together. You both have
sort of the two sides of the coin, it sounds like.
Mr. Gartrell. We worked quite a bit together. We worked
very hard on the Bay-Delta Accord, all three of us, the Nelson
brothers and myself.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, if even urban supplies are being faced
with 50 percent cutbacks, then what is your position on
storage?
Mr. Gartrell. Our district believes that that is probably
going to be an essential component coming out of the CALFED
process. I don't think anybody is going to take a position now
exactly which element is going to come out on top. But
certainly there is, I think, going to be a necessity for
storage, whether there is conjunctive use or new offstream
storage. While we are doing a lot of conservation and will be
continuing to be doing more conservation and more reclamation,
that does not get you through a dry period. You need to do
something with the water that you save. And for both the
environment and for water supply reliability, I think storage
is going to be important.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Nelson, you indicated you had--well, Mr.
Barry Nelson, that you had a plan for how to increase water
reliability. Could you just summarize for me what your thoughts
are in that regard?
Mr. Barry Nelson. Briefly, I would be happy to. As I
mentioned, we provided your staff with a copy of that
blueprint, I think the most detailed water supply reliability
comments CALFED has received from any of the stakeholder
groups. We recommend a number of different tools. We don't give
a simple prescription for any one of these tools because we
think they all could be implemented in different ways. There is
a laundry list of tools increasingly, we are realizing, that we
need to select from to provide reliability. It's not just
storage, although I will get to that at the end. It's also
conservation programs, agriculture and urban water reclamation
programs, water transfer programs.
There has been a lot of conversation about and controversy
about land fallowing, but permanent land retirement has a place
that makes a lot of sense. We are also seeing land fallowing
arrangements within agriculture that are happening voluntarily
with no outside planning that we think represent sound planning
that is happening right now from agriculture. There is a broad
range of strategies.
I would like to close, however, by emphasizing one of
those; that is, the rule of improved groundwater management. We
built the CVP in substantial part because we said it was going
to solve our groundwater problems. It didn't. We then built a
State water project to solve our groundwater problems. It
didn't. We are still now in some parts of the State seeing
significant groundwater concerns. We as a State have never
wrestled with the question of groundwater regulation as most
western States, almost all of the western States have. We are
very skeptical of claims that we can either solve our
groundwater problems through additional surface storage or that
we can solve environmental problems with additional surface
storage.
We think that when we look at improved groundwater
management, both conjunctive use and other kinds of improved
groundwater management, that there is tremendous potential
there. Yes, that is storage. We think it offers the potential
both to be more compatible with an ecosystem restoration
program and also to be dramatically more cost effective, which
is going to be very important more when it is time to finance
the final CALFED package.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. George, are there ways to meet the needs
that you have for the Trinity River that would tend to temper
the amount of water that must be redirected down the Trinity
River?
Mr. George. There absolutely is, Mr. Chairman, and I would
like to sit down with you at some point and go over some of the
contents within the flow study. There is some mechanical
restoration efforts that are also included, aside from just the
flow decisions that are in the flow study. I think that it
would be helpful and insightful if we could go over those when
they are published.
Mr. Doolittle. Okay. I appreciate that. We will look for
that opportunity. Well, there is a lot of hope being placed in
CALFED and it certainly has a good potential. There has been
real evidence of progress in some areas that have been drawn
out today, improvements have been made, and things in the
testimony that have been mentioned so far.
Mr. Dan Nelson, you heard my exchange with the Secretary
over your testimony. He is not here, but we can send him the
record. Do you have any further elaboration on that that you
want to offer?
Mr. Daniel Nelson. Yes, I do. In referring to page 5 in the
third line, I would like to insert the word ``below'' in front
of ``normal years.'' In editing this, the sentence reads
``years that are less than below normal years.'' My sense is
what occurred is the ``less than below'' was looked at as a
double negative and so the word ``below'' was taken out. But
below normal years is a year type, and so, the word ``below.''
However, that does not change the fundamental point, and
that is that the PEIS and the new modeling that we have
indicates that we have a broken project, that the Central
Valley Project in many years cannot even meet its regular
contractors as well it can't meet its historical water right
contractors in many years as well. And so I think that the
fundamental point is still valid. That is, that we need to give
serious attention about the viability of the Central Valley
Project as it exists. And we are going to have to figure out
how it is that we can accomplish some of these environmental
objectives in a way that is more reasonable to the Central
Valley Project and in a way that is consistent with the CALFED
approach.
Mr. Doolittle. Okay. Mr. Radanovich is recognized for his
questions.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the earlier
conversation, I was pleased to hear the Secretary talk about
some discussion, at some point in time, this CALFED process, of
the consideration of CVPIA and even perhaps the ESA in some of
the regulatory issues in those bills being merged into and
discussed through the CALFED process. That's one thing that I
am looking forward to, especially from the agriculture side of
the implementation of those laws and how we can streamline
those. One of those issues is tiered pricing.
Mr. Nelson, I think that I would like you to comment on
that. One, if you could elaborate on why CVPIA and tiered
pricing just doesn't seem to be working.
Mr. Daniel Nelson. On the first point of the relationship
with CVPIA and the CALFED process, I was very encouraged by the
Secretary's comments of trying to implement CVPIA in a
comprehensive way and taking into consideration the impacts to
water users.
Meeting environmental objectives while minimizing impacts.
That's very encouraging to hear from the Secretary of the
Interior. Frankly, what we are seeing is a disconnect between
that policy call from how the laws are actually being
implemented out in the field. What we are experiencing out in
the field isn't a collaborative, comprehensive-type approach
that I think we all envisioned when we signed the accord. As
you recall, we referred to the accord as a new way of doing
business in California, a new way of addressing water resources
in California. Comprehensive, collaborative. We are no longer
experiencing what it is we envisioned. We are once again back
to where we were in pre-accord, pre-accord days, and that is
where individual agencies are implementing individual
components of very specific statutes in a very narrow way, not
taking into consideration how it fits into a comprehensive
plan. My sense is that's the key fundamental problem with the
implementation of CVPIA, is that each individual component has
been implemented unilaterally from the other components; and
then, in addition to that, to take it the next level, CVPIA has
been implemented unilaterally from the more comprehensive
discussions that we have had from CALFED. From our perspective,
that's the key problem of what it is that has occurred and how
it is that we have implemented CVPIA post-accord. And we can be
more efficient in obtaining our environmental objectives, I
think, if we were to take a broader and more comprehensive
perspective in implementing this.
The tiered pricing thing specifically. Tiered pricing,
there is a lot of merit to the concept. In fact, most of our
member agencies and most CVP agencies have a form of tiered
pricing that they have implemented on a districtwide basis.
There is three points for tiered pricing. Number one, if
you are a contractor that your Federal contract doesn't meet
your demands, and so you are continually using all of your CVP
contract plus you are out looking for additional water, the
tiered pricing really doesn't serve as an incentive for you to
use less water. You are going to need to use all of your
allocation anyway. So it only becomes punitive at that point.
The second point, conjunctive use. We all recognize the
importance of doing conjunctive use and expanding and
optimizing conjunctive use in California. Essentially, tiered
pricing could penalize those who want to use conjunctive use. I
think that we need to take a very serious look at that.
Then the third point which kind of umbrellas the other two,
tiered pricing is not a one-size-fits-all concept. You have
to--as I said earlier, there are some appropriate and
legitimate uses for tiered pricing. Most districts have a form
of tiered pricing, but it's almost impossible to come up with a
one-size-fits-all that is equitable.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. These are the issues that I hope
that are brought up during the CALFED process. I want to
applaud all of the stakeholders for keeping this together. I
personally am relieved that we are now beginning to study
issues that increase water storage as part of the CALFED
process. I think as this issue moves forward, we need to have a
policy and in some areas where CVPIA may be deficient in that,
policies where agriculture has the opportunity by incentive to
enhance the environment in their own area through the policy of
CVPIA as it might be modified through this CALFED process,
because right now the incentive is almost the opposite and it
doesn't work for agriculture to be sensitive to the
environmental needs in that area.
If there is one complaint that I have about CVPIA it is
that it doesn't allow for that, it's not really incentive
based. I would like to see that happen as this thing develops
and as we talk more as stake holders in the CALFED process to
see some modifications in those laws. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of Hon. George Radanovich, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Mr. Chairman--Thank you for holding this hearing to provide
the opportunity to discuss water issues in the Central Valley
of California. I appreciate the ability to address the CALFED
Bay-Delta program and the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act (CVPIA).
I represent a Central Valley district comprising the two
largest agricultural producing counties in the nation. Water is
the lifeblood of the economy in this agricultural region that
grows over 250 of California's crops. With its fertile soil,
temperate climate and water supply capabilities, the Central
Valley produces eight percent of the agricultural output in the
U.S. on less than one percent of the nation's total farmland.
Valley farmers alone grow nearly half of the fresh fruits and
vegetables grown in the entire nation.
As a farmer, I am a conscientious steward of the land and a
strong environmentalist. Agriculture and the environment truly
go hand in hand. The very livelihoods of farmers are directly
connected to the land and its future. The agricultural
community recognizes water as a precious resource to be used
wisely, and they know proper water management is essential and
benefits all users.
In order to meet the ecosystem, water supply and water
quality needs in California, I worked, along with many
individuals present here today, toward the enactment of the
California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Enhancement Act in 1996. Since
that time, Congress has continued its commitment to CALFED by
funding this program to build consensus on decisions that
effect the future of water in the state of California.
I am encouraged by the recent agreement among stakeholders
to support $95 million in FY 2000 for CALFED with $60 million
for ecosystem and $35 million set aside for non-ecosystem
purposes, such as water storage studies and water transfers. I
support the $95 million in funding to bring balance to the
CALFED process for agricultural, ecological and urban water
users.
My greatest concern, and that of my district's, is the
impact CALFED has on agriculture. Water reliability is vital.
The Central Valley economy is dependent upon water assurances.
Therefore, scientifically sound and locally supported water
conveyance and storage facilities are needed to address the
supply void in California.
As the CALFED process moves forward, the protection of
private property is also a high priority of mine. Private
property rights must be secured throughout the process.
Additionally, CALFED representatives or other Federal and state
officials must obtain written permission from landowners when
conducting surveys or other biological work on private
property. Any actions that violate landowners' rights are
unacceptable.
With respect to CVPIA, I believe the Central Valley region
has invested a great deal of resources to make this law work.
Conservation, land retirement and crop changes have all been
implemented by the agricultural community in order to achieve
the objectives of CVPIA. The economic security of the area is
contingent upon water supply reliability. It is time solid
assurances are made to provide for the region's water needs.
To the detriment of both the environment and agriculture in
the Central Valley, the CVPIA has significantly raised water
prices in the area I represent. Tiered pricing under CVPIA, for
example, has made it extremely expensive to operate conjunctive
use systems. Growers pay enormous prices for the water to be
stored, extracted and delivered. This creates a clear
disincentive for groundwater storage. A more flexible approach
to tiered pricing would encourage contractors to conserve and
reduce costs. Such flexibility is necessary for CVPIA to be
successful.
The growing population of our state will continue to place
an ever-increasing demand on the water supply. Also, over one
million acre feet of water is provided for environmental
purposes under CVPIA each year. The state has been blessed with
five wet years, however, we have no guarantee these conditions
will continue. The enormous pressure on California water
allocations are predicted to result in a net agricultural water
loss of 2.3 million acre-feet each year by 2020. This would
severely disrupt agricultural production. Since water is
directly tied to the economy, any disturbance in its supply
will cause job losses and decreased agricultural production.
For these reasons, an adequate water supply must be planned for
and secured.
In closing, I believe CALFED and CVPIA, along with other
Federal agencies, must coordinate their water efforts to
guarantee consistency in the implementation of projects and
goals. Efforts to sustain productive farmland in the Central
Valley region under the CVPIA and CALFED have made the farmers
in my area some of the most innovative water conservationists
in the world. Central Valley agriculture can continue to thrive
as long a reliable, affordable source of water is available. I
look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and those
present today to achieve this goal.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Dan Nelson, wasn't it your testimony
that you only received a full contract-wide delivery in 1 year
out the last 5?
Mr. Daniel Nelson. That is correct. I believe that was in
1995-1996.
Mr. Doolittle. With the exception of that year, the highest
percentage that you received was what?
Mr. Daniel Nelson. Well, to put things in perspective, the
40 years that our member agencies have been taking water from
the Central Valley Project, prior to--I believe it was in 1989
they had 1 year in which they weren't allocated a 100 percent
supply. I believe that was in 1977, the drought of '77. So in
the 40 years we had 1 year of cutbacks. As a result of the '89
through '94 drought and a couple of listings that went around
salmon, Delta smelt, Bay-Delta Accord, CVPIA, et cetera, our
supply is now at an average of around 65 to 70 percent. That
doesn't include--that hasn't modeled in yet the impacts of
Trinity River.
Mr. Doolittle. Okay. So 70 percent would be the most that
you feel you could hope for now; is that right?
Mr. Daniel Nelson. No, 65 percent; that's the average
supply.
Mr. Doolittle. In a normal year?
Mr. Daniel Nelson. Yes.
Mr. Doolittle. And so when we enter the next dry period,
which it seems likely that's on the verge of happening, then
what do you anticipate receiving?
Mr. Daniel Nelson. Well, the PEIS shows that there are
years in which we will not receive any water. Then my
recollection is that in about 35 to 40 percent of the years we
will be allocated 50 percent or less. My recollection is also
that in 15 to 20 percent of the years we can expect close to
the 100 percent supply. So that is the range from zero all of
the way to 100, but severe cutbacks is normal and especially
when you get into dry years.
Mr. Doolittle. Let's see, 35 to 40 percent of the years you
would get less than 50 percent?
Mr. Daniel Nelson. That's correct.
Mr. Doolittle. And 15 to 20 percent of the years you would
get 100 percent?
Mr. Daniel Nelson. Yes. Then it's sort of tiered in
between.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Gartrell, your figures on when you would
get cut down to 50 percent, what percent of the years would
that 50 percent be?
Mr. Gartrell. It's between 1 year in 10 and 1 year in 15.
Around 10 percent between 7 and 15 percent of the years. It is
a 25 percent cutback from 100 percent [75 percent allocation]
in about 25 percent of the years.
Mr. Doolittle. This is based on what you understand to be
in that PEIS?
Mr. Gartrell. Right.
Mr. Doolittle. Do you think your customers are aware of
this impending threat?
Mr. Gartrell. No. We do have a substantial conservation
program that we try to keep them informed. But even keeping
them informed on that is difficult. When you have 5 rainy years
in a row, people don't tend to think about what is coming
around the corner in a dry period.
Mr. Doolittle. But I assume the urban water districts, if
they chose to, could include in their bills information about
this, right, to their customers?
Mr. Gartrell. Yes. And we do have our own plans for
increasing reliability of our supplies through water transfers,
increased conservation, and reclamation. Those take time to
implement, but I am pretty confident that most people aren't
thinking too hard about this right now.
Mr. Doolittle. Mrs. Beneke, would you like to say anything?
Mrs. Beneke. Mr. Chairman, I would very much appreciate an
opportunity to comment on these issues. With respect to urban
supply reliability, I am afraid there is perhaps a bit of a
misunderstanding here. I am aware that our PEIS document does
have a modeling scenario under which there are some
possibilities of a cutback to 50 percent. But we believe that
we provide very strong assurances of urban supply reliability
under our program.
In fact, the administrative paper that was an outcome of
the Garamendi process a year or two ago assures urban water
users of a 75 percent supply, at least unless there is a very
extreme period of prolonged drought, in which case they could
be cut back to public health and safety levels.
Now, again as I explained previously, the PEIS itself is a
NEPA document. And, as such, it displays a full range of
alternatives, and in many instances it ``bookends,'' we like to
say, extreme alternatives which would be extraordinarily
unlikely to happen in the real world or to be selected. So I
really would not want people here thinking that there is a good
likelihood that urban water users will be cut back to a 50
percent delivery. We think that is extraordinarily unlikely.
Certainly before that happened, we would be working very
closely with all of the urban water users, using every tool
that we have to prevent that result. I would like to clarify
that for the record from our position.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. What will happen to all of these
permanent crops if they get cut back to zero or something, say
50 percent, even?
Mrs. Beneke. Let me tell you; again, the zero figure would
occur, as I understand it--well, it almost is not worth talking
about because it is an extremely unlikely scenario. But let me
say that it is precisely for this reason that we are so
committed to the CALFED process. One of the fundamental
elements of that program, of course, is to provide supply
reliability to all of our customers. It is one of the reasons
that I'm very motivated about participating in the process and
trying to steer it to a good result. It is important to us that
our customers have a reliable supply of water. Again, I think
this zero percent number, I'm not personally familiar with it.
I understand that south of Delta got a 95 percent supply in
1996, and a 90 percent supply in 1997. I'm not entirely clear
where all of the other numbers are coming from here.
Mr. Doolittle. It's been my understanding that the
Department would like to know what the alternative source of
supply might be for their urban and ag users, but that
information they have been reluctant to disclose to the
Department. Is that a correct understanding?
Mrs. Beneke. Are you directing that to me?
Mr. Doolittle. I don't know who I am directing it to. Do
you want to volunteer?
Mr. Daniel Nelson. Could you repeat the question?
Mr. Doolittle. I understood that the Department has been
trying to inquire about what your alternative sources of supply
might be in the case of a water-short year, and apparently
you--I don't know if it's you, but somebody is not willing to
cooperate amongst the urban and agricultural interest just in
general, I think, it was represented. Is that true; and if so,
tell us why, what your concerns are?
Mr. Daniel Nelson. We would cooperate in any way we could
for any water augmentation plan that we would see coming from
the Bureau. I would like to comment briefly on that. There are
a couple of places in CVPIA where they talk about water
augmentation. One is an expansion of yield study. The second
one is a fairly clear directive and authorization to the
Secretary to find other sources than just reallocating existing
supplies to meet refuge supply needs.
One of the things that I was somewhat discouraged, or I
thought was a little bit contradictory in earlier testimony was
on the one hand we are going to look at this water supply
augmentation to come through CALFED, and so we are going to
look at those elements that increase our water supply to meet
those components of CVPIA; and the water users, you are going
to have to wait until CALFED helps you out with those issues
even though they are very clear in CVPIA.
However, CVPIA was a premise to CALFED, and so we need to
go forward immediately with the environmental components of
CVPIA. And, as you have heard from testimony, we have done
that. We have implemented the environmental components of
CVPIA, but my sense is there hasn't been the same ambitious
efforts on the water augmentation plans, and we are now being
told that we have to wait for CALFED on those augmentations.
Mr. Doolittle. Anybody else want to comment?
Mr. Gartrell. Yes. I'm not sure where exactly that--or who
might have been unwilling to disclose. We have been trying to
work very closely with the Department of Reclamation on that. I
think one issue related to that is the concern of urban and ag
users that if we acquired other supplies, that would be taken
into account in our allocation from the CVP and we would face
further cutbacks. That was under discussion during the
Garamendi process, and I think we all came out pleased with the
results of that, with the assurances that those would be taken
into account, but in a way that did not hurt us further; if we
go out and acquire supplies to meet the cutbacks that we don't
end up in a zero sum game where we just get chopped more.
Mr. Doolittle. So are you satisfied that should not be a
concern, then?
Mr. Gartrell. Right.
Mr. Doolittle. Okay. Well, I thank you, ladies and
gentlemen. It's been a long afternoon. Useful testimony. I
appreciate it. There will be probably some further questions.
We will hold the record open for your timely response. Have a
good weekend. With that, the hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]