<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:47727.wais]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3267--THE ``SONNY BONO MEMORIAL SALTON SEA
RECLAMATION ACT''
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 12, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-77
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
<snowflake>
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-727 CC WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE], Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
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 PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
RICHARD W. POMBO, California GEORGE MILLER, California
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California SAM FARR, California
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona RON KIND, Wisconsin
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ---------- ----------
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ---------- ----------
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Robert Faber, Staff Director/Counsel
Valerie West, Professional Staff
Christopher Stearns, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held March 12, 1998...................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, a Senator in Congress from the State of
California................................................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Brown, Hon. George E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 5
Hunter, Hon. Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 11
Lewis, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 10
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey.................................... 17
Statement of Witnesses:
Bazdarich, Michael J., Ph.D., Director, Inland Empire
Economic Databank and Forecasting Center, response to
questions from the Subcommittee............................ 163
Bunker, Richard, Chairman, Colorado River Commission of
Nevada..................................................... 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 84
Codekas, Tellis, President, Salton Sea Authority, accompanied
by Tom Kirk, Executive Director, Salton Sea Authority and
Paul Cunningham, Director of External Affairs, IID......... 35
Prepared statement of Mr. Codekas........................ 83
Cook, Wayne E., P.E., Executive Director, Upper Colorado
River Commission........................................... 69
Prepared statement of.................................... 160
Hardie, R. Wayne, Group Leader, Energy and Environmental
Analysis, Los Alamos National Laboratory................... 58
Prepared statement of.................................... 148
Harris, Christopher, Water Resources Program Manager, Arizona
Department of Water Resources.............................. 54
Hayes, David, Counselor to the Secretary, Department of
Interior, accompanied by Robert Johnson, Lower Colorado
Regional Director, BOR, and Michael Spear, Pacific Regional
Director, F&WS............................................. 32
Prepared statement of Mr. Hayes.......................... 112
Hirsche, Evan M., Director, National Wildlife Refuge
Campaign, National Audubon Society......................... 74
Prepared statement of.................................... 93
Lesika, Leon, Executive Director, Desert Wildlife Unlimited.. 70
Lopez, Art, Chair, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians... 56
P........................................................ 128
Pearson, Rita P., Director, Arizona Department of Water
Resources, prepared statement of........................... 86
Stewart, Ted, Executive Director, Utah Department of Natural
Resources, prepared statement of........................... 92
Vaux, Henry J., Jr., Ph.D., Associate Vice President,
Division of Agricultural and Natural Resources, University
of California.............................................. 60
Prepared statement of.................................... 89
Weber, Stephen, President of San Diego State University,
Salton Sea University Research Consortia................... 72
Prepared statement of.................................... 91
Wheeler, Hon. Douglas P., Secretary for Resources, State of
California................................................. 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 81
Additional material supplied:
Babbitt, Hon. Bruce, Secretary, Department of the Interior,
prepared statement of...................................... 123
Shaddegg, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona, additional material submitted for the
record..................................................... 109
Text of H.R. 3267--The Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea
Reclamation Act............................................ 96
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3267--THE ``SONNY BONO MEMORIAL SALTON SEA
RECLAMATION ACT''
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1998
U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on
Water and Power, Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee convened at 10:07 a.m. in room 1334 of the
Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable John T.
Doolittle, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Mr. Doolittle. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will
come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony
concerning H.R. 3267, The Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea
Reclamation Act.
Our objective today is to consider legislation that has
been introduced by the Salton Sea Task Force. Members of the
Task Force, Congressmen Ken Calvert, Duncan Hunter, Jerry Lewis
and George Brown have introduced a measure which is designed to
restore effectively the health of the Salton Sea. As many of
you are aware, restoration of the Salton Sea was a focus and
primary concern of our late colleague Sonny Bono. This bill,
H.R. 3267, the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act,
is designed to promote Sonny's dream of restoring the Sea
quickly and effectively.
Today we will hear some of the issues affecting the water
quality and lake levels at the Salton Sea. A great deal of work
has been done to evaluate the causes of poor water quality as
well the periodic inundation and exposure of land around the
Sea. More importantly, there have been scores of alternatives
offered to solve these problems. If we are ever to find and
implement the solutions, the time for action is upon us. Water
quality is at an all-time low. The Sea can no longer serve as
the recreation resource it once was and wildlife populations
continue to be adversely affected.
The Salton Sea as it now exists is an artificial phenomenon
created in 1905 as the result of high water and a break in a
temporary levee along the Colorado River. For a period of about
16 months the Colorado River flowed into the Salton Sea. After
the levee break was fixed with great difficulty and over an
extended period of time, evaporation quickly reduced the size
of the Sea. The water level declined until the 1920's when
increased runoff from imported water used in the basin began to
increase the Sea's surface.
The Salton Sea is now about 35 miles long and 15 miles
wide. The inflow has a high salinity content from the Colorado
River resulting in over four million tons of salt being
deposited into the Sea annually. Without a natural outlet,
water leaves only by evaporation, leaving the salt behind. The
Sea's salinity has increased to the point where it is now 25
percent higher than that of our oceans and currently
jeopardizes local and migratory wildlife populations. The
Salton Sea currently experiences frequent large fish and
wildlife die-offs and will be incapable of accommodating any
wildlife in just a few short years.
Land, recreational and ecological values associated with
the Sea have declined over the last two decades due in large
part to the rising salinity and surface elevation. Without
efforts to reduce and stabilize the salinity levels they will
continue to rise and will have severe impacts on surrounding
landowners, individuals that wish to use the Sea for recreation
and the existing wildlife species.
H.R. 3267 establishes the process for determining and
implementing an engineering solution to save the Sea while also
continuing the environmental analysis to evaluate and ensure
the long-term health of the Sea's wildlife populations.
Additionally, this measure will authorize the Water Reclamation
and Purification Project along the New River, one of the major
sources of water flowing into the Sea.
If we successfully reclaim this inland Sea it will provide
for recreational and economic potential while also ensuring an
environmentally safe refuge for fish and the one million
migratory birds that use the Sea as part of the Pacific Flyway.
If we fail to act, the wildlife will die and we will have lost
a significant recreational, ecological and economic resource.
I commend the Members of the Congressional Task Force who
have invested their time and energy to advance the cause of
restoring the Sea. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses
who have had an opportunity to evaluate the problems associated
with the Salton Sea and the legislative proposal we are
considering.
I do want to take a minute to comment on one issue which a
number of Members have mentioned concerning this legislation,
and that is access to Colorado River water. The legislation
indicates that any water used to reduce salinity will be taken
pursuant to existing law, including the Law of the River
governing the Colorado River.
As all who deal with the Colorado River know, the Colorado
River is very erratic in its supply of water. When the Colorado
River water was allocated this variation was recognized. At the
same time there was an assumption that the average annual
supply available to the upper and lower basins combined would
be about 15 million acre feet of water per year. Since that
time the average has been around 14.2 million acre feet,
somewhat less than the average expected. The water allocation
scheme considered periods of high flow, and at those times
existing secondary priorities or allocations will apply. If any
water is to come from the Colorado River it must be in the
context of those allocations.
I look forward to further discussion on this issue, and
would like now to recognize Mr. Miller.
[H.R. 3267--The Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation
Act may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to join you in sharing your concerns and interests with our
colleagues in devising a long-term solution for the restoration
of the Salton Sea. We need to stabilize salinity and
contaminant levels to protect the dwindling fisheries,
resources and to reduce the threats of migratory birds, and we
need to revive the economic potential of this area as well.
I do not, however, believe the Congress should act in haste
to authorize and construct an expensive project at the Salton
Sea before we know what we're doing. H.R. 3267 is well
intentioned, but I believe it could force Congress to spends
hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money before the
scientists and engineers have supplied us with the information
we need to make good decisions.
This bill will require many changes in our Committee and I
am certain that we will hear many suggestions from Members at
today's hearing. I am particularly concerned that we correct
the requirements for a compressed study and planning period.
The time period for environmental studies and NEPA compliance
is entirely too short, and the explicit language overriding
further NEPA compliance and limiting judicial review is highly
inappropriate.
I sincerely appreciate the efforts of those that have been
made by the Congressional Salton Sea Task Force, the Salton Sea
Authority, Senator Boxer and others of our colleagues.
I just want to say this. I guess I've been here long enough
to see enough of these projects start and stop and start and
stop. It's my belief that the road to success is paved by doing
these things right at the outset, and a little more time taken
at the outset has huge payoffs later on. I know I've struggled
with George Brown over the last several years looking at a
multiple of different ideas for the Salton Sea, I've read the
proposals that are before us brought to us by Congressman
Hunter, and I've read Senator Boxer's legislation.
I think the one thing that Sonny Bono gave us is
Congressional agreement that we've got to do something and
we've got to do it now. But what we ought to set in place is a
process that is workable and that achieves a goal. It would be
a tragic miscarriage of public duty if in Sonny's name we
created something that didn't work or got bogged down because
in mid-course we found out that the science of the studies was
wrong, and another 6 months or a year at the beginning may have
hugh payoffs in terms of the success of this project going
forward.
So I would hope, since we do have agreement here that we
need to do something, and I'm not saying that it has got to be
my way, but what I'm saying is I would hope that between now
and the time this Committee marks it up we sit down and sort
through some of these problems and realize that maybe the
shortest point between ``A'' and ``B'' is through some existing
law with good agreement and good science and positions by
Members of Congress pushing the agencies to get this done.
So I look forward to the testimony by our colleagues and
Senator Boxer, and I look forward to those who will testify on
the later panels. I assume that I, like many of my colleagues,
have heard from all of the signatories on the Law of the River
about their views of this legislation, and I think that's
simply indicative of whether or not you spend time on working
these problems out up front or whether you try to jam this and
you end up with still having nothing been completed in the
legislative process.
So I want to thank all of our colleagues in the House that
have worked so terribly hard to try to get this up before the
Committee, and I look forward to the testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Under our Committee rules the opening statements are
normally limited to the Chairman and Ranking Member. However,
in view of the fact that Mr. Calvert is a primary sponsor of
this bill I wondered if the Committee would entertain unanimous
consent to allow him to make a statement. I would be happy to
have everybody make a statement, but there are 16 witnesses at
this hearing today and it's going to be a very long day if we
can't expedite it.
Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. Reserving my right to object, I would Mr.
Chairman, like to make a brief opening statement, but I will
make a commitment to you to keep it very brief, along with Mr.
Calvert.
Mr. Doolittle. All right. Well then with that reservation
is there objection?
[No response.]
OK.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Calvert is recognized.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I promise to keep
my statement brief also.
First, Congressman Lewis could not join us this morning,
and I would ask unanimous consent that his statement be entered
into the record.
I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member of this
Committee for holding the hearing so promptly on the Sonny Bono
Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act, an issue that is not only
important to me, but to California and I believe to the nation.
Mr. Chairman, my interest in saving the Salton Sea is
personal as well as professional, and it has taken even more
meaning since Sonny's death. Sonny and I became close friends
representing the same county and working closely on issues
important to our constituents, and certainly no issue came to
the forefront more than the Salton Sea. We both shared fond
memories of waterskiing on the Sea in our youth, and we looked
forward to future generations enjoying the same type of
memories.
When I was a boy I only appreciated the fun that the Sea
had to offer, but now as a Member of Congress I see a large
body of water with enormous potential. As the largest inland
body of water in California it also offers an enhanced
potential for environmental uses as it already serves as a
component of the migratory bird Pacific Flyway. This is
Southern California's largest environmental problem, in my
opinion, and it needs to be addressed in a manner that provides
for long-term solutions.
One point that I would like to make to my friend from
California is we've been talking about this problem for 30
years, as I'm sure we'll hear from our other friends who are on
this Task Force. When I was going down to North Beach 30 years
ago they were putting up banners with Save the Salton Sea. They
have been studying it for all of that time, and now it's time
for action. I don't think anyone wants to see the death of the
Salton Sea. We all agree that something has to be done, but
delay, no matter how well intentioned by the folks that are
trying to do that, unfortunately may lead to some unfortunate
results. We must act now and work out our differences. I have
no problem meeting with the other side to accomplish this task
and to get it done.
I appreciate your having this hearing, Mr. Chairman and,
unfortunately, my friend from Arizona wasn't here to hear your
excellent explanation of the Law of the River.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Calvert follows:]
Statement of Hon. Ken Calvert, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing so
promptly on the Sonny Bono on this panel on an issue that is so
near and dear to my heart. Mr. Chairman, my interest in saving
the Salton Sea is personal as well as professional, and has
taken on even more meaning with Sonny's death. Sonny and I
became close friends representing neighboring districts and
working closely on issues important to our constituents,
especially saving the Salton Sea. We both shared fond memories
of waterskiing on the Salton Sea in our youths, and wanted to
ensure that future generations would be able to have similar
memories.
When I was a boy, however, I only appreciated the fun the
sea had to offer. As an adult, and as a Member of Congress, I
see a large body of water with a staggering potential for the
community. As the largest inland body of water in California,
it also offers enormous potential for environmental uses,
currently serving as a component of the migratory bird Pacific
Flyway. This is Southern California's largest environmental
problem, and it needs to be addressed in a manner that provides
for long-term solutions.
You will hear from many people today with many laudable
reasons for saving the Salton Sea. But the most compelling
reason we are here today, and the reason this bill has such
bipartisan support, is to honor the life and legacy of our dear
friend and colleague, Sonny Bono. As we work toward getting
this bill approved by the House and Senate, if understandable
differences of opinion threaten to slow the forward movement of
this legislation, we must keep foremost in our mind that it was
Sonny's dream to restore the Salton Sea, and in his tragic
absence, it is up to us to accomplish the task.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Well this is his first opportunity and he'll
be able to hear it right now perhaps.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize for being a few minutes late and for not being
able to hear your brilliant and eloquent explanation of the Law
of the River. It is in fact the Law of the River which gives me
concern in this particular hearing.
Let me say at the outset that I have no objection to the
restoration of the Salton Sea and indeed view that as a worthy
goal and one that I would be happy to work with in a reasonable
fashion to ensure that those working toward that task are able
to do so.
The caveat that I am compelled to insert is in fact the
implications for the Law of the River. There are literally
millions of people in the Western United States, over 13
million in the six Basin States, excluding California, and tens
of millions others beyond that in California who are dependent
upon the Colorado River, which is already completely allocated,
and which allocation California is not only taking its entire
current allocation, but as we all know it is taking more than
its current allocation.
The point being that the Law of the River has been the
subject of probably dozens of pieces of legislation in this
Congress and of numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and of
at least one seminal case, Arizona versus California. That law
has been established over decades of compromise of litigation,
and it important for us in considering this bill that we
understand the delicate balance struck by the Law of the River.
Second, it is important to understand that restoration of
the Salton Sea does not require that we alter the Law of the
River, that is, California already gets its basic allocation of
Colorado River water. In addition, California gets the largest
piece of the surplus or excess waters of the Colorado River
flow, when and if they occur, and the Secretary of Interior has
now declared on two separate occasions that they have occurred,
and from its basic allocation or from its surplus or excess
allocation California can use that water for any purpose,
including the Salton Sea, if that's what it sees fit.
However, I think it is important not just to my State of
Arizona, but in fact important to the delegations from every
other State, the six remaining States besides California that
are in the Colorado River Basin, that we not alter the delicate
balance struck by the Law of the River that compromises it in
the litigation which have created it.
In that regard, as you all know, I circulated a letter
which has been signed by every Member of each Delegation from
each of the six remaining Basin States saying what I have just
said, that is, that we do not oppose restoration of the Salton
Sea. We simply implore you that this legislation should not
alter the careful balance struck under the Law of the River,
that California can take its current allocation, either its
basic allocation or its surplus allocation, and achieve what
those who want to restore the Salton Sea want to achieve, and
that under no circumstances can we, the Representatives of
those other States, and I would suggest quite frankly that many
Members I think of the California Delegation representing other
interests would be concerned about any reallocation of Colorado
River water which would place them in jeopardy for this
purpose.
Since it's not necessary to change the allocation or the
Law of the River to accomplish the goal that the bill's
sponsors want to do, I am hopeful they will agree to language
which makes it clear that that is not intended in this Act, and
quite frankly they have already represented to me, Mr. Calvert
has and Mr. Hunter has to Senator Kyle in my State that they do
not intend to do that.
And with that I look forward to the testimony.
[The letter referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Let me just draw to the
gentleman's attention Title I of the bill which does indeed
state that the bill does not affect any treaty, law or
agreement governing the use of water from the Colorado River.
If the gentleman might review that and let us know in a timely
manner whether you think that------
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed that, and
actually it says this section does not alter that, and an
amendment I will seek at some point would be that this Act not
be that purpose, and then I think we would be comfortable.
There also will be language offered by the Arizona Department
of Water Resources and identical language offered by the
Director of the Upper Basin States representing four Upper
Basin States which is the clarifying language which we will
seek which does not alter the intent of what you just read and
it technically corrects the language of the bill.
Mr. Doolittle. OK, and maybe some of our principal authors
would want to comment on that to indicate whether you're
sympathetic or not.
We welcome our distinguished panel of Members here today to
testify, and first on the panel is Senator Barbara Boxer of
California.
Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, and I want to thank my
colleagues for saying it was fine if I did open. We have a vote
starting at 10:30, and I'm a little bit hobbled this morning.
So I will have to leave. I would love to take questions. So if
you could put them in writing, Mr. Chairman, I will immediately
get the answers back.
I am very delighted to be here in the House, the House of
the people, the place that I served for 10 years with many of
you. I have many fond memories, and I think it is very
appropriate that this legislation start here. It was brought to
us by the late Sonny Bono who we all miss, and I am very proud
to be playing a role in saving the Salton Sea.
I want to make a couple of points, Mr. Chairman, and I will
be brief myself. I want to ask unanimous consent to place my
entire statement in the record.
Mr. Doolittle. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I have had very pleasant
conversations with Congressman Hunter on this, with Congressman
Brown and Congressman Miller and several others and wanted to
make the point that the legislation that I have introduced
along with Senator Feinstein builds on the House bill. This is
not a contest and there is no simple answer to this. This is
going to be a moving, breathing piece of legislation. As
Congressman Miller points out, I think we all have the same
goal, and I was very taken with the comments of the Congressman
from Arizona because I think he is working in a very friendly
fashion to resolve his concerns.
What Senator Feinstein and I attempted to do in the
legislation we have introduced is to listen to those concerns
that have come in from the Department of Interior, from the
local community, from environmental groups and from other
States concerned about water allocation, and we did hear from
Senator Kyle with a similar comment. So what we have tried to
do in this legislation having had the benefit of Congressman
Hunter and Congressman Brown and Congressman Calvert's work, if
you will, and others is to respond to some of the discussions
around the bill and try to put something together that
responded to that.
In my presentation I go into some detail about the Salton
Sea, which from the time I was a child learning about the
Salton Sea has always fascinated me, and in the interest of
time I won't go into that, except to say we now know that the
Salton Sea is one of the most important habitats for migratory
birds along the Pacific Flyway and that the extreme salinity
along with agricultural and waste water in the Sea are rapidly
deteriorating the entire ecosystem. The existing Salton Sea
ecosystem is near collapse or nearing collapse with millions of
fish and thousands of birds dying off in recent year. Birds and
fish that once thrived there are now threatened with death and
disease as the tons of salt and toxic contaminants that are
constantly dumped into the Sea become more and more
concentrated and more and more deadly over time, and the local
economy is being affected by the loss of recreational
opportunities.
So we have an issue here that really I think does unite us.
This is an environmental issue, this is also an economic issue,
and it's also a tribute to our late colleague. So I think there
is much going for us to come to a solution. But we do not have
a solution at hand, and therefore while we must move forward
swiftly I believe we must not more forward hastily. The
legislation which I introduced allows the Department of
Interior to adequately review all options for restoring the Sea
while complying with all environmental laws. We put a timeframe
in of 18 months, and I believe it is a tight timeframe, but it
is realistic.
I am very pleased with the favorable comments on the Boxer-
Feinstein bill. Secretary Babbitt said ``I have had an
opportunity to review the legislation. In my judgment the bill
is a thoughtful and practical approach.'' He says he looks
forward to refining and implementing this important initiative.
John Flicker, the President of the National Audubon Society
said that the Audubon Society strongly endorses the
legislation, and we have had other comments from local people.
Tellis Codekas, President of the Salton Sea Authority and
President of the Coachella Valley District said ``Senator Boxer
is on the right track. Her legislation builds on a bipartisan
local and national effort.''
Mr. Chairman, I am proud of this support, and you will
certainly have an opportunity to hear from the real experts
sitting behind me.
Again without going into the details of the legislation let
me make this point. If we waive environmental laws, Mr.
Chairman, I see this project getting delayed and delayed and
delayed. The people of this country want us to stand by these
environmental laws, and I think when Congressman Miller says we
have to push the agencies I think that is absolutely true. When
I started the legislation I had a conversation with Congressman
Hunter, and he said, Barbara, 24 months, I mean we've got to
push it down, and we talked to the Department of Interior and
they signed off on the 18 months. So I think with all of us
having good will this can come to a very good ending.
In closing let me quote Sonny Bono who told USA Today ``If
we don't move within a year or two, it will be too late,'' and
I think he's right. The clock is ticking and we must act now to
find a solution. Scientists have warned that the Salton Sea
will be dead within 15 years. It is our responsibility.
I am very proud to be here, and I'm very grateful to you,
Mr. Chairman, for including me. I want to be a member of the
team with all of you in a bipartisan fashion to make restoring
the Salton Sea one of the greatest accomplishments of this
Congress. Thank you very much.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you, Senator.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, a Senator in Congress from the State
of California
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for this opportunity to
discuss an issue which is so important to all of us here
today--restoration of The Salton Sea.
I am very pleased to see the impressive panel of experts
that will be testifying today, and I believe all opinions will
lead us to a solid legislative effort.
Last week, I introduced a Senate version of the Salton Sea
legislation. The Boxer-Feinstein legislation builds from the
House bill, but there are important distinctions that alleviate
some of the concerns I have heard from the Department of
Interior, the local community, and environmental groups.
Over the years, scientists, communities and politicians
alike, have been trying to draw national attention to the
decline of the Salton Sea. Our late friend and colleague,
Representative Sonny Bono, who died in a tragic accident in
January, worked tirelessly to make this issue an environmental
priority for this Congress. I am very pleased to join the
bipartisan effort to carry on that legacy.
The Salton Sea is a unique natural resource in Southern
California. Created in 1905 by a breach in a levee along the
Colorado River, the Salton Sea is California's largest inland
body of water. It is one of the most important habitats for
migratory birds along the Pacific Flyway.
For 16 months after the breach, the Colorado River flowed
into a dry lakebed, filling it to a depth of 80 feet. For a
time following the closure of the levee, the water levels
declined rapidly as evaporation greatly exceeded inflow. A
minimum level was reached in the 1920s, after which the sea
once again began to rise, due largely to the importation of
water into the basin for agricultural purposes from the New and
Alamo Rivers.
Since there is no natural outlet for the sea at its current
level, evaporation is the only way water leaves the basin.
Therefore, all of the salts carried with water that flows into
the sea have remained there. Salinity is currently more than 25
percent higher than ocean water, and rising.
This extreme salinity, along with agricultural and
wastewater in the sea, are rapidly deteriorating the entire
ecosystem. The existing Salton Sea ecosystem is under severe
stress and nearing collapse, with millions of fish and
thousands of bird die-offs in recent years. Birds and fish that
once thrived here are now threatened with death and disease as
the tons of salts and toxic contaminants that are constantly
dumped into the Salton Sea become more and more concentrated
and deadly over time. The local economy is also being affected
by the loss of recreational opportunities.
Despite the urgency of the situation, we do not have the
solution at hand and, therefore, must move forward swiftly, but
not hastily. The legislation which I introduced allows the
Department of Interior to adequately review all options for
restoring the sea while complying with all environmental laws.
The time frame of 18 months, I believe, is tight but realistic.
I am pleased with the favorable comments on the Boxer-
Feinstein legislation. Secretary Bruce Babbitt said, ``I have
had an opportunity to review the Salton Sea legislation that
Senators Boxer and Feinstein are introducing this morning. In
my judgement, the bill as drafted reflects a more thoughtful
and practical approach for addressing the serious environmental
challenges that face the Salton Sea. I look forward to working
with the Senators in refining and, hopefully implementing this
important initiative.''
John Flicker, President of the National Audubon Society
said, ``The National Audubon Society strongly endorses this
legislation by Senator Boxer. This bill sets in motion a
process to determine the source of the ecological crisis facing
the Salton Sea and provide recommendations on how to reverse
the Salton Sea's rapid deterioration.''
``Senator Boxer's bill represents an important step forward
in the fight to save the Salton Sea,'' said Congressman George
Brown. ``She has done an outstanding job building a consensus
bill that can win local and Federal support.''
And Tellis Codekas, President of the Salton Sea Authority
and President of the Coachella Valley Water District said,
``Senator Boxer is on the right track with her bill. Her
legislation builds on a bipartisan local and national effort to
save the Salton Sea.''
I am proud of this support. And today you will have the
opportunity to hear more from these individuals and their
organizations.
Under my legislation, Interior will report to Congress
within one year on the options for restoring the Salton Sea,
and will include a recommendation for a preferred option.
Interior will review ways to reduce and stabilize salinity and
stabilize surface elevation. They will also explore
opportunities to restore the health of fish and wildlife
resources and their habitats, enhance recreational use and
economic development, and continue the use of the Salton Sea
for irrigation drainage.
Interior then has another 6 months within which it must
complete all environmental compliance and permitting activities
required to implement the proposal. By the end of this eighteen
month period, Interior must submit a final report to Congress,
at which time the authorization for construction is triggered,
allowing Congress 30 days of session to make changes in the
plan, or to stop it. This 30-day wait period gives the local
authorities and Members of Congress an opportunity to review
the plan before construction begins. If necessary Congress can
then take action to stop or modify the proposal.
I totally understand the need to act swiftly, but I am
concerned about the time frames established in the House bill.
I firmly believe that if we rush this process and waive or
modify the National Environmental Policy Act, we will end up in
court, prolonging this process instead of shortening it.
As I said, I have worked with local and Federal interested
parties, most of whom are represented here today--including the
Salton Sea Authority, the Department of Interior, the Imperial
and Riverside Counties Boards of Supervisors, the National
Audubon Society, Members of Congress, and others--to develop,
what I consider to be, a true consensus bill. I would again
like to thank them for their assistance and dedication.
In a December 23, 1998, article in USA Today, Sonny Bono
said, ``This is our last chance. If we don't move within a year
or two, it will be too late.'' He was right: the clock is
ticking and we must act now to find a solution. Scientists have
warned that the Salton Sea will be a dead sea within fifteen
years.
I am hopeful that with the bipartisan effort shown here
today, we can avert that unnecessary disaster, and save the
Salton Sea for future generations of farmers, tourists and
wildlife to enjoy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing
today. I look forward to working with you and other Members of
the Committee on this critical issue. This is necessary and
important legislation that will not only benefit Californians
and our Nation's natural heritage, but will also carry on the
legacy of Representative Sonny Bono.
Mr. Doolittle. I believe Mr. Calvert has testimony to be
entered into the record on behalf of Mr. Lewis; is that right?
Mr. Calvert. Yes. Mr. Chairman, would you entertain
Congressman Lewis' statement for the record?
Mr. Doolittle. Yes. Actually let me indicate to the Members
and witnesses that the full text of the statements will be
automatically included as part of the record. I know
Representative Chenoweth has a statement as well to submit, and
anyone else up here who has a statement it will be included.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Jerry Lewis
follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jerry Lewis, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California
I would like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member
for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this
important hearing and lend my strong support for this measure
which recognizes the hard work of our former colleague, Sonny
Bono, and addresses an important environmental issue in
Southern California.
The legislation before the Committee today is a result of
regular meetings of a group known as the Salton Sea Task Force.
The Task Force is comprised of Congressmen Duncan Hunter,
George Brown, Ken Calvert and myself. We all owe Sonny Bono a
debt of gratitude for raising the profile of this critically
important Western Environmental project. Without his
leadership, we would not be here today moving forward with this
legislative initiative.
Through this legislation, we have the opportunity to get a
handle on potential solutions relating to the environmental
restoration of the Salton Sea. However, if we don't act quickly
and in unison, we may be too late to make a difference. Some
environmental experts have predicted that at the current rate
of increasing salinity, the Salton Sea may be dead in five or
ten years.
It is important for everyone to understand that the members
of the Salton Sea Task Force view this legislation as the
starting point of a long and complicated process. For this
reason, the legislation does not pick a solution to the
problem. It lays out a framework that involves all the
stakeholders--the Federal Government, the State of California,
water agencies, farmers, local county governments, the Salton
Sea Authority, local universities, environmental groups and
others--and allows them to determine the most feasible solution
to the pressing environmental issues associated with the Salton
Sea. Members of the Salton Sea Task Force are extremely
enthusiastic and supportive of the Salton Sea University
Research Consortium's involvement on a variety of fronts,
including the University of Redlands' establishment of a Salton
Sea Bioregional GIS Database, San Diego State University's
Center for Inland Waters, and the University of California,
Riverside's expertise in farming and hydrological issues.
We believe that this hearing is an important first step
towards recognizing and addressing issues and concerns we may
not have accounted for in our original draft. In fact, many of
my colleagues from Colorado River Compact States have raised
questions regarding this bill's impact upon treaties, laws or
agreements concerning allocations and uses of Colorado River
water. I want to be clear--this legislation is not designed to
upset these fragile water rights agreements. If necessary, the
Task Force is certainly open to further clarifying this
important point. It is our intent that this legislation should
represent a consensus and not be a source of conflict.
Before I conclude my brief remarks, I want to reiterate
that this legislation is a beginning point. We all expect the
Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act to evolve as it
moves through the legislative process. It is our sincere hope
that the final bill will represent Sonny's vision of the once
vibrant Salton Sea--a Sea which can again play host to diverse
ecosystems as well as recreation and unlimited economic
opportunities.
Mr. Doolittle. With that we will recognize Representative
Duncan Hunter.
STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a real pleasure
to be with you, and it was good to listen to Senator Boxer, our
good friend who is working on this issue in the Senate and
initiated legislation with Senator Feinstein. I was thinking
about the common ground that we have as she was going through
the litany of elements that they have in their bill.
You know, Mr. Chairman, this body of water, which was
started in about 1905 with a flooding from the Colorado River,
has become a recreational resource. We were figuring out today
this thing is really within driving distance of about 6 percent
of the population of the United States, and a few years ago it
had more visitors that Yosemite National Park, for example. A
lot of working people in this country are able to get in their
cars, their pick-ups, or their campers and drive from Los
Angeles or the Inland Empire, my good friend George Brown's
area and Ken Calvert's great district there or Jerry Lewis'
area or from the San Diego area. Literally 6 percent of the
American population could get in their car and drive down the
freeway, get away from the boss, have a good time, camp and
enjoy what at one point was the most prolific fishery, the best
fishing per angler day of any body of water in America, and
that was the Salton Sea.
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that my statement be admitted
into the record, and I'll just generally summarize that
statement.
Mr. Doolittle. That will be fine, and we will certainly
include the whole statement.
Mr. Hunter. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know you've
undertaken a lot of time working on this problem. You attended
the hearings that Sonny convened for us in Palm Springs and you
actually visited the Sea and visited the New River area also.
And, you know, Ken Calvert, who has done so much great work
on this, and of course Sonny who grew up around the Sea and
knew it so well, and Jerry Lewis who is just north of there and
myself and George spent a lot of time working the issue, and
one thing that we discovered was the issue has been worked for
a long time.
This map that you have right here talks about the Salton
Sea, the salinity level, the fact that it needs to get to
around 34 parts per million, and that is roughly the salinity
of ocean water, and the fact that it's above that and we need
to bring it back down, and you can see the diking proposal that
is manifest in that particular map. That map is 1974, and that
was one of the initial proposals. So we have been looking at
the Salton Sea and have been getting ready to do something
about it for a long time.
Just to go to the point that my good friend, George Miller
made, the reason we put an expedited timeframe in this bill
very simply is because the Sea is dying, and when it gets to
60,000 parts per million the Sea is dead and the fish life can
no longer exist. We're at 45,000 parts per million right now,
ocean water being 35,000. So you've got this problem. You've
got this big sump, this big bathtub, so to speak, with no
outlet to it, and the waters that come in from the New River
and the Alamo River which carry mainly tail water from the
massive farming operations in America and in Mexico carries a
little bit of salt into the Sea, but as the Sea evaporates off
with no outlet over the years since that 1905 flooding the Sea
becomes necessarily and by definition increasingly saline.
So how do you get rid of the salt and how do you arrest the
increasing salinization of the Sea and hold it at an acceptable
level? Well there are only a couple of ways you can do it at
least under modern science and do it economically. One is to
dilute that water to some degree, and that can be done by
putting more water in the Sea. Of course, that causes a lot of
problems if you don't pump some water out because you have
right now a level of the Salton Sea that actually is higher
than some of the surrounding farm land. So you can expel water,
and you're probably going to have to expel some water. You can
dike off part of the Sea and you can allow part of the Sea to
die, and that's analogous to taking an arm off so that the
patient can live, or you can do a combination of that, a
combination of diking and perhaps some expulsion of water.
Ken Calvert during our brainstorming sessions with Sonny
had this great idea that we have a 500,000 acre bombing range
immediately to the east of the Salton Sea that we could use a
basin there in the bombing range to host some of the expelled
saline water and then continue to flush in with the fresher
water that comes through the New and the Alamo Rivers.
So there are really three elements, and I'll wind up here
very quickly because you've got a lot of witnesses. We've got
to handle the salinity. That's the big question, and it's going
to cost a lot of money. We know that. Even in the terms we
speak of today it's going to be a fairly expensive proposition,
but we have to do it.
The second leg of this still is we have to solve the toxic
waste and pollutant problem that comes from Mexico where the
New River flows through the city of Mexicali picking up
industrial waste and sewage presently and then flows some 50
miles past the Mexican border, north of the Mexican border into
the south end of the Sea. We have a massive project with the
International Boundary and Water Commission right now with
Mexico, and we're going to break ground this August I'm told by
the Commissioner on this project with Mexicali to wean the city
of Mexicali and its wastes from New River. So that will solve
part of our problem when that project is completed. That is
fairly well funded at this point and moving forward.
We have a second problem, and that of course is the New
River itself and the Alamo River, but mainly the New River
which has been polluted for many years and is considered the
most polluted river in North America.
Leon Lesika, who is going to testify today, is a great
leader of Desert Wildlife Unlimited who has solved so many of
our wildlife problems, and this group, this citizens group that
you will listen to along with the Bureau of Reclamation, Mr.
Chairman, are going to build, they are proposing to build, and
we have money in our bill to do this, basically 50 miles of
marshes along the New River, from where the New River enters
Mexico and comes into the south end of the Salton Sea, and
those marshes will have a natural filtering effect. It's
scientifically proven and it's used by hundreds of communities
throughout this country today to cleanse water. We need to
address some technical problems in our national law to allow us
to do that, but I think can do that.
But cleaning up New River along with weaning Mexicali and
its industrial wastes from New River and, finally, coming up
with this answer as to how we arrest the salinity of the Sea
are the three problems we're facing.
The bill has quite a bit more detail than that, Mr.
Chairman, but I know you have a lot of witnesses, and I'll
close with that.
I just want to thank you and thank all my colleagues for
picking up this ball. This is going to be tough and we're going
to have to move it forward and it's going to take some sharp
engineering and some sharp scientific work. I think we can do
it.
To my friend, Mr. Miller, I know that these time lines are
important, but we're only about 6 months apart. Senator Boxer's
bill is 18 months, and ours is 12, the Task Force's bill is 12.
That's not much difference, and today a computing dollar will
buy about four million times as much computing power as it
would in 1960 or 1962. We can do a lot of things today I think
that we couldn't do in the past.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for taking on this challenge,
and to all the Members of the Subcommittee we appreciate you,
and I appreciate my colleagues. You know, Sonny used to say
when he would wrap up these sessions that he would summon us to
can't we just get this thing done. Let's start on it, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Representative George Brown.
Mr. Brown, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I ask unanimous
consent to insert my complete statement in the record and I
will try and summarize also.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you, and it will be included in the
record.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation
to you for your strong support of taking some action on this
matter, and I want to categorically state in response to your
opening statement that none of the Members of our Task Force
have any intention or desire to avoid respecting the Law of the
River. That would open a can of worms which we just could not
cope with, and we assure you of our respect for maintaining
fully the existing Law of the River and all of its
ramifications. As you know, this is a very complex body of law,
but it has been built up over years.
I should indicate at this point that the original
Congressman from this region, the first to be elected from what
we call the Inland Empire was Phil Swing, who in effect began
the Law of the River when he was able to get through the
Congress the Bolder Canyon Act and the All American Canal Act
back in the 1920's, and in honor of the first Congressman from
the region I think all of the succeeding Congressmen from the
region would want to respect that.
I would also like to assure Mr. Miller that we don't want
to act in haste. However, reiterating what Mr. Hunter said,
after 25 years of study of this problem and after predictions
made by the Bureau of Reclamation that the system would
collapse in the 1980's we don't think it's premature to speed
up the action a little bit, and that's our only effort. We hope
that this Committee will suggest reasonable and legitimate ways
of speeding up this action so that we can save the Sea from
collapse.
Now the prediction that it would collapse in the last
1980's would have come true except for the fact that the Sea is
now about 10 feet higher than it was when that prediction was
made, and that additional volume of water has maintained the
salinity level at a considerably lower level than it normally
would have been. It has raised the elevation, and in raising
the elevation it has cost the Imperial Irrigation District
about $40 million in damages levied by the courts or settled by
negotiation with the riparian landowners. That is a very large
sum of money to pay for raising the level and maintaining the
salinity a little bit lower to prevent that predicted collapse.
Now why didn't we do something when for 25 years we have
been looking at studies of various solutions? Because there
wasn't the political will to act on this, and that's the main
difference in the situation over the years and today. We now
have I think the political will, and it was Sonny Bono who was
the inspiration for a great deal of this along with Mr. Hunter
who has pursued this just as vigorously in order to create some
momentum here. I think that we ought to move ahead with a
prompt, but not overly hasty solution that respects the Law of
the River, and I think we can do that.
I think that this whole operation can become a test bed for
what is going to be the proper solution to our overall water
problems in the West, and that is using water more efficiently.
We can do that through recycling, through desalinization, and
through any number of methods of conservation.
Since this is the largest available Colorado River
allocation that can be conserved I think we should use every
possible scientific method to show that we can use this water
efficiently, and then we must respect the right of the water
right holders to use whatever conservation methods that are
best for them to save water and to export that water at the
prevailing price that exists to those areas which are willing
to pay a higher price for it. I'm bringing in here the San
Diego Imperial Irrigation District Water Transfer, which I
think, while it's not in this bill and probably shouldn't be,
it is a key element that needs to be considered here.
Conserving water in the Imperial Valley can release
anywhere from 200- to 400-thousand acre feet per year according
to their own calculations, and in my optimistic calculations it
could be even more than that. That kind of a willing
transaction between buyers and sellers is the way that we will
get the most efficient use of water, and I urge that we make
every effort to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Brown follows:]
Statement of Hon. George E. Brown, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
I wish to thank Subcommittee Chairman Doolittle and Ranking
Member DeFazio for providing me this opportunity to express my
views on H.R. 3267, the ``Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea
Reclamation Act.'' It was a distinct pleasure for me to work
with Congressman Sonny Bono in the early stages of formulating
a legislative plan for saving the Salton Sea. I feel strongly
that this bill is a fitting commemoration of his dream to
restore the health of the Sea and the economic value of the Sea
to the region.
I believe that this bill is a valuable step in addressing
the problems at the Salton Sea. I am pleased that we were able
to bring this bill forward now, though I am saddened that only
with the passing of a fellow Member were we collectively able
to muster the political will to tackle this daunting problem.
But tackle it we must, because the Salton Sea is dying. Over
two-hundred thousand birds and millions of fish have perished
over the last five years. The die-offs, originally occurring
only in the hot-weather months, now take place year-round. The
death of the Salton Sea could imperil the health of the Pacific
Flyway, which stretches from Alaska, through Canada, the
Western United States, and on to Mexico.
Federal agencies have been studying solutions to the
mounting problems of the Salton Sea for decades; today's high
salinity and ecosystem stresses at the Sea are certainly no
surprise. Until this year, policy-makers have preferred to take
the easy wait-and-see option. I believe that this option is now
closed, and it has fallen to the 105th Congress to finally
decide the fate of the Salton Sea. Should we fail to act now,
we may be addressing far more expensive and draconian measures
to come.
The Salton Sea is more than just a problem to fix. It is a
missed economic opportunity, capable of providing the region
with a much needed engine for prosperity. Both visitor-day data
from the State of California and a recent economic study
conducted by faculty at the University of California Riverside
suggest lost economic inputs to the region are in the hundreds
of millions of dollars per year. Local unemployment runs over
30 percent in some areas. We must remember that Congressman
Bono, more than any other Member of Congress, stressed the need
to seek a solution which would provide for restoration of the
economic life of the Sea and its surrounding communities. We
must strive to honor his goal in this legislation.
I've been pursuing a solution to the problems at the Salton
Sea for years. Obviously, if cleaning it up were easy, it would
probably have been done a long time ago. But cleaning it up
will not be easy. It is going to be a very difficult process
for both the Congress and the many stakeholders involved. And I
believe that the difficulties are reflected in H.R. 3267. We
are still very early in the legislative process. I look forward
to discussing the issues raised in the bill with fellow
Members. It raises the level of understanding and
participation.
As Ranking Member of the House Committee on Science, I've
developed a strong interest in understanding complex systems,
and I'm very interested in the improvement of processes. The
Congress has worked hard to create many approaches for dealing
with difficult multi-faceted problems related to natural
resources and the environment. The restoration of the Salton
Sea presents the Congress with a valuable opportunity to build
on these approaches, to improve upon them, to learn from the
lessons of implementation. Certainly, the bill is not perfect;
I am relying on the legislative process to perfect it.
I would be remiss if I did not express to the Subcommittee
my positions on several of the important elements of the bill.
I am looking forward to testimony on the provisions in the bill
which waive certain environmental reviews of the restoration
process. In attempting to expedite action, the current bill may
well go too far in denying citizens and local governments their
legitimate rights of review under environmental and reclamation
statutes. I strongly support the importance of recognizing and
valuing local stakeholder interests in the process to save the
Sea. The Salton Sea Authority and its member agencies have
worked hard to achieve a solution, and should be recognized for
their critical role. I support the need to include the Torres
Martinez Band of Cahuilla Indians in decision-making, and I
believe that the inclusion of the Salton Sea University
Research Consortium will expedite and bring greater trust to
the overall solution-making process.
I feel most strongly that this bill reflects the authors
need to act. H.R. 3267 represents a landmark shift in the
nation's perception of the importance of the Salton Sea. I
believe this Subcommittee can provide critical input needed to
perfect this bill, to achieve broad-based bipartisan support
for its passage.
Mr. Doolittle. We will now have the opportunity to ask the
Members of our panel questions.
Mr. Hunter, if I could ask somebody to put that chart back
up, and I just wonder if you could tell us on that chart if
it's displayed where that military range is.
Mr. Hunter. Mr. Chairman, obviously the top of the chart is
the north there, and it's to the east basically starting almost
I would say about oh 20 miles from the top of the Sea coming
down this way and then 500,000 acres is the bombing range.
There is one to the west also, Mr. Chairman, but the biggest
one is to the east. So we basically have ranges, government
property flanking on each side of the Salton Sea.
Mr. Doolittle. And the spot where you believe the water
could be deposited from the Sea, how many miles from the Sea is
that?
Mr. Hunter. The one spot that they identified, and George
help me on this, but the spot they identified I think is about
10 miles away.
Is that accurate, George?
Mr. Brown. If I may comment. Yes, it's very close.
Unfortunately, it's up about 1,700 feet, and that has been
explored and investigated and a cost analysis made of pumping
water up that high, and it comes out at $40 million a year. Now
if you pump it at sea level it's only $10 million a year. So
the elevation is critical unless you can find some way to
generate electricity from letting the water run back down to
the Sea or something like that.
Mr. Hunter. And, Mr. Chairman, I would offer that this is
all on the floor of the California desert. I mean the Sea
itself is below sea level. I think we ought to explore in this
study of course the possibility of finding a lower basin. In
other words, the Sea literally is at sea level, and this basin
that they identified in the bombing range is up some 1,700
feet, as George said. There are a lot of spots in the bombing
range that are much lower and therefore require much less lift.
The government property and the training area to the west of
the Salton Sea, none of that to my knowledge is more than 4- or
5 hundred feet above sea level. So I think we can further
explore that and see if there aren't some lower ranges. That
was one idea that Ken Calvert had.
The complication here, Mr. Chairman, and you've opened this
question a little bit, is expelling water, and we still are
looking at arranging some type of an agreement with Mexico that
would allow us to expel some of that water to the south of the
Sea into either the Laguna Salada, which is about 40 miles
away, and that's a backup, if you will, of the tributaries that
go into the Sea of Cortez, or taking it all the way down into
the Sea of Cortez, or running a line over to the Colorado River
desalinization plant that we built for Mexico right at the
border at Yuma, and that is about, what, George, 60 miles away,
and taking it down that canal into the Sea of Cortez. Now that
obviously would require immense cooperation from Mexico.
So Ken's common sense idea was well if we can't get that
and we can't bet on that perhaps we can build evaporation ponds
there on one side of the Sea or the other, and I think that's
going to be perhaps a really strong consideration.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Let me ask the Members for unanimous consent. I had offered
to Mr. Pallone, who has now been able to join us, to testify as
part of the first panel, and I wonder if we could just suspend
our questioning to allow him to make his statement and then
resume. Is there any objection to that?
[No objections.]
Mr. Doolittle. Seeing none, Mr. Pallone, a Member of our
Full Resources Committee is recognized for his statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize. I
was in the Commerce Committee and we had the Speaker and Mr.
Gephardt there on the American Disabilities Act. So I just came
over.
Let me just say that although I'm not a Member of the
Subcommittee I have become very interested in the topic of this
hearing, the Salton Sea. I actually had the opportunity last
weekend to be out there and have a tour of the Sea and also
talked to some of the people that are concerned about its
future. I witnessed, I have to say, both the great potential of
the Sea as an environmental and recreational resource and also
the unfortunate problems that the Salton Sea currently endures.
It was very interesting, Mr. Chairman, because in many ways
the situation reminded me of what we faced in New Jersey back
in 1988 when I was first elected. My district is along the
shore in New Jersey and we had medical waste wash-ups and
sewage sludge and a number of other things that negatively
impacted our tourism industry so that we actually lost billions
of dollars statewide as a result of the environmental
degradation.
I truly empathize with my colleagues from California and
also the Native American tribes and others who are working to
restore the Salton Sea to a healthy ecosystem because I think
that if they take certain preventative measures that are
outlined in this bill or other bills that have been introduced
in the Senate that they can prevent the kind of problems that
we in fact witnessed and that created huge economic problems
for us at the Jersey shore.
Now I represent a very different area of the country, but
my constituents and I, I think, have a lot in common because we
have these similar environmental and economically linked
hardships. I guess my point, and obviously I think everyone
here agrees, is that the environment and a good economy, the
environment and job creation, all that can co-exist, and I
would very much like to see a solution for the Salton Sea that
recognizes the environmental and recreational potential and
what that means in terms of jobs. At the same time, you look at
the impacts that might affect the agricultural sector and some
of the other economic sectors in the area.
If you're willing, I would like to stay for the rest of the
hearing today and work with my colleagues on this Committee in
trying to address what I consider to be not only a California
issue, but a truly national issue. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Well resuming the questioning, let me just ask the Members
that are present on this panel either who have lived there or
been there to see what it looks like, would any of you be
inclined to take a swim in the Salton Sea as it presently
exists?
Mr. Hunter. Well, you know, when Secretary Babbitt came
out, and I think it's indicative of the bipartisan support for
this project because Speaker Gingrich has spent a lot of time
working on this issue, as you know, Mr. Chairman, but when
Secretary Babbitt came out and he took his tour George and I
got to take a tour on an air boat with him. It was a very windy
day with white caps coming over the tops of these air boats,
and I asked the gentleman who was handling the boats, and he
said you and George can go down and get in your boat, and there
was one with very high seats that was about 20 feet above the
waves, and we started to walk toward it, and he said, no,
that's not your boat. We had the boat with the low seats where
you sit down right at wave level and you catch them right in
the face. I just will tell you that I asked Leon Lesika, who is
sitting behind me, the great leader of Desert Wildlife
Unlimited, if he wanted to do, and he said are you kidding, and
he didn't go with us.
Mr. Doolittle. Well that was certainly my impression, and I
didn't go out on the Sea. I saw enough from the shore. Well
thank you very much.
Let me recognize Mr. Miller for his questions.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Just a couple of comments because I
think I outlined some of my concerns. I hope my opening remarks
were interpreted as a desire that we do work together. It's not
about delay. Duncan, was it you or George who said that this
has been around for 25 years because you didn't have the
political will to do it, and now to take the absence of that
political will and lay that on the head of the agencies that
have got to comply with laws and try to compress this so they
can't do an adequate job I think lands this back into a
controversy and into court because I don't think you're going
to get a removal of judicial review, and I don't think the
Administration can live with that, that's their indication.
What I was suggesting is that we ought to think, and I
don't know if you're going to mark this up on the 26th or what
day it is, but we ought to think about trying to get a
preconference. You know, I've always thought of sending good
legislation to the Senate is sort of like putting your child in
foster care, you may never see it again.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Miller. You know, as soon as people know that this is
what California wants, all the sudden there are multiple holds
on a bill, and if we don't have the agreement of all of the
parties your chances, given the limited number of days, your
chances of getting it out of the Senate are the same chances
you have of escaping a black hole. I just think that people
have got to set aside all their ideology, whether they like
environmental laws or don't, but figure out how we make this
work so we can walk over to the Senate and say everybody is in
agreement and this is what we want done, because otherwise it
just becomes bait and I think we ought to try to avoid that.
So what I'm saying is I think thinking about this over the
next week or 10 days could buy us a real shortening of the
legislative process here because none of this is going to
happen before this bill becomes law. If we miss this cycle it
would be a shame, and that's all I'm saying. This isn't about
delaying, you know, what you and Barbara have tried to do
because, as you point out, on this you're only 6 months apart.
That's a tiny, tiny price if you thought you were going to get
success. So we'll sort it out.
Mr. Brown. May I comment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Without objection.
[No objections.]
Mr. Brown. Mr. Miller is expressing what I think is the
desire of the sponsors of this bill. If we follow normal
procedures here in the Congress it will be 6 months before this
bill is signed. Six months is critical. The Sea could collapse
by virtue of our failure to cut 6 months off of the normal
time, and the normal time if we go through all the processes,
including the Congressional processes, is about two and a half
to 3 years. I don't think we have that much time. If we can
cutoff 6 months here and if we can cutoff 6 months of extra
time in the NEPA process we should do it and we should ask the
Department how to do it right.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Miller have you concluded?
Mr. Miller. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Calvert is recognized and then following
his questions we will recess for the votes, two votes.
Mr. Calvert. Just a quick question since we have to go down
for a couple of votes.
Duncan, you mentioned the problems we're having along the
New River and the idea of putting those marshes in. As you
mentioned, this is an idea that is being used throughout the
United States to clean up various toxins from water, but you
have an interesting problem with the Clean Water Act. Would you
like to get into more detail on what that problem is.
Mr. Hunter. Certainly, and we really need your help. I
mentioned this to Secretary Babbitt, and at least he indicated
initially that he would be happy to work on it also. When we
first put together this idea, the idea of cleaning up a river
or a body of water with a series of ponds, is that you flow
some water out and you flow it through a series of ponds and
the water hyacinths or other shrubbery pull the toxics out of
the water so the water is a little cleaner as it goes to the
next pond, and then finally you flow it back into the river,
and after you've done that for 50 miles, basically 50 miles of
marshes you've incrementally, by using these incremental
processes at each pond, you've cleaned up the river
considerably.
The problem that was laid on us by the Imperial Irrigation
District who had their attorneys look at it was they came back
to us and said the way we read the Clean Water Act is if we
touch this water in the New River we own it. That means that
once we pull it out we can only put it back in if it's
basically pure quality, drinking quality. So that means that
you've lost the chance to do incremental cleanup which has been
shown to work very effectively around the country.
So we need to adapt the law, and we've got a change
proposed in our bill that would do that, that would allow us to
pull the water out as we travel this 50 miles of New River from
Mexico to where it empties into the Salton Sea, filter it
through the marshes and run it back into the river, and we'll
have a much cleaner river for the water that finally gets to
the south end of the Salton Sea. So we do need that change,
Ken, and it's a very important part of this package, and we
will need a lot of cooperation.
So, George, we are all going to have to make compromises.
We can't have a situation where folks say this Act is inviolate
and we can't change a comma or a single letter. We do have to
make some common sense accommodations so we can have a good
ecosystem and so we can clean up the New River.
Mr. Calvert. And, last, George, you mentioned the Colorado
River and the Law of the River and everyone's intention to meet
that law and not violate it in any way. We couldn't take any
water from the river today even if we wanted to, as you know,
because the Sea is at flood stage now and we can't accept any.
But if somewhere down the line we were able to remove water and
we were able to take water in, how much capacity is there in
the All American Canal to deliver water?
Mr. Brown. Well the canal delivers the full allocation to
the Imperial Irrigation District, which is three million acre
feet, plus or minus a couple of hundred thousand. I think that
it's actually more now, but of course the further down the
canal you get the less water it's carrying because it's being
used to irrigate as it goes down. I don't think capacity for
the amount of water we're talking about is an important
consideration here, but I could be wrong.
My own calculations are that under a steady state where you
have the salinity at the level you want, then all you need to
do is remove the incoming salt. Pumping out about a hundred
thousand acre feet per year and making up a hundred thousand
acre feet in fresh water would do the job and would maintain
the Sea stable in perpetuity as far as salt level is concerned,
and an additional hundred thousand acre feet I think could be
accommodated in the All American Canal. If I'm wrong, why I'll
suggest some other ways to get the water in.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
We are going to recess now and we'll come back after the
two votes. It is the Chair's intent to take a lunch break right
around noon. We should finish up with this panel I think
quickly after we come back, and then we will resume at
approximately 1 o'clock once we take the lunch break. So we
will reconvene in a few minutes.
[Recess taken for Members to vote.]
Mr. Doolittle. The Subcommittee will reconvene. We are in
the midst of querying our first panel, and the Chair recognizes
Mr. Ensign from Nevada for his questions.
Mr. Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously coming from Nevada and being a lower basin State
ourselves we are very concerned about this project, and I want
to ask a couple of fundamental questions dealing with the
formation of the Sea in the first place. Can you maybe just
discuss the history of how it was formed.
Mr. Hunter. Sure. The Sea was formed in the several years
succeeding 1905. It was a flood of the Colorado River in which
the totality, as I understand it, and George is a better
historian than I am on this, but the totality of the Colorado
River flooded into the basin for about 2 years. Of course early
on it was a fresh water lake. I mean the salinity built up over
the years.
And I want to applaud you, Mr. Ensign and Mr. Shadegg. I
know you are very concerned as participants in the River
Division of Water, that this doesn't infringe on any of your
rights, and I think George stated, and I want to state it again
that we have no intention of upsetting the division of the Law
of the River or taking any bigger share.
Mr. Ensign. The reason I brought up how it was formed is
that, first of all, you've been to Israel and have been to the
Dead Sea and you've seen the Great Salt Lake and all of that.
If you have no outflow naturally bodies of water will die. You
know, in less artificial man-made means of, you know,
tremendous amounts of money and everything what you're talking
here of having an unnatural outflow to this body of water it's
going to die regardless of what kind of stuff from agriculture
is brought in or any of that kind of stuff. It's going to die
over time. I mean I thought that part of the environmental
movement of today, you know, because this thing is called an
environmental restoration, but it's part of environmentalism
today about going along with what is natural?
Mr. Hunter. Well let me give my answer, and then I know
George has got an answer on this thing, too. That Sea serves,
regardless of how it was made, and let's say it was a man-made
lake, it serves 6 percent, or is within driving distance of 6
percent of the entire population of this nation, and a lot of
folks who can't afford to book a trip to go fly fishing in New
Zealand on the weekend can get in their camper and they can get
away from the boss and they can drive down to Bombay Beach or
one of those other places where Sonny Bono used to go and enjoy
the sea, and in the old days they could ski, and they had the
best fishing literally. It was the best fishing per angler day
in the entire United States.
I don't think anybody here is saying that we want to return
this desert to pristine days. I think what we say is we want to
have multiple use of a great natural resource, and that
includes our farming community that the Sea serves, the
agriculture basin of about a million and a half acres in Mexico
and in the United States. So we want our agriculture users and
the great production that comes from that is a beneficiary of
the Sea. And regardless of what has happened here and how it
started, a great many fresh water birds, hundreds of thousands
of them use the Sea. It's a great resource for average people.
Middle-class Americans can go down and get in a duck blind at
one of the refuges along the Sea and can have a nice morning
watching the sun come up. So it's a great resource for us.
And, incidentally, I want to tell you, you have some folks
that come over from Arizona also. There are not many that come
down from Las Vegas to the Sea, but quite a few from Arizona.
George has an answer.
Mr. Ensign. Let me just point out a couple of other things
about the bill that concern us in Nevada.
One is that you've tried to put in the bill, efforts to not
change the Law of the River. One of the problems that we have
in Nevada is we're working on a deal with Arizona right now
about banking Arizona excess water, underground in Arizona. It
will help future growth in Southern Nevada. Under your bill
currently you're talking about surpluses and excesses and
possibly being able to use that. California right now only has
allocated to them 4.4 million acre feet, and they are currently
using about 5.3 million acre feet of the Colorado River. I
guess the fundamental question here is that we would have no
problem supporting the bill if California was willing to only
use its 4.4 million acre feet.
Mr. Hunter. Well here was the way I envisioned it, John. My
district goes all the way to Winterhaven. It goes to Arizona
and includes that part of the river. We have years when our
farmland along the river is washed away by floods and we have
to get disaster relief. That water flows down and flows into
the ocean. So it's not used by Arizona, it's not used by
California and it's not used by anybody. It just flows into the
ocean. So I think that you're eminently reasonable and,
incidentally, our options may not even involve using excess
storm water or years when you have excess rain water. I think
it's reasonable that you don't want to have any infringement on
water that you folks would use in Arizona or in Nevada, but I
think it's unreasonable if we have a decision that we are going
to let water flow into the Pacific Ocean rather than use it to
restore this great resource.
Mr. Ensign. Just two quick points if I may make about this.
First of all, Nevada right now is building a new pipeline from
Lake Mead coming into Las Vegas. It's a $1.7 billion project
and we're funding it all ourselves. In other words, we didn't
come to the Federal trough to feed from the Federal trough.
We're doing it all ourselves.
The second point is that the surplus in the Colorado River
when you have surplus years, is allocated and is not your
excess, but it's the surplus above what normally flows down
from the river. When a surplus occurs everybody along the
Colorado River has their allocation increased, and that would
be one of the things that we would want to definitely have
protected within this legislation.
Mr. Hunter. Well I would say this. I think we can all work
together and make this thing work and come to a solution, and I
understand the nervousness. If you mention the word Colorado
River, I was told if the word Colorado River was used all of
Arizona's and Nevada's ears went up. I think we can do this
thing without infringing on any of the water that you folks
need.
Incidentally, it was good to see you at that meeting that
we had on the Nevada testing site where your folks there from
your district were concerned about getting some of that money
from the Federal trough and we're going to work with them on
that project, and you made a great speech. But seriously, I'm
being facetious, I think we can work as partners on this, John.
You know, water has been historically, it has been the
issue over which Westerners like us have big fights, but we
also ultimately come to some pretty darn good agreements to
serve our people well, and you and Mr. Shadegg are the best
advocates for your folks, and we appreciate that. But I think
we'll be able to work this thing out, and I want to work with
you.
Mr. Ensign. OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, would you be kind enough to allow
me to respond briefly to the gentleman's question?
Mr. Doolittle. Sure. Go ahead. We'll use the balance of Mr.
Calvert's and my time.
Mr. Brown. There are two points you made and I would like
to respond to each.
First, Salton Sea is a natural lake, and at periodic
intervals it has been both a fresh water lake and a salt water
lake. If you travel down there you will see the line
established by the old lake level along the mountains there.
Sometimes it's several hundred years between inundations, but
it's formed naturally by the flow of the Colorado River across
its delta, and on occasion it breaks out of the delta channel
and the whole thing flows into the Salton Sea and creates a
fresh water lake.
Mr. Ensign. So it's sort of an evaporation pond.
Mr. Brown. Right. It has always been an evaporation pond,
and there has been a hugh Indian culture around that lake
during those times when it had water in it.
Mr. Ensign. Actually the whole State of Nevada used to be
under water as a lake.
Mr. Brown. Right, and parts of California, including Death
Valley. So I'm not urging that we necessarily think in geologic
terms. The last inundation of that lake was only 400 years ago.
At the time that Columbus came that was the largest fresh water
lake in the West.
Now the other point you made had to do with the utilization
of surplus flows. California expects to live by its allocation.
It is working diligently to live by its allocation. It's
seeking to create new water through conservation and recycling.
You have every right to insist that we continue, the Secretary
is insisting that we continue, and we will continue.
You need to do one other thing. You need to establish
clearly in either this legislation or other legislation your
right, all of the Basin States, to bank water and to sell it
either intrastate or interstate and get the benefits from the
sale of that water that you're entitled to. At the present time
if you neither bank it or sell it it either flows to the ocean,
as Duncan mentioned, or we snap it up in California as surplus
water, and that cannot continue. You deserve to get the same
benefit from surplus water as California does.
Mr. Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Is there any objection to the gentleman, Mr. Pallone,
sitting with the Subcommittee? Mr. Pallone is a Member of the
Full Resources Committee.
[No objections.]
All right. Seeing no objection, Mr. Pallone will be invited
to join us up here.
Mr. Doolittle. The Chair recognizes Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to followup on some points that have already
been raised and discussed to some degree.
First of all, I'm not sure, Mr. Brown, that I don't
disagree with at least one point you just made. I believe that
the Law of the River already clearly allocates a hundred
percent of the water, and that at least in Arizona as a result
of a combination of the Law of the River and of some very
forward-thinking laws we have enacted as a State that we have
the absolute right now to bank water, and we are in fact
banking water. We are banking water underground and there is
the issue of whether or not that water may some day be sold
outside of Arizona. That may be a legal question, but beyond
that we have the right to take all of our current water and we
have the right to bank it, and Arizona is already aggressively
banking water. So I don't think we need to address that in this
legislation at all.
Second, I think I have the understanding of everyone that
is involved in the sponsorship of this bill and the indication
from the Chairman that he is amenable to the same point, that
language can be added to the bill which says directly and
clearly that the bill doesn't change the current allocation and
doesn't alter the Law of the River in any way. Are we in
agreement on that?
Mr. Hunter. Absolutely, we agree with that.
Mr. Shadegg. Beyond that then California, as I think we are
also in agreement, has the right to use either some portion of
its basic allocation or in those years where if in fact it
turns out there is a surplus, and as a result of El Nino there
will be this year, because the current Law of the River clearly
allocates a portion of the excess or surplus flow to
California, and indeed allocates the largest portion of the
surplus or excess to California, and California is free to use
that water as well and to deliver it through the existing canal
system. We're agreed on that.
Mr. Brown. May I comment on that?
Mr. Shadegg. Sure.
Mr. Brown. The problem with the surplus water of the
Colorado River, and as you indicate it is fully appropriated at
the present time based on average flow, and probably overly
appropriated, but the trouble is that the Colorado flows
anywhere from one half its average flow to twice its average
flow. When you have half the average flow there is a shortage
all over the basin, and when you have twice there is an
inability to handle that. In Southern California of course
we're building more surface reservoirs as well as probably some
underground reservoirs to help capture some of that water,
shall we say, and to normalize the flow of the river by storing
it in reservoirs.
The proper way to do this is of course to utilize very
possible technique and technology to maximize the usable water
in the river, and we fully support doing that both through
storage and through the right to transfer the water by any
entitlement holder to a willing buyer who is willing to pay for
it, and that may need some clarification, or any other similar
device, and we would like to work with you in establishing that
very clearly.
Mr. Shadegg. I think we are in agreement with the exception
that I believe in your remarks you create the implication that
when the river is at its highest possible flow that water is
not already allocated, and in point of fact it is already,
every drop is already allocated. There is some question about
whether it can be used, but the Law of the River allocates
every single drop even in those highest flow years because the
Secretary of Interior has the legal ability in high-flow years,
and by the way he can also in low-flow years do the opposite,
but in high-flow years he can declare that there is an excess
and the law then allocates that excess amongst the Colorado
River Basin States. So my only point is that since the law
currently allocates the entire flow of the river in its highest
conceivable flow we do not need to change that in this
legislation.
Mr. Hunter. I would hope, John, that you and John Ensign
wouldn't argue, you know, understanding the fact that you have
the allocation on paper under the Law of the River, but we
still have surge times and flood times when you have a lot of
water going into the ocean and that you wouldn't insist on
water that is going into the ocean in practical fact not being
used, if it could be used, to reduce the level of salinity in
the Sea to use that.
Mr. Shadegg. Absolutely not.
Mr. Hunter. That's what we're talking about.
Mr. Shadegg. What I would object to would be a change in
the law which would supposedly deal with that water which is
now as a practical matter in fact flowing into the ocean in a
different way that than the law currently deals with it. The
law gives you, California, the right to take the vast majority
of that water, and quite frankly right now you can't, we can't
and nobody can. By the way, Mexico has a legal right as well to
a portion of that water.
Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence I would like to ask one
more question.
Mr. Doolittle. Without objection.
[No objection.]
Mr. Shadegg. Just to clarify one separate point from that
issue having to do with the Colorado River and the flow of the
river, two things are my understanding. No. 1, it is my
understanding that the Imperial Valley Irrigation District, IIP
or whatever it is, already was planning to spend, and the
number I heard was something in the neighborhood of $60 million
to clean up the Salton Sea itself, and I would hope that
whatever the Congress does does not displace any existing
commitments for funding toward this task, and I would be
interested in your assurance on that point because beyond my
concerns about the Colorado River I have fiscal concerns.
The second point, and let me just wrap them into one
question and then you can talk and they won't cut you off,
whereas they might cut me off. The second point is it is also
my understanding that the most advanced best management
practices, particularly ditch lining and laser leveling of crop
fields, are not fully being utilized in the Imperial Valley at
this time and that there is currently under consideration the
fact that they are going to begin to do that and that there
then will be water savings, and it is my understanding that if
those water savings occur there were plans in the works to take
the saved water and actually by pulling it out of the further
north canal deliver it to San Diego which is in a water
shortage itself, and I would be interested in your comments on
that point in terms of the long-term implications for the
Salton Sea.
Mr. Hunter. Sure. First, I think you've hit, John, on the
overall problem with the conservation of water in general in
the Southwest and the work or the cooperation between rural
areas and the urban areas. If you're a farmer who is getting
water for $15 or $20 an acre foot it's not in your economic
interest nor can you afford, for example, to do tail water
recycling, lining of all the ditches and other things, although
we've done a lot of that in the Imperial Valley over the years,
but it's very difficult when you're buying the water at that
price. To the urban user, whether you're in Arizona or
California, if you're paying $500-plus per acre foot at the
margin it's in your interest to do things that will free up
that water.
So working together, the Imperial Irrigation District and
the people of Imperial Valley who democratically elect that
institution and the city of San Diego, which is at the tail end
of the metropolitan water aqueduct, are coming to an
understanding in which basically folks that live in the city
are going to pay for water which otherwise would flow off of
fields that could be reused, the tail water pump back systems,
and likewise are paying to line canals and do other things that
otherwise would allow the water to seep into the desert sand.
So it's really a pretty good working partnership.
Now the effect on the Sea, and I think this is one reason
why George has brought out very properly the emergency
situation that we have, the Sea hasn't died in recent years as
was predicted because we have more water in the Sea. We've had
lots of farming operations there and lots of water delivered to
the Sea and it's higher than it was predicted to have been.
When we pull down the amount of water that is going to the
Sea through New River and Alamo River, which is largely the
result of farming operations because of the new conservation
practices, you're going to have a lower shoreline there. That
means you're going to have a concentration of salt, and that
means that the increased salinity could reach a crisis stage
earlier than we think. So that's another one of the dynamics.
So what we have here is we have all the partners on the river
as one element and we have Mexico as a party which in several
of options has to cooperate. We need their cooperation or we
can't exercise those options. You have the complication of the
Mexicali pollution, the New River pollution, and then the fact
that your Sea is shrinking in size.
Now with all those problems, as Sonny Bono said, why can't
we just do it. I think we can put our heads together and come
up with a practical solution that is not going to use up all
the money in the treasury and that is going to maintain this
enormously important resource and leave our Arizona and Nevada
friends well satisfied. I think we can do it.
Mr. Shadegg. The commitment of the Imperial Irrigation
District that was existing to do cleanup work, are you aware of
that?
Mr. Hunter. Well here is what we have in the bill. I mean
this is a 1974 proposal that showed what we could do, and there
were several Congressmen over the years who were interested in
trying to get something going, but obviously you're talking of
something in terms of the funding sales, and this has to be
Federal, State and local. What we have is a requirement in the
legislation that the Secretary enter into a memorandum of
understanding with the Governor and with the Salton Sea
Authority that basically divides the cost, and there is going
to be cost sharing. Obviously the local agriculture area or the
area that is associated with the sporting uses of the resource
can't support a project of this magnitude, but we have in place
a mechanism for cost sharing that will be arrived at with the
Secretary and with the Governor of California and with the
Authority.
And, incidentally, the Torres Martinez Tribe is very much a
part of this. Art Lopez is here with them and he is going to
testify today. They're another important player. They have some
of their lands submerged in the Sea, and Sonny was very, very
concerned that they be treated equitably in this project.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Mrs. Chenoweth is recognized.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hunter and Mr. Brown, I do want to go on record as
saying that I enthusiastically endorse the concept of this
project. I very much endorse it. It may sound strange to some
of my conservative friends, but I believe the Federal
Government has an obligation to repair the damage that they did
in 1905 when they destroyed the dike upon the construction of
the American Canal. That is what caused the formation of the
Salton Sea and the Federal Government has turned a blind eye to
their responsibility there.
But I have some technical questions that I would like for
you to think about. Even though the Sea was accidentally formed
it is surface water and therefore it does belong to the State
of California. So the way the bill is constructed I worry about
the authority that we're giving to the Federal Government.
Now I believe that we the Congress should fund the project.
We should repair the damage. But what we're doing in this bill,
on page 7 with regards to relationship to other laws, we are
allowing the Department of Interior to get out from under their
obligations under the reclamation laws, and it was under the
reclamation laws that the problem was formed in the first
place.
Now what are we creating here? It appears that we're giving
over the Salton Sea and the operation of the Salton Sea, taking
that property that belongs to California and giving it to the
Federal Government. The Federal Government never does as good a
job as the State does. I would much rather see us just block
grant to California the money that we owe them and they could
get this thing done far quicker than the Federal Government
could.
Another concern that I have is that there is a training
range down there, and once that property belongs to the Federal
Government, and under what authority I don't know. It's not
under reclamation. I mean this bill takes them out from under
reclamation. So how are they going to manage water when it's
outside of reclamation and we haven't identified what it is.
The second problem is, and Mr. Hunter you have worked with
me on the training range in Idaho, and I think that I mentioned
to you that one of the problems, big problems that we've had in
Idaho is that the Department of Interior wants to control air
traffic above their properties, and I worry about that here,
and I worry about the future of the training range.
I think that if the Congress bellied up to the bar and did
what they were supposed to do in terms of funding the project,
and I think that we would like to be able to name it, but I
think it should be placed in the hands of the State, and I
think that is consistent with State water law and the Law of
the River and the California Compact.
And, furthermore, in the proposed bill we also have the
Congress stating that the Secretary shall employ agencies of
the State government. It doesn't state that the Secretary can
help coordinate studies and so forth. It states here that the
Secretary shall require certain agencies of the State
government to do certain things, and it doesn't say the
Secretary shall provide them with money.
So I think we're handing something over to the Federal
Government that may get us in deeper soup than if we just lived
up to our obligations and funded the project and let the State
take care of their resources that we damaged.
Mr. Hunter. Excellent questions, Helen. Let me tell you why
I think the Federal Government is uniquely the lead player in
this project. Because of some elements that you don't generally
have in a project like this, no matter which option we take
with respect to the salinity problem, Mexico is a key player,
and one reason is the New River that flows north through
Mexicali and into the United States, when it enters the United
States is the most polluted river in North America. We right
now have this project with Mexico in Mexicali trying to wean
Mexicali from the New River and stop that sewage and those raw
pollutants from going in there.
Also we have in these options that are potential options
here, and we've addressed the Colorado River a lot, but really
another source of excess water is Laguna Salada, which is kind
of a back water of the tributaries of the Sea of Cortez. It
backs right up to the border, and if you look at our map there
it's about 40 miles south of the south end of the Sea, and it
comes almost up to the Mexican border.
So we're going to have to work with Mexico to make this
thing work in any event, and if we use one of the options that
involves expulsion of the salt water into Mexico, or it was
even suggested at one time you have a line pump in and pump out
through the Sea of Cortez. We need their cooperation.
You also potentially have the desalinization plant and the
canal that serves that plant at Yuma. This is an international
project, and when you have an international project we have a
system that is set up that works pretty well, the International
Boundary and Water Commission, but also the Federal Government
has with respect to these water projects along the border, has
a pretty good rapport and a pretty good working relationship
with Mexico. It's a lot easier for them to handle the ball
there than it is for the States. So we do have a requirement
that they enter into an agreement with the State. I mean the
Governor of the State of California has a lot to say about this
program, and that's necessarily so, and also the Governor of
the State and the State of California and the Salton Sea
Authority are obviously partners in the cost sharing aspect of
this also. Because it sits rights on the border and we involve
Mexico I think this is one of those cases.
Now with respect to the bombing range and whether or not
the bombing range is going to be infringed on, let me just say
as a guy who represents that area that that is an enormous
resource just like your training range is in Idaho. My
contemplation here is that if we use part of the bombing range
as a deposit for a salt evaporation area that that will be done
with an understanding that it is simply an easement into the
range and that there is absolutely no inhibition of the
practices of training or fighting of both our Navy aviators and
our Air Force aviators at that range.
We have people from all over the country, units now that
rotate into that range and use it. It's very valuable and you
can fly 365 days a year there, and we will not inhibit that use
at all. I mean that would be a very important thing I think to
all of us and to the National Security Committee. So if we used
it, as long as we're bombing it we're using it as a bombing
range. It seems like that would be compatible to have a salt
evaporation place there, but I know Ken Calvert has strong
feelings on that, too, and he would join with me in seeing to
it that we would not inhibit that national security
utilization.
Mrs. Chenoweth. Thank you, Mr. Hunter, and I just want to
let you know that those of you in California have given a lot
of thought to this project. The precedent that this may set of
course is of concern to all of us in the West who deal with the
western water law and the national security issues and the
international treaty issues that you will have to deal with are
of concern. I just hope that we're dealing with the right
agency. Other than that so long as the State's sovereign rights
to control and govern their surface water remains intact, then
I'll be very sanguine and supportive of it.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, and thank you for your work as a
real champion for States' rights and for private property
rights.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Pallone, you are recognized for any
questions you may address.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I as an outsider who just went to look at the Salton Sea
for the first time this past weekend, I just wanted to ask sort
of a general question of my two colleagues.
When I was there, it was somewhat surprising to me to see
this large body of water surrounded by major recreational
activities, for example, in Palm Springs, which isn't very far.
Then when I took the helicopter tour I noticed that I guess
historically there had been homes built for recreational use.
In other words, people that built homes around the Sea who were
obviously, you know, using it as a marina for recreational
purposes, but that that had seriously declined from what I
could see because of the pollution problems. There were homes
that were actually under water and there were many that seemed
to be abandoned. Of course I was told that the agricultural
interests essentially use the Salton Sea as a place where the
runoff, I guess from their agricultural pursuits and the water
that they use to irrigate the area, it's sort of the basin for
that.
What I guess I wanted to ask you just very generally is--
isn't there a real possibility because of the proximity to L.A.
and because of the fact that you have Palm Springs nearby,
isn't there a real possibility for this area to develop as a
major recreational site, I mean to bring new homes in and
people who would use the area for fishing, sports activities
and whatever? And is it necessarily so that by doing that that
you impinge on the agricultural interests? I mean it seems to
me that you could still have, you know, major agriculture going
on, but still have this area develop as even more of a
recreational site. I guess I'm kind of getting the impression,
or I got the impression from some, that maybe the agricultural
interests would just as soon have it used as a basin for their
waste water, but to me it seemed that in the long run that the
recreational activity was extremely valuable and could co-exist
with agricultural interests.
Mr. Hunter. Let me give just a real short answer, but I
want George Brown to comment on this because he was born in my
district, and I was born in his district, and we've been real
partners on this thing as Sonny has.
First, agricultural interests have saved the Sea because
the New River basically consists of agricultural runoff. As
George so eloquently stated, the death of the Sea was projected
to be in the mid-1980's when we would reach 60,000 parts per
million and we would totally lose the fishing resource and the
wildlife that attends that. It didn't happen because of the
agriculture water that flows into the Sea. If you cutoff New
River and Alamo River, which is the runoff not only from
American farming but also farming in Mexico, the Sea would be
dead now.
And, second, the folks that I know, and I've spent a lot of
time there, I mean you could find me out there on, you know, a
dike on the Salton Sea at 5:30 in the morning with Leon Lesika
crawling through the mud hunting, and if we get this thing
cleaned up we're going to be out there catching some of those
corbina which still exist in the Sea. We have a bird festival
there that the Valley and the farmers really love that attracts
thousands of people each year. So I think the community, the
agriculture community and the Sea really appreciates it, and
they're common sense guys and ladies and certainly we can co-
exist.
With respect to development of the Sea, and the Chairman of
Torres Martinez is going to testify, he is right here with us
today, but of course that is in the cards and could be done.
Sonny Bono had great dreams for this. I mean he would summon us
to his office and he had drawings and plans and lots of things
that could be done, particularly in conjunction with the Torres
Martinez Tribe which has thousands of acres submerged under the
Sea. So I think all those things can be accomplished in a
multiple use.
George.
Mr. Brown. It was Sonny Bono's genius that he perceived the
value of the kind of recreational, commercial and other
developments that you've talked about. Much of what already
existed of this sort has been inundated as the Sea rose. The
Irrigation District has had to pay out close to $50 million,
and I will submit the detailed figures on that, to compensate
for the inundation of the areas surrounding the Salton Sea, and
they are as much interested in stabilizing the level as anybody
else because only then can you get the full commercial,
recreational and other development potential that exists there.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. The Subcommittee is going to recess until
approximately 1 o'clock. In the event there is a vote in
progress at that time it will reconvene following that vote.
[The Subcommittee recessed for lunch at 12:10 p.m.]
[The Subcommittee reconvened at 1:28 p.m, the Hon. John T.
Doolittle, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.]
Mr. Doolittle. We will reconvene the Subcommittee and begin
with Panel 2.
Let me ask the panelists if they will please stand and
raise their right hands.
[Whereupon, David Hayes, Douglas Wheeler, Tellis Codekas
and Richard Bunker stood, raised their right hands and were
duly sworn by the Chairman as follows:]
Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of perjury
that the responses given and statements made will be the whole
truth and nothing but the truth.
Mr. Hayes. I do.
Mr. Wheeler. I do.
Mr. Codekas. I do.
Mr. Bunker. I do.
Mr. Doolittle. Let the record reflect that each answered in
the affirmative.
Gentlemen, we appreciate your being here and indulging the
Committee in the votes and so forth. We will try and move as
expeditiously as possible.
We have as our first witness on this panel Mr. David Hayes
who is Counselor to the Secretary of the Interior.
Mr. Hayes, you are recognized for your testimony.
Let me just jump in and say that the lights are a guide.
When the red light goes on the 5 minutes is up. That doesn't
mean you have to cutoff in mid-sentence, but we do have a lot
of witnesses this afternoon. So we ought to try and be as
expeditious as possible. And with that please begin.
STATEMENT OF DAVID HAYES, COUNSELOR TO THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT JOHNSON, LOWER
COLORADO REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BOR, AND MICHAEL SPEAR, PACIFIC
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, F&WS
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you mentioned, I am David Hayes, Counselor to Secretary
Babbitt. I appreciate the chance to appear here today on behalf
of the Administration on this important piece of legislation.
I am accompanied today by Bob Johnson, Regional Director of
the Lower Colorado Region of the Bureau of Reclamation, who is
behind me, and also Mike Spear, who is the Regional Director
for the Pacific Region of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
they're available for questions if you so desire.
I'm going to be brief this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and I
ask that my written statement be submitted for the record.
As you know, Secretary Babbitt visited the Salton Sea last
December for technical briefings and for consultations with
governmental officials. In connection with that visit and those
discussions, the Secretary publicly announced his concern for
the environmental condition of the Salton Sea and his interest
in moving forward with a plan to address the problems facing
the Sea.
The Secretary also acknowledged the need to pull together
the many local, State and Federal players so that their efforts
could be coordinated to move out on this issue quickly and in
lock step and in a goal oriented fashion. Based on these
principles, the Secretary announced two key initiatives.
First, he suggested that the United States and the Salton
Sea Authority, in close cooperation with the State of
California and the Torres Martinez Tribe, initiate a NEPA/CEQA
review of the Salton Sea in order to evaluate the potential
alternatives for addressing the Sea and doing so in a
disciplined timely manner in accordance with the standards set
forth under the National Environmental Policy Act. The
Secretary's goal then, as he stated then and has repeated, is
to take full advantage of the work that already has been done
in connection with a study of the Sea, but to do it right with
a thorough NEPA analysis on a fast track.
Secondly, the Secretary, because he recognized the need for
more coordination in terms of the research and science
activities going on at the Sea, suggested that the four key
governmental authorities involved in the Sea, the Federal
Government, the State of California, the local Salton Sea
Authority and the Torres Martinez Tribe, form a Research
Management Committee to obtain input from scientists and to
coordinate policy choices on implementing needed research on a
real-time basis and folding that science into the NEPA/CEQA
process that needs to get underway in full flower over the
short term. It is his idea that the science should be front
loaded so that it will be of utmost utilization in the NEPA/
CEQA process.
These initiatives are moving forward. The NEPA process has
begun. Meetings with cooperating agencies have been held,
arrangements with consultants have been made, a work plan is
underway, the Bureau of Reclamation is hiring a new manager for
the project, and there is a close working relationship that has
been continued between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Salton
Sea Authority and particularly on this subject with outreach to
the State of California and others. Also, the Research
Management Committee has been formed. The Committee has
appointed a Chair of the Science Subcommittee, Dr. Milt Friend,
and the Science Subcommittee is beginning its work.
It is within this framework that the Secretary and the
Administration considers H.R. 3267. Much of this legislation
and its goals match the goals that the Secretary and the
Administration have laid out for the Sea, but it does depart in
certain important respects that I would like to highlight here
briefly, more in terms of highlighting issues that we need to
work together on than to suggest that there are impediments to
coming together on a bill that can have bipartisan support.
First with regard to the environmental analysis of remedial
actions at the Sea. As mentioned in my written testimony, the
Administration feels strongly that we need to be open minded
about the potential alternatives and the appropriate
alternatives for remediating the Sea. We should not be at this
point limiting ourselves to two or three potential types of
solutions. We need to get more input on a short-term basis to
make sure that what we analyze are the potentially available
options and we do it in a disciplined way.
We are concerned about the timeframe that is in this bill.
We do not think that it's practically feasible within a 12-
month timeframe to do a NEPA evaluation on as large and complex
a project as this, plus do the environmental permitting that is
contemplated within that 12-month period, and plus do the
construction specification work that the bill anticipates all
to be done within 12 months. The Secretary is committed to
working this EIS on a very fast track basis, but this kind of
timeframe in our judgment is not feasible.
On the science side we think that it's important that the
science effort be funded fully and appreciate the interest of
the Congress in increasing funding. We think it's important
that the charge of the Science Committee not be too narrow, and
we think that it's important that the actual priority
decisionmaking on the science side be done by governmental
officials who are accountable for their actions, although we
encourage the support of the University Committee and their
availability in actually implementing much of the science work
that is going to need to be done once those decisions are made.
Two quick final points. I see the red light is on. As
mentioned in my----
Mr. Doolittle. Let's hear your points.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As mentioned in my
statement, the Emergency Action Title, Title II, is of great
concern to us. We think that moving forward with beginning to
pump out saline water before the end of the year without
knowing the end location for the water and without knowing the
availability of water coming in and replacing it presents some
serious practical problems as well as serious potential
environmental problems, and we would want to do a full review
before taking any kind of action like that.
In terms of funding, a couple of points. The Secretary has
indicated an interest in and a willingness to accelerate the
level of attention that the Department will give to this
matter. More money certainly would be helpful in that regard.
We do not have the kind of money in our current budget or our
fiscal year 1999 budget request to undertake the type of effort
that seems to be contemplated here. So we assume that
supplemental funding authority would be needed in order to
effectuate this.
And, finally, as mentioned in my written testimony, we are
concerned about the potential preauthorization of $300 million
for the potential project that would spin out of the
environmental analysis. We think it would be more prudent to
identify the project and to seek authorization and
appropriation for whatever amount is appropriate to the
selected project.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
the opportunity to be before you today.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of David Hayes may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Our next witness is the Honorable Douglas P.
Wheeler, Secretary for Resources with the State of California.
Secretary Wheeler.
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUGLAS P. WHEELER, SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Wheeler. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Doug
Wheeler and I am the California Resources Secretary, and am
pleased to represent Governor Wilson and the State of
California in commenting on this bill. I will ask that my full
written testimony be submitted for the record, and I will
attempt very briefly to summarize that testimony in the
interest of time.
Let me say, first of all, that Governor Wilson thanks you,
Mr. Chairman, and the Subcommittee for this hearing and for the
expeditious consideration that you are giving to H.R. 3267. The
State of California supports strongly the objectives of this
legislation and believes that the Salton Sea resource is one of
national and State significance quite obviously whose issues
and problems have been long standing and which deserve our very
close and immediate attention.
There is a history, as you've already said, of efforts to
deal with these questions. The State has been involved in
virtually all of those up to and including the effort that Mr.
Hayes has just described which was initiated by Secretary
Babbitt last fall in consultation with the State. We were in
part responsible for the establishment of the Salton Sea
Authority in the belief that the Authority ought to provide and
can provide local leadership in addressing the issues of the
Authority, and you will hear from its very capable President in
a moment. At least four of our State agencies have continuing
roles to play, including our Department of Water Resources, our
Department of Fish and Game, our State Water Resources Control
Board and our Department of Parks and Recreation.
Despite these early efforts, and there have been studies,
as you know, by the Bureau of Reclamation in cooperation with
the State, and there has been a Congressional Task Force even
prior to the untimely death of Congressman Bono, there are
still more questions than answers about what needs to be done
first to restore the Sea and then to protect it on a
sustainable basis over time.
You've heard described the many issues which need to be
addressed using sound science as the basis for a recovery
strategy. Those include the problems of evaporation and the
resulting salinity, they include the water quality impacts of
urban and agricultural runoff, and those include fluctuations
in sea level which threaten the economic viability of adjoining
properties.
So I think it's fair to say and to summarize the State's
position as urging that we move expeditiously now to capitalize
on the momentum which seems to exist in a bipartisan spirit,
but that we do it methodically making use of the science and
making use of the processes which are already in place. We have
some studies, as I've said, that recommended a number of
options. Those were to have been the focus of the process which
Secretary Babbitt announced last fall. Similarly we have a
Research Management Committee which is underway, as you have
already heard. It, too, has the capability of reaching out to
those who can provide it and obtaining from them science that
will inform an appropriate solution.
I want to underscore something that was said this morning.
It is our belief that if we pursue here a flawed procedure
either because we avoid judicial review or the possibility of
judicial review or environmental review or the possibility of
environmental review we run the risk of contaminating the
entire result, which is something that none of us would want to
have. It is important I think to have both an effective and
expeditious procedure as we also have a perfect, not an
imperfect solution.
In conclusion let me just say that I echo the sentiments of
millions of Californians, and particularly those who live in
the Basin of the Salton Sea, that it is a tarnished treasure.
We believe its luster can and should be restored, and working
together we believe that this legislation will make that
possible.
Mr. Calvert. [presiding.] Thank you for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Wheeler may be found
at end of hearing.]
Mr. Calvert. Next is Tellis Codekas.
STATEMENT OF TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT, SALTON SEA AUTHORITY,
ACCOMPANIED BY TOM KIRK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SALTON SEA
AUTHORITY AND PAUL CUNNINGHAM, DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
IID
Mr. Codekas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of the Salton Sea Authority, thank you for the
opportunity to address the Subcommittee and to comment on the
Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act, H.R. 3267. I am
Tellis Codekas, President of the Salton Sea Authority.
The Salton Sea Authority is comprised of the Counties of
Riverside and Imperial, and the Imperial Irrigation and the
Coachella Valley Water Districts. The Torres Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians and a host of Federal and State agencies are
ex-officio members of the Authority. The Authority is at the
hub of a wheel which includes dozens of national, state,
regional, tribal and local stakeholders. The Authority
recognizes the vital importance of the Sea as an agricultural
drain, an environmental resource, a recreational destination,
and an economic development engine.
Introduction of this legislation and the companion
legislation in the Senate represent important steps forward in
reclaiming and restoring the Salton Sea. Enacting legislation
to save the Sea is a fitting tribute to the man who was very
much responsible for the current drive to save and restore the
Sea. The Salton Sea Authority and its member agencies strongly
support the central elements of H.R. 3267 and look forward to
working with the Committee and the Congressional Salton Sea
Task Force on this proposed legislation.
The Authority was established in 1993 and has been working
closely with Federal partners, particularly the Bureau of
Reclamation and our State partners, particularly the Resources
Agency and Cal-EPA on developing a consensus to restore this
important resource. Until a year or so ago much of our effort
went unnoticed. The Sea was not viewed as a high national
priority, but times have changed and we are thankful for the
change in relation to the Sea. We need the help of our Federal
Government.
The Secretary of Interior became personally involved in our
efforts in December. The Secretary acknowledged the interagency
and multi-interest effort that we had already developed. He
confirmed the Department's commitment to this effort and
established a structure to address biological and other
studies.
We are committed to the process that the Secretary and the
Authority agreed upon. The proposed legislation largely builds
on the existing process and we support the areas where it does
so specifically, particularly findings acknowledging the
Federal interest, project requirements consistent with those
developed by the Authority, commitment to exploring multiple
options in the feasibility study, and authorization of
appropriations which will allow completion of the feasibility,
environmental analysis and permitting work.
Unfortunately, there are also provisions in the bill which
do not reflect our process or local needs.
First of all, the memorandum of understanding referred to
on page 6 seems to suggest a new process and a new feasibility
study. We think it ought to confirm the roles of the Federal
lead agency, the Department of Interior through the Bureau of
Reclamation, and the local lead agency, the Salton Sea
Authority, in completing our current work program.
Secondly, limitations of administrative and judicial review
under the National Environmental Policy Act may be
counterproductive. As the co-lead agency we still must meet the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Waiving NEPA provisions sends up a red flag to the very
interest groups that we are working very hard to include in our
restoration efforts, such as the Audubon Society.
Thirdly, the Secretary of Interior, the Authority, the
Torres Martinez and the State currently sit on a Research
Management Committee. The Committee was so composed to ensure
limited conflict of interest, management oversight of research
conducted, and to move expeditiously on research needs. The
inclusion of a fifth member from the university community is
disconcerting. The universities may well receive some share of
research funds and having them make recommendations on fund
distribution is an apparent conflict of interest. Additionally,
research imperatives and their pace should not jeopardize plans
to quickly restore the Sea. We do not support including any
representative on the Management Committee that may create a
perception of a conflict of interest.
There are other provisions in the bill which raise
questions.
My red light is on. May I have two more minutes.
Mr. Calvert. Go ahead.
Mr. Codekas. The Authority applauds the Members of Congress
and specifically the Congressional Salton Sea Task Force for
recognizing that stabilizing and reduce the Sea's salinity is
the highest priority. However, the Emergency Action specified
under Title II of the bill may be counterproductive.
Title II directs the Secretary to expluse water out of the
Salton Sea by December 1 of 1998 to accommodate diversion of,
presumably, Colorado River water into the Sea. However, given
that the mechanics of how the water will be pumped out, where
the seawater will be pumped to, how the project will be funded,
designed and constructed have not been worked out, this Title
and its deadline are unworkable. Such an emergency action is an
overwhelming technical, financial and political challenge by
the deadline imposed. Preferably, the bill should direct the
Secretary to work with the Authority through our current effort
to identify and design an emergency plan to stabilize the Sea.
Perhaps the greatest tribute to the late Congressman found
in this bill is its intent to fix the Sea's problems quickly.
The Authority thanks Congressmen Hunter, Brown, Calvert and
Lewis for their commitment to expediting the recovery efforts.
I am thankful that the Speaker has shown a commitment to
this effort and that our two California Senators have
introduced similar legislation to this bill. We hope that the
President signs restoration legislation within a few months.
Still, the clock is ticking for the Salton Sea.
In the interim, the Authority and the Bureau of Reclamation
can accomplish a great deal under our current $5 million work
program. Federal funds authorized under Public Law 102-575 are
being matched with State and local funds to carry out this work
plan. Commitment by the Administration to proceeding on our
work plan will help all of us to get a jump-start on whatever
legislative deadline Congress establishes.
We are thankful for the opportunity to speak before you
today. The Authority represents the local interest in
reclaiming this important resource.
At this point, while not part of my written testimony, but
because of all that has gone on today I would like to briefly
address the issue of using surplus Colorado River water. In
discussions with Colorado River Basin representatives they have
expressed concerns about using excess Colorado River water to
restore the Salton Sea. The Authority, the Coachella Valley
Water District and the Imperial Irrigation District have never
assumed the use of so-called excess Colorado River water to
reclaim and restore the Sea, and we have continuously expressed
our concern that any such language in the Salton Sea bill could
jeopardize passage.
To terminate I would like to say we stand ready to work
with our partners and to do so quickly. The Authority's
Executive Director, Tom Kirk is here to address any questions
that you may have. Additionally, Tom Veysey, one of our board
members and a Supervisor of Imperial County, and Paul
Cunningham, Chair of the Authority's Technical Advisory
Committee and Director of External Affairs for the Imperial
Irrigation District are here to serve as resources to you.
Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Codekas.
[The prepared statement of Tellis Codekas may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Calvert. Next is Mr. Richard Bunker, Chairman of the
Colorado River Commission of Nevada.
You may begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD BUNKER, CHAIRMAN, COLORADO RIVER
COMMISSION OF NEVADA
Mr. Bunker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to express our gratitude on behalf of the
State of Nevada and Governor Bob Miller for the opportunity to
appear on behalf of H.R. 3267, the reclamation of Salton Sea.
My name is Richard Bunker, and I'm Chairman of the Colorado
River Commission of Nevada.
In the past month or so several of my colleagues from
Southern Nevada and I had an opportunity to go into the Salton
Sea area as well as the Imperial Irrigation area and parts of
Arizona, and at the time were given a very in-depth briefing by
the people of both Arizona and California regarding the
reclamation efforts of the Salton Sea. We went on this tour to
convey basically to our Nevada policymakers one simply reality,
that when it comes to the Colorado River water Nevada is very
inextricably connected to the actions and the activities of our
sister States, both Arizona and California.
As a member of the Colorado River Commission for the past
several years I have learned that issues involving the Colorado
River are really like a never ending soap opera with intricate,
slow-moving plots and subplots, and unless you follow the
program faithfully it's very difficult at any given moment to
know who is romancing who and why. We in Nevada have been
romanced by almost everyone at one time or another, including
the interests behind the Salton Sea Authority.
Let me say we appreciate and are supportive of the
objectives of the Salton Sea interests and we support that over
all plan. However, we feel that H.R. 3267 has a lot of work to
be done on it before it meets that criteria. I would just
underscore it's primarily because the arithmetic on the
Colorado River just doesn't work, and I will get into that in a
minute.
I also would like to for your record issue a disclaimer,
that the comments that I am making about this bill should in no
way be taken by any of the California interests that we are
siding with one
side or the other in the California water war between the
agricultural and the urban areas.
Our problem is that today California is using approximately
5.2 million acre feet of Colorado River water when its
entitlement is only 4.4 million. The additional water that has
been coming from Arizona and Nevada as its unused entitlement
is part of the overall entitlement of the Lower Basin. Arizona
and Nevada along with the four Upper Basin States have for
years been urging California to implement a plan to reduce its
usage to the 4.4 million acre feet that it has been allocated.
I am pleased to tell you that in the past couple of years this
plan has been talked about. As of right now they have not
reached a resolution, but they have been working on it.
I wouldn't want you to misunderstand. California has a very
absolute contract right to the water that they are using.
However, we think it is very dangerous for them to base any
type of long-term activity, and particularly Federal
legislation on temporary water. Within the next several years
Nevada will be using up its own meager supply of 300,000 acre
feet, and we also will be attempting to use some of the unused
apportionment and surplus water.
Unlike California, however, we have a plan that is in place
and it is being worked on at the present time for the day when
all of the Lower Basin water will be put to use. As the
Department of the Interior moves forward to approve regulations
which will allow Colorado River water to be banked in Arizona
we intend in Nevada to avail ourselves of that opportunity to
the point of hopefully being able to bank somewhere in the area
of 100,000 acre feet annually for the next several years. I
would underscore the fact that we are waiting for the
Department of the Interior to move forward with those banking
regulations.
The other thing we would indicate to you is that Nevada,
unlike California, has no agricultural buffer. We know that
there is a lot of conversation going on between agricultural
and urban interests in California and would suggest to you that
some of the water that is going currently into the Salton Sea,
if the arrangements are made between the San Diego Water
Authority and Imperial Irrigation, a lot of the water that is
going to be transferred because of that negotiation is going to
be water that ultimately would not be going into the Sea
because it will be conserved water from that Irrigation
District.
I will bring my remarks to a conclusion, but we would
suggest to you that before any further Federal demands for
water are created California should first implement a plan as
to how they are going to live within the 4.4. We believe that,
Imperial, Palo Verde and the Coachella Irrigation Districts are
going to have to enter some substantive plans to conserve
water, and we are opposed to the legislation as it is currently
written because we believe that it brings about a huge
dependency over and above what they currently have for the
State of California on Colorado River water.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Richard Bunker may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Calvert. We have a vote in process right now. There are
approximately 7 minutes left, and then there is another vote
following on passage. So we will stand in recess, and I'm sure
there will be some questions as soon as we return, which will
be approximately in 15 minutes.
We stand in recess.
[Recess taken for Members to vote.]
Mr. Calvert. [presiding] The Committee will come to order.
Mr. Lewis has asked to join us at the roster if there is no
objection.
[No objections.]
Mr. Calvert. It's approved.
I'm going to ask a quick question. I know Mr. Lewis has
some time constraints.
I'm going to first ask Mr. Hayes, in your testimony you
referred to the restricted time constraints in the bill. Mr.
Hayes, I understand that in past positions you've been involved
in CERCLA litigation. As you know, that law was established to
remediate our nation's worst abandoned hazardous waste sites.
When that program was established Congress did not want
cleanups to be hindered by judicial challenges--I'm going to
move over here and let the Chairman take over.
Mr. Doolittle. Go ahead.
Mr. Calvert. [continuing] and wrote Section 113[h] of
CERCLA so that parties may not challenge Superfund cleanup
remedies before they are completed. The Supreme Court has
recently upheld a lower court ruling that in fact Congress did
not want Superfund cleanups hindered by judicial challenges.
The members of the Salton Sea Task Force that have introduced
this measure before us today have those same concerns, that
because of the deteriorating and dangerous environmental
conditions at the Salton Sea Congress should provide that the
cleanup is not hindered by judicial challenges. Also, this
Administration, as have past Administrations, has enacted
legislation that limits administrative and judicial review in a
number of areas and for a variety of reasons. In light of this
information your statement that ``In the Administration's view,
it is inappropriate to shortcut the remedies afforded by the
environmental laws in the name of environmental protection''
appears schizophrenic at best. Do you agree with the
Congressional Task Force Members that reclaiming the Salton Sea
should proceed without being hampered by dilatory litigation?
Mr. Hayes. Congressman, it is a very rare circumstance I
think that the Administration is comfortable with overriding
the environmental laws. In the context of NEPA I think we've
got a very good track record on both sides of the aisle of
doing NEPA reviews and with the courts not interfering with
actions that are selected as the result of an EIS process.
As you know, the standard for enjoining a project based on
NEPA violations is quite high, and only in the case of an
egregious violation of NEPA would judicial review potentially
interfere with the administration of a project. And if those
circumstances in fact took place, it may be appropriate to have
the courts review the NEPA process. The Administration does
believe that any departure from the normal course of NEPA
review, and NEPA in particular, one of the central
environmental laws, the first and the one with which we have
had the most history, that departures are not warranted and in
fact have been quite rare.
Mr. Calvert. One point, and then I'm going to ask the
Chairman to take over again and recognize Mr. Lewis, but you
mentioned that you were not in favor of preauthorization on
this bill. Well Secretary Babbitt, as I understand it, has
endorsed the Senate version of the bill which also asks for
preauthorization. So are you opposite of Mr. Babbitt's
position?
Mr. Hayes. No. Mr. Babbitt's statement was that he is
encouraged by the Senate bill. He finds it to be, and I believe
the quote was, a more practicable and feasible approach, but it
needs to be refined, and once refined, implemented. He did not
endorse all aspects of the bill. The Administration has a
concern, a budgetary concern about preauthorizing $300 million
for a project that is not yet identified. But, as the Secretary
has said, and I hope these comments will be understood in this
light, the Secretary is extremely interested in working closely
with the Congressional Task Force, as exhibited by his visit,
in getting legislation that will work, but the Administration
is concerned about the preauthorization, and that concern
extends to the Senate bill.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you, Ken.
The Chair asks unanimous consent to have our colleagues,
Duncan Hunter and Jerry Lewis join us up here on the panel.
Is there any objection?
[No objections.]
Mr. Doolittle. Seeing none, you're official.
Mr. Lewis, we welcome you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's unusual
to have these circumstances, but as you know I was scheduled to
testify earlier and Mr. Calvert was kind enough to submit my
written testimony. The Appropriations subcommittee hearing is
still going on that I'm responsible for. So I'm going to have
to run back shortly.
The reason I wanted to come back was because it is my
understanding that there may be some disagreement, a serious
disagreement between some of the members of the panel who have
a similar interest in the Salton Sea to my own, but apparently
the lines of communication that contain a serious gap and I'm
quite concerned about it. I wanted to come and formalize those
concerns before the Committee.
Mr. Codekas, you know that during my last 4 years in the
State Legislature and my first 4 years in the Congress I had
the privilege of serving the Coachella Valley. We've had long-
term contact here as well as long-term interest in the Salton
Sea, but over these years there has been virtually nothing done
about solving this problem.
Following the tragic death of Congressman Jerry Pettis he
was replaced by my predecessor, Shirley Pettis and, as you may
remember, she raised the question of the Salton Sea as her No.
1 legislative issue. In those days because of a lack of
intensive involvement of legislators on both sides of the aisle
from Southern California, Shirley was the only point person
really carrying the cudgel. Competition for environmental
spending in Northern California made this idea difficult.
Eventually, the whole project, idea and thought pattern were
set aside. The Salton Sea has continued to deteriorate, and we
are at the point where it is all but gone in terms of a usable
and valuable asset.
In the last couple of years we have been successful at
raising the issue in a way that would suggest that maybe, just
maybe the National Government will do more than just pay lip
service to this problem. As you know, because we have studied
and restudied and analyzed and reevaluated this problem for
over 30 years, 2 years ago I had the opportunity to put a
million dollars in a bill that involves a subcommittee that I
happen to Chair that suggested that maybe people a little bit
away from the valley where, we all have special interests in
this environmental problem should take an independent look at
the issue.
I had the audacity to suggest that maybe the University of
Redlands might be able to look at all the studies that had been
produced and give us some evaluation. That was in the fiscal
year 1977 VA HUD bill. Last year we put another million dollars
in the fiscal year 1998 bill to have that work continue to
formalize itself. But beyond that we were able to put $5
million in a pool that could be used by the Authority to assist
in looking at those alternatives and taking some constructive
steps toward a solution that would be a comprehensive solution.
I know that over all these years in frustration the local
people who have an interest have essentially said, my God, we
had better do something and let's opt on the cheapest solution,
which is diking. I don't know if that is the right one or not,
but I do know that there are many, many alternatives that
involve recognizing the impact of pollution coming from the New
River, that recognize that there are problems from the Mexican
border that are multiple and that a very complex solution that
be involved if we deal with Mexico. There are suggestions about
the value of the possibility of pumping out and using
evaporative ponds. There are a whole array of ideas.
It seemed to me that there is a need one more time for
those people who are just outside the region, to help us
evaluate those alternatives. A coalition of universities has
come together. Redlands isn't just going to do it by itself,
but rather some of the finest minds in the country dealing with
the environment are going to help us take a look at this.
I'm concerned about two things. It's my understanding that
at least among members of the Salton Sea Authority there are
those who think that we should not have the universities
involved, and that baffles me. If that's the case we'll take
the $5 million back and my committee can use it some other way.
The other line that I heard that came from this morning's
meeting was a suggestion that we shouldn't fund or have money
in to deal with the New River, and, my goodness, if there is a
problem that needs to be addressed, the New River is in that
category. I remember Clare Burgener talking about that when I
first arrived in Congress. It is the source of one of our major
difficulties.
Would you please clear the air for me and tell me if I'm
wrong. If I'm not wrong, then just let me know and I would be
glad to see if we can use that funding for public housing or
some other purpose.
Mr. Codekas. Well with your permission, Congressman Lewis,
can I have our Executive Officer answer this for you?
Mr. Lewis. If he is the guy who is the source of those
ideas I would love to hear from him.
Mr. Codekas. Tom Kirk.
Mr. Doolittle. Before you answer raise your right hand,
please.
[Whereupon, Tom Kirk comes forward, raises his right hand
and is first duly sworn by Chairman Doolittle as follows:]
Do you solemnly swear or affirm under the penalty of
perjury that the responses given and the statements made will
be the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Kirk. I do.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Why don't you introduce yourself
and tell us your official position. You can sit down there and
grab a microphone.
Mr. Kirk. Tom Kirk, Executive Director of the Salton Sea
Authority.
Mr. Lewis, first, thank you for all of the work you have
done in helping to appropriate significant amounts of funding
for the effort.
In terms of Authority's position on the university
involvement, I can say without any hesitation that the Salton
Sea Authority absolutely supports the university's involvement
in the effort, and the question is how should that involvement
be structured.
The Salton Sea Authority in fact has a current contract
with the University of California at Davis and with the
Department of Water Resources through the Resources Agency. We
support the efforts of San Diego State University. Dr. Stuart
Hurlbut has been very active at the Sea and he has been one of
the few researchers that has been out there for many years. And
with the University of Redlands we have had continuing
discussions with them. We see their role as being absolutely
instrumental with their geographic information system in
assembling the existing and the new information that we
develop.
So, yes, I think the impression that you have that the
Authority is against university involvement isn't correct. We
see the university involvement as being absolutely critical. In
fact, one of our concerns is one provision in the bill that
would have the universities sit on a panel, the Scientific
Management Committee, and that in fact that may preclude them
of further involvement.
The way the panel was set up by the Department of the
Interior it was made very clear that that Science Management
Committee could have no ties or very limited ties to actual
research. It was to guide the research. We are concerned that
the universities on that panel may limit their ability to
accept funds for research. Hopefully that clarifies that issue.
May I also say on the issue of the $5 million, we again
thank you for providing that funding. There are a couple of
points on that. One, we would like to continue to use it.
Public housing may be a very good use for that funding.
Mr. Lewis. Maybe the Coachella public housing.
Mr. Kirk. I know some people who would be very interested
in that, but we are much more interested in using that funding
for the Salton Sea recovery effort. When I came on board back
in November I was told money wouldn't be a problem. We've got
$5 million through your good efforts and the Congressional Task
Force efforts. We have $2.5 million through State funding. As
our President knows, we haven't seen dime one, not just dollar
one, but dime one of either of those. We are very close on the
State funding. We are working through the Cal EPA, and I think
in the next 30 days we will have access to that $2.5 million.
On the $5 million in funding the Authority assumed
incorrectly back when I was hired that that money would simply
come to the Authority and then we could use it for our current
work program doing the engineering analysis, the environmental
permitting and the like. We found out a couple of months ago
that in fact that funding travels the same route that the
Redlands funding did, and that was through an EPA office that
the process took on the order of 12 to 14 months to complete.
I have worked with your contacts at the University of
Redlands to help us with our proposal, and we have had many
discussions with them and we are hopeful with the help of the
Research Management Committee and Milt Friend to put a proposal
in to EPA in short order.
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Kirk, let me respond in this way. It is my
understanding that you, Mr. Kirk, argued internally relative to
the University Consortium staying in place, but the board has
taken a different position than that. It's the position of the
board that concerns me a lot for I do think that there is great
value to be had here by the kind of evaluation and re-
evaluation that they can provide.
Your comments about EPA, I'm very sensitive about and
appreciate. My subcommittee is responsible for funding their
budget. I can tell you this, that they have a new grant
administrator in place as of this moment, and it's my
understanding that the grant administrator is quite anxious to
work with us to expedite this process. That certainly should be
a relief to everybody who is so concerned.
Mr. Kirk. What I can pledge to you, sir, is that the Salton
Sea Authority will take your concerns and I know concerns
shared by the rest of the Congressional Task Force and we will
take a look at our position related to university involvement.
I can assure you again that we want to see the universities
very much involved and we want to find a way to structure that
involvement that makes sense locally and for you.
Mr. Lewis. I appreciate that.
Mr. Hunter. Mr. Chairman, could Mr. Lewis yield to me
briefly on that point just to followup.
Mr. Lewis. I yield.
Mr. Doolittle. He is kind of out of time, but I'll try and
be as generous as I can.
Mr. Lewis. You are more than generous, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hunter. I'm looking at the provision that we have where
the University Consortium is a part of the Salton Sea Research
Management Committee. The membership is made up of the
Secretary, the Governor of California or appointees of the
Secretary and the Governor of California, and, No. 3, the
Salton Sea Authority, No. 4, the Torres Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Tribal Government and, No. 5, one person appointed
jointly by the California Water Resources Center, the Los
Alamos National Laboratory and the Salton Sea Research
Consortium. Now that means that the universities in terms of
power or what you call potential conflict of interest have one
third of one fifth of the influence on this particular
structure, and if you divide that up further by the
universities, each university basically simply has a seat at
the table, but in no way can I see the leverage that would
amount to a conflict of interest here. The reason for having
this is that the Committee shall select the topics of study
under this section and manage these studies.
I think it's important to have our academic experts and the
people who have done the research involved in a discussion as
to what the topics are going to be and how this study is going
to proceed, and I don't see a problem there. So that was one
area where I hope that you folks will take another look at this
thing.
Mr. Kirk. We will, and thanks for putting it into
perspective, Mr. Hunter. I would like to add that on the
existing $5 million in funding we do plan on working with the
universities even on that. We have already bounced some ideas
off the University of Redlands and we hope to involve the
others.
Mr. Lewis, you did address the issue of the New River
funding as well.
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
Mr. Kirk. I was surprised by your comments because the
Salton Sea Authority and, as far as I know, all of our member
agencies have not taken any position opposing the funding for
the New River.
Mr. Lewis. I'm pleased to hear that, and I could be in
error. I do know that that funding, or at least I have heard
that that funding has been eliminated or is not a part of the
Senate bill, and that is of some concern to me, but it may be
just a lack of communication on our part.
Mr. Kirk. We had nothing to do with that elimination as far
as I know.
Mr. Lewis. I appreciate that. Let me speak to the
university representation in a different way. I have always
strived in my lifetime to have people think I was an academic.
Having failed that, I've got a couple of kids who are. They
don't work for any of these universities, but in the meantime
it's just the association with them that helps my image. So I'm
anxious to have them at least be my representative on them one
way or another. Anyway, we appreciate your response and
appreciate working with you.
Mr. Kirk. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter, did you finish your questions?
Mr. Hunter. Just one or two here, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for letting myself and Mr. Lewis sit on the panel, too.
First, one reason why we had in our bill this to some
degree elimination of the judicial review and challenge is
because, and, Mr. Hayes, I would address this to you, because
your boss, Mr. Babbitt who really has his heart in the right
place on this project has seen with his own eyes that this Sea
is dying. The last thing we want to have, and especially if we
start seeing less water going into the Sea and salinization
accelerate, the last thing we want to have is to be part way
down the line on a project which is basically a function of
decisionmaking by your boss. I mean the product that we have
when we pick the option is going to be presumably led by your
organization, and the last thing we need is to have is some
off-the-wall organization, not a responsible conservation
organization, but some third party go forum shopping.
We know one thing Sonny Bono hated was what he called
judicial activism and to find a judge who stops the project,
and as a result of that the 200,000 birds that have died so far
in the Salton Sea are joined by literally hundreds of thousands
of other waterfowl, and we get to the point where the Sea will
not allow fish to survive because of increased salinization. So
I would hope that you understand the importance for that.
I think what we tried to track when we put that together
was the same acceleration and the same limitation on judicial
review that we've had with things like the Alaskan pipeline,
and certainly you've seen it, too. I mean it was mentioned by
Mr. Calvert that that has occurred in other places. But this is
going to be largely your decision on how we move ahead with
this in consultation with some other agencies. If we make a
responsible decision we need to move quickly. I think that's a
key here.
Let me just ask since Jerry touched on it briefly, and
we're going to have a panel on New River. New River is
something we can do right now. We can start working it and do
that concurrently with the big project in cleaning up that
river through a series of 50 miles of filtering marshes. I
think it's a great concept, and I haven't met an academic or a
person coming from the conservation community who doesn't like
it. It's relatively inexpensive compared to other things that
you can do and the prospect of having to have a plant to pull
some of the pollutants out of that river.
So let me just ask, Tellis, since you're before us now, you
folks do endorse the idea of moving ahead at the same time in
this project of cleaning up New River with a series of marshes
and it's a partnership between the Bureau of Reclamation and
IID and of course Desert Wildlife Unlimited?
Mr. Codekas. How would you want us to work this?
Mr. Hunter. Well we have in our bill, and the Senate bill
doesn't have the $2 million, but we start out with $2 million
for the initiation of the cleanup of New River, and what that
would be is a couple of these initial ponds because the idea is
you build a series of marshes along New River. We've got about
50 miles of river there, and as you flow the water, you flow
the water out of the river through the marshes, the aquatic
plants pull the pollutants, some of the heavy metals out and
some of the sewage pollutants out of the water, and then flow
it back in.
So we've got to basically put our first couple of ponds in
place, and we can do that right now and do some experimentation
with them and see what types of water plants work the best, do
some work in terms of engineering and basically work that
project of cleaning up New River in concert with the major
Salton Sea project. So we have $2 million in the House bill to
do that for New River. The Senate bill doesn't have that,
although they do mention that we do need to work on all the
rivers, New River, Whitewater and Alamo. Do you folks favor
this second track project to clean up New River?
Mr. Codekas. I can't answer that. I will have to ask Tom
Kirk. This has to go through our Technical Advisory Committee
before it comes to the board.
Mr. Kirk. Mr. Hunter, I will be very brief on this issue.
We haven't addressed this as the Salton Sea Authority. The
Authority does applaud your efforts to address all of the
sources of the Salton Sea's problems, including the New River,
and obviously that's a big issue. What I can say is that I know
Supervisor Veysey is in the audience, and Imperial County and
the Imperial Irrigation District are very interested in the
cleanup of the New River, and I believe that the County of
Imperial would like to continue to work with you on how that is
accomplished.
Mr. Hunter. All right.
Mr. Hayes, do you have an answer on that? I know we gave
Secretary Babbitt a very short briefing on that program.
Mr. Hayes. Yes, Congressman, and I think the Bureau has
done some preliminary work with the other partners and we are
open to it. We have not officially taken a position on the
level of funding and that kind of thing, but we are open to
that project and think it may be an innovative way to help deal
with the New River issues.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Secretary Wheeler, what is the status of the California 4.4
plan?
Mr. Wheeler. The plan, as Mr. Bunker has already indicated,
is under development by the Colorado River Board of California.
The Governor has indicated that it is a very high priority
because we take seriously the warnings we've had from Secretary
Babbitt and from our neighboring States on the Colorado Basin
that we cannot subsist on the margin between our allotment and
that surplus which has been declared in recent times. We have
shared with the other States a draft of the plan and we have
invited their comment. I should use this opportunity to say we
intend, no matter what outcome of this investigation relative
to the Salton Sea, to live within California's 4.4 million acre
feet allotment.
Mr. Doolittle. Do you mean to begin immediately to live
within that or will it be phased in over a period of time?
Mr. Wheeler. Ultimately to live within it as circumstances
dictate. We have a surplus this year and, as has already been
said, we may have one next year.
Mr. Doolittle. As long as we have a surplus we're
legitimately entitled to have that as well, right?
Mr. Wheeler. Exactly, a share of it, our share of it.
Mr. Doolittle. Right.
Mr. Wheeler. And the point is we have to be ready for that
time when we don't have a surplus to live within our 4.4, and
we will be prepared to do that.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Mr. Bunker, I'm sorry I was out of the room when you gave
your testimony and maybe you will be repeating yourself, but
could you explain the concept of surplus water as it applies to
the Colorado River. Could you use maybe the scenario from last
year as an example and with what frequency would you expect
that scenario to occur?
Mr. Bunker. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not a technician, but
to the limits of my ability I will try to assist that. My
understanding is that it is a declaration that is possible by
the Secretary of the Interior each year, and that there is a
process and there are criteria that have to be met before that
is done.
I think one of the problems that comes back to the surplus
issue is the fact that there are priorities on the river and,
unfortunately, in a shortage there are some States that have a
lower priority than do some of the California agencies, and I
think that is what their concern is, and I think it's a
legitimate concern. I think it is very difficult for any type
of, whether it be Federal legislation or Irrigation District
programs to be based on temporary water, and that's all you
could say that surplus water is. You know, it might be great
for several years, but if a drought comes, then of course it's
going to be a very difficult situation.
Mr. Doolittle. It is possible that someone with an existing
Colorado River allocation could contribute that to the cleanup
effort?
Mr. Bunker. I think the answer to that is yes. I think it's
the position of the six other Basin States that as long as
California is operating within its 4.4 we really don't care
where it goes or how they use it. That's an internal discussion
that you folks must have. So my answer to that would probably
be yes, as long as it's within the 4.4.
Mr. Doolittle. Let me ask Mr. Wheeler. How many years have
we been over the 4.4?
Mr. Wheeler. I don't have an exact answer for you, but
continuously, and that's in part, Mr. Chairman, for the obvious
reason that in addition to surplus determinations, which are
made as a consequence of the hydrology of the river annually,
there have been excesses beyond the allotments made to the
other States and not utilized by the other States, and that,
too, has been available to California. But as you have heard
this morning from Mr. Bunker and from the other States, as
their needs being to grow that excess over their allotments
will no longer be available as well. So it's not as if
California has relied unreasonably or inappropriately on that
water. It's just that that water is not any longer as readily
available as it once was.
Mr. Doolittle. How many years into the future is it before
these other States can actually take their full allotment and
do something with it?
Mr. Wheeler. You would have to ask them. Arizona has taken
the very strategic decision to store its water even in advance
of its need and has offered to sell some of it to Mr. Bunker
we're told.
Mr. Bunker. Mr. Chairman, if I might respond to that.
Mr. Doolittle. Yes.
Mr. Bunker. The Arizona Banking Authority has set up a
program, if the Federal regulations are approved by the
Department of the Interior, that would allow Nevada to start
banking 100,000 acre feet, approximately 100,000 acre feet each
year. Now Arizona is already using that additional allotment
that they have entitlement to to recharge their groundwater
system. They are currently doing that from their allotment.
And in response to your question of how soon are we going
to be using those allotments or those entitlements in the two
States, Arizona is very close, and certainly with banking
Nevada will become very close because we're going to try to
bank the rest of our unused entitlement.
Mr. Doolittle. Would one of you gentlemen care to volunteer
an opinion as to whether it's possible under this Law of the
River for one State to sell it to another State?
Mr. Wheeler. That is a determination about which we await
the decision of the Secretary of the Interior, and those are
the regulations that Mr. Bunker has made reference to. We might
address that question perhaps unfairly to Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Doolittle. OK. Mr. Hayes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hayes. Fair or unfair, here it goes. Mr. Chairman, the
Secretary has issued proposed regulations under which he
believes he has the authority under certain circumstances where
there is an authorized State banking program for interstate
transfers of banked water that it would be subject to
Secretarial approval. Those proposed regulations were published
in the Federal Register I believe just on December 31st, and
the public comment period is continuing until April 3rd, and we
hope to go forward with final regulations that will facilitate
these transfers.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Wheeler, is the State of California
inclined to accede to the proposed regulations?
Mr. Wheeler. California has been an advocate both of
banking and of interstate transfers, yes.
Mr. Doolittle. So there would be no opposition to this
moving forward?
Mr. Wheeler. Not to the concept generally. I have not seen
the regulations themselves.
Mr. Doolittle. All right. Well in the interest of time, I
have more questions, but I think since we've got so many
witnesses perhaps we will try and move along here.
Let me just ask a question of you, Mr. Hayes. This
afternoon the idea was raised to block grant to the State of
California the funds to perform the entire project as the lead
agency. Would the Administration prefer this option or the
current proposal outlined in the bill, and tell us why or why
not.
Mr. Hayes. Mr. Chairman, I don't think this project is a
good candidate for a block grant. I think rather the kind of
joint approach the Secretary talked about is more appropriate.
The reason I think why a block grant approach may be
particularly inappropriate here is the fact that there are
several Federal interests here that would be difficult to
delegate through a block grant.
There is obviously a very strong interest in tribal
communities in the Sea, and we as trustee of the tribes have a
special responsibility toward the tribes, and that's one of the
reasons why the Torres Martinez Tribe in particular with their
major land holdings is playing a major role, and appropriately
so in the activities we're talking about.
Also, we have one of the major fish and wildlife resources
in the entire Pacific region with the Salton Sea. The national
wildlife refuge in the southern part of the Sea is a very
important aspect of the whole national Federal western flyway,
as Congressman Hunter and others have discussed.
And, finally, the Secretary is Water Master of the Colorado
River and has special responsibilities in that role as Water
Master and, as exhibited in this hearing, the Colorado River
issues are quite sensitive and need to be handled with great
care. Having a block grant concept of pushing those issues off
to the State, certainly Mr. Wheeler and his colleagues are very
well qualified to work in this arena, but we think the Federal
presence is necessary.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Wheeler, could I pose the same question
to you?
Mr. Wheeler. You may, and I haven't had a chance to discuss
it with the Governor of course, but I could imagine what his
response might be, and therefore I will venture to guess that
California would welcome this challenge, Mr. Chairman. I would
say that the Chenoweth formula will soon gain credence in
Sacramento. But I do want to say more seriously that we have a
good record of collaboration with the Federal Government in
California, and increasingly so, in which there is a
recognition both of our interests and our ability to work
cooperatively.
Mr. Lewis has been a major sponsor of our habitat
conservation work in Southern California, and you have been
supportive of our efforts in the CalFed Bay Delta solution. I
think there is a role for each, and I think we can find a way
appropriately to reflect those responsibilities and to share in
the costs, to say nothing of the important role of local
government in this new Regional Authority.
Mr. Doolittle. Here is a tough one, Mr. Wheeler. As between
this and CalFed which has the higher priority?
Mr. Wheeler. Which of my children do you want me to dispose
of?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wheeler. We have an answer for that, Mr. Chairman. We
believe that the sequencing of timing and funding will allow
you to do both. Happily, the Federal commitment to CalFed will
expire with the fiscal year budget 2000 according to present
plan, and according to the timetable envisioned by the bill
before you today the authority will and the appropriation for
this project will begin in the year 2001. So we see a
continuous stream not having to choose between one or the other
of these very important projects.
Mr. Doolittle. Well thank you. Now are you telling us you
won't be asking for CalFed money then after that time?
Mr. Wheeler. I won't be asking, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Doolittle. Let me just briefly ask you to answer this
question, Mr. Hayes and then Mr. Wheeler. What percentage of
the cost of all of this for the Salton Sea do you believe
should be borne by the State of California and other non-
Federal entities?
Mr. Hayes. Mr. Chairman, as you know, currently there is
authorization for the Bureau of Reclamation to spend up to $10
million on Salton Sea activities. That is the vehicle under
which we currently are funding the ongoing efforts, and that
legislation anticipates a 50 percent cost share by the State
and local interests. Our position I guess going in is that
seems about right, and that it's appropriate to have a cost
share and the 50/50 makes sense. We have not had significant
discussions on that point, but my testimony does suggest that
we could continue on that basis.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Mr. Wheeler, does that figure make sense to you?
Mr. Wheeler. It sure doesn't. I'm more inclined to the 75/
25 formula, Mr. Chairman, but I would note that your
legislation, or this bill provides that nothing can occur until
we reach agreement among the various parties about cost share,
and that's probably the place in which to leave this decision
at the moment. We don't know yet how much the project is going
to cost, how much of the benefit could be ascribed to local
interests or to State interests or to national interests, and
as we get additional research and we get the feasibility study
which is authorized by this bill I guess we will be able to
make a better judgment about a fair apportionment of costs. But
it is clear from your bill that there will be no cost sharing
unless all parties agree to it, and that would be satisfactory
to California.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Mr. Codekas, could you discuss how the Colorado River water
could play a role in solving the inflow needs of the Salton Sea
while protecting existing rights and obligations.
Mr. Codekas. How the existing Colorado River could aid the
flow into the Salton Sea?
Mr. Doolittle. Yes, without violating any of the existing
rights that people have.
Mr. Codekas. Well what is difficult about this is we are
already looking at a transfer from IID to San Diego. If that
goes ahead that is going to reduce the inflow to the Salton Sea
more instead of expanding it. If someone could feasibly treat
the water well enough to reuse it in irrigation, I could see
that happening, reuse of the water if that's possible, but it
really looks tough with the diversions that we're looking at
today. So I can't see that you can take any of the Colorado
River water and put it directly into the Salton Sea. It's all
appropriated and I just don't think that can happen.
Mr. Doolittle. So you and Mr. Bunker on that point would
tend to be in agreement then?
Mr. Codekas. I am.
Mr. Doolittle. Do you know of any water right holders that
have expressed interest in making Colorado River water
available through means of banking or permit or interim sale
exchanges or other creative measures?
Mr. Codekas. I think U.S. Filter, Mr. Hickman has made
overtures in the Coachella Valley about trading agriculture
runoff to reuse or trade, but any additional water, I don't
know if there is any available at this time.
Mr. Doolittle. Of those that presently have water rights
you know of no one then that is interested in doing it?
Mr. Codekas. For the Salton Sea?
Mr. Doolittle. Right.
Mr. Codekas. At the prices water goes for now I couldn't
imagine that.
Mr. Doolittle. Tell us what the prices are that it goes
for.
Mr. Codekas. Well it's going for about $240 an acre foot to
San Diego.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Hunter, you represent San Diego, don't
you?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hunter. Mr. Chairman, could I followup on that?
Mr. Doolittle. Yes, please.
Mr. Hunter. I think we went over this idea initially when
we were discussing this thing, the idea of using a flood stage
river where you have water literally, as we did a couple of
years ago in my district, flooding out the banks and the farms
across the river from Yuma, and doing it on the Yuma side, too,
that using that water in maybe a one-time effort to knock the
salinity down from 45,000 parts per million to say 40--or to
say 38,000 parts per million, that would dramatically buy us
time, No. 1, and put the Sea back into a healthy state at least
in terms of salinity for a period of years.
So I guess my question is you stated that you don't mind us
doing that as long as we would use it within our 4.4 million
acre foot allotment. So a question to Mr. Bunker.
If we're using more than 4.4, which we are, as Mr. Wheeler
said, and have for a while, but we have a big rain year and
even with your banking and your storage and other things you
have flood stage Colorado River flowing past Yuma and
ultimately to the Sea of Cortez, is your position that you
would rather see it go into the ocean than to see us use it to
flush to some degree the Salton Sea?
Mr. Bunker. No. There are flood control criteria that are
set up by the Department of the Interior and by the Corps of
Engineers, and when the reservoirs reach a certain level, then
by dictum from the Secretary and, if not, then by the Corps of
Engineers they can release water. Now again I am not an expert
in that area, and there are experts coming after us------
Mr. Hunter. No, I'm talking about in terms of policy. You
said that your policy feeling was that it was OK with you if
California used Colorado River water as long as it was within
their 4.4 million acre foot allotment. I'm saying assuming we
obviously are using 4.4 and more already for our irrigation and
our other uses, but in reality we have a flood year in which
you have water physically washing away the banks of the
Colorado River bed at Yuma and water flushing out into the Sea
of Cortez, would it be OK if California used it at that point?
Mr. Bunker. Of course the obvious answer is yes. I do not
know if there are criteria that are set up whereby California
would have the majority of that water anyway. That well could
be the case.
Mr. Hunter. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Calvert is recognized for an additional
question.
Mr. Calvert. I have one additional question, and I thank my
friend from San Diego for asking that question because I was
going to ask the same thing.
Mr. Wheeler, we have been talking about the time problem we
have here at the Sea. Time allocated for the Federal agencies
to complete NEPA work, as you know, is specified in H.R. 3267.
But since their work needs to be done in cooperation with the
State of California, could you assure you us that the State
would comply with the allotted timeframes that we have outlined
in the bill?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, we believe we could. And it's an
important point because although there is talk of relieving the
Federal agencies of responsibility under NEPA, of course the
Congress cannot affect the applicability of CEQA, the State
law, to the Salton Sea Authority, which is a State agency. So
in any event we would have to comply with CEQA.
Let me make one further suggestion though, that we might
expedite this process, as the Governor would want to do, by
integrating NEPA and CEQA and by allowing CEQA to become a
functional equivalent to NEPA so that we don't have to run two
separate and redundant parallel processes. It may be a way to
save some time.
Mr. Calvert. That's a very good suggestion and we'll take
that under advisement.
One other question. The State is talking about some
additional bond measures on the November ballot. Are you going
to include dollars within the pending statewide bond issue for
the Salton Sea in November?
Mr. Wheeler. The Governor has asked for $2.1 billion in
water and parks bonds for which this project would be eligible.
We have the problem as yet of getting approval from the
Legislature, as you know. We failed to make the deadline for
the June ballot, and we're hopeful of making it for the
November ballot, but that's a matter to be determined by the
Legislature.
Mr. Kirk. Mr. Chairman, could I be recognized on that
question?
Mr. Doolittle. Certainly.
Mr. Kirk. We have, the Salton Sea Authority has put in a
request for $50 million through our State Senator and State
Assemblyman to that proposed bond measure. So it is something
that we are actively working on.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Did I hear the figure was $50 million?
Mr. Kirk. Correct.
Mr. Doolittle. If this is a $300 million project that's
about, what is it, one sixth. That's 17 or 18 percent. So we'll
have another bond issue to make up whatever the difference is.
Mr. Wheeler. That would be the State's share of course, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Kirk. We assume that $50 million is way beyond what our
local share would be.
Mr. Doolittle. Well this has been very illuminating, and
I'm glad that we've taken some additional time with this panel.
I hope we're not going to keep all of you too late. We may have
some additional questions to address via written form and we
would ask you to please respond expeditiously to those so we
can close out the record.
With that we will excuse the panel. Thank you very much.
[Additional questions to be submitted and responded to for
the record may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. We will invite the members of Panel No. 3 to
come up and take their seats, or remain standing if you like
because we are going to do the oath here first.
Let me ask you gentlemen please if you would raise your
right hands.
[Whereupon, Christopher Harris, Art Lopez, R. Wayne Hardie
and Henry J. Vaux, Jr. having raised their right hands were
first duly sworn by Chairman Doolittle as follows:]
Do you solemnly swear or affirm under the penalty of
perjury that the responses given and the statements made will
be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Mr. Harris. I do.
Mr. Lopez. I do.
Mr. Hardie. I do.
Mr. Vaux. I do.
Mr. Doolittle. Let the record reflect that each answered in
the affirmative.
We welcome you here gentlemen, and we will begin the
testimony with Mr. Christopher Harris, Water Resources Program
Manager for the Arizona Department of Water Resources.
Mr. Harris.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER HARRIS, WATER RESOURCES PROGRAM
MANAGER, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members.
My name is Chris Harris. I am here today representing Rita
Pearson, the Director of the Arizona Department of Water
Resources to provide the State of Arizona's perspective on H.R.
3267, the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act.
I would also like to request that a copy of my oral
testimony be placed in the record, Mr. Chairman.
Arizona is not objecting to the State of California's
desire to develop a plan to address the long-term needs of the
Salton Sea ecosystem, but it is Arizona's position that a well-
thought-out and scientifically valid plan which will not harm
the water supplies or water quality of the other Colorado River
Basin States or Mexico has the greatest opportunity for
providing a lasting legacy of the late Congressman Bono's
efforts to stabilize and restore the Salton Sea.
I would like to discuss two major points regarding H.R.
3267 for the Committee's consideration. These include the
identification of potential sources of water for Salton Sea
reclamation, and the difficulty of using Colorado River water
for Salton Sea reclamation within California's Colorado River
allocation.
The passage of the Boulder Canyon Project Act in 1928 and
the completion of Hoover Dam in 1935, led to the construction
of numerous large dams and reservoirs on the Colorado River and
its tributaries. These storage reservoirs allowed the Basin
States and the Bureau of Reclamation to control flood flows,
regulate the river, generate hydroelectric power and deliver
water for downstream uses in agricultural, municipal and
industrial sectors.
Creation of this infrastructure has resulted in a permanent
dependency on the water supplies of the Colorado River. Because
of this dependency, a complex use and accounting system had
evolved that has permitted the complete allocation of the Lower
Basin's Colorado River Compact apportionment of 7.5 million
acre feet. Based upon this accounting system, Arizona made the
commitment necessary to ensure its long-term economic
development through full utilization of its Colorado River
allocation.
Current demand on the Colorado River by the Lower Basin
States is at an all-time high. Arizona is approaching full use
of its 2.8 million acre foot apportionment, along with Nevada
which is close to fully using their annual 300,000 acre foot
entitlement. California's present consumptive use of Colorado
River water is approximately 5.2 million acre feet per year,
exceeding its basic apportionment of 4.4 annually by 800,000
acre feet. Finally, the United States is also obligated,
through international treaty, to annually provide Mexico with
1.5 million acre feet.
Consequently, there is currently 9.8 million acre feet of
demand in the Lower Basin. Under the Law of the River, the
Secretary is not authorized to deliver more than 9 million acre
feet of water to the Lower Basin States and Mexico unless
surplus conditions are declared. In 1998, the Secretary did
declare surplus conditions, but this was an extraordinary event
and is not sustainable over the long-term.
Arizona's concern is that any additional demand in the
Lower Colorado River Basin will increase the likelihood of
shortage to Arizona's Colorado River water supply. This concern
reflects the high-risk position assumed by a significant
portion of Arizona's Colorado River allocation. In order to
gain California's support for the construction of the Central
Arizona Project in the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act,
Arizona was required to accept the low-priority position for
about 1.5 million acre feet of our Colorado River allocation.
In that legislation, Arizona was required to subordinate
CAP uses to California's basic apportionment of 4.4 million
acre feet. During a shortage in the Lower Basin, cities and
towns, Native American tribes and thousands of acres of
croplands in central- and southern Arizona all supplied by the
CAP, face a very real threat of having their water supplies
seriously curtailed or halted.
Title I and Title II of H.R. 3267 propose to reduce and
stabilize the salinity and the surface elevation of the Salton
Sea. We interpret this as pumping a substantial quantity out of
the Sea and then attempting to dilute the remaining solution
through the introduction of new water supplies. Arizona is
concerned that the source of this water is not identified in
the draft legislation.
Currently, the Secretary of the Interior is not planning to
make flood control releases during the referenced timeframes in
Water Year 1998, nor are they anticipated in early 1999. It is
Arizona's position that Congress should carefully consider the
source of the water that is expected to be used and the
timeframe to accomplish these goals.
Perhaps Arizona's greatest concern is the preservation of
the historic rights and obligations with respect to the
Colorado River. The State of Arizona has suggested language
that could strengthen H.R. 3267 in our written testimony on
page 3.
With the increased demand--Mr. Chairman, if you could give
me about two more minutes I can wrap this up.
Mr. Doolittle. That's fine.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. With the increased demand
upon the Colorado River system and the potential risks of
shortage to the Colorado River Basin States the Secretary of
the Interior requested that California initiate the development
of a negotiated plan among its Colorado River water using
agencies to reduce their annual use from 5.2 million acre feet
to the basic apportionment of 4.4.
The California ``4.4 plan'' proposes to reduce California's
annual use of Colorado River water in two phases through the
implementation of the following components: transfers of water
from agricultural districts to municipal water providers in the
South Coast region; transfer of seepage recovered from the All
American and Coachella Canals; intensive management of surface
and groundwater supplies; and Colorado River reservoir
operating criteria which continue to make surplus water
available.
In order to effectuate these transfers, intensive water
conservation programs will be required in the agricultural
districts which will ultimately lead to reduced drainage flows
into the Salton Sea and thereby increasing the Sea's salinity.
Successful development and implementation of the 4.4 plan
will require California Colorado River water users to make
difficult decisions regarding reallocation or acquisition of
supplies in order to meet the long-term demand in the State.
Arizona supports this goal, but is concerned that the addition
of Salton Sea reclamation through the programs proposed in H.R.
3267, could result in an inability to reach consensus on the
more immediate goal of completing the 4.4 plan. Not achieving
this goal risks the long-term reliable supplies of Colorado
River water for the other Basin States, particularly Arizona.
To conclude, Arizona urges the Congress to amend H.R. 3267
to accomplish the following:
1. Identify all potential sources of water for the
Salton Sea Reclamation Project and consider the impacts
of using that water;
2. Require explicit adherence to the current Law of
the River; and
3. Require that any Colorado River water utilized for
the Salton Sea Reclamation Project must come from
within California's mainstream allocation of Colorado
River water.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the
Committee.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Christopher Harris may be found
at end of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Our next witness will be Mr. Art Lopez,
Chair of the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.
STATEMENT OF ART LOPEZ, CHAIR, TORRES MARTINEZ DESERT CAHUILLA
INDIANS
Mr. Lopez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's a privilege to be a representative here of the Torres
Martinez and to have the opportunity to testify before you here
today.
We are honored to address an issue that is of utmost
importance to the Torres Martinez Cahuilla Tribe. H.R. 3267,
the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act is a
critically important acknowledgement of the dedicated efforts
of the late Sonny Bono.
The Cahuilla Indians support in principal the Sonny Bono
Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act. My people believe this Act
will focus the necessary public attention and direct the
necessary financial resources to restore, preserve and
ultimately protect the Salton Sea.
In the process of focusing attention on the Salton Sea it
is important that Congress include in any legislation its clear
intent that all the key stakeholders be involved and have the
opportunity to fulfill a meaningful role in the future of the
Salton Sea. The Torres Martinez are a major stakeholder. Twelve
thousand acres of our tribal land lies underneath the Salton
Sea, and similar amounts lie adjacent to the Salton Sea. It is
important that any Commission, Authority or decisionmaking
bodies established under H.R. 3267 recognize the need for equal
and active participation by the Torres Martinez.
In restoring and reclaiming the Salton Sea the unique
government-to-government relationship that exists serves to
enhance our cooperative efforts. The Memorandum of
Understanding referred to under Section 101, paragraph 5, item
[A] should include the Torres Martinez Cahuilla Indians. Any
solution implemented as a result to this bill will affect the
Torres Martinez and our tribal lands for many years. The Torres
Martinez have paid their dues.
Finding a solution to the problem of the Salton Sea will
require monumental scientific and engineering efforts. The
Torres Martinez have waited for this kind of Congressional
attention for many years, and we have always known that the
Salton Sea is important. All we ask of you is to fully include
the Torres Martinez in a leadership and a decisionmaking role,
to fund our need for professional and scientific
representation, to fund necessary scientific and engineering
studies and activities so that the solutions are comprehensive
and long-term and that you continue to show the leadership that
you have thus far.
Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to comment that
the 12,000 acres that we have underneath the Salton Sea, we
would request that consideration be given in the future toward
our 12,000 acres that have been inundated for 93 years.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege and honor to
testify today.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Art Lopez may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Our next witness will be Mr. R. Wayne
Hardie, Group Leader of Energy and Environmental Analysis at
the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Mr. Hardie.
STATEMENT OF R. WAYNE HARDIE, GROUP LEADER, ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY
Mr. Hardie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you said, my name is Wayne Hardie, and I'm the Leader of
the Energy and Environmental Analysis Group at Los Alamos
National Laboratory which is operated by the University of
California for the Department of Energy. Although Los Alamos is
best known for its work in nuclear weapons, we have significant
expertise and experience in environmental issues.
The Laboratory was asked last May by the Congressional
Salton Sea Task Force to provide technical support for the
remediation of the ecological problems in the Salton Sea. Today
I am going to report on how the results of our work in
evaluation various concepts for addressing high salinity and
variable water levels of the Sea relate to H.R. 3267.
Los Alamos has examined the costs, salinity and sea level
changes resulting from three remediation concepts,
desalinization, pump in, pump out and diked impoundment and
compared these results with no action. We have concentrated on
performance and economic issues and have not evaluated
ecological or institutional factors in this analysis.
Due to anticipated water conservation for our analysis we
assumed the inflow into the Salton Sea will literally decrease
from the present flow of about 1.3 million acre feet per year
to 1.0 million acre feet per year over a 20-year period. It is
very important to note that the results are strongly influenced
by this assumed inflow reduction. Similarly, using supposed
excess Colorado River water could also have a major impact on
the results.
If no action is taken the Salton Sea will of course
continue to increase in salinity from today's level of 44 parts
per thousand. The Sea would reach a salinity level of about 60
parts per thousand in about 15 years. Remember this is assuming
water conservation. This is important because some believe that
most fish can no longer live in water at this salinity level.
If there were an expensive filtering or distillation method
to remove salt from high salinity water desalinization would be
an obvious solution to the problems of the Salton Sea. The
process could be used to reduce the salinity of the water
already in the Salton Sea or to desalinate ocean water being
pumped from the Gulf of California as part of a pump in, pump
out scheme. While desalinization can be used to produce fresh
water for urban household use, in our opinion desalinization
approaches to reduce the salinity of the Salton Sea would be
prohibitively expensive.
Another concept that has received attention consists of
pumping water from an external source to the Salton Sea and
pumping water from the Sea to an external location. The
advantage of such a concept is that it has the potential to
allow simultaneous control of salinity, elevation and surface
area. The obvious source for pumping water is the Gulf of
California which of course is at ocean water salinity. However,
for this concept to be practical for salinity control without a
reduction in the level of the Sea the salinity of the pump-in
water needs to be considerably less than that of ocean water.
If the pump-in water is at ocean water salinity very large
quantities of water must be pumped, both in and out.
Pump out achieves nearly the same result as pump in, pump
out and at a much lower cost. Providing that a smaller Salton
Sea by approximately 35 percent is acceptable, pump out should
be considered as a viable option for the Salton Sea.
One important issue that needs to be resolved with this is
the destination of the pumped water. One frequently mentioned
area is the Laguna Salada in Mexico. Technically this is
feasible, but would entail reaching an agreement with Mexico.
Another important issue with pump out is that the salinity
level would increase for about 25 years, hitting a peak of
almost 65 parts per thousand before decreasing.
Another concept that has a potential for controlling
salinity and elevation is the creation of in-Sea impoundment
areas by diking. The primary disadvantage of diked impoundment
is that part of the surface area in the Sea would be in an
impoundment area which would contain very saline water. Fish
would not be able to survive in the impoundment and in time
this brine would precipitate salt.
Using our assumptions on inflow volumes, an impoundment
area of about 10 percent of the area of the Salton Sea would
allow the Salton Sea to reach ocean salinity. An estimate of
the cost of an earthen dike is about $300 million. However,
such a dike would only provide salinity control and the Sea
could ultimately be reduced in area by about 20 percent. A
larger reinforced dike, which would really be a dam, with an
impoundment area of almost 30 percent of the present Sea would
be required to maintain the existing shoreline. A reinforced
dike providing both salinity and elevation control would
probably raise the capital cost by more than a factor of two.
Based on our analysis we conclude that:
First, desalinization is not a viable concept for
salinity and elevation control;
Two, pump out is a feasible method for salinity
control, but the size of the Salton Sea could decrease
by approximately 35 percent, and further more the Sea
would continue to increase in salinity for about 25
years; and
Three, diked impoundment could control salinity and
elevation if the dike is reinforced to serve as a dam.
If the dike is earthen the size of the Sea could
decrease by about 20 percent. In either case the
impoundment area would have high salinity water.
The ecological and institutional consequences of various
concepts need to be better analyzed before a final selection is
made. Furthermore, the impact of anticipated water diversion
from the Salton Sea and the possible use of supposed excess
Colorado River water need to be factored into the decision.
In summary, the options identified for consideration in
H.R. 3267 appear to be the most feasible for reclaiming the
Salton Sea. However, the elevation requirements in the proposed
legislation could restrict the options. This is because the
existing shoreline is the result of an equilibrium condition
between historical inflows of about 1.3 million acre feet per
year and evaporation, and meeting the elevation requirements
with a substantially reduced inflow could be a considerable
challenge to say the least.
Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of R. Wayne Hardie may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Our next witness is Dr. Henry J. Vaux, Jr.,
Associate Vice President of the Division of Agriculture and
Natural Resources at the University of California.
Dr. Vaux.
STATEMENT OF HENRY J. VAUX, JR., Ph.D., ASSOCIATE VICE
PRESIDENT, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Vaux. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you say, my name is Henry Vaux, and I serve as Associate
Vice President of the University of California System for
Agriculture and Natural Resource Programs. I appear here today
on behalf of California's Federal Water Resources Research
Institute of which I formerly served as Director.
At the outset I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to appear here this afternoon and ask that my
written testimony be included in the record.
The Federal Water Resources Research Institutes were first
authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 and, as
you are aware, that program has been reauthorized approximately
every 5 years since. The program maintains Federal Water
Resources Research Institutes at the Land-Grant Universities in
each of the 50 States, in the District of Columbia and in the
several Trust Territories. The broad purpose of the Institutes
is to focus the collective research expertise of scholars in
the nation's institutions of higher education on water problems
at the local, regional and national levels. And to this end the
authorizing legislation requires that the Institutes make their
funds available to scholars at all institutions of higher
education in their respective States and not just to those
domiciled in the Land-Grant Universities.
In my written testimony I make three points, and I want to
briefly identify those points and elaborate on them here this
afternoon.
First, faculty researchers with interests in water
resources at all of California's colleges and universities are
eligible to compete for the Federal funds which the California
Water Resources Research Institute awards.
The Institute's role is to facilitate, coordinate and
support research on water resources undertaken by all faculty
in California irrespective of institutional affiliation. Over
the last 10 years nearly all of the Federal dollars available
to the California Institute have been awarded to faculty
researchers on campuses other than the University of California
campuses. Thus, for example, over the last 10 years funds have
been awarded to faculty researchers at San Diego State
University, at Humboldt State University, at California State
University at Fresno, at the California Institute of
Technology, and at Stanford University.
The Institute is unique in that it maintains relationships
with virtually all faculty with interests in water resources at
all of California's colleges and universities, and the most
recent edition of our directory of water resources expertise,
which provides the number of those relationships, lists some
986 faculty at 33 colleges and institutions all within
California.
My second point is that the role of the California Water
Resources Research Institute is to identify the high-priority
research topics; to ensure through peer review that the
research is directed at those high-priority topics and is of
the highest quality; and to engage in programs of research
dissemination to inform other researchers, water managers and
members of the public of the results of that research.
The California Water Resources Research Institute does not
itself conduct research. Rather, its role is to facilitate the
conduct of research by faculty experts located at the State's
colleges and universities. By performing its facilitation role
the Institute helps to ensure that research on water resources
in California is well coordinated, focuses on the most pressing
topics and is of the highest quality. In addition, the
Institute's activities help to avoid duplication of research
efforts both within California and nationally.
My third point is that the California Water Resources
Research Institute is prepared to facilitate the development
and conduct of any research or programs of research that the
Salton Sea Research Management Committee may identify as
necessary pursuant to the provisions of H.R. 3267.
I want to emphasize as clearly as I can that our presence
here today and our interest in the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton
Sea Reclamation Act lies with ensuring that whatever research
may emerge as a consequence of this Act is accomplished by the
most qualified investigators and is of the highest possible
quality.
We believe that many important questions will emerge, and
we stand prepared to assist local, State and Federal officials
in identifying and framing those questions, should that be
appropriate. We also prepared to make our offices available to
ensure that only the highest quality research projects are
funded and that all of our college and university researchers
with interests related to the reclamation of the Salton Sea are
afforded an opportunity to compete for whatever funds may be
available.
In closing let me thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to appear here today. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Henry J. Vaux, Jr., Ph.D. may be
found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Let me ask one of you to comment on when we
anticipate this, and I know it's just an estimate, when do we
think this 200,000 acre feet per year water is going to be
transferred over to San Diego? When is that expected to happen?
Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, as I think I'm the only water
buffalo up here let me take a shot at that. There is a 1988
agreement between the Imperial Irrigation District and the
Metropolitan Water District which I believe accounts for
106,000 acre feet. The San Diego Imperial County Irrigation
District proposed transfer is simply that. It is a proposed
component of the California 4.4 plan. I believe that they have
signed, if you will, a memorandum of agreement that they would
like to advance the process. They are not yet actually moving
water. I believe the State of California as part of the 4.4
plan is attempting to put together a wheeling agreement with
the Metropolitan Water District in order to facilitate moving
that water through the Colorado River aqueduct to the South
Coast region.
Mr. Doolittle. Well in your testimony this would clearly
negatively impact the Salton Sea, would it not?
Mr. Harris. I believe it would, Mr. Chairman. I think it's
clearly in the best management practices within the district to
be more efficient in their use of Colorado River water, and we
believe that this is a critically important component of the
4.4 plan to make this transfer from a agricultural sector to
the municipal sector, but I believe that the end result will be
that there will be some diminishment of the current inflows
into the Salton Sea.
Mr. Doolittle. Which are already inadequate, and then we're
going to add to that I gather the diminishment of the New River
water flowing in as a result of Mexico's getting the
reclamation plant we're building for them and then keeping and
using the water.
Mr. Harris. I think that's another concern that is
obviously worth bearing in mind. My colleague just informed me
that the proposed date I believe to start moving some of that
water would be about 2008. They would start stepping it up, and
I think the full transfer could be complete by then.
Mr. Doolittle. When they go through that are they going to
have to do their NEPA compliance and all of that?
Mr. Harris. Yes, sir, they will.
Mr. Doolittle. And is there no doubt that this negative
impact on the Salton Sea will be brought out as they do those
environmental studies?
Mr. Harris. I would assume that in the scoping of issues
that NEPA and CEQA both would be evaluating that.
Mr. Doolittle. Isn't there a requirement for mitigation
when there is an action to be taken that negatively impacts
some other resource?
Mr. Harris. I believe so, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Do you want to comment on that, Mr. Hardie.
Mr. Hardie. Mr. Chairman, I testified that our calculations
show that the Salton Sea would reach a salinity of 60 parts per
thousand in 15 years under the assumptions of diversion. It
would be more like 30 years without diversion.
Mr. Doolittle. The first figure was, what, 15 years?
Mr. Hardie. Fifteen years to hit 60 parts per thousand, and
30 years to hit 60 parts per thousand without diversion.
Mr. Doolittle. So I would gather this would be the basis
for the local entities participating in some solution for the
Salton Sea given the impact they're having on this.
Mr. Vaux, you were telling us a little bit about the
California Water Center. That Center receives no funding under
this legislation, right?
Mr. Vaux. That is correct.
Mr. Doolittle. Could you tell us what function the Center
has played regarding the use and coordination of the education
institutions in California.
Mr. Vaux. Well, as I have indicated, the Center has served
as a coordinating body for all water resources research
undertaken at the universities and colleges within California.
It has done that primarily through the Federal program for
which it has received appropriations since 1965, and in that
connection it involves scholars on not only the UC campuses but
other campuses in helping to establish with state and national
officials a research agenda. Then we coordinate the research
through a unified call for proposals, and the awards are the
made on the basis of a fairly elaborate, but very concise peer
review process which provides us with assurances of quality
control, but on a very timely basis.
Mr. Doolittle. What role has the Center had concerning
Salton Sea research in recent years?
Mr. Vaux. The Center has had various roles related to the
Salton Sea research. I can't give you the exact number of
projects, but out of a research portfolio of about 30 projects
annually I would judge that between one and two of those
projects in each of the last 10 years have been focused on
problems, either generic problems or very specific problems,
related to the Salton Sea.
Mr. Tom Kirk mentioned earlier the work of Professor Stuart
Hurlbut at San Diego State University on the Salton Sea, and if
my recollection serves me correctly that was work on
microorganisms in the Sea. That work was funded through the
California Federal Water Resources Research Institute program.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert is recognized.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Hardie, during your investigations of
potential solutions to the problems of the Sea did you look
into the concept of evaporation ponds?
Mr. Hardie. Yes. As part of the diked impoundment?
Mr. Calvert. To take evaporation ponds outside of the Sea
and move them into either the eastern or western side of the
Salton Sea.
Mr. Hardie. That would basically be the same as a pump out.
Mr. Calvert. If we were able to find a location to put
evaporation ponds within several miles of the Sea, and we were
able to pump out water, because right now how many thousand
acre feet determines the flood stage now in the Sea? How much
water should be pumped out to bring it to a stable elevation?
Mr. Hardie. I can give you a few statistics here. There are
7.5 million acre feet of water in the Salton Sea currently. In
a normal year or an average year about 1.3 million acre feet of
water enters the Sea. Now if you are asking how much has
entered say in the past year--nobody is really measuring the
water going into the Sea.
Mr. Calvert. I guess the question is this. At the present
time there is too much water in the Salton Sea and we're
flooding out several farms in the area and some riparian
habitat. How many hundreds of thousands of acre feet would have
to be removed to bring it back to a reasonable level?
Mr. Hardie. I don't have that number. I mean I could easily
get it.
Mr. Calvert. Just take a guess here today would you say it
was over 250,000 acre feet?
Mr. Hardie. He said a foot per 250,000 acre feet.
Mr. Calvert. I'm just asking the question that if we were
able to pump out water right now somewhere, say to evaporation
ponds at the rate of 100,000 acre feet, and the inflow of water
from the various locales, either from the New River, the Alamo,
the Whitewater or whatever, remains the about a million three
for the next several years, what happens to the salinity in the
Salton Sea?
Mr. Hardie. The salinity will go up. That would be
basically my pump-out option, and the salinity will continue to
increase for about 25 years.
Mr. Calvert. So we would be pumping out water at 47,000
parts per million into evaporation ponds as the water comes in
at a million three hundred thousand acre per year.
Mr. Hardie. Well I was assuming that it would decrease,
that the amount of water coming in would decrease.
Mr. Calvert. Even if the water remains the same for the
next several years, and let's say the Imperial Irrigation
District did not come to an agreement within the next 3 years,
what would happen at that point? Would the salt remain the same
or would it increase or decrease?
Mr. Hardie. We did that calculation and I actually have it
in my pile here. But if I remember right it would remain
roughly the same, it would not increase very much, and then it
would decrease.
Mr. Calvert. Over time it would decrease?
Mr. Hardie. Over time it would decrease and it would not go
up nearly as fast or nearly as far as it would under diversion.
Mr. Calvert. This is in the short run. And if during this
period, and I want to get back because I think Mr. Hunter may
want to ask this question, if we were able to get to flood
stage water, flood stage meaning there is water going into the
Sea of Cortez and you were able to bring in water from other
sources into the Sea the salinity would go down, wouldn't it?
Mr. Hardie. Right. In fact, there is a little rule of thumb
here I can give you which is that for every hundred thousand
acre feet that you replace with Colorado River water the
salinity will decrease by about .6 parts per thousand. So if
you had say 500,000 acre feet that you could magically take out
of the Salton Sea and replace it with 500,000 feet of this
excess Colorado River water that we've been hearing a lot of
about, then that would be three parts per thousand. So it would
go from 44 or 45 down to 42 or 43.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter, do you wish to ask questions?
Mr. Hunter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a short one I wanted to ask Mr. Harris. I presume you
heard the representative from Nevada say that even if
California was using its 4.4 million acre foot allotment, that
if we had such a flood year that you had water physically
overflowing the banks of the Colorado and going into the Sea of
Cortez that nobody was using that it would OK if California
used that to flush out the Salton Sea. Do you folks agree with
that also?
Mr. Harris. Congressman Hunter, we would be delighted if
you used that water. It might help us in the Yuma region.
Mr. Hunter. That's the only question I've got, Mr.
Chairman. I know we've got another panel, and you've been
really great at giving us plenty of time here today. So thank
you.
Oh, I wanted to thank Art Lopez, too, especially for being
here as well. Sonny Bono really wanted you folks to play an
integral part of what we do with the Sea, Art, and thank you
for coming back and being with us.
Mr. Lopez. Thank you.
Mr. Hunter. And, Mr. Hardie, thanks for everything you guys
are giving us. I think you're going to be with us for a while
because we're going to have more technical questions for you.
Mr. Hardie. I'm happy to help.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Shadegg is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I appreciate the information. I am a little bit
confused about how damming off a portion of the Sea to make
more saline that area in order to reduce the salinity of the
other is a tremendous benefit, and perhaps somebody can explain
that to me.
However, while the technical members of the panel are
thinking about that aspect of the question let me simply ask
Mr. Harris, you said you have language in your prepared
testimony. I would like you to draw the Committee's direct
attention to that language and perhaps read it and explain why
you think that needs to be added, in addition to which I think
you were here this morning when the Chairman pointed out that
at least he read it to say the Act does not alter the Law of
the River, but in point of fact the way it's drafted it says
the Section does not alter the Law of the River, and that
change of wording from Section to Act would be a significant
improvement, is that correct?
Mr. Harris. That is correct, Congressman Shadegg. In effect
the State of Arizona would be much more comfortable if this
could be more explicit in the Act that the Act does comply with
the historic rights and obligations of the Colorado River, and
in fact we do offer language on page 3 of our written testimony
which enumerates much, if not all, of that body of law that we
call the Law of the River.
Mr. Shadegg. And on that point I understand the four Upper
Basin States have joined in the same language that we are
requesting, is that correct?
Mr. Harris. To my knowledge, that is correct, Congressman
Shadegg. In fact, the Upper Colorado River Commission Executive
Director, Mr. Wayne Cook will follow in the next panel and I
believe he will make a similar suggestion.
Mr. Shadegg. A similar or------
Mr. Harris. In my understanding it is an identical request.
Mr. Shadegg. Not the other point on Section versus Act.
Mr. Harris. That would be appropriate in our mind that this
Act should comply with the Law of the River.
Mr. Shadegg. And the current language refers to just the
Section rather than the Act.
Mr. Harris. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you very much.
Gentlemen, does anybody want to try to further elucidate me
as to how that will work and why we aren't creating two eye
sores instead of one or one eye sore to fix another one?
Mr. Hardie. It seems a little weird, doesn't it.
Mr. Shadegg. It does, yes.
Mr. Hardie. But it works, and the reason it works is that
first off I think we all agree that if you have water going
into a body and only leaving by evaporation what is left is
salt and it gets saltier and saltier. So if you had some way of
removing the salt, then the salinity would decrease.
Mr. Shadegg. Well the clearest thought there is a
desalinization plant which, as I understand from your
testimony, is impractical.
Mr. Hardie. In my opinion it's very expensive. For example,
nuclear reactors could provide electricity, but I think it's
pretty impractical.
Think of this impounded area as the ultimate repository for
the water and the salt. Now it could be inside, it could be an
internal impoundment area, or it could be some place else. What
you have is water flowing from the outside into this
impoundment area. So now you have salt leaving the area that
you would like to be fresh. So it's really no difference. It
could be internal impoundment or it could be external, but it's
a way of getting water and therefore salt out of the area that
you want to have at a lower salinity level, and it's being
replenished by low salt water.
Mr. Calvert. Would the gentleman from Arizona yield?
Mr. Shadegg. Sure, but let me just summarize what I think
you said, and then I would be happy to yield.
What I think I understand you're saying is by creating a
flow of water out of the one body you are reducing its salinity
and you will thus raise the salinity in the other body of
water, but you're not worried about that.
Mr. Hardie. Well I'm not saying I'm not worried about it,
but I'm just saying that is what will happen, and I think it's
for other people to study whether that is a problem or not.
Ultimately it will become so saline that the water will have to
be pumped out. Now that could be 50 years or it could be 200
years, depending on the configuration, but ultimately it will
reach saturation.
Mr. Shadegg. In the main body of the Salton Sea that you're
removing water from and creating the flowing you will be able
to reduce the salinity, but not make it fresh water.
Mr. Hardie. Right. You could make it reasonably low, but
not fresh water.
Mr. Shadegg. If it were reasonably low would it be
significantly more attractive either from an environmental
standpoint or, more importantly, or as importantly for me a
recreational standpoint?
Mr. Hardie. Oh, I definitely think so because you could
certainly get it at least to seawater salinity fairly easily.
Mr. Shadegg. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
What the gentleman was pointing out, Mr. Hardie, and
something the Task Force has been talking about is not
particularly having the impoundment within the Sea itself, but
potentially have evaporation ponds several miles away from the
Sea which would evaporate water at a faster rate and then would
serve as the same basic concept as having an interior
impoundment area hopefully for less money and would not have
some of the negative connotations potentially as an interior
impoundment.
Mr. Shadegg. My time has run out, but with the Chairman's
indulgence let me ask on quick followup question on that. If
the second body of water which had flow into it but not flow
out of it, in that body is it contemplated that you might make
that a large land area with a very shallow body of water and
thereby increasing the rate of evaporation?
Mr. Hardie. I'm sorry, in the second body of water?
Mr. Shadegg. Yes, so you wouldn't have to ultimately pump
that water out.
Mr. Hardie. Well from point of view of the Salton Sea it's
just gone. Now there is a negative impact of that, however, in
that the level of the Salton Sea will be reduced significantly
under pump out. So it's not a simple solution. I mean all of
these options have advantages and disadvantages.
Mr. Shadegg. And it will be a tough problem and therefore
costly.
I thank the members of the panel, and I thank the Chair for
his indulgence.
Mr. Doolittle. Could I just ask, if you do pump this water
out some place somewhere else, either Laguna Salada or in the
gunnery range or in an internal impoundment, what's going to
keep them out of those areas so will we not continue to have
waterfowl problems?
Mr. Vaux. Yes. I'm not an expert in this area, but I know
enough about it to know that short of putting a net over the
water body it's simply impossible to keep migratory birds off
the water.
Mr. Doolittle. Yes, Mr. Hardie.
Mr. Hardie. I'm not a waterfowl expert, but I think the
problems you have with the waterfowl is the waterfowl eating
the sick fish because I mean I don't hear any problems with
waterfowl in the Great Salt Lake, for example.
Mr. Doolittle. OK. So we presume there wouldn't be fish in
this place the water flows into.
Mr. Hardie. There won't be fish there very long. So that
doesn't strike me as a big problem.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Lopez, I understand there are other
tribes interested in this legislation. Could you shed any light
on that as to what their views might be or who the tribes are?
Mr. Lopez. Well the only interest the other tribes might be
considering is help fund some of our activities. We are going
to present this to some other tribes. The only tribe down in
that area that has ancestral rights are the Torres Martinez
Indians.
Mr. Doolittle. Is there a Kavizon Tribe down there and do
they believe they have interests in this?
Mr. Lopez. I haven't heard from them personally, but that
sphere of tribal occupancy is Torres Martinez. The Kavizon
Tribe is north of us, and as far as I know I've never heard of
their having any right down in that area.
Mr. Doolittle. And you don't know of any interest they have
expressed in the legislation?
Mr. Lopez. No, not at this time.
Mr. Doolittle. Is your tribe looking to connect this
legislation to your water rights settlement?
Mr. Lopez. I would like to see consideration toward our
settlement, and I don't want to have any hindrances to this
bill with our settlement.
Mr. Doolittle. How much money are you seeking in the
settlement?
Mr. Lopez. Well we are asking for 93 years of unused land,
the money that could have been generated off of that. A study
on that was I think $1.3 billion of loss of revenue. You know,
we used agriculture numbers in that area. Well, we're not
asking that amount of money. We are asking for $100 million for
a recovery fund that would be put into the government's banks
and we would draw interest off of that, by putting so much a
year away for us that we could draw interest and that would be
sufficient for us to do some kind of economic development that
would help us participate in that area of development.
Mr. Doolittle. But you are then seeking $100 million in the
water rights settlement?
Mr. Lopez. Right, plus I believe there is $14 million
already on the table that has been there for a number of years.
The Chairman prior to me had a bill go through and that $14
million--the bill didn't go through, but the $14 million was
delegated I believe.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Harris, it was mentioned in your
testimony that programs costing millions of dollars will
compete with other programs, and I just wondered how you
believe that this program along with all the others, is going
to compete for a limited amount of money?
Mr. Harris. Well I think that's the point I tried to make
in my written testimony. I believe that this is an issue within
the State of California alone, and I'm not totally one hundred
percent up on all of the programs you have, but clearly you've
got some big ones. You've got the big CalFed process underway,
I believe there are more salmon stocks that are in the process
of being evaluated for listing right now, which undoubtedly
will lead to additional programs, you have the NCCP process in
the South Coast region, several large HCPs and now Salton Sea
Reclamation all kind of competing, not only within the State of
California, for both water and fiscal resources and staffing
resources, but now you're also competing with similar programs
in the Colorado River Basin and the rest of the Western United
States. There is a very large recovery program for native fish
in the Upper Colorado River Basin, and I believe there is
legislation that is being put forth or developed right now to
fund that program for another 10 years. In the lower Colorado
region, there is a tri-State effort between California, Arizona
and Nevada on the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species
Conservation Program, and I believe that's going to be
significantly costly over the long haul as well.
So my sort of note of caution was that I think we've got a
big picture here that we've really got to look at. We've got
limited resources and fiscal austerity within our States as
well as at the National Government, and I think that we've got
to be very careful that we get the most bang for our buck.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Does any other Member up here want to ask further
questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Doolittle. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your time
and contribution. We perhaps will have other questions which
will be submitted in writing, but for now we will excuse this
panel and call up the fourth and final panel.
[Questions to be submitted to be responded to for the
record may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. If you gentlemen will raise your right
hands.
[Whereupon, Wayne E. Cook, Leon Lesika, Stephen Weber and
Evan M. Hirsche raised their right hands and were first duly
sworn by Chairman Doolittle as follows:]
Do you solemnly swear or affirm under a penalty of perjury
that the statements made or testimony given will be the whole
truth and nothing but the truth.
Mr. Cook. I do.
Mr. Lesika. I do.
Mr. Weber. I do.
Mr. Hirsche. I do.
Mr. Doolittle. Let the record reflect that each answered in
the affirmative.
Thank you very much. We appreciate your patience and
waiting until this time.
We will have testify first Mr. Wayne E. Cook, Professional
Engineer and Executive Director of the Upper Colorado River
Commission.
Mr. Cook.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE E. COOK, P.E., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UPPER
COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION
Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee. My name is Wayne Cook and I am the Executive
Director of the Upper Colorado River Commission.
On behalf of the Upper Basin States of the Colorado River
Basin we thank you for the opportunity to provide written
testimony for your March 12, 1998 hearing on H.R. 3267, the
Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Restoration Act.
The Upper Colorado River Commission is an interstate
administrative agency created by the Upper Colorado River
Compact in 1948. The member States of the Commission are
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Among other things,
this Commission represents the Upper Basin States in
consultations with the Secretary of the Interior on matters
pertaining to the operations of the Colorado River.
The Upper Basin States do not object to the goal of
stabilizing the Salton Sea, either its salinity level or the
content. We are concerned, however, that H.R. 3267 as it is
presently introduced is unclear on what role the Colorado River
may play in such stabilizing activities.
For instance, Section 101[b] paragraphs 1 and 2 suggest
stabilizing the salinity level between 35 and 40 parts per
thousand and the surface elevation at 240 to 230 feet below sea
level. Such goals could perhaps jeopardize implementation of
the California 4.4 plan currently being negotiated by the
Southern California water agencies. California must restrict
its current Colorado River uses to stay within its normal water
limitation of 4.4 million acre feet of Colorado River water.
The proposed 4.4 plan envisions conservation of water in
the Imperial Irrigation District and other agricultural areas
for transfer to the Metropolitan Water District for use in
keeping aqueduct full. Such conservation measures may
significantly reduce inflow to the Salton Sea perhaps by
several hundred thousand acre feet. Any successful Salton Sea
legislation must not jeopardize that goal.
Section 101[c] paragraph 2[A] suggests augmented flows into
the Salton Sea. Such flows could be imported sea water or
Mexicali Valley return flows, but the direct use of Colorado
River water for this purpose would be generally precluded by
the Law of the River.
Section 101[f] paragraph 1 regarding reclamation laws to
the Upper Basin States is somewhat disquieting. We are not sure
that we know what this section is intended to accomplish. We
only ask the question why do we preclude this project from
planning criteria, benefit-cost analysis, discharge permitting,
ESA and other things. Doing so seems to set a dangerous
precedent.
Section 101[f] paragraph 2, as Chris Harris pointed out in
his testimony on the last panel, needs to be strengthened and
we have some suggested language, which in the interest of time
I will not read, but it's in our written testimony. We believe
that this language better describes and fully lays out the
compilation of Acts that make up the Law of the River, and we
would ask for that language to be inserted in any further
drafts.
We are also concerned about the language in Title II under
the Emergency Actions to Stabilize the Salton Sea. Section
201[b] paragraph 2 suggests water will be available in late
1998 and/or early 1999. Again as Mr. Harris testified
previously, the source of this water is not identified, but
under the present plans approved for operations of the Colorado
River for water year 1998 and projected 1999 there is no water
available from the Colorado River for such purposes in the
Salton Sea. If this section contemplated use of the Colorado
River for emergency purposes in 1998 or 1999 it must be
rewritten to exclude use of Colorado River water.
We thank you for the opportunity to appear this day and
would be ready to answer any questions that you might have.
Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Wayne E. Cook may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Our next witness will be Mr. Leon Lesika,
Executive Director of Desert Wildlife Unlimited.
Mr. Lesika, it's nice to see you here in Washington. We
enjoyed having the field hearing and having the opportunity to
examine some of your important work out there at the Salton
Sea.
STATEMENT OF LEON LESIKA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DESERT WILDLIFE
UNLIMITED
Mr. Lesika. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure to be here today and testify regarding the
water cleanup for the Alamo and New Rivers. We propose using
existing technologies and proven designs to improve the quality
of water flowing into the Salton Sea. Imperial County is
located adjacent to Mexico in the extreme southeast corner of
California. The New River starts in Mexico and runs through the
city of Mexicali whose population is in excess of one million
people.
Based on polluted water samples collected from the New
River at the border the river has earned the title of the most
polluted river in the United States. The New River travels
about 50 miles north from the international border and empties
into the Salton Sea. From Mexico the rivers carries untreated
and undertreated human and industrial waste. The New River also
receives agricultural drain water containing pesticides and
chemical fertilizers from farms in the United States and
Mexico.
The Alamo River does not have the same level of human and
industrial wastes as the New River, but does receive
agricultural waste on both sides of the border. Mexico with the
assistance of the United States is in the process of building a
waste water treatment plant.
In June 1997 Congressman Duncan Hunter formed the Citizens
Congressional Task Force on the New River to begin a grassroots
effort to address the problems of drain water on the New and
Alamo Rivers. He asked me to head this Task Force and in a weak
moment I agreed. We formed a group which includes
representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the
California Department of Fish and Game, the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, the University of California at
Riverside, the University of California Polytechnic at Pomona
and the University of Baha, California. Local representation
includes the County Board of Supervisors, the Administration
Office, the Agricultural Commission, the Fish and Game
Commission, Imperial Irrigation and Imperial Valley College. We
have also received support from many volunteer groups, such as
Desert Wildlife Unlimited, Boy Scouts of America, local school
districts and others too numerous to mention.
Since June the Task Force members have developed a pilot
plan to address these serious water quality issues on the
American side of the border. We are using proven technologies
known as bioremediation to improve water quality. This plan
includes a series of ponds for sedimentation and wetland
vegetation that will remove contaminants before the river
empties into the Salton Sea some 50 miles away.
To my left over here is a prototype on a 68-acre parcel
that the Bureau of Reclamation is doing the engineering on at
the present time. This is actually four-pond system. The water
comes out of a drain ditch and goes into a sediment pond, comes
back into a ditch and then goes into another vegetative pond,
back into a ditch, then into another vegetative pond and so
forth, through all four. This particular system if we have a
problem in any one given pond we can bypass it by cutting off
the pond and circumventing it with the ditch. So that is one of
the prototypes for our first two series.
The Task Force has formed a subcommittee that is working on
a design that will monitor their project to evaluate the
efficiency and success of the cleanup process. We are all very
confident that this proposed project will be effective in
improving the water quality of the Salton Sea ecosystem. Other
benefits include improved habitat for endangered species such
as the Yuma clapper rail, the Southwestern willow flycatcher as
well as recreational opportunities, such as hiking, bird
watching, camping, fishing and hunting.
Efforts to save the Salton Sea cannot be effective if we do
not clean up the water that contaminates it first.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Leon Lesika may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Our next witness will be Mr. Stephen Weber,
President of San Diego State University, Salton Sea University
Research Consortia.
Mr. Weber.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN WEBER, PRESIDENT OF SAN DIEGO STATE
UNIVERSITY, SALTON SEA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CONSORTIA
Mr. Weber. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the invitation to appear today on behalf of the
Salton Sea University Research Consortium.
I am proud to represent my fellow colleagues, California
University, Riverside Chancellor Raymond Orbach and President
James Appleton of the University of Redlands. Our Consortium
strongly supports the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea
Restoration Act.
The University of Redlands, the University of California,
Riverside and San Diego State University have joined forces to
form the Salton Sea University Research Consortium in order to
address the environmental problems at the Salton Sea in an
integrated, timely and efficacious manner.
The complexity of issues surrounding the Salton Sea
requires research approaches that consider the biological and
ecological systems of the Sea, the regional hydrology, the
chemistry of soil and toxic substances as well as potential
bio-remediation and engineering solutions. We must also take
into account the economic issues, the agricultural interests
and the human cultural and social concerns of the Salton Sea
region and the Lower Colorado River Basin. The role of the
Salton Sea University Research Consortium will be to help
provide policymakers with informed research grounded in years
of onsite scientific investigation of the Salton Sea and its
ecosystems.
Our Consortium offers the full spectrum of expertise
necessary to grapple with the difficult questions and the
difficult decisions which must be made in real time.
Approximately 25 faculty members at the University of
California, Riverside have expertise addressing issues facing
the Salton Sea. San Diego State University's Center for Inland
Waters includes more than 20 faculty and researchers who have
conducted, as you heard earlier today, long-term studies at the
Salton Sea and its surrounding basin. The University of
Redlands has just received the first half of a $2 million
appropriation to establish a Salton Sea Bioregional GIS data
base which will consolidate existing data. Our combined
universities have extensive expertise in this area. We believe
that timely access to this knowledge is vital to the Salton Sea
restoration efforts.
The University Research Consortium is made up of three
universities in close proximity to the Salton Sea. Our faculty
have been working in teaching courses at the Sea and in the
surrounding basin for more than 20 years. Recent research
results include an analysis of the dynamics of several kinds of
toxic algae we have discovered there. We also have gathered the
first comprehensive data on nutrient levels in the Salton Sea
since the 1960's and have discovered several new fish parasites
which are implicated in the massive fish die-offs. We are
collaborating with the Bureau of Reclamation on a
bioremediation project on the New River.
Members of the Consortium have considerable experience
managing large-scale research projects and coordinating with
other State and Federal agencies as well as with other
universities. The salinity/drainage program of the University
of California manages extensive research activities at the
Kesterson Reservoir, a situation very comparable to the Salton
Sea. San Diego State University's extensive work on arid-lands
agriculture and salinity problems in the Middle East has direct
applications to the problems faced at Salton Sea.
Through the Southwest Center for Environmental Research and
Policy a federally funded consortium of five U.S. universities
and four Mexican universities we have conducted applied peer-
reviewed research to find solutions to many of the
environmental problems that affect the border region. We
propose to bring a California solution to a California problem.
We are pleased to learn that Section 102 of the proposed
bill calls for the establishment of the Salton Sea Research
Management Committee. The Consortium strong endorses this
initiative because it will bring together the diverse areas of
expertise that are needed to address, and to solve in real
time, the complex issues facing the Salton Sea.
Given the previous discussion about peer review, we
strongly support the statement on page 10, line 17 of the bill
which requires, and I quote ``studies under this section are
subjected to peer review.'' Give our research expertise coupled
with our geographical proximity to the Salton Sea the
University Research Consortium is in a unique position to in
the language of the bill, and I quote again, ``help select the
topics of study and manage those studies.''
The University Research Consortium has identified a number
of ways that it can be assistance.
<bullet> Coordinating research efforts;
<bullet> Collecting, maintaining and updating
information;
<bullet> Developing and conducting peer-reviewed
research;
<bullet> Advising and reporting to Congress on the
progress of the cleanup;
<bullet> Constructing and managing research stations on
and near the Salton Sea; and
<bullet> Providing long-term monitoring.
In short, our universities have substantial expertise in
scientific endeavors related to the Salton Sea, in managing
large regional, national and international programs, in forming
and implementing consortia, and in providing an objective peer-
reviewed, science-based perspective on complex issues.
I have additional information about our faculty research
capabilities and publications which I will submit for the
record.
We look forward to working with the Federal Government, the
Salton Sea Authority, the State of California and all
stakeholders in addressing the critical environmental problems
of the Salton Sea.
Our Consortium is dedicated to bringing the best expertise
available to preserve this unique resource.
Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Stephen Weber may be found at
end of hearing.]
[The additional information to be supplied may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Our next witness is Mr. Evan Hirsche,
Director of the National Wildlife Refuge Campaign, National
Audubon Society of California.
Mr. Hirsche.
STATEMENT OF EVAN M. HIRSCHE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE CAMPAIGN, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY
Mr. Hirsche. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
my name is Evan Hirsche, Director of the National Audubon
Society's Wildlife Refuge Campaign.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide you with
our views on H.R. 3267, the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea
Reclamation Act. We appreciate the Committee's interest in
honoring the late Representative Bono by promoting a solution
to the ecological crisis occurring at the Salton Sea.
The mission of the National Audubon Society representing
more than 67,000 Californians and more than 550,000 Americans
nationwide is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems
focusing on birds, other wildlife and their habitats for the
benefit of humanity and the earth's biological diversity.
Mr. Chairman, what is happening at the Salton Sea is
nothing short of an environmental Chernobyl. Indeed, what is
widely considered one of the most important areas for birds in
the Pacific Flyway is fast becoming an avian graveyard. How we
respond to this crisis will have broad ramifications for people
and ecosystems far beyond the scope of our immediate interests.
The Salton Sea Refuge was established in 1930 for the
purpose of providing wintering and spring migration habitat for
birds. The refuge today provides vital wintering habitat for
some of the largest concentrations of migratory waterfowl,
shorebirds and passerines in the Nation and provides important
habitat for the endangered Yuma clapper rail. More than 380
species call this unlikely alcove in the Southern California
desert their home as they travel between points as far south as
Antarctica and as far north as the Arctic.
In spite of the area's tremendous ecological value, massive
die-offs of birds and fish have occurred in recent years. In
the past 5 years alone more than 250,000 birds have died from
outbreaks of botulism, Newcastle disease and other undiagnosed
causes. As we speak, an outbreak of fowl cholera is 10 weeks
running and has already killed an estimated 8,000 to 23,000
birds representing 54 species. What is happening at the Salton
Sea is nothing short of an ecological disaster.
The importance of enacting legislation to address the
problems of the Salton Sea cannot be overstated. H.R. 3267 is a
bold, innovative initiative that makes a good-faith effort to
reach a solution to the crisis. We are concerned, however, that
this legislation seeks to accomplish a great deal without a
full and accurate accounting of all expected outcomes.
We have four main concerns with H.R. 3267:
First, we believe the timetable for identification
and review of alternatives is too short;
Second, we believe that the scope of options under
consideration should be expanded;
Third, we object to any exemption of administrative
and judicial review; and
Finally, we are concerned about pumping water from
the Sea without a full accounting of disposal impacts.
Concerning the timetable for review, H.R. 3267 proposes a
12-month timeline to complete feasibility studies for a series
of complex options described as cost effective by the Bureau of
Reclamation. Even under the most optimistic circumstances this
timeline is unrealistic and may result in costly mistakes or
missed opportunities. While we certainly agree that it's
possible to study an issue almost without conclusion, we have
equal concerns about hastily adopting an alternative or series
of alternatives without having a better sense of the likely
outcomes.
Concerning the scope of options, we must all recognize
there is no silver bullet solution to the problems facing the
Salton Sea. H.R. 3267, however, limits the feasibility study to
just four options, excluding a variety of others. The four
options identified in this legislation were adopted from the
1997 Bureau of Reclamation's volume entitled Alternative
Evaluation which reviewed 54 alternatives. Rather than
selecting alternatives with the best likelihood for success,
the BOR selected their alternatives based on four criteria, one
of which was $10 million or less in annual operating costs. The
obvious inadequacy here is that, and I quote from the report,
``The alternatives did not address what would be done with the
salts or how much the disposal cost would be if disposal were
necessary.'' Without knowing the cost for salt or brine
disposal the $10 million ceiling may be unrealistic even for
the five retained alternatives.
Concerning exemption from administrative and judicial
review, the National Audubon Society is strongly opposed to
provisions in the H.R. 3267 that seek to limit environmental
oversight and public participation. Specifically Section
101[f][3][A] would exempt activities associated with
implementation of a selected alternative from meeting the full
requirements under NEPA. While we appreciate the authors'
interest in expediting actions to rectify the crisis in the
Salton Sea, we firmly believe that the full NEPA compliance
should be applied to the selection and implementation of
alternatives.
Likewise, we have concerns about Section 104[c] which
exempts river reclamation activities from having to meet
Section 402 requirements under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. I would just add here that based on what I've
heard today much of what was explained earlier in testimony is
reaching us for the first time and we are withholding our
judgment on how we feel about that particular program pending
further edification.
We also have concerns about Section 101[f][e][B] which
limits judicial review of the chosen alternative. Despite the
urgency of implementing a remedy, we should not sacrifice the
legal rights of U.S. citizens to accomplish our goals.
Finally, we have concerns about pumping brine from the
Salton Sea. Title II of H.R. 3267 requires that the Secretary
of the Interior begin pumping water from Salton Sea prior to
December 1, 1998 to accommodate water diversions from
unidentified sources. We object to this provision for several
reasons.
First, Title II appears to bypass necessary environmental
oversight mandated under NEPA. The ecological impacts of brine
disposal, particularly on the scale addressed by the bill, are
expected to be enormous. A full review of the disposal plan and
an opportunity for the public to comment will be critical.
Second, if it is desired to import surplus water from the
Colorado River to the Sea, the legal mechanism by which this
can be accomplished needs to be identified. Again, we
appreciate the need to expedite remediation, but we strongly
believe that any such efforts must comply with Federal and
State environmental regulations.
In concluding, the National Aubudon Society appreciates the
efforts of the Committee and the sponsors of H.R. 3267 to
quickly address the crisis at the Salton Sea. Although there
are a number of provisions in the bill that we object to, we
are supportive of the overall intent to find and implement a
solution in the least amount of time possible. We hope the bill
can be amended to address our concerns, and we look forward to
working with the Committee as we move forward with this
important legislation.
That concludes our testimony.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Evan Hirsche may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Weber, does your Consortium have a
financial interest in this project?
Mr. Weber. The universities we represent may very well
submit proposals, but they would be through independent peer
review.
Mr. Doolittle. But does it concern you that, under at least
the wording of the bill, while they have an interest in getting
the research they are also part of the selection process for
determining the board that will determine these studies and
manage these studies? Does that seem to you as a conflict of
interest?
Mr. Weber. If I understand the language of the bill it says
that the Salton Sea Research Management Committee shall select
the topics of study. We believe that an informed presence by
universities that have been researching in this area for many
years will be helpful in determining the most relevant topics
of studies under the section and then managing them, but they
will not directly award those contracts. That is, Mr. Chairman,
on page 9, line 20 I believe.
Mr. Doolittle. Right. The committee shall select the topics
of studies under this section and manage those studies. I mean
that Consortium is likely to get some of that research in any
event, and doesn't it put you in a situation where you could be
accused of self-dealing if you're on the committee that manages
these studies and selects the topics of the studies?
Mr. Weber. I think there are two possibilities here. Either
contrary to the language of the law you would imagine the
Management Committee actually letting the contracts and not
using peer review, in which case there would clearly be a
conflict of interest and, frankly, I think you would all
rightly be suspect of the quality of science that might be a
consequence of that. But under this bill there are clear
provisions for peer review so there is no conflict there. We
are constantly working with Federal agencies in this
relationship.
Mr. Doolittle. Can you describe how that peer review would
work. Take the language of the bill and tell me how it is that
peer review works and how this would all operate.
Mr. Weber. It could work in several different ways. It
could work through the Department of the Interior, or it could
work through Water Resources that testified on the panel before
us. There are many ways in which panels of independent experts
and academics from other universities around the country are
impaneled together, provide a call for proposals, and various
universities that believe they have expertise to contribute
then bring forward proposals, and that independent jury selects
the ones that they think will be most efficacious.
Mr. Doolittle. As opposed to the Management Committee
itself you mean.
Mr. Weber. I read that as the clear intent of the bill.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Lesika, I have a question for you, and
if people here don't know, I'm going to ask this to some of the
other people who testified before. When the sewage treatment
plant is built in Mexicali, and they're going to take a large
portion of the water to reuse, and then San Diego takes its
200,000 acre feet of water out of Imperial, of the total annual
inflow into the Salton Sea, do you know how much of that water
will be reduced by those two events?
Mr. Lesika. Well there are apparently two positions on
this, whether Mexico will pump back this water south and use it
or they will not. But apparently about a third of the water
that comes across the border is what goes into the Salton Sea.
So if they did pump back the water to the south and used it for
agriculture you would lose a third of the water immediately.
The amount pumped to San Diego, I don't know exactly what
percentage that would be. But, yes, that would reduce the
inflow considerably right there, and particularly if
conservation by the agricultural community was also tightened
up considerably you could possibly lose another percentage
there.
Mr. Doolittle. So the very bad situation we have now
relative to the salinity and so forth could be made
substantially worse by those two events, is that your
understanding?
Mr. Lesika. Yes. Of course I grew up in Imperial County and
I actually lived where the Salton Sea is about eight foot deep
now. So I kind of could see what would happen if this inflow
was reduced say by 40, 50 or 60 percent. It would probably go
back to the 1930 or the 1940 level. It would probably kill most
everything there because of the salinity, but then there would
be a possibility at that time that it could be reborn by
reducing the salt by evaporative ponds.
Mr. Doolittle. So, even if it should become a total dead
sea, it doesn't preclude a solution from reviving it then is
what you're saying.
Mr. Lesika. Well that's my own personal opinion, and I
probably shouldn't comment on it.
Mr. Doolittle. I know you're seeking to prevent that from
happening in the first place and let's hope it doesn't happen.
This is a question for Mr. Hirsche. You seem to acknowledge
that there is a grave crisis here, and I just wonder, you're in
support of the general objective of the bill, but are opposed
to the specifics. I'm just interested, is there ever in your
mind or in the mind of the organization you represent an
emergency sufficiently acute to justify acting in a short
amount of time and circumventing protocol based on the
emergency the lengthy requirements of the environmental laws?
Mr. Hirsche. Off the top of my head I can't think of one. I
would say with respect to this particular situation the
proposals that have been thrown out and the timelines that have
been thrown out as feasible to conduct the full engineering and
environmental studies, I think we're talking about a 6-month
difference between this bill and what Interior is willing to
accept and what the National Aubudon Society is willing to
accept. If we are talking about a timeline of 15 years before
the Sea is dead, I think 6 months is adequate time to allot to
a proper NEPA process and the conducting of engineering
studies.
Mr. Doolittle. You know, if it's only 6 months that's one
thing, but having been involved extensively in oversight over
the implementation of the CVPIA, you know, they've taken two
and three times as long as what the representation was, and in
some cases we still don't have the answer even to this day.
So I'm a little concerned, and if I had more time I would
have addressed that question to the witness for the Department
of the Interior, but it's entirely foreseeable, and indeed I
would venture to guess it's almost likely that they won't get
it done in the 18 months. So we're really talking about 2 years
or 3 years. I don't know how long we're talking about. I think
that's the concern of the authors of the bill and why they want
a shorter time period. I think if we all felt comfortable that
it really was going to happen in 18 months I suspect that would
be an easy compromise to make.
Mr. Hirsche. Mr. Chairman, my understanding from
discussions with some of the folks over in Interior is that
they are already moving on some of these things in advance of
the enactment of legislation which adds to obviously the amount
of time to conduct the appropriate studies. The National
Aubudon Society wants to represent its position in good faith.
If it can be done in 18 months, we hope it can be done in 18
months. This really comes down to the agencies though to give
us a fair and reasonable accounting of the timeline.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Mr. Cook, I appreciate your testimony. Obviously
it's somewhat redundant to what we've been talking about here
today and on the other panels because obviously the Law of the
River has been probably the biggest part of our conversation
here today. You've probably heard these comments before, and it
is not the intent of the three of us here from California to
alter the Law of the River.
In fact what our intent is, and Mr. Hunter asked a question
earlier to the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from
Nevada, that if the situation occurred where we had flooding
down the Colorado River and what happened, I guess it was last
year or a couple of years ago down in Yuma where water was just
surging, doing damage and going into the Pacific Ocean. Would
you rather see the water go into the Pacific Ocean or would you
say that we could use that water at that kind of level to help
the Salton Sea?
Mr. Cook. Those waters are released because of flood
control criteria that mandate them to be released, and the
Upper Basin States would not object to those being used.
Mr. Calvert. So if that kind of a situation occurred, you
wouldn't object to those flood waters being used?
Mr. Cook. They occur periodically, and they're occurring
today, and we would not object.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Cook.
Mr. Weber, I appreciate your being here. I'm an alumni of
San Diego State, as you know, and I always enjoy seeing you
folks from San Diego. There was a question about a conflict,
and I just wanted to point out, if you agree, that on the
Management Committee itself there would be potentially five
folks, and the Consortium would elect one of the three
universities to serve on that management team. So you would
have to be very convincing to get a majority to go along, plus
get peer review and everything else, and wouldn't you believe
that a conflict of interest would be a very hard case to make
on the part of the Consortium?
Mr. Weber. The voice of reason is always very suasive.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
And, finally, Mr. Hirsche, I listened to your testimony and
I liked the first part of it. You were wanting to find a
solution and wanting to fix the problems with the Salton Sea,
and then I was trying to find the part of the bill that you
agreed with. I thought I heard that you had a problem taking
salt out of the Sea, and if Sonny Bono were here today, and I
knew Sonny quite well, and he had a way of putting things very
simply, you know. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, although
we do have a rocket scientist that is helping us on this
problem, to figure out what the problem is. The problem is we
have too much salt and too much toxicity in the Sea and that's
what is killing the fish and killing the birds. So we need to
get the salt out and get rid of the toxics in the Sea, and part
of that is getting rid of that salt brine. I thought I heard
you say you had a problem with getting rid of the salt.
Mr. Hirsche. Congressman, actually in the testimony we are
concerned about the lack of accountability for where the salt
is going to go at this point, and there is nothing in the
legislation that provides for where it is going to go.
Mr. Calvert. It's going to go somewhere. It's going to
either go to an impoundment area or evaporation ponds or to
potentially across the border back into the Sea of Cortez. It's
going to go somewhere, and you don't object to that salt going
some place?
Mr. Hirsche. No, as long as we follow the appropriate NEPA
guidelines.
Mr. Calvert. You mentioned the NEPA guidelines, and I have
to share with my friend and Chairman, Mr. Doolittle, that if in
fact we were able to rely on the Department of the Interior to
say that it's going to 18 months, no problem, we're going to
make that timeline, and we'll just all happily go along with
that deal I'm sure, but I have yet to find a timeline the folks
over there have met.
Now this instance, as you readily admit, is a potential
catastrophe, and would you pick between that type of
catastrophe or meeting the NEPA and other environmental
requirements?
Mr. Hirsche. Well I think at this point our inclination
would be to follow the process and see where we are.
Mr. Calvert. So if you had to choose between a catastrophe
and the environmental laws you're going to pick the
environmental laws.
Mr. Hirsche. Well the catastrophe is already well underway.
As I mentioned, it's 250,000 birds so far in 5 years.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. I thank the members of the panel for
appearing. We will have perhaps further questions, and I will
ask you to respond expeditiously.
[Questions to be submitted and responded to for the record
may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. With that we will excuse this panel, and
this hearing is adjourned.
[The Subcommittee adjourned at 4:50 p.m., subject to the
call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Douglas Wheeler, Secretary for Resources, State of
California
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Douglas P. Wheeler, Secretary for Resources in the
Administration of California Governor Pete Wilson. Thank you
for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee on the Sonny
Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act. The Governor of
California applauds the introduction of this bill and
appreciates the efforts of the members of the Salton Sea
Congressional Task Force who have taken this important step, as
well as their past actions to bring to national attention the
existence of this remarkable resource. In particular, the
Governor supports the goal of this legislation as a fitting
tribute to the exemplary efforts of the late Congressman Sonny
Bono, who did so much to foster efforts to restore the Salton
Sea.
Background
Since its accidental creation in 1905 following the
flooding of the Colorado River, the Salton Sea has served as a
tremendous resource for the citizens of California. As
California grew during the early decades of this century, the
Sea became a popular recreational haven for anglers, boaters,
and wildlife viewers, reaching its zenith from the late 1950's
through the mid-1970's. The Sea provided a unique sportfishery,
found nowhere else in California, where anglers caught marine
fish in a lake setting at catch rates that were considered to
be phenomenal. In addition, as other wetland areas of southern
California were lost to development, the Sea assumed increasing
importance as a refuge for migratory waterfowl.
Unfortunately, however, the health of the Sea has
deteriorated over the past several decades, primarily due to
high salinity levels and the inflow of contaminants. The
salinity of the Sea has increased gradually to the current
level of approximately 44 parts per thousand. By comparison,
ocean salinity levels are in the range of 35 parts per
thousand. The gradual increase in salinity is not difficult to
understand; the only ``outlet'' for the Sea is through
evaporation, which removes water while leaving the salts
carried into the Sea from the New, Alamo, and Whitewater
Rivers, as well as from agricultural runoff. In addition to
salt, the inflow to the Sea carries contaminants such as
selenium.
The problems of the Salton Sea have long been recognized
and efforts have previously been initiated to address these
problems. Without the threat of crisis, none of these proposals
came to fruition. In 1987, however, the results of inaction
began to impact the ecological health of the Sea. In that year,
the combination of high salinity levels and contaminants led to
the initial avian ``die-offs.'' In 1992, the avian mortality
escalated, as over 150,000 eared grebes and ruddy ducks died
from an undetermined cause. Additional avian mortality episodes
occurred in 1994, 1996, and 1997, and continue to the present.
The increasing salinity has also greatly impacted the 4 fish
species comprising the entire fishery of the Salton Sea. Lower
reproductive success and an increased susceptibility to disease
are two known stresses on Salton Sea sportfish that are caused
by elevated salinity levels. Today, largely as a result of the
avian mortality and the decline in fisheries, the need to
restore the health of the Salton Sea is recognized as a
priority in California and nationwide.
The restoration of the Salton Sea has long been a priority
of the State of California. In 1988, the Salton Sea Task Force
was formed with the encouragement and sponsorship of the
California Department of Fish and Game. The Task Force included
local stakeholder representatives and was successful in
focusing attention on the problems of the Sea. By the early
1990's, it was clear that strong regional leadership was needed
to identify and implement a plan with local support. To this
end, the Salton Sea Authority (``Authority'') was established
with State support in 1993 by Riverside and Imperial Counties,
the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Imperial
Irrigation District.
The Authority has made substantial progress toward
developing a workable plan for the restoration of the Sea.
Beginning in 1994, the Authority, in cooperation with the
Bureau of Reclamation and the State of California, began to
study the environmental and economic impacts of salinity on the
Salton Sea. The Authority also addressed the question of
flooding, which resulted from fluctuations in Sea level and
threatened adjacent properties. The efforts of the Authority
resulted in a report on alternatives to fixing the Sea,
released in final draft form in September 1997. The report
analyzed 54 alternative approaches to restoring the health of
the Salton Sea and recommended four ``diking'' alternatives
which met specified criteria. The Authority also co-sponsored
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a workshop on Saving
the Salton Sea. The findings of the workshop were published in
October 1997 and outlined 31 study proposals.
With these efforts as a foundation and following
consultation with the State, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt
visited the Salton Sea in December 1997. Secretary Babbitt met
with local stakeholders, State of California representatives,
and Federal agencies and recommended a two-fold approach to
restoring the Salton Sea. First, the Secretary proposed that an
environmental review process pursuant to the Federal National
Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental
Quality Act be initiated immediately under the direction of the
Salton Sea Authority and the Bureau of Reclamation. Secretary
Babbitt recommended that the environmental review process
analyze the four diking proposals, which emerged from the
alternatives study released in September 1997, as well as
``pump-in'' and ``pump-out'' options. Second, the Secretary
proposed additional scientific research, drawing upon the
findings of the Saving the Salton Sea workshop. To guide
research efforts, the Secretary proposed a Research Management
Committee to consist of representatives from the Federal
Government, the State of California, the Salton Sea Authority,
and the Torres Martinez Tribe. The State of California
supported Secretary Babbitt's proposal and agreed to
participate in the preparation of environmental documentation
and as a representative on the Research Management Committee.
The Research Management Committee has since been established
and promises to be a workable, effective means by which to
develop a scientifically sound solution.
Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act
The State of California strongly supports the goals and
objectives of H.R. 3267. Congressional action on the Sonny Bono
Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act is a critical next step
toward restoring the Salton Sea. We agree that there is need
for appropriate levels of funding support for further
scientific and engineering studies, and ultimately, the
implementation of an agreed solution. The funding for
feasibility studies will allow a thorough evaluation of the
alternative approaches to fixing the Sea, which has already
been initiated using State and Federal funds. The bill also
authorizes construction funding for the preferred alternative
solution. Finally, funding is provided to support scientific
research on many of the as yet unresolved resource management
issues of the Sea.
California also supports the reliance of the Act on the
existing analytical process and management structure. The
Salton Sea Authority and the Bureau of Reclamation have made
significant progress over the past several years and it is
appropriate that H.R. 3267 build upon this progress toward the
goal of restoring the Sea. The Memorandum of Understanding
required by the Act will appropriately provide a framework for
the Federal, State, and local partners to select an alternative
which meets our shared objectives and to establish the
financial responsibilities of each. California also endorses
the recognition of the Research Management Committee as an
effective structure for managing the critical process of
scientific study and research.
With respect to the scope of the environmental assessment
process, California favors a comprehensive approach. The
problems of the Salton Sea are complex and, in order to achieve
our objectives, we must gain a better understanding of the
relationships between contaminants and avian mortality and
disease, fisheries and salinity, and the health of fisheries
and migratory birds. A successful solution must address all of
these issues and offer a means to effectively restore a
healthy, sustainable equilibrium to the Sea.
Sustainability in this context includes disposal of the
brine or highly saline waters which will most likely be a
byproduct of any engineering solution. It would be unacceptable
to solve the salinity problems of the Sea only to exchange them
for a brine disposal problem. We support, therefore, the
inclusion in the legislation of subsection 101(e) calling for
``determination of a method for disposing of pumped-out
water.'' Sustainability also necessitates that the ultimate
solution address the root causes of ecological degradation to
the Sea, not simply the apparent causes of increasing salinity.
The avian mortality and declining fisheries stem from a complex
set of factors, including contaminants from agriculture and
urban runoff. The solution must identify and correct those
factors throughout the watershed which contribute to the
deteriorating water quality and fluctuating sea levels. In
addition, as we develop a solution, we must be sure to comply
with the Law of the River and take into account ongoing
activities which might affect the quantity and quality of water
flowing into the Sea, such as proposed water transfers.
The environmental review required by the bill will be
significant in helping to determine the best possible solution
to the Sea's problems. For this reason, we should be sure to
take advantage of the information generated through this
process. We share the sense of urgency for a credible solution
that motivates the sponsors of the bill. We suggest that there
are ways to accelerate the environmental review process without
hindering its value as a decisionmaking tool. For instance, the
state and Federal environmental processes can be run
concurrently, or, if the Federal Government agrees, the
intricate and thorough state environmental review process could
be certified as satisfying the needs of Federal law. This
option is built into the Federal transportation bill pending in
the House. However, we would observe that the imposition of a
statutory deadline for completing environmental studies may
prove self-defeating.
Additionally, we believe that aggrieved parties should not
be denied their right to judicial remedies as is currently
precluded by subparagraph 101(f)(3)(B). California and many
other states have fought hard over many years to ensure that
Federal agencies abide by state environmental laws, and we
believe it would be a bad precedent to excuse them from that
responsibility, even in this narrow case.
Clearly, we must not delay progress toward a prompt
solution. The Salton Sea is deteriorating rapidly and time is
of the essence. The ambitious timelines set out in the
legislation present a challenge to those of us charged with
developing and implementing a solution, but, I am confident
that with the commitment of all levels of government to save
the Sea, we will meet this challenge.
In closing, I would like to reiterate the support of the
State of California for the objectives of this legislation. The
Salton Sea is a nationally significant resource and deserves
our full attention. We appreciate the efforts of the
Congressional Task Force and look forward to working with the
Task Force and this Subcommittee to help perfect the bill so
that it may be promptly enacted. It will provide the framework
and the resources necessary to restore the Salton Sea.
----------
Statement of Tellis Codekas, President, Salton Sea Authority
On behalf of the Salton Sea Authority, thank you for the
opportunity to address the Subcommittee and to comment on the
Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act, H.R. 3267. I am
Tellis Codekas, President of the Salton Sea Authority.
The Salton Sea Authority is comprised of the Counties of
Riverside and Imperial, and the Imperial Irrigation and the
Coachella Valley Water Districts. The Torres Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indians and a host of Federal and state agencies are
ex-offficio members of the Authority. The Authority is at the
hub of a wheel which includes dozens of national, state,
regional, tribal, and local stakeholders. The Authority
recognizes the vital importance of the Sea as an agricultural
drain, an environmental resource, a recreational destination,
and an economic development engine.
Introduction of this legislation and the companion
legislation in the Senate represent important steps forward in
reclaiming and restoring the Salton Sea. Enacting legislation
to save the Sea is a fitting tribute to the man who was very
much responsible for the current drive to save and restore the
Sea. The Salton Sea Authority and its member agencies strongly
support the central elements of H.R. 3267 and look forward to
working with the Committee and the Congressional Salton Sea
Task Force on this proposed legislation.
The Authority was established in 1993 and has been working
closely with Federal partners, particularly the Bureau of
Reclamation and our state partners, particularly the Resources
Agency and Cal-EPA on developing a consensus to restore this
important resource. Until a year or so ago, much of our effort
went unnoticed. The Sea was not viewed as a high national
priority. Times have changed and we are thankful for the
change. We need the help of the Federal Government.
The Secretary of Interior became personally involved in our
efforts in December. The Secretary acknowledged the interagency
and multi-interest effort that we had already developed. He
confirmed the Department's commitment to this effort and
established a structure to address biological and other
studies.
We are committed to the process that the Secretary and the
Authority agreed upon. The proposed legislation largely builds
on the existing process and we support areas where it does so
specifically, particularly:
Findings acknowledging the Federal interest,Project
requirements consistent with those developed by the Authority,
Commitment to exploring multiple options in the feasibility
study, and
Authorization of appropriations which will allow completion of
the feasibility, environmental analysis and permitting work.
Unfortunately, there are also provisions in the bill which do not
reflect our process or local needs.
First of all, the memorandum of understanding referred to on
page 6 seems to suggest a new process and a new feasibility
study. We think it ought to confirm the roles of the Federal
lead agency, the Department of Interior through the Bureau of
Reclamation, and the local lead agency, the Salton Sea
Authority, in completing our current work program.
Secondly, limitations of administrative and judicial review
under the National Environmental Policy Act may be
counterproductive. As the co-lead agency, we still must meet
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Waiving NEPA provisions sends up a red flag to the very
interest groups that we are working very hard to include in our
restoration efforts, such as the Audubon Society.
Thirdly, the Secretary of Interior, the Authority, the Torres
Martinez and the State currently sit on a Research Management
Committee. The Committee was so composed to ensure limited
conflict of interest, management oversight of research
conducted, and to move expeditiously on research needs. The
inclusion of a fifth member from the university community is
disconcerting. The universities may well receive some share of
research funds and having them make recommendations on fund
distribution is an apparent conflict of interest. Additionally,
research imperatives and their pace should not jeopardize plans
to quickly restore the Sea. We do not support including any
representative on the management committee that may create a
perception of a conflict of interest.
There are other provisions in the bill which raise questions. The
Authority applauds the Members of Congress and specifically the
Congressional Salton Sea Task Force for recognizing that stabilizing
and reducing the Sea's salinity is the highest priority. However, the
Emergency Action specified under Title II of the bill may be
counterproductive.
Title II directs the Secretary to expulse water out of the Salton
Sea by December 1, 1998 to accommodate diversion of, presumably,
Colorado River water to the Sea. However, given that the mechanics of
how the water will be pumped out, where the Seawater will be pumped to,
how the project will be funded, designed and constructed have not been
worked out, this Title and its deadline are unworkable. Such an
emergency action is an overwhelming technical, financial and political
challenge by the deadline imposed. Preferably, the bill should direct
the Secretary to work with the Authority through our current effort to
identify and design an emergency plan to stabilize the sea.
Perhaps the greatest tribute to the late Congressman found in this
bill is its intent to fix the Sea's problems quickly. The Authority
thanks Congressmen Hunter, Brown, Calvert and Lewis for their
commitment to expediting the recovery efforts.
I am thankful that the Speaker has shown a commitment to this
effort and that our two California Senators have introduced similar
legislation to this bill. We hope that the President signs restoration
legislation within a few months. Still, the clock is ticking for the
Salton Sea.
In the interim, the Authority and the Bureau of Reclamation can
accomplish a great deal under our current five million-dollar work
program. Federal funds authorized under Public Law 02-575 are being
matched with state and local funds to carry out this work plan.
Commitment by the Administration to proceeding on our work plan will
help all of us to get a jump-start on whatever legislative deadline
Congress establishes.
We are thankful for the opportunity to speak before you today. The
Authority represents the local interest in reclaiming this important
resource. We stand ready to work with our partners to do so and to do
so quickly. The Authority's Executive Director, Tom Kirk is here to
address any questions that you may have. Additionally, Tom Veysey, one
of our board members and a Supervisor of Imperial County and Paul
Cunningham, chair of the Authority's Technical Advisory Committee and
Director of External Affairs for Imperial Irrigation District are here
to serve as resources to you.
__________
Statement of Richard Bunker, Chairman, Colorado River Commission of
Nevada
Chairman Doolittle, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for the invitation to testify on behalf of the State of Nevada
and its Governor Bob Miller, concerning H. R. 3267 to reclaim
the Salton Sea. My name is Richard Bunker and I am Chairman of
the Colorado River Commission of Nevada. It was just one month
ago that I, along with my colleagues from the Colorado River
Commission and the Board of the Southern Nevada Water
Authority, visited the Salton Sea and participated in a
briefing from members of the Salton Sea Authority concerning
their environmental restoration efforts.
Southern Nevada and the Colorado River
This Salton Sea briefing came at the end of a three day
tour of the Colorado River which started at Lake Mead and
followed the river visiting its dams, powerplants and aqueducts
which serve millions of people in the three lower basin states.
Every elected and appointed official involved in water
resources decision making was invited to participate on the
tour. We met with water officials from Arizona and California
and were hosted for dinners, dam tours, crop inspections and
briefings. We went on this tour to convey to our Nevada
policymakers one simple reality, when it comes to Colorado
River water, Nevada is inextricably connected to the actions
and activities, problems and solutions of our sister states of
California and Arizona. During the past five years as a member
of the Nevada Colorado River Commission, I have learned that
issues involving the Colorado are like a never ending soap
opera with intricate, slow moving plots and sub plots. Unless
you follow the program faithfully, it is very difficult to
really tell at any given moment, who is romancing whom and for
what reason. We in Nevada have been romanced by just about
everybody at one time or another, including the interests
behind the Salton Sea Authority. Let me say at the outset that
we in Nevada appreciate the objectives of California Salton Sea
interests and support their overall plan to prevent the Salton
Sea from becoming a Dead Sea. We are, however, opposed to H. R.
3267 in its present form for reasons which I will explain.
Concerns with H. R. 3267
I want to first issue a disclaimer that these comments on
H.R. 3267 should not be viewed by anyone as Nevada having
allied itself with any particular interest in California's
water wars. That said, we believe that the bill will exacerbate
California's continued over reliance upon Colorado River water
to the detriment of Nevada and the rest of the basin states.
Although California uses about 5.2 million acre feet of
Colorado River water, its Compact entitlement is for only 4.4
million acre feet. In the past, the additional water has come
from Arizona and Nevada's unused entitlement of lower basin
water. Arizona and Nevada, along with the four upper basin
states have for years been urging California to implement a
plan to reduce its uses of the Colorado to the 4.4 million acre
feet to which it has a permanent legal right. I am pleased that
California is now working on its 4.4 plan.
I do not want to suggest that California is breaking the
law by using the excess entitlement water. They have a contract
right with the Department of the Interior to use such water
temporarily until it is fully utilized by Arizona and Nevada.
Nevada has a similar contract right to temporary use of unused
entitlement. Within ten years when we exceed our own measly
Colorado River entitlement of 300,000 acre feet, Nevada plans
to also divert a smaller amount of the unused entitlement
system water now being used by California.
Unlike California, however, we have a plan to develop
alternate supplies for that day when all the water in the lower
basin has been put to use. That day is not far off. Just last
year, Arizona used nearly all of its water for the first time,
leaving California to depend upon surplus water to meet its
needs. As the Department of the Interior moves to approve
regulations which allow for Colorado River water to be diverted
and stored in groundwater aquifers located principally in
Arizona, the full lower basin supply of 7.5 million acre feet
will be gone. Nevada hopes to take advantage of the opportunity
to participate in Arizona's groundwater banking program to
provide us with supplies when we need them. Also unlike
California, Nevada has no significant agricultural water uses
from which water can be conserved or retired and transferred
for municipal use.
California Must Move to Conserve Its Agricultural Water
As far as we can tell, California has a long way to go on
its plan to live within its 4.4 million acre foot entitlement.
Several competing plans have been advanced by the various Ag
and urban interests in California with no consensus developing
around anything. Now comes H.R. 3267, the Salton Sea bill
trying to stabilize a Federal National Wildlife Refuge where
historically no lake ever existed and was created mostly from
the wasted tailwater from the California Ag districts. The bill
calls for a study of how to bring more water to the Salton Sea
and specifically redirects this year's surplus flows to the
Sea.
It seems to us that before any further Federal demands for
water are created, California should first implement a plan to
live within the permanent supplies to which it is entitled.
Conclusion
California is now using nearly 1 million acre feet of
Colorado River water above its entitlement. California's right
to use this water is temporary. With the prospect of off stream
groundwater banking, the excess lower basin water will soon be
gone. California cannot rely year to year upon surplus flows to
satisfy its needs. California must implement a plan to wean
itself from this dependency upon other state's water by
implementing water saving programs at the Imperial, Palo Verde
and Coachella irrigation districts and diverting that saved
water to satisfy California's growing urban water demands. We
are opposed to the creation of a Federal wildlife refuge at the
Salton Sea. Such a refuge would become dependent upon the very
wasted Ag water California must save to meet its 4.4 million
acre foot limitation.
----------
Statement of Rita P. Pearson, Director, Arizona Department of Water
Resources
I would like to thank the House Subcommittee on Water and
Power for the opportunity to provide the State of Arizona's
perspective on H.R. 3267, the ``Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea
Reclamation Act.''
While Arizona does not object to the State of California's
desire to develop a plan to address the long-term needs of the
Salton Sea ecosystem, it is Arizona's position that a well
thought out and scientifically valid plan, which will not
negatively impact the other Colorado River Basin States or
Mexico, has the greatest opportunity of providing a lasting
legacy of the efforts of the late Congressman Sonny Bono to
stabilize and restore the Salton Sea.
With this testimony, it is the State of Arizona's intent to
provide the Subcommittee with information on several issues to
consider during the deliberations associated with this
legislation. These issues are: (1) the identification of
potential sources of water for Salton Sea reclamation in H.R.
3267; (2) the difficulty of using Colorado River water for
Salton Sea reclamation within California's Colorado River
allocation; and (3) the balance to be achieved between the
ecological needs of Salton Sea and the larger context of the
ecological needs in the southwestern United States. Each of
these issues are described in more detail in the following
pages.
Introduction and Background
The Colorado River is one of the most erratic rivers in the
United States. Over the 90-year period of record there have
been annual flows at Lees Ferry, Arizona of more than 23
million acre-feet (maf) and flows as low as 5 maf.
Approximately 70 percent of the annual natural flow of the
Colorado River occurs in the months of May, June and July. The
only way these flood flows can be managed for beneficial use is
through utilization of a reservoir storage system.
Because of the erratic and meandering nature of the
Colorado River, the Salton Sink has been repeatedly filled and
evaporated over the past few thousand years. Prior to the
filling of the present Salton Sea, the most recent was
prehistoric Lake Canhuilla which dried up approximately 300
years ago. The average annual precipitation in the region is
about 3 inches, but the annual rate of evaporation is
approximately 5 feet.
Settlement of the Imperial Valley in the late-1800s led to
the first tentative attempts at diverting the Colorado River
water at the turn of the century for agricultural purposes.
Shortly after, in 1905, flood flows from the Gila and Colorado
Rivers breached a dike near the International Boundary and
poured into the Imperial Valley for 16 months and created the
Salton Sea.
Attempts by the agricultural interests along the Lower
Colorado River and in the Imperial Valley to limit the
potential for devastating floods, as well as provide a long-
term reliable supply of Colorado River water led to the passage
of the Boulder Canyon Project Act (BCPA) in 1928 (43 U.S.C.
617, December 21, 1928). The BCPA authorized the construction
of Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal to supply water for
the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. The BCPA listed the primary
purposes for the construction of Hoover Dam as controlling
floods, improving navigation, regulating the flow of the
Colorado River and providing for the storage and delivery of
water for reclamation of public lands and other beneficial
public uses within the United States.
Since the construction of Hoover Dam, numerous large dams
and reservoirs have been constructed on the Colorado River and
its tributaries accounting for approximately 60 maf of storage.
This is approximately four times the average annual yield of
the Colorado River. This allowed the Basin States and the
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to control flood flows and
regulate the River to provide for the generation of
hydroelectric power and delivery of water for downstream uses
in agricultural, municipal and industrial sectors. Creation of
this infrastructure has resulted in a long-term dependency on
the water supplies of the Colorado River. Because of this
dependency, a complex use and accounting system has evolved
that has permitted the complete allocation of the Lower Basin's
Colorado River Compact apportionment of 7.5 maf.
Current demand on the Colorado River by the Lower Basin
States is at an all-time high. Arizona and Nevada are
approaching full utilization of their basic apportionments of
2.8 maf and 300,000 acre-feet, respectively. California's
present consumptive use of Colorado River water is
approximately 5.2 maf per year, while its mainstream basic
apportionment is only 4.4 maf, plus one-half of any available
surpluses. Additionally, the United States is annually
obligated, through an international treaty, to provide Mexico
with 1.5 maf. Consequently, there is currently 9.8 maf of
annual demand in the Lower Basin. Under the Law of the River,
the Secretary is not authorized to deliver this amount of water
unless surplus conditions are declared. In 1998, the Secretary
did declare surplus conditions, but this condition is not
sustainable over the long-term, particularly during periods of
drought. Arizona is concerned that additional demand in the
Lower Basin will increase the likelihood of shortages to
municipal and agricultural users.
H.R 3267 Does Not Identify the Source of Water for Salton Sea
Reclamation
Title I, Section l0l(b)(l) of H.R. 3267 proposes to reduce
and stabilize the ``overall salinity of the Salton Sea to a
level between 35 and 40 parts per thousand.'' In addition,
Section l0l(b)(2) would ``stabilize the surface elevation of
the Salton Sea to a level between 240 feet . . . and 230 feet
below sea level.'' Title II of H.R. 3267 is intended to provide
``emergency action to stabilize Salton Sea salinity.'' Section
202(1) requires the expulsion of saline waters from the Sea ``.
. . by pumping sufficient water out . . . prior to December 1,
1998 . . .'' in order to accommodate, through Section 202(2),
``diversion into the Salton Sea of water available as a result
of high-flow periods in late 1998 and early 1999.''
Arizona interprets this as pumping a substantial quantity
of water out of the Sea and then attempting to dilute the
remaining solution through the introduction of new water
supplies. Arizona is concerned that the source of this water is
not identified in the draft legislation. The Secretary of the
Interior is not planning to make flood control releases during
the referenced time frames in Water Year 1998, nor are they
anticipated in early 1999. It is Arizona's position that
Congress should reconsider the water that is expected to be
used and the time-frame to accomplish these goals.
Similarly, Section 101(c)(2)(A)(iii) describes an option to
be considered which would provide ``augmented flows of water
into the Salton Sea.'' Again, it is not clear what the source
of these augmented flows would be. If these flows are the
result of importation of water from the Pacific Ocean, Gulf of
California or return flows from the Mexicali Valley, this
should be specifically referenced.
Perhaps Arizona's greatest concern is the preservation of
rights and obligations with respect to the Colorado River.
Section 101(f)(2) must be strengthened with the incorporation
of the following language:
This Act shall not supersede or otherwise affect any treaty,
decree, law or agreement governing the use of water from the
Colorado River. The Secretary shall implement this Act in a
manner fully consistent with and subject to the Colorado River
Compact, the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, the Water
Treaty of 1944 with Mexico, the decree of the United States
Supreme Court in Arizona v. California, and the provisions of
the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928, Colorado River Storage
Project Act of 1956 and the Colorado River Basin Project Act of
1968 which govern the allocation, appropriation, development
and exportation of the waters of the Colorado River Basin.
Finally, the water supply and water quality issues associated with
reclamation of the Salton Sea as proposed in H.R. 3267 must be
carefully examined in relation to the overall management of the Lower
Colorado River. The Colorado River is an interstate river which is
fully appropriated and managed by nearly a century of intense scrutiny,
dialogue, negotiation, legislation and litigation. Currently, the seven
Colorado River Basin States, Native American Tribes, the United States
and other interested stakeholders are involved in several important
basin-wide governance processes which are addressing issues such as
water supply, quantity and allocation, water quality, as well as
endangered species and habitat management.
Additional Colorado River Water for Salton Sea Reclamation Must Come
From Within California's Allocation
With the increased demand upon the Colorado River system and the
potential risks of shortage to the Colorado River Basin States, the
Secretary of the Interior requested that California initiate the
development of a negotiated plan among its Colorado River water-using
agencies to reduce their annual use from 5.2 maf to the basic
apportionment of 4.4 maf. The California ``4.4 Plan'' proposes to
reduce the annual use of Colorado River water in two phases. Phase I
would step the use down from 5.2 maf to approximately 4.6-4.7 maf over
a ten to 15 year period (2010-2015). Phase II would further reduce
California's use of Colorado River water down to the basic
apportionment of 4.4 maf. The primary 4.4 Plan components include: (1)
firm ``core transfers'' from agricultural districts to municipal and
industrial water providers in the South Coast region; (2) recovery of
seepage from the All-American and Coachella Canals; (3) implementation
of conjunctive use management of surface and groundwater supplies; and
(4) Colorado River reservoir operating criteria which continue to make
surplus water available.
A critical component of the 4.4 Plan is the firm transfer of
approximately 400,000 acre-feet per year out of the Imperial Valley to
the South Coast region during Phase I. Phase II calls for an additional
50,000 to 100,000 acre-feet per year to be transferred from Imperial
Irrigation District, if determined feasible. In order to effectuate
these transfers, intensive water conservation programs will be required
in the agricultural districts which will ultimately lead to reduced
drainage flows into the Salton Sea. Even if only the Phase I 400,000
acre-feet per year of firm transfer water is removed from the Imperial
and Coachella Valleys, this is roughly equivalent to 40 percent of the
nearly one million acre-feet per year of current agricultural drainage
flowing into the Sea.
The ultimate goal of the California 4.4 Plan is to develop programs
which return the State to its basic apportionment and continue to allow
the Colorado River Aqueduct, operated by the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, to run at essentially full capacity
(approximately 1.2 maf annually) without causing detrimental impacts to
the agricultural service areas and to the other Basin States. This
raises a concern in Arizona regarding the relationship between the
proposed California 4.4 Plan and the role of H.R. 3267 and reclamation
of the Salton Sea. Arizona believes that the legislation, in its
present state, is unclear on the role of the Colorado River in the
restoration and reclamation of the Salton Sea. Programs proposed in
H.R. 3267 must come within California's lawful apportionment, but not
jeopardize the overall goal of California's implementation of the 4.4.
Plan.
Ecological Needs of Salton Sea Reclamation Must Be Viewed in the Larger
Context of the Ecological Needs of the Southwestern United States
Arizona generally supports the concept described in Section
l0l(c)(1) which requires that the Secretary prepare a ``feasibility
study'' of various options for reclaiming the Sea. Preparation of the
study is compatible with the recommendations stemming from the Salton
Sea Needs Assessment Workshop which was held in August 1997 in Palm
Springs, California. In fact, the Workshop proceedings developed a
package of 31 research proposals which would require approximately $32
million and three years to implement.\1\ There are two specific
recommendations which came out of the Workshop which may be of interest
to the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Saving the Salton Sea: A Needs Assessment Workshop, August 4-8,
1997, Workshop Proceedings, A Report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; Region 1, Portland, Oregon, 73 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, according to page 15 of the proceedings, ``foremost in team
discussions was the overriding need to understand the Salton Sea
ecosystem, preferably before, but at a minimum, while we attempt to fix
it through human intervention. Otherwise the technical solution for the
Salton Sea's problems are liable to be too narrowly focused and a
unique opportunity to benefit people and wildlife may not be achieved .
. .''
Second, an additional recommendation on page 71 suggested that ``.
. . agencies should make clear to Congress and stakeholders that three
years of focused science can only reduce some of the major
uncertainties about the problems of the Salton Sea, and that final
solutions to the problems are unlikely to emerge from such an effort.
An adaptive approach to managing the Salton Sea and conducting science
is more likely to be successful.'' The Needs Assessment teams
recommended that the concept of adaptive management should involve
implementing small actions, monitoring the response of the Sea to that
action, assessing the response mechanisms and using the knowledge
gained to design and implement subsequent actions and monitoring and
assessment processes. It should be recognized that a similar adaptive
management process has been successfully implemented by the Secretary
of the Interior, the Colorado River Basin States and other stakeholders
for the management and operation of Glen Canyon Dam.
Currently, the Lower Basin States, several Native American Tribes,
the United States, environmental organizations and other stakeholders
are developing a fifty-year program which will meet the needs of over
100 species occupying habitats along the Lower Colorado River. This
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a
significant effort directed at ensuring long-term Federal and non-
Federal compliance with environmental laws and regulations, while
ensuring the continued utilization and development of the water and
hydroelectric power resources of the Colorado River.
The MSCP, much like the CalFed Bay-Delta Program, Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River Basin Recovery Programs are major undertakings
requiring significant commitment of Federal and state resources.
Programs costing several hundred millions of dollars must be carefully
evaluated from the standpoint of the overall goals and objectives and
the likelihood of long-term measurable success. These programs, and
similar ones in the southwestern United States, are all in the position
of competing for limited resources from the Federal and state
taxpayers, while attempting to address certain specific and unique
needs. There is an obligation on the part of Congress and individual
state legislatures to ensure that the programs with the greatest
likelihood of success are supported through commitment of these limited
resources.
While Arizona recognizes that the needs of the Salton Sea ecosystem
are significant, the proposed solutions must be evaluated in the
perspective of the overall management of the water and ecological
resources of the Lower Colorado River Basin. A Salton Sea solution must
be considered and integrated with the ongoing California 4.4 Plan, the
recent proposed rule authorizing the offstream storage of Colorado
River water and the development of the 50-year Lower Colorado River
MSCP. Each of these processes are a single component of the evolving
blueprint which guides the wise use, management and conservation of all
of the natural resources in the Lower Basin. One process cannot be
rapidly advanced without carefully evaluating the potential impacts
upon the others. Management of these valuable resources can only be
accomplished with broad-based public participation in a thoughtful,
iterative and scientifically credible environment
Conclusion
In summary, Arizona urges the Congress to amend H.R. 3267 to
accomplish the following:
1. Identify all potential sources of water for the Salton Sea
Reclamation Project and consider the impacts of using that
water;
2. Require explicit adherence to the current law of the
Colorado River; and
3. Require that any Colorado River water utilized for the
Salton Sea Reclamation Project come from within California's
mainstream allocation of Colorado River water.
In view of the complexity of the current issues facing the
Secretary of the Interior, individual Colorado River Basin States and
stakeholders, there are still questions which remain to be answered.
For example, there may not be sufficient resources in Reclamation's
Lower Colorado Region to accomplish the goals and objectives required
in H.R. 3267 and still meet the needs of the California 4.4 Plan
process, offstream storage of Colorado River water, development of
surplus criteria for reservoir operations, implementation of the final
biological opinion for Lower Colorado River operations and the
continued development of the Lower Colorado River MSCP. Consequently,
Arizona believes that the time-lines proposed in H.R. 3267 should be
re-evaluated in the context of these other equally important elements
of Colorado River management.
The burdens placed on California, the United States and potentially
the other Colorado River Basin States for development and
implementation of the Salton Sea Reclamation Project will require a
cooperative and effective partnership of the Congress, the States and
stakeholders within the Basin. Arizona looks forward to working with
the United States, California and the other Basin States during the
development of the Salton Sea Reclamation Project.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee regarding
H.R. 3267. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
__________
Statement of Henry J. Vaux, Jr., Associate Vice President, University
of California
Mr. Chairman, my name is Henry J. Vaux, Jr. and I am
Associate Vice President of the University of California System
for agricultural and natural resource programs. I appear here
this morning on behalf of California's Federal Water Resources
Research Institute, where I formerly served as Director. At the
outset, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear
before your Committee in support of efforts to reclaim and
improve the Salton Sea. I also want to reiterate our profound
thanks for your long-term support of the Water Resources
Research Institute Program.
In my testimony this morning, I wish to make three basic
points. First, I want to describe and clarify the purposes of
the Federal Water Resources Research Institutes and briefly
identify several of the ways in which the Institute in
California has addressed these purposes. Second, I want to
elaborate upon the current mission and role of the Institute.
Third, and finally, I want to describe the capability of
interests of the California Water Resources Research Institute
in supporting the activities that would be authorized under the
provisions of H.R. 3267.
The Federal Water Resources Research Institutes were first
authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (Public
Law 88-379). The Institute program has been reauthorized
approximately every five years since. The most recent
reauthorization is contained in Public Law 104-147. The program
maintains Federal Water Resources Research Institutes at the
Land Grant University in each of the 50 states, in the District
of Columbia and in the several Trust Territories. The broad
purpose of the Institutes is to focus the collective research
expertise of scholars in the nation's institutions of higher
education on water problems at the local, regional and national
level. To this end, the authorizing legislation requires that
the Institutes make their funds available to scholars at all
institution of higher education in their respective states.
Thus, one of the hallmarks of the Institute program is that
competition for the Federal funds that it administers are open
to faculty in all institutions of higher education and NOT just
to researchers at the Land-Grant Universities.
Faculty researchers with interests in water resources at ALL of
California's Colleges and Universities are eligible to compete
for the Federal funds which the California Water Resources
Research Institute awards.
The California Water Resources Research Institute, which is
also known as the University of California Water Resources
Center, was initially established by the State at the
University of California in 1958. With the passage of Public
Law 88-379, the Center was also designated as the Federal Water
Resources Research Institute for California. The Institute's
role is to facilitate, coordinate and support research on water
resources undertaken by faculty at California's public and
private Universities. Over the last ten years, nearly all of
the Federal dollars appropriated to the California Institute
have been awarded to faculty researchers on campuses other than
University of California campuses. Thus, for example, since
1987, these funds have been awarded to faculty researchers at
San Diego State University, Humboldt State University,
California State University at Fresno, the California Institute
of Technology and Stanford University. The Institute is unique
in that it maintains relationships with virtually all faculty
with interests in water resources at all of California's
Colleges and Universities. The most recent addition of our
California Directory of Water Expertise lists some 986 faculty
at 33 Colleges and Universities.
The role of the California Water Resources Research Institute
is to identify the high priority research topics; to ensure,
through peer review, that research is directed at the highest
priority topics and is of the highest quality; and to engage in
programs of research dissemination to inform other researchers,
water managers and members of the public of the results of the
research.
The California Water Resources Research Institute does not
conduct research. Rather, its role is to facilitate the conduct
of research by faculty experts located at the state's colleges
and universities. This facilitation is accomplished in a
variety of ways. Annually, high priority research topics are
identified in consultation with water managers, local, state
and Federal officials with responsibilities for water resources
and members of the public. Research proposals are evaluated and
rated by peer groups and only those of the highest quality
receive research support. The results of water research
accomplished in California and throughout the world are
disseminated in a variety of publications, at annual
conferences and at workshops convened for the purpose. By
performing its facilitation role the Water Resources Research
Institute helps to ensure that research on water resources in
California is well coordinated, focuses on the most pressing
topics and is of the highest quality. In addition, the
Institute's activities help to avoid duplication of research
effort both within California and nationally.
The California Water Resources Research Institute is prepared
to facilitate the development and conduct of any research or
programs of research that the ``Salton Sea Research Management
Committee'' may identify as necessary pursuant to the
provisions of H.R. 3276.
I wish to emphasize as clearly as I can that our presence
here today and our interest in the ``Sonny Bono Memorial Salton
Sea Reclamation Act'' lies with ensuring that whatever research
may emerge as a consequence of this Act is accomplished by the
most qualified investigators and is of the highest possible
quality. We believe that many important research questions will
emerge as reclamation and restoration efforts go forward. We
stand prepared to assist local, state and Federal officials in
identifying and framing those questions, should that be
appropriate. We are also prepared to make available our good
offices to ensure that only the highest quality research
projects are funded and that all of our college and University
researchers with an interest in questions related to the
restoration of the Salton Sea are afforded an opportunity to
compete for whatever funds may be available.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that the
California Water Resources Research Institute stands ready to
help in any way as you move forward with H.R. 3267. Let me
thank you again for the opportunity to appear before your
Subcommittee, and for your continuing support of the Water
Resources Research Institute program.
----------
Statement of Stephen L. Weber, Member, Salton Sea University Research
Consortium, and President, San Diego State University
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the invitation to appear today on behalf of the Salton Sea
University Research Consortium. I am proud to represent my
fellow colleagues, Chancellor Raymond Orbach, University of
California, Riverside, and President James Appleton, University
of Redlands. Our Consortium strongly supports the Sonny Bono
Memorial Salton Sea Restoration Act. We are proud to have
worked with the members of the Congressional Salton Sea Task
Force, Congressmen Hunter, Lewis, Calvert and Brown and the
late Sonny Bono, on this issue of paramount importance to
California.
To address the grievous and disastrous environmental
problems at the Salton Sea in an integrated, timely and
efficacious manner, the University of Redlands, the University
of California, Riverside and San Diego State University have
joined forces to form the Salton Sea University Research
Consortium.
The complexity of issues surrounding the Salton Sea
requires research approaches that consider the biological and
ecological systems of the sea, the regional hydrology, the
chemistry of soil and toxic substances, as well as potential
bioremediation and engineering solutions. We must also take
into account the economic issues, the agricultural interests
and the human, cultural and social concerns of the Salton Sea
region and the Lower Colorado River basin. The role of the
Salton Sea University Research Consortium will be to help
provide policy-makers with the best possible research data on
which to base their management decisions.
Our consortium offers the full spectrum of expertise
necessary to grapple with these difficult decisions.
Experts from each of our universities have long been
active, not just on water resource issues in California, but
specifically on issues pertaining to the Salton Sea.
Approximately 25 faculty members at the University of
California, Riverside have expertise addressing issues facing
the Salton Sea. San Diego State University's Center for Inland
Waters includes more than 20 faculty and researchers who have
conducted long-term studies at the Salton Sea and its
surrounding basin. The University of Redlands has just received
the first half of a $2 million appropriation to establish a
Salton Sea Bioregional GIS Database, which will consolidate the
existing research data that is of greatest interest to the
various stakeholders in the Salton Sea.
Our combined universities have extensive interests and
expertise in this area. We believe that timely access to this
knowledge is vital to the Salton Sea restoration efforts.
Scientists from California's leading public and private
universities, including the University of California and the
California State University systems, are represented in our
Consortium. Faculty and researchers knowledgeable about the
Salton Sea and its ecosystem from nearly 40 campuses in
California are available to address the complex problems
endangering the Salton Sea. These are university scientists who
have conducted research on the endangered brown pelican, who
have developed flow models for water movement within the sea,
which has important implications for the proposed solutions;
and who have linkages to such valuable programs as UC Mexus,
which has important ties to Mexico and is currently conducting
a comprehensive study of the Lower Colorado River basin.
Further, we have initiated discussions and plan to
coordinate closely with the Water Resources Center and Los
Alamos National Laboratory both in naming a representative for
the fifth seat to the research management committee and in
carrying out research. Already our relationship with each of
these entities is tightly linked. The Water Resources Center
has funded scientists at both California State University and
the University of California. The Associate Director of the
center is a faculty member at UC, Riverside. Likewise, the
Director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory is being
appointed as an adjunct professor at UC, Riverside.
The immediate benefits of our participation are twofold.
First, the Consortium comprises three universities in close
proximity to the Salton Sea. Our faculty has been working and
teaching courses at the Sea and surrounding basin for more than
20 years. Recent research results include an analysis of the
dynamics of several kinds of toxic algae we have discovered
there. We also have gathered the first comprehensive data on
nutrient levels in the Salton Sea since the 1960s and have
discovered several new fish parasites, which are implicated in
the massive fish die-offs. We are collaborating with the Bureau
of Reclamation on a bioremediation project on the New River. We
are up to speed and ready to ``get it done.''
Second, members of the Consortium have considerable
experience managing large-scale research projects and
coordinating with state and Federal agencies as well as other
universities. The salinity/drainage program of the University
of California, for example, manages extensive research
activities at the Kesterson Reservoir, a situation very
comparable to the Salton Sea. San Diego State University's
extensive work on arid-lands agriculture and salinity problems
in the Middle East has direct applications to the problems
faced at the Salton Sea.
We propose to bring a California Solution to a California
Problem. We know the Sea, and it is we who will live with the
success or failure of this effort.
We are pleased to learn that Section 102 of the proposed
bill calls for the establishment of the ``Salton Sea Research
Management Committee.'' The Consortium strongly endorses this
initiative because it will bring together the diverse areas of
expertise that are needed to address and solve in real time the
complex issues facing the Salton Sea. Given our research
expertise, coupled with our geographical proximity to the
Salton Sea, the University Research Consortium is in a unique
position to play a critical role in the research and monitoring
effort. The success of this restoration effort requires the
long-term alliance of our Federal, State, and Local
institutions, the indigenous peoples of the region, and the
university community.
The University Research Consortium has identified a number
of ways that we can be of assistance:
<bullet> Coordinating research efforts, including the
evaluation of existing research to determine what is known and
where the gaps are. The purpose is to integrate priorities
across disciplines.
<bullet> Collecting, maintaining, and updating information
through a Salton Sea data clearinghouse.
<bullet> Developing and conducting research in a coordinated
manner, including economic impact reports.
<bullet> Advising and reporting to the Congressional Task Force
and the Congress on the progress of the Salton Sea clean up.
<bullet> Constructing and managing a Salton Sea Research
Laboratory and Visitor Center jointly with the California State
Parks and providing research facilities at the Coachella Valley
Agricultural Station, only four miles from the Salton Sea.
<bullet> Providing long-term management and monitoring to
ensure that biological, hydrological, and economic impacts are
positive over the long-term.
In short, our universities have substantial expertise in scientific
endeavors related to the Salton Sea; in managing large regional,
national, and international programs; in forming and implementing
consortia; and in providing an objective, science-based perspective on
complex issues. I have additional information about our faculty
research capabilities and publications that I will submit for the
record.
We look forward to working with the Federal Government, the Salton
Sea Authority, the State of California, and all the stakeholders in
developing and implementing successful solutions to address the
critical environmental problems at the Salton Sea.
Our Consortium is dedicated to bringing the best expertise
available to preserve this unique resource. Thank you.
__________
Statement of Ted Stewart, Executive Director, Utah Department of
Natural Resources
Thank you for this opportunity to present written testimony
for the March 12, 1998 hearing on H.R. 3267 titled ``Sonny Bono
Memorial Salton Sea Restoration Act.'' I am charged with
protecting Utah's Upper Basin water allocation from the
Colorado River. I would like to convey to you a concern Utah
has with the legislation as circulated in draft form.
California Use of Colorado River Water
With the advent of the full use of the Lower Basin's
allotment of 7.5 million acre-feet of water per year under the
Colorado River Compact of 1922, pressures to improve irrigation
efficiencies increased. In fact, the state of California passed
legislation imposing fines on the wasteful use of water. This
resulted in a lawsuit in the 1980's where the Imperial
Irrigation District was accused of wasteful use of water and
ultimately directed by the state of California to improve its
irrigation efficiency. However, from our point of view the side
effects of improving agricultural water use efficiency has been
or will be a decrease in the volume of water flowing into the
Salton Sea. The result could be a decline in the level of the
Salton Sea as evaporation may exceed inflow. Also as a terminal
lake with no outlet besides evaporation this will result in an
increase in salinity concentration in the Salton Sea. The
increasing salinity level is threatening the existing fishery,
wildlife habitat and other associated uses of the sea.
Problem with the Proposed Legislation
The proposed legislation calls for the stabilizing of both
salinity and water elevation levels. Unless an outlet is
provided to flush the salt from the sea, or a desalination
plant is built to remove salts, the only other way we see to
accomplish this is by providing relatively large quantities of
fresh water to the Sea. The problem is, the draft legislation
does not specify the source of water that might be used to
accomplish this purpose. The Colorado River appears to be the
only significant source of water available. But, the Lower
Colorado River Basin states, particularly California, are
currently using in excess of their full allocation from the
river. If the legislation is not carefully crafted it could
result in Upper Basin water being used to freshen the sea. This
would not only be unfair but it would disturb the delicate
balance that currently exists between the Upper and Lower
Colorado River Basin states.
Utah has no problem with stabilizing the Salton Sea,
whether in terms of volume or salinity. We believe, however,
the water used for this purpose, if it comes from the Colorado
River, must come from the state of California's compact
allocation. We think this is consistent with the current
interpretations of the ``Law of the River.'' Indeed, Utah would
emphasize that if Colorado River water is needed for Salton Sea
augmentation, the water should come only from California's
compact allocation.
Suggested Amendments
The state of Utah supports the suggested amendments
recommended by the Upper Colorado River Commission. With those
amendments, Utah and the other Colorado River Basin states will
not be put at risk by this legislation. We believe any other
result would be inequitable, violate the ``Law of the River,''
and place at odds with each other the Colorado River Basin
states.
----------
Statement of Evan M. Hirsche, Director, Wildlife Refuge Campaign,
National Audubon Society
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with our views
on H.R. 3267, the ``Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation
Act.'' We appreciate the Committee's interest in honoring the
late Representative Bono by promoting a solution to the
ecological crisis occurring at the Salton Sea. The mission of
the National Audubon Society, representing more than 67,000
Californians and more than 550,000 Americans nationwide, is to
conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds,
other wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of humanity
and the earth's biological diversity.
The Salton Sea has become a virtual Mecca for migratory
birds travelling along the Pacific Flyway. More than 380
species call this unlikely alcove in the southern California
desert their home as they travel between points as far south as
Antarctica and as far north as the Arctic. Indeed, the
importance of the Sea transcends national interests and must be
considered in the broader international context.
Mr. Chairman, how we respond to this crisis will have broad
ramifications for people and ecosystems far beyond the scope of
our immediate interests.
The Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge was established in
1930 for the purpose of providing wintering and spring
migration habitat for birds. At the time it was established the
refuge contained 46,800 acres above the Salton Sea's waters;
inundation over the years has left the refuge with just 2,400
acreage above water level. In spite of the lost acreage, the
refuge today provides vital wintering habitat for some of the
large concentrations of migratory waterfowl, shorebirds and
passerines in the nation, and provides important habitat for
the endangered Yuma clapper rail.
Local communities also benefit substantially from the
refuge's existence and wellbeing. A 1994 study conducted by
economist Paul Kerlinger concluded that $3.1 million was spent
by 54,000 bird watchers in local communities surrounding the
Salton Sea.
In spite of the area's tremendous ecological value, massive
die-offs of birds and fish have occurred in recent years. In
the past five years alone, more than 250,000 birds have died
from outbreaks of botulism, Newcastle disease and other
undiagnosed causes. As we speak, an outbreak of fowl cholera is
ten weeks running, and has already killed an estimated 7,800-
23,000 birds representing 54 species.
What is happening at Salton Sea is nothing short of an
ecological disaster.
The importance of enacting legislation to address the
problems of the Salton Sea cannot be overstated. H.R. 3267 is a
bold initiative that makes a good faith effort to reach a
solution to the crisis. We are concerned, however, that this
legislation seeks to accomplish a great deal without a full and
accurate accounting of all expected outcomes. We have four main
concerns with H.R. 3267:
<bullet> Timetable for identification and review of
alternatives;
<bullet> The scope of options under consideration;
<bullet> Exemption of administrative and judicial review;
<bullet> Pumping water from the Sea without a full accounting
of disposal impacts.
Timetable for Review
H.R. 3267 proposes a 12-month timeline to complete feasibility
studies for a series of complex options identified as ``cost
effective'' by the Bureau of Reclamation. Even under the most
optimistic of circumstances, this timeline is unrealistic. Our major
concern is that in a rush to comply with this unrealistic timeline,
costly mistakes will be made or viable options ignored.
Solving the crisis at the Salton Sea will not be easy. In October
of last year, Saving the Salton Sea, a research needs assessment,
prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with the
State of California and other Federal agencies, concluded that at least
three years and $30 million would be necessary to conduct studies
alone. While we certainly agree that it's possible to study an issue
almost without conclusion, we have equal concerns about hastily
adopting an alternative or series of alternatives without having a
better sense of the likely outcomes.
Accordingly, the twelve-month timetable provided in H.R. 3267 seems
a woefully short time period in which to accumulate the necessary
environmental and engineering data necessary to adopt a realistic
alternative. In particular, it is mandatory that the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) process under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) follow the engineering/technical studies and the selection
of a preferred alternative. To accommodate the sequential ordering of
these studies, Audubon believes that this legislation ought to be
modified to allow at least an Month timeline.
Scope of Options
We must all recognize that there is no ``silver bullet'' solution
to the problems facing the Salton Sea. H.R. 3267, however, limits the
feasibility study to just four options, excluding a variety of others.
The options identified in this legislation: Pumping water from the Sea;
building desalinization impoundments within the Sea; providing
infusions of fresh water; and a combination of the three, were adopted
from the 1997 Bureau of Reclamation's option assessment, which reviewed
54 alternatives. Rather than selecting alternatives with the best
likelihood for success, the BOR selected their alternatives based on
fiscal criteria. For the purposes of their selection, the BOR chose
those options that would require $10 million or less in annual
operating costs.
We don't believe that any realistic option should be excluded
because of a narrow set of criteria. Therefore, we strongly encourage
the Committee to expand the range of alternatives for consideration to
include those that may yield longer-term ecological benefits.
Exemption from Administrative and Judicial Review
National Audubon is strongly opposed to provisions in H.R. 3267
that seek to limit environmental oversight and public participation.
Specifically, Section 101(f)(3)(A) would exempt activities associated
with implementation of a selected alternative from meeting the full
requirements under NEPA. While we appreciate the authors' interest in
expediting actions to rectify the crisis in the Salton Sea, we firmly
believe that full NEPA compliance should be applied to the selection
and implementation of alternatives. Likewise, we object to Section
104(c) which exempts river reclamation activities from having to meet
Section 402 requirements under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
It seems contradictory to exempt inflows from meeting pollution
standards when our central objective is to clean up the Salton Sea.
We also have concerns about Section 101(f)(3)(B) which limits
judicial review of the chosen alternative. Despite the urgency of
implementing a remedy, we should not sacrifice the legal rights of U.S.
citizens to accomplish our goals.
Pumping Brine from the Salton Sea
Title II of H.R. 3267 requires that the Secretary of the Interior
begin pumping water from the Salton Sea prior to December 1, 1998 to
accommodate water diversions from unidentified sources. We object to
this provision for several reasons. First, Title II appears to bypass
necessary environmental oversight mandated under NEPA. The ecological
impacts of brine disposal, particularly on the scale addressed by the
bill, are expected to be enormous. A full review of the disposal plan,
and an opportunity for the public to comment will be critical. Second,
it is unclear where diversion water will be drawn from and what the
expected ecological and economic impacts on the source are likely to
be. Again, we appreciate the need to expedite remediation, but we
strongly believe that any such efforts must comply with Federal and
state environmental regulations.
Conclusion
National Audubon Society appreciates the efforts of this Committee
and the sponsors of H.R. 3267 to quickly address the crisis at the
Salton Sea. Although there are a number of provisions in the bill that
we object to, we are supportive of the overall intent to find and
implement a solution in the least amount of time possible. We look
forward to working with the Committee as we move forward with this
important legislation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7727.074
<all>