<DOC>
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:87065.wais]
CALFED'S CROSS-CUT BUDGET
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
May 15, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-20
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
87-065 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
VACANCY
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Ranking Democrat Member
George Radanovich, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Greg Walden, Oregon Jay Inslee, Washington
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska George Miller, California
Rick Renzi, Arizona Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico Joe Baca, California
Devin Nunes, California Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex ex officio
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 15, 2003..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Letter to Patrick Wright submitted for the record........ 43
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 2
Nunes, Hon. Devin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 3
Email submitted for the record........................... 41
Statement of Witnesses:
Peltier, Jason, Special Assistant to Secretary for Water and
Science, U.S. Department of the Interior................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Wright, Patrick, Director, California Bay-Delta Authority.... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 25
Response to Calvert letter submitted for the record...... 45
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON CALFED'S CROSS-CUT BUDGET
----------
Thursday, May 15, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Calvert, Radanovich, Nunes,
Napolitano, Dooley, and Inslee.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will come
to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on
CALFED's Cross-cut Budget. Under Committee Rule 4(g), the
Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member can make opening
statements; if any other members have statements, they can be
included in the hearing record under unanimous consent.
I ask unanimous consent that all representatives who may
come today have permission to sit on the dais and participate
in the hearing if they do come. If there is no objection, so
ordered.
For nearly two decades, Californians and the Federal
Government have grappled with a decreasing water supply in the
face of drought, infrastructure limitations, and increasing
environmental water demands. CALFED was conceived to help
restore and resolve these growing conflicts and foster
cooperation between the Federal Government, California, and
other interests.
Many envision CALFED as an innovative way to better
coordinate Federal and State initiatives. Under this effort,
Federal and State agencies would work together to ensure that
taxpayer dollars were wisely spent to achieve CALFED
objectives.
However, many stakeholders believe that CALFED's Federal
and State agencies are now carrying out policies in isolation
and without the intended balance. Essentially, CALFED's
decisionmaking and accountability have been questioned.
For these reasons, Congress this year required the
executive branch to deliver a CALFED cross-cut budget
displaying past, current, and projected expenditures. This
disclosure budget will help determine how Federal and State
agencies are cooperating and coordinating their actions and
identifying project priorities. It will give Congress and the
public insight into how these decisions are made, whether
benchmarks have been set, and how coordination can be improved.
The cross-cut budget will provide Congress a first step in
passing CALFED legislation which brings more accountability,
streamlining, and focus to the program. Above all, a properly
drafted cross-cut budget could serve as an accountable way of
determining how our dollars are spent on other multi-agency
Western water projects like in the Klamath Basin.
Today we are honored to have two witnesses who have first-
hand knowledge of the CALFED Program, and we certainly thank
both of you for accepting our invitation to be here today and
look forward to your testimony.
With that, I am more than pleased to recognize Mrs.
Napolitano, the ranking Democratic member, for any statement
she may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Water and Power
For nearly two decades, Californians and the Federal Government
have grappled with decreasing water supply in the face of drought,
infrastructure limitations and increasing environmental water demands.
CALFED was conceived to help resolve these growing conflicts and foster
cooperation between the Federal Government, California and other
interests.
Many envisioned CALFED as an innovative way to better coordinate
Federal and state initiatives. Under this effort, Federal and state
agencies would work together to ensure that taxpayer dollars were
wisely spent to achieve CALFED objectives.
However, many stakeholders believe that CALFED's Federal and state
agencies are now carrying out policies in isolation and without
intended balance. Essentially, CALFED's decision making and
accountability have been questioned.
For these reasons, Congress this year required the Executive Branch
to deliver a CALFED cross-cut budget displaying past, current and
projected expenditures. This disclosure budget will help determine how
Federal and state agencies are cooperating and coordinating their
actions and identifying project priorities. It will give Congress and
the public insight into how these decisions are made, whether
benchmarks have been set and how coordination can be improved.
The cross-cut budget will provide Congress a first step in passing
CALFED legislation which brings more accountability, streamlining and
focus to the Program. Above all, a properly drafted cross-cut budget
could serve as an accountable way of determining how our dollars are
spent on other multi-agency western water projects like that in the
Klamath basin.
Today, we are honored to have two witnesses who have first-hand
knowledge of the CALFED Program. We thank you both for accepting our
invitation to be here today and look forward to your testimony.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure
working with you.
I offer my most sincere appreciation for your convening
this hearing and for insisting that our administration produce
a CALFED cross-cut budget as is required by law.
The budget document we received yesterday, and that I spent
a few hours, up until past midnight, trying to decipher--not
necessarily knowing what I was looking at--is complex and
mysterious, and I certainly look forward to the testimony this
morning and hope that it will clarify a little bit of the
perplexity I had in my mind last night and that some of the
questions that we may have will be addressed and answered.
Much of the debate over the CALFED legislation centers on
the implementation of the CALFED ROD, the Record of Decision. I
was under the impression that the CALFED ROD was carefully
worked out during the stakeholder process and that the ROD is
the centerpiece of the program--more or less the guidebook for
all agencies, all of our Federal agencies and State agencies--
that Congress and the public can look to as a point of
reference as it moves forward.
Apparently this Administration does not share the view
stated in the testimony that they only support concepts in the
ROD. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, that is kind of lukewarm support
from the Administration and it is not good enough. The
stakeholders, our agencies, Congress, have supported the Bay-
Delta Program for nearly 9 years, and the ROD is now nearly 3
years old. If this program is to succeed in solving
California's water programs and reducing water conflicts in our
State, we have to move forward past the talking stage and get
things done, under way, funded.
It is not helpful to learn that our main partner in this
effort has only conceptual support for the implementation of
this program. Mr. Chairman, our communities in Southern
California have been ready to go. We can produce the recycled
water. We can build the de-salting plants we need to reduce our
dependence on Northern California, the Bay-Delta, and the
Colorado River. We can reduce enough to hopefully meet the 4.4
by 2016.
But this Administration needs to commit their help with
these projects. They have instead made clear their intention to
terminate the Title XVI Water Recycling Program, one of our
most promising, useful, and popular Federal water programs in
the history of our Nation. Is this Administration planning the
same fate for CALFED, hoping the State of California will be
there to take on more and more responsibility for funding the
CALFED projects, or are they waiting for individuals to pass
legislation to fund them?
Mr. Chair, I believe we can still enact legislation to
implement the CALFED ROD, and I hope we will have the
enthusiastic support from the Administration that we have from
this Committee.
Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
Are there any other opening statements?
Mr. Nunes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEVIN NUNES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your
continued commitment to the CALFED process. I know how you
really want to get a bill to the House floor this year, and I
agree with you.
However, I want to make sure that this Committee ensures
that the State of California develops new yield instead of
continuing down this process of no new storage for the State of
California. In reviewing the budget yesterday, I was concerned
in Category A and B funding, there is $27 million for storage
and $269 million for ecosystem restoration. I am not against
ecosystem restoration; however, ultimately, if we do not
develop new water supplies in the State of California, we are
going to continue to have these recurring issues, for example,
the Colorado River issue.
I am very interested today to hear Mr. Peltier and Mr.
Wright comment on this process and where we are, especially in
regard to new storage facilities.
I want to thank you for coming and you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Dooley, any opening statement?
Mr. Dooley. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I think it is appropriate that we have this
meeting today, especially with the news in the last couple of
days in regard to the quantification settlement agreement in
California. As we all know, in California, all water is related
even though we are here today to talk about CALFED. It is a
very fragile agreement, and we may lose hundreds of thousands
of acre-feet of water per year if we cannot close the loop on
this deal, and that makes this process that much more
important. And certainly, as Mrs. Napolitano has mentioned,
Title XVI and reclamation projects and other water development
projects in California are even more critical if in fact this
does not come together--this so-called soft landing is not
going to be so soft.
So with that, we have our panel today--Mr. Jason Peltier,
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science, U.S. Department of the Interior, and he is accompanied
by the following Federal agencies to comment if necessary: Mr.
Mark C. Charlton, Deputy District Engineer, Sacramento
District, the United States Army Corps of Engineers; the
honorable Mack Gray, Deputy Under Secretary for Conservation,
U.S. Department of Agriculture; Mr. Tim Fontaine, Staff
Director, Resource Management Staff, Environmental Protection
Agency; and Mr. Jim Lecky, Assistant Regional Administrator for
the Southwest Region for NOAA Fisheries, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
And of course, our second witness is Mr. Patrick Wright,
who is Director of the California Bay-Delta Authority, our man
on the ground in California.
With that, I will first recognize Mr. Peltier.
STATEMENTS OF JASON PELTIER, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY MARK C. CHARLTON, DEPUTY DISTRICT
ENGINEER, SACRAMENTO DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS;
MACK GRAY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSERVATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; TIM FONTAINE, STAFF DIRECTOR,
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STAFF, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, AND JIM LECKY, ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR,
SOUTHWEST REGION FOR NOAA FISHERIES, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Peltier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. It is a pleasure to be here with you and provide
some insight on the work that has been going on recently in
California and over at OMB to prepare a cross-cut budget.
My testimony will focus on several things--one, how the
cross-cut was developed; two, what the overall numbers look
like for the last 4 years, and I will talk about planning and
governance; and then I will close with the need that we see,
that we share with you, for getting authorization legislation
passed.
OMB has prepared and provided to the Committee the cross-
cut budget information that you have had this week to review.
The purposes of preparing the cross-cut are twofold--first, to
compile a comprehensive list of Federal and State programs and
projects that contribute to or complement CALFED program goals
and objectives; second, to coordinate the implementation of all
those programs. I think that you will see in these listings a
very serious and in-depth commitment of the Administration and
of the Federal Government to making CALFED work.
I think the important difference that you are going to hear
between what I say and what Patrick Wright is going to say in
terms of characterizing the cross-cut has to do with the
Category A and Category B discussion, and I think it is
important up front to make sure that we are clear on what the
distinction is.
Category A programs are programs that are specifically
identified in the ROD or totally aligned with the CALFED
Program, if you will; and Category B are those related
programs, other agency programs, that are ongoing, that the
many Federal agencies have in place.
When OMB initially provided a cross-cut to you last month,
you asked that they go back and do some more work on it and
provide a more expansive look at what all Federal activities
are related to CALFED, and that has resulted in this cross-cut
budget that you have in front of you which includes Categories
A and B.
I think it is important--one thing the process and the
production of these documents revealed was the amount of money
that we see going from the many agencies into the CALFED
solution program and related programs, and I would like to
highlight a few over the last 4 years, a few areas where the
Federal investment has been quite substantial: In the Ecosystem
Restoration Program, $249 million; in the Water Use Efficiency
Program, $103 million; Drinking Water Quality, $35 million;
Storage, $27 million; Science, $43 million; and Integrated
Regional Water Management, $189 million. Those are just some of
the highlight numbers of the overall program.
I should note that the budget cross-cut data may be
different than you have seen in prior summaries, and the
differences can be attributed to two things. Projected budgets
are being overcome by actual appropriations during reporting
cycles, and reporting funding for Category B programs and
projects that previously had not been included is here today so
that the numbers are kind of a moving target. In fact, I would
say the whole cross-cut is an evolving reporting mechanism. And
I share with you, Mr. Chairman, your observations about the
value of the cross-cut in terms of, for us as a management
tool, for you as an oversight tool and as something for the
public to see and understand what the program is all about.
Let me end there on cross-cut and talk briefly about
governance. California, as Patrick Wright will explain, has
passed governance legislation establishing the authority in
California. In the current process, Federal agencies continue
to participate with their State counterparts; CALFED continues
to run as before when the Authority was created. We are
participating on a voluntary basis. We are not voting members
of the Authority, but we are fully engaged in the planning and
implementation processes as they proceed. If Congress passes
legislation authorizing us to be members of the Authority, the
relationship with them will evolve even further.
In conclusion, I would just like to reiterate what
Secretary Norton has said and Assistant Secretary Raley have
said repeatedly, that we are anxious to see a bill passed,
getting the CALFED Program authorized so we can move forward
without the questions and limitations that we currently have
relative to our authorities.
Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peltier follows:]
Statement of Jason Peltier, Special Assistant to the Secretary for
Water and Science, U.S. Department of the Interior
Introduction
Chairman Calvert and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program's Budget Crosscut. My testimony will focus on the development
and composition of the Fiscal Years 2001-2004 Federal Budget Crosscut,
current Federal and State agency coordination, and concerns regarding
future authorizing legislation. I look forward to working with this
Committee and all our fellow CALFED agencies to achieve our goals.
The Administration supports the CALFED program and the concepts
embedded in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision (ROD),
which set forth the activities to be undertaken under CALFED. In
particular, we support the principle of balanced progress across all
elements of the Program. We recognize there is a long history of
conflict over many of the issues CALFED addresses. Without balanced,
integrated progress, conflict and stalemate results and all
stakeholders and resources suffer. By implementing a broad range of
complementary programs in a balanced manner, CALFED can ensure that the
interests of all agencies and stakeholders are recognized and
addressed.
The objectives of the CALFED Program are to: (1) provide good water
quality for all beneficial uses; (2) improve and increase aquatic and
terrestrial habitats and improve ecological functions in the Bay-Delta
to support sustainable populations of diverse and valuable plant and
animal species; (3) reduce the imbalance between Bay-Delta water
supplies and current and projected beneficial uses dependent on the
Bay-Delta system; and (4) reduce the risks that would result from
catastrophic breaching of Delta levees.
The CALFED Program holds significant promise for all who benefit
from the use of the Bay-Delta and for restoration of the Bay-Delta's
ecological health. However, our ability to move forward on a broad
basis is limited until the Program is authorized. To that end, we share
your desire to see legislation introduced that would provide Federal
agencies with the necessary Program authorization to advance CALFED
plan implementation efforts, while recognizing the fiscal realities of
the State and Federal budgets.
Budget Crosscut
The idea of a CALFED Budget Crosscut pre-dated the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program ROD and was formally adopted by the participating Federal and
State agencies and acknowledged in Attachment 3 to the Implementation
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to the CALFED Bay-Delta Program ROD.
The purposes of establishing the Budget Crosscut were to (1) identify a
comprehensive list of programs and projects being implemented by
Federal and State agencies in the defined geographic area that
contributed to or complemented the CALFED goals and objectives; and (2)
coordinate the implementation of those programs and projects both from
a planning and financial aspect so as to maximize resource benefits and
financial efficiencies.
The geographic area as defined in the CALFED Programmatic EIR/EIS
encompasses both the ``problem area,'' the Suisun Bay/Suisun Marsh and
Delta, and the ``solution area,'' the Delta Region, Bay Region,
Sacramento River Region, San Joaquin River Region, and other State
Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) Service Areas. A
map of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Programmatic EIR/EIS Study Area is
attached for reference. In order to acknowledge other contributing
Federal program and project funds, the solution area is further defined
to include the counties served by the SWP and/or the CVP.
The participating Federal and State agencies identified two groups
of programs and projects, known as ``Category A'' and ``Category B'',
that contribute to achieving the CALFED ROD objectives within the
geographic solution area. Category A programs include those programs
and/or projects that are consistent with the program goals, objectives,
and priorities of the ROD and contribute benefits within the CALFED
geographic solution area. These are recognized by the participating
CALFED agencies as integrated into the planning and implementation of
the CALFED Program and consistent with implementation principles and
commitments set forth in the ROD. Category B includes those programs
and/or projects and funds that have related and overlapping program
objectives, whose geographic area overlaps with the CALFED geographic
solution area. Category B programs and projects are coordinated by the
agencies, but not necessarily integrated into the CALFED planning and
funding process. Based on these guidelines, each agency delineates the
programs that constitute their Category A and B activities. The initial
list of CALFED Category A & B State and Federal Programs, attached to
the ROD Implementation MOU, has been revised to include new programs
and projects as appropriate and agreed upon by the agency with program
and funding authority. Attached is a revised version of the initial
list reflecting those programs and projects that Federal agencies agree
should be reflected in the Budget Crosscut.
Semi-annually, the participating CALFED agencies compile a Budget
Crosscut that consists of both Federal and State funding for Category
A&B programs and projects. My remarks today are limited to the Federal
component of that budget. The budget information is grouped by CALFED
Program elements--Ecosystem Restoration, Environmental Water Account,
Water Use Efficiency, Water Transfers, Watershed, Drinking Water
Quality, Levees, Storage, Conveyance, Science, Water Supply
Reliability, and Oversight & Coordination--and identified by the
authorized agency and/or appropriation. After enactment of fiscal year
spending bills, the second version of the Budget Crosscut is compiled
to reflect actual appropriations for the Category A & B programs and
projects. The data by fiscal year is displayed in the CALFED Program's
Annual Report and utilized in developing Program element planning/
priority documents.
Multi-Year Budget Crosscut
Attached is the Federal Budget Crosscut which displays by fiscal
year all CALFED Bay-Delta Program-related expenditures by the Federal
Government, actual and projected, for Fiscal Year 2001 through 2004.
Generally, the Fiscal Year 2001 and 2002 numbers represent agency
obligated appropriations; the Fiscal Year 2003 funds are stipulated by
agency as enacted or apportioned appropriations; and the Fiscal Year
2004 numbers are part of the President's proposed budget. Funds are
reported by fiscal year by the agency receiving the appropriation, and
apportioned amounts are provided, where feasible, when the total
program/project funding is attributable to efforts beyond CALFED
objectives/geographic area. In some cases, agencies cannot currently
predict their full Fiscal Year 2003 or Fiscal Year 2004 funding due to
the fact that a portion of their funds are awarded through competitive
processes and the amount to be applied in the CALFED solution area is
currently unknown. The absence of these Fiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal
Year 2004 amounts prevents a simple comparison of total funds to
previous years.
The budget data presented may not conform to prior submissions of
similar information provided by the combined Federal agencies, or
individual agencies or the California Bay-Delta Authority. The
difference is attributable primarily to the Federal agencies reporting
funding for Category B programs and projects that previously had not
been included in publicized Budget Crosscuts. In order to reflect more
accurately the true Federal investment, these programs and funds are
incorporated in the multi-year Budget Crosscut developed by the Office
of Management and Budget in consultation with the participating Federal
agencies.
State and Federal Agency Program Coordination
The level of collaboration and coordination achieved among the
stakeholders and Federal and State agencies having interests in the
Bay-Delta estuary, has been key to the success of the CALFED Program.
The ``ClubFED'' side of the CALFED Program reflects a cooperative
planning and coordination effort among ten Federal agencies, including,
within the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau
of Land Management, as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Forest Service, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
Western Area Power Administration.
The enactment of California Senate Bill 1653 established a new
state entity, the CALFED Bay-Delta Authority (Authority), in the
Resources Agency with the general purpose of implementing the CALFED
Bay-Delta Program. The Authority consists of 6 named state agencies, 6
named Federal agencies (Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, NOAA Fisheries, and
the Environmental Protection Agency), 7 public members, a member from
the Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee (Federal advisory group), and 4
non-voting members of the Legislature. The Governor of California, in
consultation with Secretary Norton, is actively considering the
appointment of the 5 public members representing regional aspects of
the CALFED Program. These appointments are anticipated shortly.
Federal participation in the Authority is voluntary and non-voting
until acceptable Federal authorizing language is enacted. In the
absence of Federal authorization, the ClubFED agencies have agreed upon
the following interim interaction and coordination goals: (1) continue
the cooperation between participating Federal and State agencies; (2)
seek permanent oversight and coordination of the CALFED Program
provided decision-making authority on budgets and project/program level
efforts remains vested with individual agencies; and (3) continue to
operate in accordance with the CALFED ROD Implementation MOU and the
Management Group MOU until the Authority is operating.
The existing CALFED ROD Implementation MOU was executed before the
creation of the new State Authority. Accordingly, some of the
provisions of the Implementation MOU are out of date. The ClubFED
agencies have been working with their State counterparts to draft
appropriate revisions to the Implementation MOU to reflect the role of
the new Authority. A result of the coordination between implementing
Federal and State agencies is the development of multi-year Program
Plans that describe each Program element--goals, objectives,
priorities, proposed budgets, and major tasks, products and schedules.
Each Program Plan also includes an assessment of the previous year and
integration efforts across Program elements. The Program Plans are used
by the Federal and State agencies to manage program implementation over
the ensuing year and guide agency budget requests. The Bay-Delta Public
Advisory Committee and the Authority use the Program Plans to assess
overall progress, funding needs, program balance, and to make
recommendations to the implementing agencies. The Program Plans serve
as a tool for the implementing agencies and others to ensure each
Program element is meeting ROD objectives, has sufficient funding, and
is coordinated with other Program elements.
Authorization Concerns
Despite the progress that has been accomplished through existing
agency authorizations, the Administration has some budgetary concerns
you may consider in drafting authorizing legislation:
Cross-Cut Appropriation. As previously noted, the Federal side of
the CALFED Program is a cooperative planning and coordination effort
among ten Federal agencies. In order to reduce inefficiencies and
further improve agency participation and recognition, the Department of
the Interior believes we should consider a broader allocation of
appropriations among the participating implementing Federal agencies.
This would be a departure from the centralized appropriations made to
the Bureau of Reclamation under the 1996 Bay-Delta Act that funded
Program planning and early ecosystem restoration activities. A cross-
cut appropriation would more accurately reflect the contributions of
the participating Federal agencies and lessen the risk to other
Reclamation funded programs and projects in the Western States.
Long-Term Cost of the Program. We are concerned that the overall
cost, including the current and future financial exposure of the United
States to the programs and initiatives identified in the CALFED ROD,
may not be sustainable. Legislation should authorize an integrated
program that can reasonably be expected to be fully funded in the
current fiscal climate. Failure to authorize affordable CALFED program
components may jeopardize the progress of a balanced CALFED Program.
Conclusion
The Bay-Delta is a region of critical importance to California.
Through Federal, State, and public collaborative implementing efforts,
progress has been made in improving water supply reliability and the
ecological health of the Bay-Delta Estuary. The Federal contributions
to these efforts are reflected in the attached Budget Crosscut table
and program list. While the Administration is encouraged by the
accomplishments to date under the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, your
support of the Program through enactment of authorizing programmatic
legislation and associated funding for the participating Federal
agencies is fundamental to continuing Federal implementation efforts
under the Bay-Delta Program.
This concludes my testimony. Mr. Chairman, I would like to
reiterate my appreciation to the Committee and others for continuing to
work with the Administration to address the significant water issues
facing California. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Attachments.
1. CALFED Bay-Delta Program Programmatic EIR/EIS Study Area Map
2. Revised List of CALFED Category A & B State and Federal
Programs
3. CALFED Bay-Delta Program Cross-Cut Federal Budget for Fiscal
Years 2001-2004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.013
[NOTE: The report entitled ``CALFED-Related Federal Funding Budget
Crosscut'' has been retained in the Committee's official files.]
______
Mr. Calvert. Next is Patrick Wright, Director, California
Bay-Delta Authority.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK WRIGHT, DIRECTOR,
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA AUTHORITY
Mr. Wright. Thank you, Chairman Calvert and members of the
Committee. I too appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
talk a little bit about the process that we go through in the
program.
You have, I assume, copies of my written testimony, so I
will briefly summarize some of the key points in terms of
trying to get a better handle on State, Federal, and local
investments in the program.
As you may know, during the past 3 years, we have done this
analysis annually, retrospectively, so if you have copies of
our annual report, for example, you will see spreadsheets that
lay out the State, Federal, and local investments for each
element of the program.
What is different and encouraging about this exercise is
that for the first time, it is done prospectively so that you
and other Members of Congress can get a better handle on the
future projections of funding so you can make your own
determinations on issues such as balance and the appropriate
level of contributions from the various agencies that
participate in the program.
We have not had time back at the program to pour through
every detail of the cross-cut, but there certainly are a few
key issues that I want to highlight. First, as I just said,
this information would be even more useful if it were
incorporated into the annual budget process so it is not just a
one-time exercise here where you get a sense of what the
various Federal investments are but you see that as part of the
President's budget request and throughout the process of
spending that goes on here in the Congress.
For example, if you picked up a copy of the President's
budget in January, you would find a CALFED line item of $15
million when in fact, as you are seeing today from the cross-
cut, the Federal contribution in 2004 is quite a bit higher
than $15 million. So clearly more work needs to be done to sort
out the confusion between the so-called CALFED appropriation,
which is a part of the Bureau's contribution, and the entire
contribution of the Federal agencies toward the goals of the
program.
Second, in taking a look at those numbers, it is clear that
the Bureau remains the only agency that from a financial
perspective is making a significant contribution to the
program. Arguably, when we were in the planning phase of the
program, that made some sense to funnel all the money through
one agency to make sure you had the kind of accountability that
you needed, that can happen with one agency handling the money,
but now that we are in the implementation stage where other
Federal agencies have lead responsibilities for the program, we
think it is more appropriate to apportion the financial
responsibility accordingly. So that is something that we are
going to continue to push for with the various State and
Federal agencies.
Third, it has also become clear to us that, as we have seen
the omnibus appropriations bill pass last year and other bills
pass previous to that, the vast majority of actions in the
program are already authorized. Most of what we do in the
CALFED Program is to provide oversight and coordination of
existing State and Federal programs to make sure they are
balanced, to make sure we have adequate science, to make sure
we have adequate public participation, to make sure the
agencies are working together, et cetera.
There are a couple of exceptions to that, which is why it
is extremely important to us to have a Federal authorization
bill, but even more important, it is important to cement the
State-Federal relationship that is going to be necessary to
make this program a success. The authorization bill is really
going to determine whether or not this program is going to be a
State program with limited Federal participation, limited
Federal accountability, or truly a State-Federal partnership
where you have the kind of leadership and accountability that
you need from the Federal side of the program.
I think we have proven--and we would be happy to come back
and give you an overview of the track record of the program in
the last 3 years. It is clear on the environmental side with
the investments that we have been making that the fisheries of
the Bay-Delta System for the first time in decades are showing
positive improvements. We hope that trend will continue, but it
is certainly encouraging that the ecosystem investments appear
to be paying off.
On the water infrastructure side, we are also making
significant investments. The collaborative partnership that
CALFED created has led to the passage of three consecutive
water bonds through which now billions of dollars are flowing,
not to the agencies but to State and local communities
throughout the State to meet their most pressing water needs.
With respect to storage, the CALFED Program has the biggest
investment in storage in the State's history. It calls for up
to 3 million acre-feet of new storage. And for the first time,
we are on track. We hope to have draft EISs for each of the
storage projects by the end of 2004. Before the CALFED Program
was stated, there was no progress being made on any of those
projects. So again, we know that folks are impatient in terms
of trying to get those studies done, but they are moving
forward--but the authorization bill is going to be essential to
make sure that those studies and the Federal support continues.
Then, finally, through the Environmental Water Account,
which is another key element of the program, we have avoided
now for 3 years in a row having annual crises over operations
in the Delta. Exporters from the Delta have received now,
again, 3 years in a row assurances that their water supplies
are not going to be interrupted due to fishery constraints in
the Delta.
So again, the track record of the program is growing as it
matures, but for that to continue, we are going to need to have
both a strong Federal investment and a strong Federal
partnership. And we certainly appreciate, Chairman Calvert,
your leadership in trying to get us there through your bill,
and we certainly pledge to continue working hard with you to
make sure that effort is a success.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]
Statement of Patrick Wright, Director, California Bay-Delta Authority
Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member Napolitano, and members of the
Subcommittee on Water and Power, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you this morning. My testimony will provide background on
the Bay-Delta Program, the Cross-cut Budget, and Federal authorization
for the Program.
The Bay-Delta Program is an unprecedented effort to implement a
long-term comprehensive plan that addresses ecological health and water
supply reliability problems in the Bay-Delta. On August 28, 2000, the
State and Federal CALFED agencies signed the Record of Decision (ROD),
formally approving this long-term plan.
The Bay-Delta Program is unique in its approach to solving water
and ecosystem problems because it addresses four resource management
issues concurrently and in a balanced fashion: water supply
reliability, water quality, ecosystem restoration, and levee system
integrity. Conflicts in the Bay-Delta system have broad effects
statewide. The Bay-Delta system:
<bullet> Provides drinking water to 22 million people
<bullet> Supports a trillion dollar economy including a $27
billion agricultural industry
<bullet> Protect farms and homes in the Delta
<bullet> Is the largest estuary on the west coast and is home to
750 plant and animal species and supports 80% of the State's commercial
salmon fisheries.
In the Department of the Interior's recently released Water 2025:
Preventing Crises and Conflict in the West, DOI includes a ranking of
areas where existing water supplies are not adequate to meet demands
for people, farms, and the environment, and where there are potential
water supply crises by 2025.
<bullet> The California Bay-Delta was rated with a conflict
potential of ``Highly Likely'', which was the highest rating in the
report.
<bullet> The Bay-Delta Program, through implementation of the
commitments in the ROD, is in fact addressing this potential crisis.
California Bay-Delta Authority Act of 2003
The California Bay-Delta Authority (Authority), established by
California legislation enacted in 2002 (California Bay-Delta Authority
Act), provides a permanent governance structure for the collaborative
State-Federal effort that began in 1994. The Authority is charged
specifically with ensuring balanced implementation of the Program,
providing accountability to the Legislature, Congress and the public,
and ensuring the use of sound science across all Program areas.
The Authority is composed of representatives from six State
agencies and six Federal agencies, five public members from the
Program's five regions, two at-large public members, a representative
from the Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee, and four ex officio
members, namely the chairs and vice-chairs of the California Senate and
Assembly water committees. Figure 1 (attached) provides more
information regarding the governance structure for the Bay-Delta
Program.
Cross-cut Budget
The purpose of the Cross-cut Budget is to identify the level of
funding (State, Federal, Water User and Local) that is
available to meet the Bay-Delta Program objectives as stated in
the Record of Decision (ROD). This information is used to
determine additional funding needed to stay on schedule and in
balance.
At the time of the ROD, existing programs and projects were
reviewed to determine which were currently contributing to Bay-Delta
objectives and therefore should be integrated into a CALFED process
that included review by State and Federal agencies, science and
technical panels, and the public. Those programs and projects were
labeled ``Category A'' programs. Only Category A funding is included in
the Bay-Delta Cross-cut Budget because only those programs and
activities are consistent with the goals and commitments in the ROD.
All other programs and projects (referred to as ``Category B'') are
not reviewed and funding is not tracked. Agency coordination is
encouraged to avoid conflicts or duplication of efforts. Category B
programs include programs or projects that have related objectives, or
whose geographic area overlaps with the Bay-Delta Program solution
area. However, Category B programs do not necessarily meet the
commitments in the ROD, so the Authority does not include those
programs in the Cross-cut Budget.
The Cross-cut Budget display is developed by the Authority staff in
coordination with all State and Federal agencies. The funding amounts
associated with Category A programs are requested from each of the
agencies, and then packaged by the Authority staff for each fiscal year
showing the total funding by agency, program element, and fund source.
The Cross-cut Budget is finalized and distributed publicly only after
all affected agencies have had the opportunity to provide comments and
verify the accuracy of the numbers used in the display.
Cross-cut Budget Differences
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Cross-cut Budget (May
2003) includes Category B programs and funding. The numbers developed
by OMB differ from those developed by the Authority staff due to the
inclusion of these Category B programs--programs that are not
integrated into the CALFED process or reviewed to determine if they are
meeting the commitments of the ROD. Table 1 (attached) is a Bay-Delta
Federal Cross-cut Budget for fiscal year 01-04 that includes funding
only for Category A programs and projects. The Bay-Delta Program will
continue to develop annual Cross-cut Budgets and coordinate with the
Federal CALFED agencies to identify those programs and funds dedicated
to the objectives of the Program.
At the time of the Record of Decision in 2000, support for the Bay-
Delta Program was generally to be divided equally between the Federal,
State, and Local /Water user interests. For a variety of reasons,
Federal funding has been lacking in the first 3 years of the Program.
With the renewed commitment to the Bay-Delta Program by the Department
of Interior in the ``Water 2025 Report'', we hope that the Federal
involvement will increase.
Federal Authorization
The California Bay-Delta Program strongly supports authorizing
legislation which would provide necessary Federal funding to
successfully implement a balanced Program in the future. Table 2
(attached) shows State, Federal, and Local & Water User funding
contributions to date during Stage 1 for the Bay-Delta Program. Federal
funding has accounted for 11% of the total funding to date for the
Program. State funding has primarily been from bond funds, which are
projected to run out in 3-4 years. Given the current fiscal climate in
the State, it is uncertain whether taxpayers will continue to support
the passage of bond initiatives to fund the Program. A balanced package
of State, Federal, Local, and Water User contributions is crucial to
maintain Program progress. Failure to authorize the Program may
jeopardize the progress of a balanced Bay-Delta Program.
We also support the idea of a ``Cross-Cut Appropriation'' for the
Bay-Delta Program, which would allocate appropriations for projects and
programs to all of the Federal agencies that would be implementing the
Program, rather than appropriating all of the funding through the
Bureau of Reclamation budget, as has been done in the past. We believe
this approach would be more efficient and would further enhance agency
participation in the Program.
Attachments
Figure 1 -- California Bay-Delta Program Governance Structure Diagram
Table 1 -- Federal Funding Cross-cut Budget Fiscal Year 2001 - 2004
Table 2 -- California Bay-Delta Program Cross-cut Budget Fiscal Year
2001 - 2004
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.016
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Years ago, when I first got into business, my father told
me ``Follow the money,'' and when I got into politics, things
really did not change all that much. And certainly dealing with
programmatic funds on projects the size of this is not any
different.
I am looking right now up here at the Everglades cross-cut
budget--and by the way, the cross-cut budget we have today
versus the cross-cut budget we got out of OMB a couple months
ago is obviously much improved, so I congratulate everyone on
that part. But on the Everglades budget I am looking at right
now, you can take a look at the way that those numbers are
being put together, and the coordination of those funds is
much, it seems to me, superior to the process that we are going
through today.
So I hope we can take a look at that as a goal and, with
that, what steps does the Department of Interior and other
coordinating agencies, including regulatory agencies--because
certainly they are involved in this to a large degree--what do
they do to coordinate Federal activities in improving
operations at the Central Valley Project and the State Valley
Project?
I guess first, Jason, I will put that to you.
Mr. Peltier. CALFED is more than a planning process, and it
is more than--you are familiar with all of the aspects of the
CALFED Program, except there is another part that we do not
talk about very often, and that is the operational side of the
projects and the coordination among the agencies. That is, I
think, another success story that we can talk about, and the
CALFED Operations Committee and its various Subcommittees bring
together the regulatory and operational agencies on a weekly
basis, more frequently if there is something unanticipated
occurring in the system relative to where the fish are showing
up, for instance.
So I would say that the coordination and collaboration
among the agencies has been a great success, and on the
operational front, the understanding and the learning that has
occurred over the last few years through these collaborative
efforts has been of mutual benefit to the operators and the
regulating agencies. I think that is on the operations side
where the most focus is.
Mr. Calvert. Patrick?
Mr. Wright. I would agree with that. I think we need to
separate today the issue of a financial contribution from the
Federal agencies and the lack of an authorization bill to
cement the institutional structure from the very active
engagement of the Federal agencies on the ground, particularly
from Interior. As Jason said, we have all the agencies at the
table working hard to integrate the various missions and
mandates that they deal with. The issue here is less one of
having the regional folks engaged than it is having the folks
back here more engaged, both from a financial perspective and
from an institutional perspective.
Mr. Calvert. In the cross-cut budget, you have identified
authorized projects such as several water recycling projects in
Southern California as overlapping with the CALFED Program
objectives. Could you explain those activities, how they have
been coordinated with other agencies when it comes to
protecting the Bay-Delta and improving the operations of the
Central Valley Project? How are all these coordinated?
Mr. Peltier. All of the programs that are identified in the
Category A/Category B list--well, that is a pretty big
question, because you can see that the breadth of programs is
tremendous given the various missions of the agencies. One
thing that the cross-cut, as we discussed earlier, shows us is
that it kind of reminds us and educates other agencies as to
the activities of their fellow agencies, so we can very quickly
identify overlap and the interactions.
Some of the programs operate very closely together--for
example, fish screens. There is a fish-screening program in the
CVPIA. CALFED has invested in fish screens, and CAL Fish and
Game has. So those three different programs have over time
evolved under the umbrella of CALFED to be very, very closely
coordinated, and we have the professionals learning from other
programs and making sure that the investments are the most
needed and the most effective.
There are a number of other overlap activities. In the
storage area, the Storage Program has work teams that are
working on each of the various facilities, and there is a
differing combination of agency participation in each of those
depending on who is in the lead, I would say--but once again,
there is a common goal and a common work effort under the
CALFED umbrella that is essential to accomplishing not only the
purposes or the objectives of CALFED, but to making sure the
money spent on both the Federal and State sides is maximized.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Wright, any comment?
Mr. Wright. Just briefly, let me add to that. We do have a
process biweekly where all the State and Federal agencies meet
literally around the table to make sure all the various
elements of the plan are moving forward and to make sure those
actions are coordinated.
It is a huge program, so we not only rely on those
meetings, but a lot of spinoff meetings, a lot of meetings of
our advisory councils and their Subcommittees, to make sure
that we have the kind of coordination we need.
Recycling is a good example, where the State launched a
year-and-a-half process under which it established a recycling
task force. The CALFED Program was an active part of that
process to make sure the agencies were coordinated, to make
sure we set up a new funding process to make sure that only the
best projects were funded and also to make sure that money gets
out the door as quickly as possible, because for some of our
agencies, that has been a huge problem for local communities.
So through are a variety of different forums, we have
managed to ensure that the agency actions are coordinated and
integrated.
Mr. Calvert. Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
No disrespect, Mr. Peltier, but are you one of the ranking
members of your agency?
Mr. Peltier. I have rank.
[Laughter.]
Mrs. Napolitano. No--one of the top-ranking members of your
agency.
Mr. Peltier. I do not know how to characterize my position.
I am Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science.
Mrs. Napolitano. What happened to the Secretary--or the
Assistant Secretary?
Mr. Peltier. I was designated to represent the Secretary
here today.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. I just wondered for the record,
because I think that this Committee does rank--and I am sure
they would defer to you for answering the questions, because
you did the work--but it would behoove them to understand that
this Committee is very interested in seeing their participation
in this hearing.
Mr. Peltier. I will convey that.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
The question that I would have--and Mr. Wright brought some
of that up--is that the funding is funneled through the Bureau
of Reclamation and has been, or at least a major portion of it
is. Has there been any discussion through the agencies
themselves to get direct funding from the agencies for the
projects to move them forward at maybe an even faster, more
expedient, more direct, and with less money going out for admin
fees?
Mr. Peltier. Yes. This is a topic of active discussion, and
I think the cross-cut that we have provided or that OMB has
provided shows you that there is considerable direct investment
by agencies on CALFED-related activities and programs. And I do
not want to mischaracterize the nature of Category B
investments and say that that is CALFED. I want to be clear and
say that that is related to CALFED. But you can see a broad
swath of programs and investments that are being made directly
by the participating agencies, and I think on into the future,
both versions--well, let me say each version--of legislative
proposals we saw last year included a requirement for a cross-
cut budget, and there was considerable focus on this notion of
individual agency funding, and we look forward to continuing
that discussion.
Mrs. Napolitano. Is there anything we can do to be able to
provide a more expedient determination of that?
Mr. Peltier. No. I think the efficiency with which the
agencies operate is very impressive, in part probably because
most agencies--I know it is certainly true of Reclamation--it
is the people in the field, it is the program managers, who are
responsible for formulating and implementing the program who
have been given the authority to move briskly, and they do. And
I think the discussion that Patrick provided about the
coordination and the weekly meetings ensures that those things
happen quickly.
Mrs. Napolitano. Can you tell me what the administration
fees are for the Bureau on those agencies?
Mr. Peltier. No--as in overhead or--
Mrs. Napolitano. There is a cost there. There usually is.
If money is passing through any agency for somebody else, there
is usually a handling fee, if you will. It is called admin--
administration--you know that.
Mr. Peltier. Yes. I think it is--let me ask--zero.
Mrs. Napolitano. Impressive.
Mr. Peltier. Obviously, Reclamation spends staff and other
resources to administer the program, but in terms of
passthrough, the Regional Director informs me that there is no
cut taken.
Mrs. Napolitano. Very good. I guess that was one of the
most burning questions in the back of my mind.
Is there any additional information that you would like to
share?
Mr. Peltier. No. I guess I would just like to highlight the
fact that Patrick made and expand on it, that when we talk
about CALFED money that Congress appropriations, we generally
talk about the President's proposal for $15 million last year,
or the $20 million that was appropriated. And I think the
impressive result of this cross-cut budget exercise is that
when you look at the totality of Federal engagement on CALFED
and CALFED-related programs throughout California, we are
looking at about a $700 million investment over the last 4
years. That is quite impressive and I think amply demonstrates
the work of the agencies and the broad sweep of their program
commitment.
Mrs. Napolitano. And I can also talk to that in the fact
that California has also made that commitment and has passed
several water bonds in the last 8 years that have really
substantiated their support and their commitment.
Mr. Peltier. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. I am out of time, Mr. Chair. I would be
glad to defer to the next person.
Mr. Calvert. Before I move to the next questioner, in Mr.
Peltier's defense, I know that he is a very knowledgeable guy
about California water, and I am sure he is going to do a great
job for us today.
Mr. Nunes, you were the first one here, so you will be the
first one recognized.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the first time
I get to go ahead of Mr. Radanovich, so that is quite an
honor--and Mr. Dooley, even; that is really an honor.
Mr. Peltier, thank you for coming, and thank you for your
service. I know that you are knowledgeable on California water
issues, and I want to thank you again for being here today.
I have really some questions that I need to have answered
by yourself and Mr. Wright that I am concerned about and that I
think you are also concerned about. I think I will start out by
asking you if there is any area in this cross-cut budget that
allows you or anyone else to directly or indirectly affect
congressional action.
Mr. Peltier. I am sorry--affect congressional action?
Mr. Nunes. Yes.
Mr. Peltier. Well, I think this cross-cut is a reflection
of congressional action. It is a reflection of the exercise of
the authorities that we have been given by Congress in the
appropriation--
Mr. Nunes. I guess I will make it a little bit easier. Does
it allow you to participate in or with political organizations
to lobby on behalf of or for the administration or against the
administration?
Mr. Peltier. No, absolutely not. We do not lobby. I mean,
we will be champions of the programs that Congress has
authorized, and we will try to make sure everybody is aware of
what it is we are doing and why we are doing it, but in terms
of ``political,'' quote-unquote, advocacy, that is not part of
our world.
Mr. Nunes. Mr. Wright, do you see that to be the same case
as Mr. Peltier sees it?
Mr. Wright. We are in a slightly different position,
particularly in this period of uncertainty before the Federal
side--the bill has been authorized. The way the program views
its job is that until the new authority bill passed, we had
basically a State lead and a Federal lead. Now we have a new
board where, in addition to having the State agencies on it and
the Federal agencies on it, we now have public members.
Our job at the program--the reason why I was hired--was to
assure implementation of the ROD and everything that comes with
that--to make sure it is balanced, to make sure we have good
science, to make sure we have adequate public participation, to
make sure we meet the schedules and commitments to the extent
we can given our limited budgets--rather than necessarily being
advocates for either the State side, the Federal side, or any
of the stakeholders. We are supposed to be an independent voice
for trying to move this program forward, to put pressure on
both the State and Federal side to meet the commitments that
are in the plan.
So from a congressional perspective, we are often asked by
Members of Congress is this particular bill or this particular
program consistent with the ROD, and we try to answer that.
That is different from lobbying on behalf of individual
projects.
Mr. Nunes. Is there money in this budget that allows you to
give advice to political organizations?
Mr. Wright. Oh, I see what you are getting at. No, we do
not spend--in fact, I should clarify too that, again, most of
the money is going to the Bureau. There is a small amount of
money that is going to support the program, but it is mainly to
support Bureau people who participate in the program who are
bound as part of the Administration from restrictions on
lobbying, et cetera.
Mr. Nunes. So you are not supposed to instruct political
organization on how to lobby the Congress?
Mr. Wright. Oh, absolutely not.
Mr. Nunes. OK.
Mr. Peltier. And if I could add, there is a Federally
chartered advisory committee, the Bay-Delta Public Advisory
Committee, which is made up largely of stakeholders and
involved publics from around the State.
In meetings of the Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee, we
make sure everybody is aware of the rules, that they are free
to go exercise their--to petition government--but not as
members of the advisory committee. They do have to do that in
their status as a citizen.
Mr. Nunes. OK. I want to get to another question, and that
is, Mr. Wright, you indicate that in this Record of Decision,
we want to create 3 million acre-feet of new storage.
Mr. Wright. From surface storage. In addition to that, it
calls for another million acre-feet-plus from groundwater
storage.
Mr. Nunes. So wouldn't you say that to do that, we would
have to at some point build new surface storage projects?
Mr. Wright. Yes. The plan envisions--and we are
aggressively moving forward on the feasibility studies--to move
toward construction of those projects that meet the various
tests in the plan.
Mr. Nunes. So you are not opposed to new storage projects?
Mr. Wright. No. Again, my job is to implement the plan. The
plan calls for significant investment in storage.
Mr. Nunes. Would you ever advise people on how to kill
legislation that the Congress would act upon to create new
water storage projects?
Mr. Wright. No. Again, my advice would be limited to
comments on or feedback on provisions of bills as to their
consistency with the CALFED Plan, which I said before certainly
promotes storage across the board.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Dooley?
Mr. Dooley. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Peltier, I appreciate the information that was provided
by you as well as by OMB, but I guess I am backing up and
saying if our real objective here is trying to get a clear
depiction about the investments which are contributing to
achieving the goals of the ROD, I think there is a lot more
work to be done. One of my concerns is that when I look at some
of the information that was sent up, especially that dealing
with Category B, it appears that we just send up the Army Corps
of Engineers' budget for almost every project in the general
service area of the CVP, even some not in the service area,
because we have a lot of projects in there--one is the Turtle
Bay Museum, and there are a number of other projects there--
that are basically being considered as Category B projects.
Is that what your intent is, and can you justify that those
projects clearly as consistent--as well as USDA; you have some
USDA funding that has also been sent up as being Category B
that is dealing with EQIP funding, and a lot of that is dealing
with on-farm site improvements. And if we really are trying to
paint the most accurate picture, which Mr. Calvert indicated
that would be more consistent with what we are doing on the
Everglades, is this the same way that that was handled down
there? I would just appreciate your comments.
Mr. Peltier. I cannot speak to the Everglades budget
formulation; I am not familiar with that. But I certainly
recognize what you recognize in terms of the breadth and scope,
and there is a real tension in making the judgment calls that
agency personnel do in terms of whether something is to be
included or not.
We do not want to overstate or pad or throw a bunch of
things in that are not related, but that can be a hard call.
Certainly the operation of the Central Valley Project is
directly related to CALFED. We do not, of course, include,
however, the O and M budget, the $80 million-plus that we spend
every year operating and maintaining the CVP, as a CALFED
investment.
In the Corps' program, if you have some specifics, we can
ask the Corps representative to come forward and explain Turtle
Bay, for instance, if you would like that. I cannot speak
specifically to Turtle Bay.
Mr. Dooley. I guess my general observation is that the goal
here, again, is trying to identify the Federal investments that
we are making that are contributing to the goals that are
embodied in the ROD. There is a line item here for the Pine
Flat Turbine Bypass, which is a great project; it serves part
of my district. But this is a private project. This is not a
CVP, it is not a State project. And I guess I do not quite
understand why we are considering even expenditures like that
as being a contribution to the CALFED. And I think there are a
whole lot of them in here when I look at the Army Corps'
budget. And I know that everybody is under time constraints,
but again--and it looks to me like OMB just submitted a whole
lot of the Army Corps projects, and even in the USDA. The
Turtle Bay Museum was just one that jumped out at me, but there
are a number of others.
Rather than get into a debate right now in terms of the
individual projects, I just think there needs to be more work
done in terms of really trying to focus on what are those
projects that are contributing, because I think we are not
getting a really good picture here.
Mr. Peltier. If I could first say--and I do not want to
debate, and I do not want to lose today--but what makes this
tough is that the goals of CALFED are expansive, they are very
broad, and the geographic solution area is very broad. That is
what leads us to the point we have arrived at.
Mr. Dooley. I guess my last question is I am really trying
to get a little clearer picture in terms of what would be the
impact on the Administration's request or inclusion in the next
budget they would present to Congress for CALFED without a
reauthorization by Congress versus a reauthorization? What
would be your expectation in terms of the impact on the request
that the President would be making in his budget that he would
be sending up?
Mr. Peltier. That is like a set-up, right?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Peltier. I would not want to speculate on that. I think
what we have seen in the last 2 years is what would be
considered by CALFED standards and the scope of the program a
modest proposal in the President's budget, relying on existing
authorities. And unless those authorities change, I would
assume that we would continue moving ahead as we have been.
Mr. Dooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wright, welcome to the Subcommittee. I appreciate your
testimony.
I do have a question. According to your testimony, about
$787 million, Federal money, $68 million of which has been
spend on CALFED to date, up to 2003. How much of the funding
was dedicated to water storage projects that increased the
State's water yield? Can you give me--the information is very
good, but it would be nice to see on something like this a
summary page that shows all the money from all various agencies
throughout all 3 or 4 years.
Mr. Wright. Sure; we could provide that. I am flipping
through our annual report here, which does have Year 1, 2, and
projected 3 broken down into various categories including
storage.
Mr. Radanovich. Actually, what I am looking for is an idea
of--of that 787, can you give me an estimate of how much has
been dedicated toward water storage projects?
Mr. Wright. I do not know if these are apples and oranges
or not, but what I am looking at here is in the first year,
roughly $100 million, the second year, roughly $125 million,
the third year, roughly $100 million for storage projects.
Again, those are mainly for planning and feasibility studies,
of course, which are going to be necessary. Once we get to the
construction phase, obviously, those numbers will have to rise
considerably if there is support for construction of one or
more of those projects.
Mr. Radanovich. So, of the $787 million that has been spent
on CALFED so far, about half of that has been spent on water
storage projects?
Mr. Wright. No. Again, I am not sure where your 700--let
me--
Mr. Radanovich. That was in your testimony.
Mr. Wright. Let me make sure we have the same--
Mr. Radanovich. It is the Fiscal Year 2003 total budget
number.
Mr. Wright. Seven hundred eighty-seven. That is the Stage
1, State, Federal, local, the 787, so that is Fiscal Year 2003,
so that is Year 3. In Year 3, again, my figure--and these may
be updated, because these were projections at the time they
were written--is $108 million out of that $787 million was for
storage.
Mr. Radanovich. The original intent of CALFED was to bring
everybody whole together. My concern over CALFED was the
emphasis on environmental restoration. And again, I do not
disagree on a lot of the environmental restoration projects,
but the problem I have with CALFED is that that has gone along
and been far more concentrated on than have water storage
projects, and the idea that AGURB and environmental needs would
all be brought forward together, and no group would be out
front any more than the other one was, to try to bring
everybody together as a group--if you look at the numbers, that
has not happened.
Can you give me an idea of how to make sure that that does
happen? Is there a set of criteria in place to achieve balance
in the implementation of this thing from here on out, because
it seems to me that the proportion of spending on water storage
should now be about 95 percent, with 5 percent to the other
concerns. How do we balance things out?
Mr. Wright. Yes, of course, it depends on how you look at
the books. If you look at it from a water management
perspective, if you add storage together with water recycling
and conservation and groundwater, et cetera, we found that
actually, we are spending twice as much on water management as
we are on ecosystem restoration--but again, that is a dollar-
for-dollar situation. We are concerned with making sure we have
balanced funding. It is obviously challenging to have as much
money for surface storage given that we are just planning the
projects versus implementation of our other programs, so until
we get--
Mr. Radanovich. But you would have to admit, though, that
since 1995, the emphasis has not been on planning new water
storage projects--the emphasis has been on ecosystem
restoration.
Mr. Wright. Well, given that we are moving as rapidly as
possible on the storage projects, I do not know that it is fair
to say that is not where the emphasis is--
Mr. Radanovich. But you were not working as rapidly as
possible in 1995, and you were working as rapidly as possible
on ecosystem restoration.
Mr. Peltier. I would add that, yes, I think that is an
accurate statement, and it was largely because, at least from
the Federal perspective, we had the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act in place and a $40 million-a-year revenue
stream for ecosystem work. We then had the Bay-Delta Ecosystem
Act passed in the appropriations project and then subsequently
funded to the tune of a couple of hundred million dollars.
So, yes, that is an accurate representation and
perspective, but I would share also with Patrick that the
challenge, when you look at what has been spent to date, it is
clearly unbalanced because of those--and also because the bonds
had a heavy focus on ecosystem improvement.
Mr. Radanovich. Well, then, what happened to the concept of
everybody being brought forward together on this thing? Is that
going to remain--
Mr. Peltier. The concept remains--
Mr. Radanovich. Are there criteria set in place to make
sure that that balance comes back now?
Mr. Peltier. The ROD calls for and our practice calls for
the Secretary of Resources and the Secretary of Interior making
a finding--that, as they develop their work plans, that they
make a finding that the program is balanced, and that does
occur. I participated last summer in the working group that
spent a day going through the work plans out in California, and
everything is not balanced in a year.
Mr. Radanovich. No, Jason, it has been 8 years.
Mr. Peltier. I know, but in terms of this year's program,
you cannot say that everything has the same amount of money and
the same amount of progress is being made on every one.
Mr. Radanovich. Why was the commitment made to bring
everybody forward together, then, when in fact it has not been
the case?
Mr. Peltier. It is over time that we will see--we cannot
make the kind of investment in surface water storage
construction today, because we have not done the necessary
work, so you are not going to see that--we cannot have
simultaneous improvement on all fronts, but everything is
progressing, I would say.
Mr. Wright. I think the criterion that we use is are all
elements of the program moving forward together. Clearly with
respect to storage, from a financial perspective, the
contribution now that we are in the planning stage simply
cannot be as high as it is for programs that are in the
implementation stage.
Mr. Radanovich. But you did not have the emphasis on
storage until the last 2 or 3 years. This has been an 8-year
project.
Mr. Wright. No. The ROD was established 3 years ago.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes, but the process started in 1995 when
funding was--funding began in 1995. We got the authorization,
and the funding began during that time. That was $150 million
in 1996, roughly $150 million the following year, and
disproportionately gone to ecosystem restoration, where the
studies on the water storage projects did not really start
until the last year or two.
Mr. Peltier. Well, in fact we did not have until the 2003
omnibus bill was passed authority to conduct feasibility
studies--except for Shasta--for any of the storage identified
in the CALFED--
Mr. Radanovich. That is because it was not in the
appropriations. Where was the authority not given--or, if the
authority was necessary, when would it have happened in order
for you to begin to study these projects? Who is responsible
for it? Has it been the Congress, or has it been the CALFED
Program itself?
Mr. Peltier. My sense is that it has been part of the
larger discussion of what is needed in terms of legislation.
And one thing that we continually pointed out as people were
having discussions about authorization of the CALFED Program,
authorization legislation, was that we were very limited in
reclamation in terms of the amount of work we could do on
storage--except in the case of Shasta--in all other cases, we
were limited to pre-feasibility work; we could not cross the
line into feasibility-level work until we were so authorized,
and we were with passage of the 2003 omnibus bill.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has run out.
Mr. Calvert. You will get another shot at it.
Before I move on to Mrs. Napolitano--because I think the
question here is--and obviously, there is a level of
frustration that you are feeling not only here on the dais but
back home--we have spent a considerable amount of time and
resources to plan and do the feasibility studies. When are we
actually going to get some of the storage projects under
construction? We want to go to the groundbreaking ceremony, so
we put our schedules ahead pretty good. When can we expect to
put that on our schedule? Does anybody here have any
predictions?
Mr. Wright. Let me take a shot at it. I think for the
projects that have somewhat of a head start, from what I
understand, for Sites Reservoir, for Shasta, for Los Vaqueros--
In-Delta is still undergoing science review right now--my
understanding is that we will have draft EISs by the end of
2004 assuming we continue to get the kinds of Federal
investments we need to keep those projects going. Some of those
represent delays from what was originally envisioned in the
plan in part because of the lack of Federal funding. The San
Joaquin project is a little behind that but not too far behind,
because significant investments have been made there as well.
Mr. Calvert. Let me ask this question. With the completion
of the EIS, are the concurrent actual design/build plans being
done on these projects? Are we going to have to go into design
after the completion of the EIS? I am talking about actual
construction drawings.
Mr. Peltier. My understanding of the process is that once
we get through the feasibility process and we find the project
feasible, Congress needs to then authorize construction, and a
part of that is getting to the detailed design. We need
feasibility to do construction design.
Mr. Calvert. I want everybody to understand. So the working
drawings have not begun, and the working drawings themselves
cannot begin, through the process we are going through--
feasibility, the EIS--until those are completed under the rules
that we operate under. And how long typically does it take to
do a design for an actual construction project of that
magnitude, just approximately?
Mr. Peltier. Well, if you look at the case of the two most
recent reservoirs built in California--they were built by local
water agencies--it was a matter of a few years if you look at
East Side Reservoir.
Mr. Calvert. So you would say a minimum of 2 years to do a
design, actual working design drawings, to start the project?
Mr. Peltier. Rather than guessing, why don't we get back to
you with a more--
Mr. Calvert. But I am just trying to get for the record
today--I want everyone here to understand that if the EIS is
not going to be completed until 2004, there is probably not
much of an opportunity to get any of this under construction
until at least 2006, based upon where we are today. That is
what I am hearing. And from a background in construction, I
know that on a job that size, it is going to take a couple
years to do the drawings.
Mr. Peltier. Probably 3 to 4 years to do design, yes, so
you are correct. We can provide to the Committee and its
members--the Bureau of Reclamation and Department of Water
Resources regularly prepare a status report on the storage
project activities that are going on, and we will provide that
to you on a regular basis.
Mr. Calvert. And for the record, later we could maybe get a
more precise approximate schedule of when some of these
projects can be under construction.
Mr. Peltier. I think that would be valuable for all of us.
Mr. Calvert. Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I would like to ask unanimous consent for any
member to submit questions for the record and request reply for
same from the Administration, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
Mrs. Napolitano. The second thing is--and Mr. Peltier, I do
not want to pick on you--but in the second paragraph of your
testimony, the first sentence reads, ``The administration
supports the CALFED Program and the concepts embedded in the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program Record of Decision.''
Are they not one and the same?
Mr. Peltier. I would say that that is a very consistent
statement of our view of the CALFED Program and the ROD that we
have been articulating for the last 18 months.
I can understand your thinking that there is something
shifty about using those words, but the fact is the ROD is a
programmatic document which has a huge, huge number of possible
programs and activities; some are conceptual, some are
operational today. So there is a wide variety of things
contained within the ROD, and we do not want to find ourselves
in a position of saying that we support every, single thing in
that ROD, because there are ideas in the ROD, and what those
ideas evolve into may or may not reflect the idea that they
originally started out with.
I guess that is the best I can do in terms of an
explanation. The ROD is a very sweeping document.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, then, the question that comes to
mind is can the Administration assure us that there is nothing
in this cross-cut budget that falls outside the ROD--and that
is kind of in the same vein that my colleague was questioning
on, that it is not consistent with the ROD.
Mr. Peltier. I am aware of nothing in the cross-cut
Category A or B that is inconsistent with the ROD. As I said
earlier, I think it is clearly a judgment call when you get
into Category B, of how well does a program line up with the
very broad goals and objectives of the CALFED Program. So there
is judgment, and there can be debate. I think that our goal,
our objective here today, is to recognize that there can be
debate, but also our goal is to say there is a big body of work
associated with the goals of CALFED that is going on here, and
we ought to recognize and appreciate it.
Mrs. Napolitano. I thoroughly support the concept, the
whole idea that we need to be sure that California's water
system is assured. We in Southern California rely on a lot of
that water being transferred down to Southern California, and
my main concern in Southern California is are we going to have
water reliability.
First, we have MOAB in Utah, that may cause problems in
that third of the water delivery because of the contamination
of the Colorado. Now we are talking about pollutants in their
water. We have tremendous problems with our contamination in
wells, in our own well water supply. So you understand the
frustration for us as being able to assure that we in Southern
California, who have the major part of the people drinking the
water, have a reliable water source.
So that is partly what I am concerned with, and there are a
couple of questions that I am going to be asking further. But
in this cross-cut budget that you have submitted, were all the
Federal agencies consulted in preparing this budget?
Mr. Peltier. Yes, to the best of my knowledge. The ClubFED
group--the name we apply to the grouping of Federal agencies on
the ground in Sacramento, or in California, that are engaged
with CALFED--was passed directly by OMB to provide the
initial--
Mrs. Napolitano. OK, so the information came directly from
the different agencies.
Mr. Peltier. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. And what was the Department of Interior's
role as the lead CALFED agency in this process?
Mr. Peltier. To organize meetings, to take the initial cut
at the--what had been missing in prior efforts to develop a
budget cross-cut was uniform guidance, if you will, on what
should be in and out of Category A and Category B. Reclamation,
to get the discussion rolling, took the first cut at a
description of that so folks would have the same basic guidance
in terms of making their decisions about what is in Category A
or Category B. Reclamation also organized the meetings,
followed up with the various agencies and assured that they got
the information together; they coalesced the information on
spreadsheets and provided that to the Office of Management and
budget.
Mrs. Napolitano. Was this also coordinated with the State
of California?
Mr. Wright. Yes. We got the information both in working
through Interior and OMB. Let me also just say in Interior and
the Administration's defense that we do think it is useful to
have that long list of Category B projects to have this kind of
discussion, to have a debate over whether this local project
should be counted or not, whether Turtle Bay should be counted
or not. We may still need to do some more work on how you
summarize those numbers to make sure you are getting accurate
information, but the whole point of this exercise is to give
you a handle on the total investment in California water
infrastructure so that we can have this discussion on are we
getting the kind of coordination that we need.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will go to the
next round.
Mr. Calvert. ClubFed; we ought to all get together and meet
at the Salton Sea.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Nunes?
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have an email that I would like to submit for the record
and ask if you would give that email to the witnesses, please.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered. Please
distribute the email.
[The document follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.018
Mr. Nunes. And if I can make one more request, Mr.
Chairman, there is part of this email that is not available,
that has been cutoff, and I do not know if you can ask the
witnesses to provide the rest of the email.
Mr. Calvert. If in fact any additional correspondence could
be added to this, we will certainly ask that that be provided
as soon as possible.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you.
[Mr. Calvert's letter to Patrick Wright requesting the
email in its entirety follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.019
Mr. Nunes.
Mr. Peltier, I know your position on political activity--
you answered that in the first round of questions--and Mr.
Wright, and I think you both answered correctly, because
Federal law prohibits both of you from engaging in political
activity.
That is why, Mr. Wright, I am curious as to why you
referred people to the NRDC, which is a nongovernmental
political organization, to speak with a CVPIA expert, as
illustrated in your email conversation with Mr. Candee.
Mr. Wright. I am often asked by Members of Congress who in
the stakeholder community they should consult with to get the
best information they need. I frequently refer them to members
of the AGURB and environmental community so they get the best
information they can, and certainly this email was a part of
that process, and that is part of the ongoing process of having
a collaborative process, to make sure--
Mr. Nunes. That you advise the NRDC how to kill my
legislation in Congress?
Mr. Wright. I am not aware that this in any way advised
them how to kill your legislation.
Mr. Nunes. Well, I respectfully disagree with that, Mr.
Wright, and I think that Mr. Peltier understands that also.
That is why at the top of this email, Mr. Peltier definitely
instructed--I think you said that you advised Mr. Raley to
speak to Mr. Wright on this very issue, Mr. Peltier?
Mr. Peltier. Yes, and they did talk. We had a conversation
right around the time I sent this email, and I think we are
comfortable that we had a better understanding than we got from
the email about what was going on. And what I forwarded to your
staff was what I had, so as to the question of do I have any
more back and forth--this was it--and I did not get into any
further.
Mr. Nunes. Obviously, there is more to this email, and I
know that we can find it.
Mr. Chairman, can you ask the witnesses to provide the rest
of this email?
Mr. Calvert. Please. From the witnesses, if there is any
additional email correspondence that would be appropriate, we
would like to have that submitted for the record as soon as
possible.
We will keep the record of this hearing open for enough
time for you to submit any additional correspondence that is
out there. And we will follow up to make sure we obtain that
email.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am concerned because, as you can see by the tone of this
email, there is obvious coordination between NRDC, which is a
nongovernmental political group, political lobbying group,
directly to this CALFED process, which gets back to your
question about when are we going to see new storage projects. I
do not know when we are going to see new storage projects when
we are financing people who are actively engaging in activity
that would slow down the process in getting to new surface
storage.
I am very concerned that we are going to continue--I think
Mr. Radanovich was exactly right in asking the questions about
the continued Federal participation, because we have not seen
any new storage, nor is there a new storage facility that has
even been designed, or at the design stage.
So, Mr. Wright, I am extremely concerned that you are
partial to an organization that is opposed to new surface
storage. You instructed them to call various people in the
Bureau to kill my legislation. And I do not know that you did
it knowingly or on purpose--it could possibly be an accident--
but I am very concerned.
There are more questions that I have on this email, Mr.
Chairman. I do not know that it is germane to the topic that we
are talking about, but I think that there are definitely not
Federal dollars available to lobby political organizations.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Nunes, if you would like to submit a list
of questions, we will instruct the witnesses to answer those
questions.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you.
[A letter submitted for the record by Patrick Wright,
Director, CALFED Bay-Delta Program, in response to a request
for information by Mr. Nunes follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7065.020
Mr. Wright. And Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to follow up
with you and the Congressman and also to share with you my
voluminous emails with all the interests in California that I
communicate with on a daily basis. This is simply one email out
of thousands that I deal with.
It is a delicate position that I am in, trying to move all
these stakeholders together and support Members of Congress in
their requests for information, and I will be happy to work
with you further to make sure I do not cross any lines.
Mr. Nunes. So, if I am hearing you correctly, do you mean
you have instructed other organizations on how to kill my
legislation?
Mr. Wright. No, no, no. It did not take place here, and it
has not taken place anywhere else, I assure you.
Mr. Peltier. I would differ a little bit, but only in a
kind of humorous fashion. I know that when I was a stakeholder,
CALFED leaders and management told us to straighten up and fly
right and get with the program and work together and quit
fighting. So there was constructive advice given, not in the
vein of political or anything like that, but CALFED management,
CALFED agencies and participants, I think play an important
role in moving the process forward, because stakeholders and
agencies have their own missions and their own objectives and
accomplishments, things they are trying to do, while not paying
full-time, focused attention to the CALFED Program. And we rely
on the CALFED staff and management, whose sole job is moving
the program forward, to push and prod and remind the agencies
and stakeholders of the bigger deal that they have all signed
onto.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Peltier.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. One thing I want to point out in this email,
whatever your position on CALFED may or may not be, is the tone
of this email. It disturbs me, and I have dealt with all the
stakeholders over the last number of years, and I have never
tried to personalize this in any way--and I know, Mr. Wright,
in your email here, that the gentleman involved in this email
obviously has--unfortunately, I think--made a personal attack
against Mr. Nunes, and I do not appreciate that. I would hope
that anyone who is involved in this process would recognize
that we are professionals here, and we have a job to do, and
this type of attitude is certainly not appreciated by me, and I
will certainly take note of anyone who engages in that kind of
activity in the future.
Mr. Peltier. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I share that--
Bennett and I share that--uncomfortableness, and actually more
than that, kind of antagonism toward that kind of--what we saw
in the email--and that in part prompted our concerns about it.
We share your belief in way of doing business, that this is out
of line, and it is not Patrick's part that is out of line, but
we wanted to distance ourselves from that kind of language.
Mr. Calvert. I appreciate that.
Getting back to CALFED and the Bay-Delta, there is one
thing--obviously, we are concerned about storage, and you can
feel the frustration here in the time that it takes for us to
get to the point where we can actually build the projects that
are even in the Record of Decision. Many of us believe that the
amount of storage that is in the Record of Decision is
inadequate. But nevertheless, the storage that is in the Record
of Decision needs to be built.
But also, the other part of that is to convey the water and
improvements that need to take place within the Delta to
maintain water quality within the Delta. Certainly there are
some issues with farmers and others in the Delta to make sure
that the water quality is good and at the same time that we are
able to convey water.
So I guess the question is that the barriers that need to
take place in the south of the Delta--I know that temporary
improvements are in--but how quickly can we get--are we going
through the same process in order to get those improvements in
where we can convey water--if in fact we have water to convey,
where we do not create problems within the Delta, but if the
water is there to convey, we are not in the position to convey
it at the present time, as you all know.
So what is the timing of doing those improvements?
I guess I will start with you, Patrick.
Mr. Wright. Sure. We have a very aggressive program
underway to try to increase the conveyance capacity of the
State pumping plant. The draft environmental documents for
those projects are due--I think late summer is the latest
estimate. That also has to be coordinated with a whole series
of other related actions to make sure that the Delta interests,
Contra Costa interests, and water quality interests are
protected as well, together with some Federal actions that are
related. The final documents are due early next spring, so that
by late spring or early summer, we are ready to go.
This is not an issue that requires further construction. It
is simply getting the permits that we need to use the available
capacity that is there but is not being used.
Mr. Peltier. If I could add, I think the CALFED and the
program, particularly the science element, have added in a
quantum fashion to our understanding of how the Delta works. As
you may be aware, for 20 years, I believe, primarily the State
and Federal water projects have provided about $15 million a
year for the Interagency Ecological Program to study ecological
functions in the Delta. We have moved significantly beyond the
body of work that they have created through CALFED, with their
investigations into how the Delta cross-channel works and how
it affects water quality and fisheries. And there is a workshop
coming up in a month or so, I believe, of the CALFED Science
Program.
To step back, it has been several years since we entered
into the accord and had biological opinions in place, and it
has been recognized that there is a need for the Science
Program as well as the managers and the stakeholders to step
back and look at the body of knowledge that we have gained over
the last decade and see how our understanding has changed and,
as a result of that, does the way that we operate in the Delta
need to change.
Mr. Calvert. And a little bit of education, I think, that
we need to do in selling down in that region is that we are out
to improve the water quality in the Delta and at the same time
convey water. So we need to get out and amongst folks down in
the Delta and explain that a little better, I think.
Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. No questions at this time.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Radanovich. Go ahead, George.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Jason, can you tell me briefly what projects are currently
not receiving funding due to the absence of CALFED
appropriations? Are there any projects that are not moving
forward in the absence of this funding?
Mr. Peltier. Well, there are a lot of things that are not
funded if you look at the Bureau portion of the budget. The
funding is focused on environmental water account, storage
probably is the bulk of it, funding the Tracy fish screen. The
Bureau with its existing authority is limited in what it can
do. It is limited in its ability to do work that people would
like to see it do in broader watersheds; it is limited in its
ability to fund a more sweeping consultation program with the
Native American interests; it is limited in its ability to
spend money, certainly to the extent that was envisioned in the
ROD, to meet the mileposts. And as a result, we all recognize
that the States' financial circumstances evolve, too.
Mr. Radanovich. OK. Now, hang on, Jason. I only have a
little bit of time here.
I wanted to ask Mr. Mark Charlton, who is with the Army
Corps of Engineers, if he could come to the mike. I would like
to ask him a question regarding storage.
Mr. Charlton, of the projects like Sites and Los Vaqueros,
those that are in the ROD, assuming you got a green light
today, can you give me an estimate of, if everything goes
smoothly and according to plan, the physical time that it is
going to take as far as when those projects would be on line?
Mr. Charlton. Your question was my opinion as Deputy
District Engineer at the Corps of Engineers--
Mr. Radanovich. Sure.
Mr. Charlton. --look at those projects that are currently
underway in CALFED. Patrick referenced that a draft EIS on
these projects would be complete at the end of this fiscal
year. The idea is that these projects still need to be
authorized by Congress. The Corps' experience is that there is
at least a year for complex projects like this to go from a
draft to a final to get it back to Congress.
In the meantime, though, I would not see, if there were
sufficient funding provided by Congress, why design at that
point could not also begin. I would think that there would be
for large projects like this--and Mr. Calvert made reference to
the problems with large projects; it does take time to design
these things--that there would probably, in my opinion, if
sufficient funding were provided, be in the neighborhood of 4-
plus years for design before we would be able to begin
construction.
Now, on many of these projects, if we were very aggressive
with the funding and the effort, parts of the project we may be
able to move forward from a time schedule like that, because
large projects like the Sites Reservoir or even the enlargement
of Shasta have many pieces to them. Maybe some pieces could
move ahead a little faster than other pieces, and while you
build some early on pieces, you continue to do design on other
pieces. So you stage the project like that.
Depending on funding, that is our general experience for a
timeframe.
Mr. Radanovich. So you are looking, really, at 2010 before
any of these storage projects are on line?
Mr. Charlton. With the construction period, yes. That would
probably be very aggressive. And if you look across the country
at Corps of Engineers projects, these projects do take time,
they are very large, they are very difficult, and that is very
typical for public works projects of this nature.
Mr. Radanovich. And that does not even account for lawsuits
that might be filed to try to stop the projects, or anything
like that--do those have an effect on the timing?
Mr. Charlton. Of course they do; that is right. My
assumption was that we would be successful, and there would not
be problems of that nature.
Mr. Radanovich. This was my concern--thank you, Mr.
Charlton; I appreciate your insight--about keeping the
stakeholders together and no one person getting out in front of
the other. That was the whole idea with CALFED, was to keep the
stakeholders together so that equal funding and equal progress
on all counts, for all stakeholders, would happen at the same
time.
I was just handed a bit of information on Los Vaqueros
Reservoir, which is in Sites, an article stating that there are
groups out there that are planning to sue the stoppage of the
enlargement of Los Vaqueros. And that group--basically, the
ones that are anticipating trying to stop this project have
been the bulk beneficiaries of the millions of dollars on
ecosystem restoration that has been spent on CALFED so far. And
that was the whole idea of not letting one group out more than
the other, because then all the stakeholders' needs might not
get satisfied.
So when I asked the question about what set of criteria do
you have in place to achieve such balance in the implementation
of CALFED, I think it is very, very important for CALFED to
have figured out in 1995, and in the absence of that even
today, it still behooves people to be sure that you do have
some kind of criteria in place to make sure there is balance in
this, because one interest group can just jump right off this
process and sue the pants off anybody else to stop progress on
any other element of this CALFED plan.
So I would like to see some set of criteria to make sure
there is balance in this program at least from here on out,
because it has not been up to this point, and we are looking at
2010 even if things went lickety-split and very smoothly, and
that of itself is too long.
So I just needed to make that point and wish that I could
see somebody come back and make sure that the emphasis from
here on out is really applied to storage until we get some kind
of balance in this thing.
Mr. Peltier. I would say we could provide that information.
The ROD does have quite a discussion of balance in it, and I
think the criteria are reasonably well-spelled out there in
terms of guidance.
Mr. Radanovich. Can that prevent the lawsuits on any of
these water storage projects, Jason, that are going to come up
along the line? The only leverage you had was giving the other
stakeholders what they wanted, or making them wait until this
whole thing was moved forward together. That was the whole idea
of CALFED--keeping the stakeholders together and moving
everybody forward at the same time. It has not happened, and
water storage projects are looking, as a result of that, beyond
2010.
Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Before I go to Mrs. Napolitano, I guess to summarize what
Mr. Radanovich's fears are--and many of us--is the bait-and-
switch thing, that we go so far down the line that all the
money has been spent on environmental restoration, all those
projects are completed, and then the same coalition of folks
that we had put together all of a sudden disintegrates, and
they come out opposed to all the storage projects and in fact
file suit against the very projects, as Mr. Radanovich said, as
happened at Los Vaqueros.
Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dovetailing into Mr. Radanovich's point, I would also like
to have a report on how much usable water would be produced by
these construction projects, these dam projects. I would also
like to have a comparison of the time to construct and the
water produced by recycling, the cost timeframe.
That would be very helpful in being able to at least move
us forward to the 4.4 plan for 2016 for California, or at least
in my mind, that is part of it.
I would submit that for the record.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
Mrs. Napolitano. I would also like to refer to Title XVI as
shown in the cross-cut budget for Fiscal Year 2003 was $18
million, and for 2004, $13.2 million. Do these figures reflect
the deduction we are paying for the Sumner Peck drainage
settlement?
Mr. Peltier. For 2003?
Mrs. Napolitano. 2003 is $18 million; 2004 is $13.2
million, a reduction of $4.8 million.
Mr. Peltier. Right. My understanding of those numbers is
that 2003 is the enacted level, and 2004 is the number that is
in the President's budget. In 2003, my understanding is that
the Peck settlement was funded from the judgment fund. I am not
certain how it is treated in the 2004 budget; I will have to
get that information and provide it to you.
Mrs. Napolitano. We would like to have that information, if
you would not mind.
I would also like to make a point, because we keep saying
that the environmental restoration has been taking a
considerable amount of attention, which in some areas I think
is rightfully adequate, or at least should be--but that also
includes, if I am not mistaken, the restoration of the
fisheries, the areas that produce salmon, which is part of
California's economy.
So I want to be sure that we get that straightened out,
that we figure out how much actually goes for environmental
versus restoration of fisheries and other areas. I would say it
is more than 50 percent, but I would like to see how that
parcels out.
I read in somebody's report that the fisheries and the
hatcheries and the salmon are beginning to rebound from the
lows that were evidenced in the last few years. To me, that
goes hand-in-hand--we have economy, we have the ability to be
able to have funding, if you will, for the projects that are
needed, to be able to have those in 4.4, and to be sure that
all of California has adequate water supply and so on.
Mr. Peltier. I would say it is in some cases quite
exciting. The response of winter run salmon over the last few
years, for instance, has been very impressive.
However, the challenge is--answering the question why did
the numbers go up, we would hope that in part, it is a result
of the investment in fish screen and in fish passage and in
habitat improvements, in modification of project operation. We
hope and expect that all of that investment in ecosystem
improvement is going to lead to a result that is of
significance. That is why I think it is widely recognized that
part of the critical path to getting to reliable water supply
is that ecosystem investment.
But there is uncertainty. Certainly we cannot ascribe very
specifically what the result of these investments is, because
there are in fact many other factors that affect the health of
the fisheries beyond the habitat that we are focused on.
Mrs. Napolitano. Right, but we must not say that the issue
of environmental restoration is totally the Endangered Species
Act.
Mr. Peltier. That is correct. There is a significant amount
of the investment that is made and the operational
restrictions, as a matter of fact, that it is recognized that
those investments and those decisions have collateral benefits
for other species. And while we want to make sure that we are
focused adequately on the needs of the listed species, we fully
recognize that there are collateral benefits, and that is much
appreciated.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Wright?
Mr. Wright. Yes, just to add to that, as Jason said and as
Mr. Radanovich alluded to, in 1995, there was broad-based
agreement in California that we needed to give the ecosystem
program a down payment, which is why Congress authorized us to
spend a couple hundred million dollars on the ecosystem program
to turn around the significant declines in the fisheries of the
estuary.
Those investments, as Jason said, have paid off not only in
terms of trying to begin to reverse the decline of the fish
species but also in terms of water supply. The allocations of
water south of the Delta, pumping constraints, are less
significant today because of those fisheries investments.
Allowable take, for instance, for listed species is higher
today than it was several years ago, so there is a direct
correlation between the ecosystem investments we have made and
improvements in water supply, and certainly we hope that will
continue.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Nunes?
Mr. Nunes. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I would like to ask a quick question--oh,
excuse me, sorry. Please ask your global warming question, Mr.
Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Would it be appropriate if I just give the
answer, too, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman, I will pass today. Thank you very much.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
I have a question just for my own edification, and
possibly, Jason, one of the people that you have brought with
you can answer this question, or maybe Patrick knows the
answer.
We have had a pretty good snowfall, thank God, in the
Sierras, so where are we right now as far as the snowpack and
our estimates for water this year?
Mr. Peltier. Could I bring Kirk Rogers, the Regional
Director, to the table?
Mr. Calvert. Absolutely; bring him up.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Kirk Rogers, and I am the Regional Director for
the Bureau of Reclamation in Sacramento.
Certainly the snowpack has improved, and the water supply
in our reservoirs is increasing. In fact, we have been
releasing for flood control out of Shasta on a continuous basis
recently to make room. We had a very full reservoir there and
incoming storms.
However, for most of the watershed, I believe our water
year designation remains at below normal in the Sacramento area
and dry in some of the other areas. So even with these improved
conditions, our water year designations have not changed. That
could change when we move into the next month's allocation,
though, so we are still hopeful.
Mr. Calvert. Do you have any information, too, on the
Rockies and the situation in the Colorado River, any
improvement with Lake Powell, Lake Mead?
Mr. Rogers. It is extraordinarily dry there, still, Mr.
Chairman, and no real marked improvements that I have been
reported on.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Are there any additional questions?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, one question, since we now have the
gentleman from Sacramento here, and it is related to Northern
California instituting water meters. What is the timeframe,
what is the time line, and how does that fit in with the CALFED
Record of Decision? Is that part of it, to be able to ensure
that that happens?
Mr. Rogers. Under the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act, there was a provision for water measurement and a
condition that we need to put in all the contracts that we
renew for water service for those municipalities that we have
contracts with.
As we have renewed the contracts, we have imposed that
requirement. The City of Folsom is one, and there is a schedule
in place for them to put their meters in place. The City of
Fresno is an area where discussion continues, and we have not
been able to resolve that issue yet, because there is a local
ordinance that prevents them from putting water meters in.
The City of Sacramento has prior water rights, and we do
not have a contract with them, and I do not know of any effort
that they are making other than voluntary in some parts of the
new construction area for putting water meters in those
locations.
But it is a concept that we support. We believe that as you
put water meters in, you get a response from the community.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
It is always amazing--I lived in Sacramento for 6 years
during my tenure in the Statehouse--that we do not pay water.
Even my staff had a meter that was not connected to anything;
it was for view only. When you are asking Southern California
because of drought conditions to go into total conservation and
other very drastic steps, and my colleagues and my friends in
Northern California may use water to any extent, that needs to
change, and I hope that we all abide by the same rules and that
we are able to share water equally.
Mr. Rogers. We agree with you, and in those areas where we
have that responsibility, we are pursuing it vigorously.
Personally, I live in a community that has a water meter, and I
know personally that it influences the way I choose to use my
water.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
I certainly thank our witnesses, and I thank those who
attended this hearing.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]