<DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:71508.wais]
CALIFORNIA WATER: A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
April 3, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-14
__________
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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-508 WASHINGTON : 2001
____________________________________________________________________________
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
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
ADAM SMITH, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
Richard W. Pombo, California George Miller, California
George Radanovich, California, Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Vice Chairman Calvin M. Dooley, California
Greg Walden, Oregon Grace F. Napolitano, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Hilda L. Solis, California
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 3, 2001.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Dooley, Hon. Calvin M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Ose, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 2
Statement submitted for the record....................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Broddrick, Ryan, Director of Conservation Programs, Ducks
Unlimited.................................................. 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Cook, Wayne, Executive Director, Upper Colorado River
Commission................................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Hall, Stephen K., Executive Director, Association of
California Water Agencies.................................. 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
McPeak, Sunne Wright, President/CEO, Bay Area Council........ 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Woolf, Stuart, President and CEO, Woolf Enterprises.......... 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Additional materials supplied:
Meacher, Hon. Robert, Regional Council of Rural Counties,
Statement submitted for the record......................... 53
CALIFORNIA WATER:
A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE
----------
Tuesday, April 3, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. The oversight hearing of the Subcommittee on
Water and Power will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting
today to hear testimony on California Water--A Regional
Perspective.
Under Committee Rule 4(g), the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority Member can make opening statements. If any Members
have statements, they can be included in the hearing record
under unanimous consent.
California has come to another crossroads in water resource
management. For years, water policy was made in isolation in
many different agencies and on many different levels. Often,
our direction changed in a knee-jerk reaction to events,
leaving us with conflicting priorities and contradictory goals.
Lack of coordination in the past has produced an unwieldy
system that makes water resource management difficult, at best.
However, after years of fighting and fractured policy,
competing water interests recognize the importance of a
collaborative approach to water resource issues while taking
into account the importance of State water rights. Cities,
agriculture, industry, and the environment are all connected in
their need for water. There are no ``silver bullets'' to
California's water problems.
California is the sixth largest economy in the world and
the Nation's leading producer in both industry and agriculture.
Resource shortages in an economy this large will have a ripple
effect throughout the West, throughout this country.
Our Subcommittee has the opportunity to facilitate a
dialogue on the role water management plays in California and
its effects on the Western United States as a whole. As we saw
in last week's hearing, water users not only in California but
throughout the West need operational flexibility, options for
additional water storage, conservation, and reuse.
I would like to thank our witnesses for coming out here
today and look forward to hearing from them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water
and Power
California has come to another crossroads in water resource
management. For years, water policy was made in isolation in many
different agencies and on many different levels. Often, our direction
changed in a knee-jerk reaction to events, leaving us with conflicting
priorities and contradictory goals. Lack of coordination in the past
has produced an unwieldy system that makes water resource management
difficult at best.
However, after years of fighting and fractured policy, competing
water interests recognize the importance of a collaborative approach to
water resource issues while taking into account the importance of State
water rights. Cities, agriculture, industry, and the environment are
all connected in their need for water. There are no ``silver bullets''
to California's water problems.
California is the sixth largest economy in the world, and the
Nation's leading producer in both industry and agriculture. Resource
shortages in an economy this large will have a ripple effect throughout
the west.
Our Subcommittee has the opportunity to facilitate a dialogue on
the role water management plays in California and its affects on the
Western United States as a whole. As we saw in last week's hearing,
water users not only in California but throughout the West need
operational flexibility, options for additional water storage,
conservation and reuse. I would like to thank our witnesses for coming
out here today, and look forward to hearing from them.
______
Mr. Calvert. With that, I am going to recognize the Ranking
Member with us today, Mr. Cal Dooley from California.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CALVIN M. DOOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Dooley. Thank you, Mr. Calvert, and I thank all the
witnesses for attending. I know we will get a lot of
information. I want to thank the Chairman, too, for his
commitment to move forward in trying to find a way that we can
put forward a comprehensive CALFED reauthorization that will
certainly help to meet the needs of all the water users in
California. That includes environmentalists and municipal and
agricultural users. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Ose is joining us here on the dais, and if there is no
objection, we will have him join us through this hearing. So
hearing none, so done.
Any additional statements? Mr. Ose, do you have any brief
remarks?
Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, I did, if I may.
Mr. Calvert. Certainly. Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOUG OSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Ose. First of all, I want to thank the Chairman and the
members of the Subcommittee for allowing me to join you. I am
appreciative of the witnesses taking the time to come to
Washington and testify today.
The Sacramento River in Northern California runs through
the heart of my district. This great river provides water
throughout Northern California. It is the primary source for
both the Federal CVP, Central Valley Project, and the
California State Water Project, which provide water for three
of the four of us up here and millions of other Californians.
Certain water suppliers in my district this year, after
five consecutive wet years, are scheduled to only receive 60
percent of their contract amount. These water supplies have
been curtailed by the Federal Government despite the express
promises made to my constituents that they would be able to
fully utilize local water resources in the Sacramento Valley
before water would leave the region. We continue to use our
water more efficiently, but still find the supply too limited.
In many ways, the solution is quite simple. We must create
a larger supply to meet increasing demands. With California's
population increasing by nearly 600,000 people per year and an
agricultural economy that leads the world, with all due respect
to Nebraska, if we continue at the State and Federal level with
the current approach to our water challenges, we will be in the
same disaster we are currently experiencing with energy.
It is time to take necessary steps to improve our water
supplies throughout California. Congress must make a major
commitment to authorize the new infrastructure that will be
necessary to meet California's water supplies for the next 30
years, including new water storage facilities and fish screens
to assure reliable agricultural and municipal supplies and to
protect our fish and flora and fauna. There must also be a
major commitment that requires Federal and State agencies to
partner with local interests to develop and manage their water
supplies at the local level.
In light of the above, I am pleased to be here to listen to
the testimony today as it relates to perhaps a potential House
bill. I am willing to meet Senator Feinstein halfway on the
proposed CALFED legislation that she has put forward. It is
imperative that specific, binding language be included in these
bills authorizing the construction of above-ground water
storage facilities, one at Sites, which is north of the delta,
and at least another one south of the delta.
We are on the verge of a major opportunity to advance these
water supply goals in a way that will deliver real benefits to
California and our constituents. I look forward to working with
Chairman Calvert and my other colleagues in pursuit of this
important goal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ose follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Doug Ose, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Chairman Calvert and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for
convening this hearing today and allowing me an opportunity to provide
this statement for the record.
The Sacramento River in Northern California runs through the heart
of my district. This great river provides water throughout Northern
California. It's the primary source for both the Federal Central Valley
Project and the California State Water Project, which provide water for
millions of Californians.
Certain water suppliers in my district this year--after five
consecutive wet years--are scheduled to only receive 60 percent of
their contract amount. These water supplies have been curtailed by the
Federal Government despite the express promises made to my constituents
that they would be able to fully utilize the local water resources in
the Sacramento Valley before water would leave the region. We continue
to use our water more efficiently, but still find the supply too
limited.
In many ways the solution is simple. We must create a larger supply
to meet increasing demands. With California's population increasing by
nearly 600,000 people a year and an agricultural economy that leads the
world, if we continue at the state and Federal level with the current
approach to our water challenges we will be in the same disaster we are
currently experiencing with energy. It is time to take necessary steps
to improve our water supplies throughout California. Congress must make
a major commitment to authorize the new infrastructure that will be
necessary to meet California's water supplies for the next thirty
years, including new water storage facilities and fish screens to
assure reliable agricultural and municipal supplies and to protect
fish. There must also be a major commitment that requires the Federal
and state agencies to partner with local interests to develop and
manage their water supplies at the local level.
In light of the above, I am willing to meet Senator Feinstein
halfway on the proposed CALFED legislation. It is imperative that
specific, binding language be included in the bill authorizing the
construction of above ground water storage facilities, one at Sites
(north of the delta) and another one south of the delta.
We are on the verge of a major opportunity to advance these water
supply goals in a way that will deliver real benefits to California and
our constituents. I look forward to working with Chairman Calvert and
my other colleagues in pursuit of this important goal.
______
Mr. Calvert. Now, I would like to recognize the panel of
witnesses that we have first with us today, Mr. Steven Hall,
the Executive Director for the Association of California Water
Agencies, and Mr. Wayne Cook, the Executive Director for the
Upper Colorado River Commission.
I would like to recognize Mr. Hall to testify for five
minutes. The timing lights, you gentlemen have both been here
before, I believe, and you will know how that works, so we
would like to limit the testimony to five minutes to give
plenty of time for questions afterwards. Any additional
statements you may have, we will be happy to submit for the
record.
With that, I will recognize Mr. Cook first to testify for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE COOK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UPPER COLORADO
RIVER COMMISSION
Mr. Cook. My name is Wayne Cook and I am the Executive
Director of the Upper Colorado River Commission. The Commission
is an interstate compact administrative agency created by the
Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948.
The Colorado River Compact of 1922 provided 7.5 million
acre feet of exclusive beneficial consumptive use of Colorado
River water for each portion of the Colorado River Basin above
and below Lee Ferry. However, the Upper Basin guaranteed that
deliveries below Lee Ferry would not be less than an aggregate
of 75 million acre feet for any period of ten consecutive
years. Because of this Upper Basin guarantee, during extended
dry cycles, the Upper Basin cannot depend on its full 7.5
million acre feet because of insufficient carry-over storage.
Conservative estimates suggest that only 6 million acre feet of
depletion may be available to the Upper Basin.
The Upper Basin is currently using about 4.7 million acre
feet per year. These Upper Basin depletions are accomplished
not by releases from Lake Powell, but by diversions far
upstream at private State and Federal projects. Water
originating in the Upper Basin but not used for Upper Basin
development is stored in Lake Powell to meet our commitments
under the 1992 compact. Lake Powell stores and releases water
based on the annual relationship of Upper Basin water supply,
use, and Lake Powell releases to meet downstream compact
commitments. These criteria effectively determine how water,
which cannot be reasonably applied to beneficial uses in the
Upper Basin, are released from Lake Powell for use in the Lower
Basin. These criteria, the operating criteria, are called
equalization and attempt to keep Lake Mead and Lake Powell at
similar storage levels.
Colorado River mainstream water use in the Lower Basin is
controlled by the 1964 decree in Arizona v. California, which
mainstream water is subject to the Secretary of Interior making
an annual determination of shortage, normal, or surplus water
conditions in the basin. In the context of these
determinations, California is able to divert less than 4.4
million acre feet in shortage, 4.4 million acre feet under
normal conditions, and more than 4.4 million acre feet during
surplus declarations. These become the limit of California's
use unless water apportioned to other Lower Basin States is
temporarily available due to non-use.
California water has exceeded its apportionment of 4.4
million acre feet in the past two decades. Users of the other
Lower Basin States are now at or near full utilization of their
apportionments, as well. Therefore, California must now live
within its basic apportionment. This transition can be gradual
and can be accomplished within the law of the river.
On January 18 of this year, the Secretary of Interior
issued a record of decision for the approval of Colorado River
Interim Guidelines to be used by Interior through 2015 in
making surplus deliveries to California. These guidelines would
make surplus water available to meet Arizona, Nevada, and
Southern California's urban water needs through 2015. Without
these guidelines, Southern California's urban water needs will
not be met.
There is a probability that these needs will be reduced to
about 35 percent of surpluses during 2005 and less than 20
percent in 2040, primarily due to Upper Basin development. It
is important to note that surplus water necessary to keep
Metropolitan Water District's aqueduct full in 2001 would not
have been available absent the agreement of these seven Basin
States to these criteria.
These guidelines are the direct result of an intense five-
year effort by the seven Basin States to reach consensus on the
matter of surplus determinations. First set forth within a six
Basin State agreement in late 1998, later achieving seven Basin
State consensus in mid-2000, these guidelines provided
incentives to California to reduce its Colorado River uses to
4.4 million acre feet in normal years. They also provide an
assured urban water supply to each of the Lower Basin States
during the period of transition and assured that further Upper
Basin development will not be jeopardized. Arizona's Central
Arizona Project is also provided storage protection up to a
million acre feet as agreed to reparation arrangements.
With California's implementation of the provisions of its
Colorado River Water Use Plan, the Metropolitan Water
District's aqueduct remains 400,000 acre feet per year short of
being at full capacity. Until 2016, this shortfall will be
filled by surplus deliveries from the Colorado River. After
2015, Metropolitan will only get surplus water, perhaps less
than 30 percent of the time. In order to ensure a full aqueduct
of Colorado River water after 2015, Metropolitan Water District
will need to facilitate additional agricultural to urban
conservation transfers.
An enhanced level of trust amongst the seven Basin States
has emerged as a result of these guideline discussions.
California must maintain that level of trust and complete its
Water Use Plan within the time frame promised to the other
Basin States.
I will quit now, and I have some summary comments that I
can make later, if appropriate.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:]
Statement of Wayne Cook, Executive Director, Upper Colorado River
Commission
My name is Wayne Cook, and I am the Executive Director of the Upper
Colorado River Commission. The Upper Colorado River Commission is the
interstate compact administrative agency created by the Upper Colorado
River Basin Compact of 1948. The member States of the Upper Colorado
River Commission are: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Since its
inception, the Commission has actively participated in the development,
utilization and conservation of the water resources of the Colorado
River Basin.
The member States of the Upper Colorado River Commission have
always given strong support to water resources development in the Upper
Colorado River Basin and in particular to the Colorado River Storage
Project and participating projects. Through the development made
possible by these and other projects, the waters of the Colorado River
allocated to the Upper Basin States are presently being utilized and
can be utilized for future beneficial consumptive use.
The Colorado River Compact of 1922 provided 7.5 million acre-feet
(maf) of exclusive beneficial consumptive use of Colorado River water
for each portion of the Colorado River Basin above and below Lee Ferry.
(Additional system rights were provided for the Lower Basin States and
Mexico.) However, the Upper Basin guaranteed that deliveries below Lee
Ferry would not be less than ``an aggregate of 75,000,000 acre feet for
any period of 10 consecutive years. . .''. Because of this Upper Basin
guarantee, during extended dry cycles, the Upper Basin cannot depend on
its full 7.5 maf allocation per year because of insufficient carryover
storage. Conservative estimates made for planning purposes by the
Department of the Interior suggest that only 6 maf of depletion may be
available as a dependable supply for the Upper Basin in spite of the
fact that an average of 15 maf originate in the Upper Basin.
In negotiating the 1922 Compact the Upper Basin States sought to
insure it's ability to develop its share of the Colorado River in
perpetuity, as needs and economic conditions allowed. The Upper Basin
is currently using about 4.7 maf per year. These Upper Basin depletions
are accomplished not by releases from Lake Powell but by diversions far
upstream at private, State and Federal projects.
Water originating in the Upper Basin but not used for Upper Basin
development is stored in Lake Powell to meet our commitments under the
1922 Compact. Lake Powell stores and releases water based on the annual
relationship of Upper Basin water supply (runoff), uses and Lake Powell
releases to meet downstream Compact commitments pursuant to the
``Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado River
Reservoirs'' mandated by the Colorado River Basin Project Act (Public
Law 90-537). These criteria effectively determine how Waters which
cannot reasonably be applied to domestic and agricultural uses in the
Upper Basin are released from Lake Powell for use in the Lower Basin in
addition to our guarantee of 75 maf in every 10 years. This reservoir
operation is called ``equalization'' and attempts to keep Lake Powell
and Lake Mead at similar storage levels to the extent possible.
Colorado River mainstem water use in the Lower Basin is controlled
by the March 9, 1964 decree in Arizona v. California. Mainstem water
availability is subject to the Secretary of the Interior making an
annual determination of shortage, normal and surplus water conditions
in the Colorado River Basin. In the context of these determinations,
California is able to divert less than 4.4 maf (shortage), 4.4 maf
(normal) or more than 4.4 maf (surplus) for use in Southern California.
These become the limits of California's use unless water apportioned to
other Lower Basin States is temporally available due to non-use.
California's water use has exceeded it's apportionment of 4.4 maf
for the past two decades. Users in the other Lower Basin States are now
at or near full utilization of their apportionments as well, therefore
California must now live within it basic apportionment. This transition
can be gradual and can be accomplished within the Law of the River.
On January 18, 2001, the Secretary of the Interior issued a Record
of Decision for the approval of ``Colorado River Interim Surplus
Guidelines'' to be used by Interior through 2015 in determining
``surplus'' deliveries to California. These Guidelines under average
water supply assumptions would make surplus water available to fully
meet Arizona, Nevada, and Southern California's urban water needs
through 2015. Without these Guidelines, the probability of these needs
being fully met reduces to approximately 35 percent by 2005 and less
than 20 percent by 2040. It is important to note that surplus water
necessary to keep MWD's aqueduct full in 2001 would not have been
available absent the agreement of the seven Basin States to these
Guidelines. The increased risk in the future of not having a surplus
determination is a direct result of the Upper Basin States exercising
their rights to increase their depletions pursuant to the Colorado
River Compact of 1922.
These Guidelines are the direct result of an intense five-year
effort by the seven Basin States to reach consensus on the matter of
surplus determinations. First set forth within a six Basin State
agreement in late 1998, and achieving seven Basin State consensus in
mid 2000, these Guidelines provide incentives to California to reduce
it's Colorado River uses to 4.4 maf in normal years. They also provide
an assured urban water supply to each of the Lower Basin States during
the period of transition, and assurance that further Upper Basin
development will not be jeopardized. Arizona's Central Arizona Project
is also provided shortage protection of up to 1.0 maf as a result of
agreed to reparation arrangements where California contractors would
limit their use of Colorado River water to mitigate the impacts of any
declared shortage conditions on other Lower Basin States.
With California's implementation of the provisions of its
``Colorado River Water Use Plan,'' MWD's aqueduct remains 400,000 acre-
feet per year short of being at full capacity. Until 2016, this
shortfall will be filled by surplus deliveries from the Colorado River.
After 2015, MWD will only get surplus water perhaps less than 30
percent of the time. In order to insure a full aqueduct of Colorado
River water after 2015, MWD will need to facilitate additional
agricultural to urban conservation transfers.
An enhanced level of trust amongst the seven Basin States has
emerged as a result of these Guideline discussions. California must
maintain that level of trust and complete it's Water Use Plan within
the time frame promised to the other six Basin States.
In summary, Upper Basin development can and will continue under the
terms of the Colorado River Compact of 1922 until Upper Basin
depletions approach the dry cycle firm yield available to the Basin.
This continued development will cause lower average reservoir
conditions in Lake Powell and Lake Mead, respectively. Lower lake
levels at Lake Mead result in fewer opportunities for surplus water
availability on the Colorado River after 2015. This decreased
probability of surplus water will require MWD to find other solutions
internal to California to be able to rely on a full Colorado River
Aqueduct. The interests of the other six Basin States, from 1922 to
present, have been to achieve as much certainty and security as
possible in the use and allocation of the Colorado River System. The
Compact assured the Upper Basin the right to develop it's share of the
Colorado River in perpetuity. The Upper Basin has and will continue to
rely upon the legal framework that now requires California to reduce
it's use of Colorado River Water to 4.4 maf in years of a normal
determination
______
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Hall, you may begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN HALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Steve Hall. I am the Executive
Director of the Association of California Water Agencies. We
represent local water agencies throughout the State of
California. Our largest members serve as many as 17 million
people in California and our smallest ones serve as few as
five.
What I would like to do to make maximum use of my time is
refer to some charts that I believe the Committee staff have
provided to the members of the Subcommittee. They describe what
has been going on in California, and I think the reason it
makes sense to present them here is it not only represents what
is going on in California, it represents something similar to
what is going on throughout the West. So if I can refer the
Subcommittee to these bar charts, I will walk you through them
quickly.
The first simply represents the trend lines in annual
winter run salmon escapement to the upper Sacramento River. The
winter run is endangered species and you can see why. Through
the 1970's and 1980's, populations were fairly healthy.
Beginning in the early 1980's, they dropped dramatically, and
in the late 1980's/early 1990's, they dropped to such
critically low levels that they were listed as endangered.
Now, there was a reaction to that and the reaction is shown
on the next chart. This shows that beginning in 1991, the
Endangered Species Act kicked in to protect these species and
began reducing water deliveries to water users in many areas of
California. Then in 1992, the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act was passed, which put fishery and other
environmental needs on an equal basis to water supply and there
was another drop in water supplies. Then in 1994 and 1995, an
accord was signed which reallocated a substantial portion of
the remaining supplies to the environment. And then beginning
in 1996, there have been a number of other actions under this
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, all of which have led
from water deliveries out of the Bay Delta Estuary, or the hub
of our water supply system in California, from over five
million acre feet annually to less than 2.5 million acre feet
annually, a drop of over 50 percent.
Now, of course, the next chart shows that just because our
water deliveries have dropped does not mean our population has
stopped growing. From 1987 to 2001, it grew from 28 million to
34 million people. It is projected by 2020 to grow to 47.5
million people.
We clearly have to tackle this problem, this tension
between water for the environment and water for our economy and
our quality of life. So if you will look at the next chart, it
shows the funding dedicated to environmental restoration. We
have supported this funding, those of us in the water
community, because we recognize that until populations of
species are stabilized, water supplies will not be stabilized.
So beginning in 1995, we passed first Proposition 204, which
was a $1 billion bond issue at the State level, and in the last
year, in March of 2000, we passed a $2 billion bond issue,
which was for both environmental restoration and water supply
and water quality improvement.
So you can see from 1995 through 2000 the funding for
environmental restoration has ramped up substantially, and the
next chart shows there has been a corresponding biological
benefit. This shows fall run escapement on the Sacramento and
major tributaries. You can see that in the early 1990's, the
numbers were low. Since we began investing in these ecosystem
improvements, you can see the numbers have gone up
substantially. We believe they will continue to rise as we
continue to make these investments.
And now, if I may get to the punch line, we can and we need
to make similar investments in our water infrastructure system.
The next chart shows potential increases in water deliveries if
we implement the projects that are listed on the right-hand
axis of that bar chart.
I am not going to walk through each one of these projects,
but every one of them is something that provides additional
system flexibility. It could be conservation, water
reclamation, a bypass system in one instance around a reservoir
that drops to such a low level that the water quality is
impaired. All of these help meet our water needs in California
while improving environmental conditions.
And then, lastly, the investment cannot stop there. We also
have to invest in new storage, both surface and groundwater
storage. The last bar chart shows, first of all, our baseline,
what storage reservoirs that have been built in the last few
years, and then as the bar charts rise, each one of those
different colors shows various projects that are contemplated
in California, part of a State-Federal partnership that
developed a blueprint for California called CALFED. If we make
these investments, California will be able to meet its water
needs both to fuel its economy, improve its quality of life,
and keep a sound and healthy environment.
Congressman Calvert, the Chairman of this Subcommittee, has
indicated his intention to introduce legislation to authorize
this. I want to pledge to the Chairman and to the members of
the Subcommittee that ACWA will be a full and willing partner
in the crafting of that legislation, and I thank you for the
opportunity.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Statement of Stephen K. Hall, Executive Director, Association of
California Water Agencies
I. Introduction
Chairman Calvert, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Steve Hall, and I am
executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies
(ACWA) the largest and oldest collection of public water agencies in
the country. ACWA's members are responsible for 90 percent of the water
delivered in California--our smallest member serves fewer than 50
people, and our largest serves 17 million urban southern Californians.
This testimony, and the attached graphs are intended to illustrate the
looming water crisis that faces California, and the need to make
investments now to avert that crisis, in California and throughout the
West.
II. California's Water Needs
Today, California's myriad water systems support 35 million people
and the world's seventh largest economy. The state's water
infrastructure is a network of projects large and small, assembled over
decades and with scores of different funding sources. ACWA and its
member agencies have played a major role in every one of California's
large scale water development efforts, from the installation of public
hydropower facilities, to construction of the Central Valley and State
Water Projects, to the environmental restoration efforts currently
moving forward all across the state.
But while the development of California's water system was
undertaken with the best engineering available at the time, no
technology can completely overcome the simple reality that 75 percent
of our state's water falls in its northern half, while 75 percent of
its people live hundreds of miles to the south. In between are scores
of unique ecosystems, each with its own water needs amid growing human
water requirements.
The vagaries of weather patterns and rapidly changing population
trends have a way of confounding water supplies, and this is one of the
guiding truths of California. To overcome this obstacle, planners have
employed a variety of means over time to develop and move water to the
people who need it. In the 1930s the Federal Government constructed the
Central Valley Project. A network of dams, levees and canals, the
Federal CVP is the state's largest water project and today delivers
roughly 3 million acre-feet of water to farms and cities, and underpins
the state's agricultural economy while providing essential flood
control.
In the 1960s California embarked to build its own water supply
network through the State Water Project. The SWP today moves from 2 to
4 million acre-feet of water throughout the state, keeping food prices
stable and affordable and providing drinking water for millions of
people in the valley and south state.
But while these systems are impressive, in the years since
construction of the CVP and SWP, no equally grand water project has
been allowed to move forward. The very few reservoirs built since the
SWP were built only after years of public review and inevitable
political controversy. Nevertheless, during this same time,
California's population has continued to grow, and has nearly tripled
since concrete for the SWP was poured. In the last 11 years, only two
regional reservoirs have been built in California, even though eight
million people have come to the state during that time. Meanwhile, new
awareness of environmental water needs and commitments to protect
salmon have further taken developed supplies away from water users and
re-allocated it to the environment. Over the last decade, several
million acre-feet of water have been shifted each year to meet new
environmental mandates. This rededication of resources, coupled with
rapid population growth, has vastly destabilized California's water
picture.
As a result, California's water system--constrained by its finite
supplies--exists in a continual state of conflict between multiple uses
and competing priorities. Beneath the larger disputes over finite water
supplies and how to use them, lie even more conflicts over the quality
of delivered water, its source, even its temperature in the streambeds.
Under this fractured scenario, California has for years abandoned water
issues to the political realm, missing out on key opportunities to work
together to stabilize its water supply picture and plan for the future.
To compensate for these conflicts, water managers have gone to
great lengths to stretch existing water supplies. California leads the
nation in water recycling and reclamation efforts. Groundwater recharge
and desalination projects are in place in a number of communities
across the state. Drip irrigation and farm conservation systems are
growing 50 percent more food and fiber than was grown 20 years ago on
the same amount of water. And local water managers have implemented
water conservation efforts that are so successful that southern
California's large urban centers today import the same amount of water
they did in 1975. A decade ago California water agencies voluntarily
began a massive water conservation program. Today more than 150
California water agencies are spending millions of dollars each year on
conservation. The result is that today California saves about a half
million acre-feet of water a year through conservation.
Only through such aggressive, pioneering measures have California's
existing water needs been met. But most of California's water system
was built decades ago, before modern construction techniques were
available. Conservation and reclamation efforts can do a lot, but they
cannot singlehandedly meet California's modern water needs. As a
result, not much more can be squeezed from a system that is outdated
and grossly inadequate. The outdated, undersized system in place today
can barely meet the needs of California's agricultural, urban,
environmental and business sectors during wet years as recent events
have shown, and would be unable to meet even basic needs in a sustained
drought.
In spite of the many systems in place to equitably distribute water
supplies, new mandates proliferate, requiring environmental diversions
of water, and resulting in multiplied conflicts. While well
intentioned, the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, Clean
Water Act and Central Valley Improvement Act are now demanding 21st
century performance from a system that essentially pre-dates the Cold
War. In 1999, after a fifth straight wet year, this fact became clear
when regulatory agencies unilaterally shut down water pumping plants to
protect migrating schools of Delta smelt. This action nearly brought
Silicon valley industries to a halt, and threatened to cut off key
supplies to valley farms at the peak of the irrigating season. While it
is true that society as a whole has come to put a greater premium on
protecting natural resources, the pressures of increasing population
have made it more difficult to do so.
Many of the environmental statutes today governing water management
ignore this basic tension, simply trying to force a change back to a
world without man's footprint. The limitations of this approach are
increasingly being seen in the strains on California's water system. If
we are going to satisfy both our desire to protect fish and waterfowl,
while retaining a viable ``habitat'' for 35 million human beings, we
are going to have to invest in new management structures based on
state-of-the-art science and technology. These include new irrigation
equipment, more efficient residential use, and more recycling of water.
But even if we do all these things, we also need more storage of
water--so that there will be enough in the drier years for both people
and fish.
Droughts and flood meanwhile play havoc with the state's water
reliability, placing the state's population and economy in an
increasingly fragile position beneath a looming water crisis.
California needs ways to balance competing needs while accounting for
its varied weather, and this is only possible through investment in its
antiquated water infrastructure.
III. Interdependence with Other States
Like much of the American west, California's water system operates
in a state of close interdependence with that of other states, even
Mexico. The Klamath river flows across the Oregon border. Lake Tahoe
sits astride our eastern neighbor, Nevada. Watersheds and rivers do not
comply with local or interstate boundaries, and as such, necessitate
watershed planning across agency lines and state borders.
Perhaps the best example of California's interdependence with her
neighbors is played out on the Colorado River. In 1922, representatives
of seven states, including California, negotiated the Colorado River
Compact - a road map for dividing the Colorado's waters for flood
control and economic uses in each of the states. The compact was meant
to remove causes of present and future controversies surrounding
apportionment of the river's waters. But those who signed the compact
79 years ago could not have predicted the enormous urban growth in the
desert Southwest, the emphasis Americans would place on protecting the
environment in later decades, or the technological advances that have
since come about.
For years, California has taken up to 1.3 million acre-feet more
than its contractual share of 4.4 million acre-feet from the Colorado,
enabling billions of dollars in annual productivity from southern
California industry and agriculture. But now, neighboring states need
that water and a new agreement has had to be reached. Accordingly,
California is reducing its use of the Colorado so that its neighbors
can also grow. This interdependence, and the successful adoption of a
compromise, will foster balanced growth in the American west. More
importantly, the solution will be graduated in over time, preventing
disruption to the relevant communities and protecting the ecosystems
that have grown up around an altered, though living river.
On Lake Tahoe, joint partnerships between Nevada and California
have enabled the preservation of a national environmental and
recreational treasure. Interstate legislative successes like the one
forged last year between the Congressional delegations of California
and Nevada provides the blueprint of collaboration necessary to promote
regional water stewardship. This spirit should infuse efforts to
resolve the water challenges that lie ahead.
In each of these examples, neighboring states have forged
compromises that enable California to produce. In return, the United
States has in California an engine of economic growth that propels its
varied economies, develops new technology and feeds millions of people
beyond its own borders. Just as electricity is transmitted across state
lines to cities in California, so has the water it shares with its
neighbors brought benefits to many on both sides of the state line.
But by the same token, unless we lead the way to increased
California water capacity, the rolling blackouts currently buffeting
western power supplies could very likely blackout local water supplies,
with far more severe results.
IV. Benefits of an Improved California Water Picture
Environmental mandates adopted during the past generation aim to
stabilize declines in fish runs and wetlands, and redress environmental
damage that has been caused by an infrastructure system constructed
before the age of environmental protection. At the same time, these
efforts have exchanged environmental progress for economic uncertainty,
to the point where today, real businesses are facing skyrocketing
costs, and making real decisions to leave the state.
If California's water supply picture can be stabilized,
considerable additional progress can be made on behalf of the
environment. A secure, modern water infrastructure that captures more
of the excess water during floods for use during dry periods could
drastically reduce pressure on existing river systems. As things stand
today, vast quantities of fresh water run out to the Pacific Ocean
during floods because, even if the authority to do so were granted, we
physically don't have enough room to store the water. Floods in
themselves are harmful, but if their excess flows could be stored,
significant amounts of water could be left in rivers during later years
to benefit fish and wildlife.
The wetlands that are home to millions of migratory birds offer
another graphic example of how improvements in California carry over
into neighboring states. The health of the flyways and ecosystems in
Oregon, Washington and Alaska that support migrating waterfowl are
acutely impacted by the condition of wetlands in our state. With
balanced management and a stabilized water system in California, many
wetlands that might otherwise serve as a needed water source can be
preserved and improved.
A stabilized California water picture will also mitigate for the
state's chief crisis today--a shortage of power. Water pumping--pushing
it over mountain ranges, and pulling it from out of the ground--is the
greatest single use of electricity in the state. Refining and diluting
finite water supplies to meet current Safe Drinking Water Act standards
further consumes the state's chronically short supplies. If more water
were available, distributed across the state in surface and underground
reservoirs to meet these needs, more power would be generated, and far
less power would be needed to quench the thirst of California's water
users.
But perhaps the best example of the benefits of an improved
California water picture is the benefit promised to the regional
economies. Central valley agriculture allows school lunch programs and
fresh produce to remain affordable. Silicon valley industry develops
semiconductors and powers space exploration. Statewide manufacturing,
filmmaking, tourism, recreation, construction, housing, fishing,
transportation and education pump billions of dollars into the region
that spills over and multiplies across the western states. If this is
to continue and future generations are to enjoy, at a minimum, the
prosperity experienced by our own, we must safeguard and improve
California's water picture.
V. The Key to Improving California's Water Picture
California is mired in a power crisis today for several independent
reasons, but chief among these is its failure to recognize mounting
demand for a finite power supply. This simple discrepancy cannot be
allowed to repeat itself in water, for the stakes are far greater and
the remedies far more complex.
Today, the average amount of time necessary to complete a water
storage reservoir is 15 years, from planning to design to construction.
Unfortunately, the demand for water does not wait that long. California
has been able to get by with its existing demands only through the
innovative water measures mentioned above. But the effectiveness of
those measures has reached their limit. As has happened in the energy
market, unless we invest in expanding the capacity of our water
infrastructure, California will fall victim to another totally
foreseeable crisis, for no other reason than its refusal to prepare.
In our view, the best way to avoid this crisis is to begin
preparing through targeted investments in California's water
infrastructure. These investments will have demonstrated environmental
and economic benefits, not only in California, but throughout the West.
California can provide enough water for a healthier economy and a
healthier environment; for safe drinking water while continuing to
irrigate; for healthy ecosystems and water to run our high tech
businesses; for a healthy interstate flyway and for commercial fishing;
for a high quality of life for Californians and a high quality habitat
for our wildlife.
But California can only provide these things through a partnership
among Federal, state and local governments. That partnership must
involve the intellectual capital and the funding necessary to meet all
of these needs. The interest, indeed the need within California to make
these investments is clear. That is why Californians overwhelmingly
passed a $1 billion water bond in 1996, and another $2 billion water
bond in March, 2000.
But it is also clear that there is a strong Federal interest in
making these investments. First, there is a strong Federal interest
because the Federal Government owns and operates the Central Valley
Project, the single largest water project in the state of California.
The continued viability of that project depends on making these
investments. Second, there is a strong Federal interest in protecting
and enhancing environmental treasures, such as the San Francisco Bay-
Delta Estuary. Congress has demonstrated a commitment to such
environmental protection through investments in Chesapeake Bay, the
Great Lakes and, most recently, the Florida Everglades. The need for a
similar investment in this estuary is no less compelling. Third, the
important Federal policy of improving the safety of drinking water for
all Americans is causing California water systems to make substantial
investments in water quality. At the same time, they are also being
asked to support environmental improvements.
Finally, many of the laws that have reallocated much of
California's water resources are Federal laws like the Federal
Endangered Species Act and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
These laws, while providing broad societal benefits through
environmental protection, have had the effect of destabilizing our
water supply system and exacerbating the conflict among competing needs
for water within the state. It is an unfortunate fact that the broad
societal benefits from the preservation of species is accomplished at a
cost borne by a relatively small number of citizens. We do not believe
this mistake should continue.
There are those who call for any investments in water
infrastructure to be paid for exclusively by water users, on the basis
that only those who directly use the water developed see benefit from
it; and with the further argument that any environmental water that has
been reallocated has been simply given back to the environment from
which it was taken. We categorically reject the notion that there is no
broad societal benefit to water infrastructure investments that enhance
our environment as well as our ability to deliver safe, reliable,
affordable water. There is clearly an interest in producing these
economic, public safety and environmental benefits, both at the state
and Federal levels.
We therefore believe any plan to finance the investments that are
needed should be shared among water users, the state government and the
Federal Government. The share borne by water users should be
commensurate with the benefits that they receive, and structured in a
way that accounts for the fact that any future water development will
come at a substantially higher cost than water developed earlier, a
portion of which has been reallocated. This point is important because
when those earlier water projects were developed, it was on the basis
of contracts that were entered into in good faith by local interests.
To the extent conditions have changed by virtue of a changing of
societal values, the cost of those changes should be borne broadly, not
exclusively by those who are under current contracts.
We will support a financing plan that takes all of these factors
into account and which fairly apportions the costs accordingly.
The Chairman of this Subcommittee, Congressman Calvert, has
announced his intention to develop legislation to authorize
implementation of a comprehensive plan to develop additional water
supplies and restore environmental values within California. This
comprehensive plan has come to be known as CALFED, based on the
partnership between the state of California and the Federal Government,
which led the effort to develop this plan. ACWA and its members have
been actively involved in the development of this plan, and we support
its implementation, provided it can be implemented in a way that
balances competing needs. We wholeheartedly pledge our support for
Congressman Calvert and a commitment to work cooperatively with him as
well as other members of Congress and stakeholders within California to
develop this legislation.
______
[The charts referred to in Mr. Hall's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1508.001
A[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1508.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1508.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1508.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1508.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1508.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1508.007
Mr. Calvert. I will begin the round of questions, and I
will impose a five-minute rule upon myself and on the rest of
the members and I am sure we will have an opportunity for a
second round if there are some additional questions.
Mr. Hall, how much water has been reallocated from the
water users to the environment?
Mr. Hall. Well, if you look at this one chart, this second
chart, it is pretty clear that about half of the water
currently that was exported from the Bay Delta Estuary to areas
in central and Southern California has been reallocated, and it
is a little over two million acre feet.
Mr. Calvert. About two million acre feet entirely to the
environment?
Mr. Hall. Right.
Mr. Calvert. Should projects receiving State and Federal
funds be required to provide a benefit-cost ratio?
Mr. Hall. I think any project that is contemplated today
has to pass the muster of the benefits exceeding the costs.
Mr. Calvert. And in regards to that, should we build the
most cost-effective projects as far as CALFED is concerned
first, or should they all receive equal priority?
Mr. Hall. I think what we have to look at is the overall
benefit-cost ratio, and those with the highest benefit-cost
ratio should probably go first. That makes sense.
Mr. Calvert. We saw the charts, but with the increasing
demand for water and low supplies, how will the various fish
recovery programs be affected around the State as increasing
demand is proliferating all throughout the State of California?
Mr. Hall. There are some who, I am sure, would like to see
us go back to a natural system, tear down the dams and wipe out
the levees, and that might work if you did not have 35 million
people and projected to go to 50 million. But the fact of the
matter is, the only way for us to reduce the tension between
environmental needs and human needs is to invest in a system
that will provide more water when it is most critically needed.
California is and always has been a State with highly
variable water supplies. It does not rain from May through
October and there are some extremely wet periods, flood periods
even. Nineteen-ninety-seven was the flood of record, followed
by extreme droughts. We have to be able to conserve water,
store it and conserve it, so that we can make water available
for fish as well as for people.
Mr. Calvert. And that comes to your last chart, water
storage. Based upon the different methods of storage throughout
California, both south and north, you show an additional
storage of about 2.5 million acre feet of water, is that
correct?
Mr. Hall. Well, right now, the two projects that have been
built in recent--
Mr. Calvert. Excuse me, six million acre feet of water. I
was looking at the wrong chart.
Mr. Hall. We can take that from a little under one million
acre feet to over six million acre feet.
Mr. Calvert. Right. Now, when we have the six million acre
feet of water storage constructed, how long will that take us
into the future if, in fact, all of that storage is, in fact,
created?
Mr. Hall. If you can tell me how many babies are going to
be born in California, I can tell you that number. I can tell
you this. For the foreseeable future, for the planning horizon
that is prudent for California, this will meet the needs for
the State. You might say 2020, 2030 would be an appropriate
planning horizon.
Mr. Calvert. But certainly, at the very least, this must be
completed in order to meet any of the requirements that people
have outlined, both for the urban users, the rural users, and
certainly for the environment.
Mr. Hall. Well, we have spent the last six years, Mr.
Chairman, discussing, debating, and flat arguing over what is
the appropriate mix. If we do the right mix of these things on
the last two bar charts, conservation, reclamation, water
transfers, some of the other infrastructure items besides
storage, and we build this surface and groundwater storage, we,
I believe, can meet our needs. If we do not do that, it is not
just my opinion, it is the collective opinion of the people who
have been involved in CALFED that we will not meet those needs
unless we take these actions.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Cook, you mentioned that the Metropolitan
Water District will need to make other arrangements in its
water contracts after 2015 as California is weaned down to its
4.4 million acre foot allocation. Are you speculating,
obviously, that the water is going to come from this additional
storage and from better groundwater and recycling use in
California? Is that your assumption?
Mr. Cook. It could come from those sources, no doubt. It
perhaps may also come from additional agricultural transfers,
either as a result of infrastructure investment on the
agricultural side to free up additional water. It could perhaps
come from some fallowing of marginal lands. And ultimately, the
Metropolitan Water District may have to go to the sea.
Mr. Calvert. Including desalinization. I see my five
minutes are up. Mr. Dooley?
Mr. Dooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall, on your proposed increases in water deliveries on
the non-storage, you show a significant level of increase
through urban conservation, almost to the tune of a million
acre feet. Now, is that a million acre feet from today's uses?
Mr. Hall. Yes.
Mr. Dooley. Then you also show another almost, it looks
like 500,000 acre feet of conservation through ag uses. What
are the primary components that are going to lead to that level
of return?
Mr. Hall. In the urban setting, there are any number of
things that can and are being done. Obviously, lower
consumption inside the house, low-flow shower heads, low-flush
toilets, clothes washers and dishwashers that use less water.
Outside the house, there is even more potential for
conservation. Obviously, within the industrial sector, there is
a good deal of potential in water conservation within the urban
setting.
In agriculture, I hesitate to lecture you, Mr. Dooley,
because you are a farmer, but there is potential to go to lower
water-using forms of irrigation. I want to emphasize that most
of this will not occur in the Central Valley, because even
though an individual farmer in the Central Valley may implement
water conservation, it does not necessarily lead to increased
Basin-wide efficiency and lower water use because the water use
in the Central Valley of California, according to the experts,
is already 96 percent efficient Basin-wide, so there is not a
lot of potential there. But in other areas in the State, there
are some potential conservation savings.
Mr. Dooley. What are the, I guess, the public policy issues
and incentives that need to be put in place in order to secure
this million acre feet of conservation in urban uses?
Mr. Hall. I think, certainly, a partnership, a financial
partnership among the Federal Government, the State government,
and local interests needs to be there. I think incentives, in
other words, need to be provided through grants and loans,
through tax incentives, to those who are in the private sector
so that they can make the investments necessary. And in the
agricultural sector, obviously, to the extent you conserve, you
ought to be able to keep the water that you have conserved.
That is a pretty strong incentive.
Mr. Dooley. On your proposed new storage capacity, and this
relates, I think, to Mr. Ose's opening statement where he said
he was willing to meet Senator Feinstein halfway, and I think
he was implying that he thinks that in her CALFED
reauthorization proposal, and you can correct me if I am wrong,
Mr. Ose, is that there needs to be specific authorizations for
some of these components. What is ACWA's position on that? Do
you suggest, in the number of proposals that you have here, is
ACWA on record as supporting the actual authorization as being
in the CALFED bill?
Mr. Hall. ACWA is on record supporting the record of
decision that was issued in August of last year, and what the
record of decision calls for is for an enlargement of Shasta
Reservoir, an enlargement of Los Vaqueros Reservoir, and in-
delta storage, either the delta wetlands or its functional
equivalent. It calls for further study of projects like Sites
Reservoir with the clear understanding that the record of
decision recognizes that there is a need for upstream of delta
off-stream storages, like Sites Reservoir would provide.
So while Sites is not quite ready to go, it clearly is the
leading candidate for the kind of project that CALFED has said
needs to be built. So we support going ahead with the studies
necessary to determine whether, in fact, Sites can meet the
benefit cost and environmental and economic feasibility tests,
and if it does, it should be built.
Mr. Dooley. In the last draft proposal that I saw from
Senator Feinstein, I understood that it included the record of
decision and basically included what I thought was the position
that you just articulated. Is there a difference between what
Senator Feinstein has offered and what you have just stated?
Mr. Hall. My reading of the bill indicates that those first
three projects that I identified, Shasta, Los Vaqueros, and in-
delta storage, that once the studies are done necessary to get
a permit, they would go to the Secretary of Interior for
approval, and that is sort of an internal due diligence kind of
process. Projects like Sites would go to the authorizing
Committees, beginning with this Subcommittee and then to the
full Committee, and I think that is probably an appropriate
demarcation or distinction between those two projects and
probably a good way to go.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Osborne?
Mr. Osborne. I am going to take a little different tack
here. I am very interested in fishing, and I know that is
probably a major difficulty for some of you folks, but I have
looked at some of the charts there and in increasing your
storage capacity, what will that do to the salmon runs? You are
talking about the Sacramento River and some of the other
places. Do you have any information there?
Mr. Hall. Well, I do, and from all of the available
information, it will improve the salmon runs, and let me
explain how. We are not talking about putting dams on live
streams. These are all off-stream storage reservoirs. The water
would be pumped or diverted from the river during extremely
high-flow periods, stored, and then re-released during drier
times. The way our plumbing system works, all of this watershed
feeds toward what we call the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary.
It is our largest and most important estuary, but it is also
the hub of our water resource system. So the water users and
the fish have to share it.
What these reservoirs will do is allow us to provide more
in-stream flow during these dry periods to protect fish that
are migrating upstream and fish that are migrating downstream
while at the same time being diverted when it is safe for the
fish to divert and used for consumptive purposes, as well.
It is a pretty well-designed system. It speaks to what we
call the time value of water. In California, there are periods
of time when we have got more than we can handle, and that is
called a flood. There are a lot of periods--every year, it does
not rain from May through October, so we have got to have water
stored to meet needs during that period of time, both fish and
human needs. And, of course, we do have droughts, and this year
is a very dry year. Our snowpack is 63 percent of normal. So we
are going to need the storage this year, not only to get us
through the dry times but to get us through what we would
normally think of as the wet times.
As I said earlier in my testimony, right now, we have a
huge conflict because there is not in those dry times enough
water for both fish and people. We have got to store it when it
is wet so that there is enough for fish and people. I believe
if we make those investments, combined with investments in the
habitat that we have already begun to make, you will see fish
populations recover.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you. I have no further questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. If the gentleman would yield some of your time
over to me just for a second, I would like to carry on just
what you said, because it is very important that as we are
involved in an unfortunate energy shortage in the West, there
was a comment made, I think at the previous hearing, we are
making decisions now that sometimes we may not have made a year
or two ago because of the crisis.
If we do not have this additional storage, then additions
may be made somewhere down the road where we would make
decisions, whether it be for fish or for people, and I suspect
that the latter will win out. So the additional storage, I
think, if it is used properly, will not only assist in the fish
populations but make sure that we have the storage necessary to
make sure we meet both of those priorities.
With that, Mrs. Solis, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. Solis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question is for Mr. Hall. I wanted to ask if at all it
is possible to compare the energy requirements of pumping water
out of the delta down to Southern California with the energy
requirements of water recycling.
Mr. Hall. There is--I would like to speak to that, because
we get water from a variety of sources. The surface water that
we deliver from the delta is a relatively low energy user in
comparison to other ways that we get water. For instance, if
you deliver water out of the delta into Central Valley
agriculture, it uses about four times less energy than pumping
it from underground. Likewise, although I do not have a similar
ratio on reclamation, reclamation is a relatively large energy
user. It requires a lot of process, a lot of energy demand in
order to take raw wastewater and turn it into usable reclaimed
water.
Mrs. Solis. To your knowledge, has anyone done a study on
that?
Mr. Hall. I do not know of a detailed study, but I do know
people in the business who are very familiar with designing
reclamation plants and I would be happy to provide that for
you, Congresswoman Solis.
Mrs. Solis. Just another quick question. You know, in the
San Gabriel Valley, we have a very large aquifer there. Talking
about storage, what are your thoughts on potential storage
usage there for Southern California?
Mr. Hall. Let me speak generally first on groundwater
storage. I think much of the new water development that we do
in California will be storing water underground. There is
tremendous storage capability in California underground. It is
relatively inexpensive. It is somewhere between environmentally
benign and environmentally beneficial, depending on how it is
designed and operated. So I think there is a lot of potential
there.
In Southern California, I commend you because you have
taken the lead, not only in the San Gabriel Valley but in the
West L.A. Basin, in Orange County, and elsewhere in the inland
empire. There are groundwater projects either operating today
or being planned and implemented, and I think the San Gabriel
Valley is, frankly, one of the Los Angeles Basin's most
valuable resources. It makes sense to not only protect it from
contamination, but to make maximum use of it.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Ose?
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall, if I understand your graph here, the one with the
big blue thing--
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir?
Mr. Ose. From 1992 to 1999, we had a reduction in delivery
capability for whatever reason from about 5.2 million acre feet
of water down to about 2.5 million acre feet, is that correct?
Mr. Hall. That is correct.
Mr. Ose. From your understanding of the situation in
California, for the upcoming year, are we in a surplus or a
deficit as it relates to deliverability of water?
Mr. Hall. Most areas, certainly in the Central Valley
Project Service area, which is the Federal project, and the
State Water Project service area, they are substantially below.
They are looking at about 40 percent deliveries right now.
Mr. Ose. So we are in a deficit?
Mr. Hall. Yes, a 60 percent deficit.
Mr. Ose. Based on historical norms, how long can we expect
the shortage to continue before we go back to wet years?
Mr. Hall. Well, I think I understand your point, and if it
is that we tend to have dry years back to back instead of one
at a time. Of course, it is impossible to predict that, but in
1928 through 1934, in 1976 and 1977, 1977 being the worst
drought, one-year drought of record, and in 1986 through 1992,
those were all back-to-back-to-back dry years. It could be a
boomer of a wet year next year. It could be dry for the next
ten. It is literally impossible to determine, but we often do
get dry years back to back.
Mr. Ose. What is the economic consequence of a 60 percent
reduction in deliverable water supply?
Mr. Hall. Well, I cannot recite the loss off the top of my
head, but it has been well documented that in California, when
urban and agricultural areas are short, there are substantial
economic dislocations in the hundreds of millions and billions
of dollars. During the last drought, some of the water users
received one year no water at all from the project. They paid
for 100 percent of it. They got none of it. I do not know of
any small business that can be sustained on that basis.
I will tell you this. Because of the reallocations of water
back to the environment, if we were to have a repeat of the
1986 through 1992 drought, those same water users who did not
get water in one year, they would not get water for 3 years.
Other urban water users, while they would get some water, they
would be in the 30 to 50 percent supply range, requiring
extraordinary rationing for industry and for homes.
Mr. Ose. If I understand your testimony, the only way to
assuredly meet the demands given the fluctuation in
meteorological conditions is to create storage where we could
hold water for dry years.
Mr. Hall. Well, I really do think, if I can refer you to
the last two charts, I think it is a mix. We clearly need
storage. If we also implement the measures that are on the
next-to-last bar chart, including conservation, reclamation,
and the other projects that are listed there, it will all go
toward correcting the imbalance that currently exists between
demand and supply in California.
Mr. Ose. So you need both parts?
Mr. Hall. We need both parts.
Mr. Ose. Okay. Now I want to go to Mr. Cook. Mr. Hall's
testimony reflects current situation analysis. However, if we
start losing water off the Colorado in California, does it help
us or hurt us and to what degree is it positive or negative?
Mr. Cook. Metropolitan Water District has a fairly
substantial contract, I think, with water out of Northern
California and I suspect as the water supply reliability from
the Colorado River changes with time as the Upper Basin
continues to develop and Lake Powell and Lake Mead are drawn
down and surplus capability is stretched out further and
further after 2015, the demand on the Metropolitan Water
District will then increase from the northern part of
California, not decrease.
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple
of questions, both for Mr. Hall and to Mr. Cook.
To Mr. Hall, given that we know we will be facing drought
conditions as a matter of cyclical issues, given that we have
by the year 2015 to live within certain water allocations,
given that we have found a way to be able to reuse some water
by treating it with tertiary treatment and that two-thirds of
it is pumped into the ocean and that EPA now is mandating
sanitation districts to give it a fourth treatment before it is
pumped into the ocean, is it possible--has anybody begun to
look at recuperating that water?
If you are giving it a fourth treatment, basically, it is
cleaner than the water we are now drinking, according to
analysts. How do we begin to look at either nature's natural
filtering to pump it back into the aquifers, back into
reservoirs, or into lakes and rivers that need the infusion of
water, which will make it extremely usable? I mean, there will
be no contaminants in it. Have we looked at that? Is anybody
aware of what is happening, to put it all together and say, we
need to work on water marketing that includes not only the
cleaning, the storage, the recycling, all of these different
things? How do we package this and is it important for us to
know that you are looking at it and how we can address it?
And to Mr. Cook, the Upper Basin, again, with Title 16, can
we get some support for California's, given that we are doing
all these different things to try to cut the use of water, for
the funding for these projects? Gentlemen?
Mr. Hall. Would you like me to respond first, Mr. Cook?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
Mr. Hall. I think you have hit on it Congresswoman. We do
need to package this combined water treatment, water marketing,
and water supply and water quality in one package, and I have
to say, although it has got its problems, CALFED has done a
pretty good job of doing that. The Santa Anna Watershed Project
Authority has done something for its own area of the State that
is entirely consistent with, compatible with what CALFED has
produced.
So I think those are two examples of thinking along those
very lines. I want to give you one more that is very recent.
Orange County Water District and Orange County Sanitation
District just signed a major agreement to reclaim hundreds of
thousands of acre feet of water, put them in the groundwater
basin for storage, hitting on the concept that Congresswoman
Solis mentioned, to make that water available. It is not going
to the ocean, it is going into the ground. We will reuse it. It
does take advantage of nature's natural filtering mechanism to
accomplish that.
That is the kind of measure that I think we can take to
reduce our demands on the bay delta system and to reduce our
demands on the Colorado, and I want to agree with Mr. Cook. If
the operating criteria and guidelines had not been established,
California would be worse off, not better off. So we support
that. And like you, I hope, in return, Mr. Cook will support
funding for Title 16.
Mr. Cook. Well, obviously, I cannot speak for the
Congressional delegations of the Upper Basin States, but I
suspect to the extent that those projects make economic sense
that they surely would not object to them and perhaps would
support them.
Mrs. Napolitano. I would appreciate any advice that you can
so that we can become successful, because I think it is going
to be on all of us to work together to make it happen.
Mr. Cook. Obviously, and we agree. That is where we have
been for quite some time now in terms of the other Basin
States.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Radanovich?
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall, in your delivery capacity charts, you have shown
that since the implementation of CVPIA in 1992 that there has
been water taken from a finite source that went to the
environment. Where was it taken away from during that period?
Mr. Hall. Most of it was taken away from contractors south
of the delta, downstream of the delta. In the Central Valley
Project Service Area, some of it was taken from the State Water
Project Service Area. And there were a few others who lost
water, but most of it was taken from those two contractor
groups.
Mr. Radanovich. Is it safe to say that those groups have
been in a shortage situation since that time?
Mr. Hall. In particular, the San Luis Unit of the Central
Valley Project has been critically short of water since then.
Mr. Radanovich. I notice in your other chart where you
showed the funding dedicated to environmental restoration,
showed the skyrocketing amounts going toward environmental
restoration, you forgot to show the chart that showed the
skyrocketing sums of money going to increased water storage.
Did you intentionally leave that out or what is the deal?
Mr. Hall. Well, that has not happened yet, and really, that
is what we are here for, is to urge Congress to consider as a
part of this authorization ramping up the investment in our
water infrastructure, not just storage, but the other measures
on that next-to-last chart. If we make those investments, we
can bring into balance our supply and demand. If we do not, we
cannot.
Mr. Radanovich. And I feel comfortable that we are
beginning to address those long-term needs. I guess the point
that I want to make is that since 1995, certain segments of
California have been facing water shortages and it is going to
be a while before long-term water increases are made available
to the public, and I am glad that we are finally making
investments to do that, but what about regulatory relief on the
short term for those that are already suffering, have been
suffering, and will, God forbid that we get into another series
of droughts?
Mr. Hall. Well, there are some measures that do clearly
need to be taken. The record of decision called for certain
actions to be taken to improve the flexibility in the way the
regulatory requirements work, particularly with respect to the
Endangered Species Act. But there are some ambiguities in the
record of decision which we believe Congress could help
clarify.
For instance, a wonderful concept was developed in the
record of decision, and that is that you would have the
regulatory agencies essentially acquire from willing sellers a
certain block of water. In this case, it is 180,000 acre feet
annually. That water would be dedicated to meet the needs of
endangered species instead of taking it from project users on a
non-voluntary, uncompensated basis. It is a great concept. The
concept was to provide assurances to those water users that
their water would not be taken instead.
However, what is left unclear is what the priority would be
for that water in that what we call environmental water
account. Is it primarily to make sure that you avoid jeopardy
for listed species? We believe that is the intended purpose.
But the Fish and Wildlife Service is now saying,``well, we are
not so sure. We may want to use it for something else.'' And
frankly, that completely undoes the assurances that we believe
were part and parcel of the record of decision.
So I believe that is the sort of issue that does need to be
addressed so that we not only make the investment, we know that
the investments will lead to balanced outcomes. We do not want
to try to rewrite the Endangered Species Act or the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act. We do think that the record of
decision in some areas, it does need to be clarified so that,
again, we all know what the rules of the road are.
Mr. Radanovich. So in your opinion--you mentioned the
Endangered Species Act and CVPIA, which is the main regulatory
authority on the distribution of water. Do you think that there
is enough leeway in both those laws to get us through a water
shortage if they are done correctly administratively or do you
think that there is going to need to be a change in those laws
in order to accommodate people in the short term before we get
long-term water storage?
Mr. Hall. I think we need two things. We need the
investments that I have called for and we need the discretion
that the regulatory agencies have under existing law to be
exercised in a way that minimizes the amount of water taken
from water users in order to accomplish the necessary
environmental purposes. Right now, that is not being done.
Mr. Radanovich. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Dooley, any additional questions?
Mr. Dooley. No.
Mr. Calvert. I have one question. We mentioned clearing
some things up and Mr. Radanovich did an excellent job of
bringing this out, also, but do you think it is inconsistent
with the ROD to also have more specific language in regards to
storage, because there apparently is a perception that more
attention is brought toward the environmental side of this than
there is on the storage side of this. This is a balance, as you
know, around here in trying to balance the needs of the
environment to the needs of additional water and certainly
storage is a part of that. Do you think there are any
inconsistencies in having language in any potential legislation
pointing that out?
Mr. Hall. That storage is going to be part of the plan?
Mr. Calvert. Well, more specific language in stating that
the storage is going to be built.
Mr. Hall. I would not rely solely on my opinion. I am
relying on the people who actually wrote the record of decision
and they tell me it was their clear intent that additional
surface and groundwater storage would be part of this plan.
Mr. Calvert. So it is not inconsistent for us to--
Mr. Hall. I do not believe so.
Mr. Calvert. Great. That was what I wanted to hear. Any
other additional questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Calvert. One more question for Mr. Cook, another issue
but certainly something to do with the Colorado River. How are
the lower lake levels at Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam going
to affect power generation this summer?
Mr. Cook. They will not be down a great deal this year.
Water supplies from the Upper Basin, again, like in California,
are not very good. We are looking at forecasts in the 80
percent. It will drop Lake Powell some. Lake Mead's demands
will drop it some this year, too.
I suspect that, at least out of Lake Powell, the power
capability at Lake Powell is constrained as much by the Grand
Canyon Protection Act and the work that has been done there for
environmental purposes. About a third of its capacity is
currently not available except under emergency measures. Lake
Powell is only down about 25 feet now, and so it is still
fairly capable of developing--
Mr. Calvert. Well, we may have some emergency measures this
summer.
Mr. Cook. You have been doing that, and I think we have
responded when we can.
Mr. Calvert. I appreciate that. Are there any additional
questions for this panel? Mr. Ose?
Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With the price of power in California, recognizing that the
Bureau in many cases generates its own, does Congress need to
prepare itself for additional funding being provided to the
Bureau for pumping purposes? Do either of you have any input on
that, within the CVP?
Mr. Hall. First of all, I would invite you to talk to the
Bureau. I do not know what they have done to amend their
budgets. They do buy power and generate power. They buy a lot
of their power from WAPA, which is not an investor-owned
utility, and they generate some of their own.
I guess what I would like to see Congress take a look at is
whether we are maximizing the use of the hydroelectric
facilities that the Bureau owns and operates and are we doing
as much as we can, again, to balance the needs of fisheries
with human needs, not just for water but for power. Again, I am
not trying to shortchange the fish. I just want to make sure we
are making maximum use of these assets for both environmental
and human purposes. I am not sure today that we are.
Mr. Ose. But you do not have any information about the
relative lack or surplus funding that the Bureau may have right
now due to power?
Mr. Hall. We can certainly get it and provide it to you,
but I do not have it today.
Mr. Ose. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And for our last question, Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Right along the same line that my
colleague was talking about is who do you think, or how can we
pay for this new water infrastructure? What would be the ideal
way that we should start looking at, because it is going to
cost money. It is not going to be free. That is one question.
The other one is, talking about the question you just answered,
it seems to me I just read that even though some of the lakes
where the salmon fisheries are, that even though the water is
down, there is a record number of hatchlings or fingerlings or
whatever you call them? They have increased for some reason?
Mr. Hall. There are very healthy counts of both in-
migrating and out-migrating salmon in the Sacramento main stem
and its main tributaries today.
Mrs. Napolitano. Is that not unusual? I mean, normally, you
would think that you would be losing some of that reproductive
process.
Mr. Hall. Well, we have had six wet years. We have invested
a lot in the ecosystem. We have curtailed pumping
substantially. All of those things are supposed to help fish
and it appears they are.
Mrs. Napolitano. What would you think would be the ideal
way to make sure that these new projects in this new water
infrastructure can be addressed financially?
Mr. Hall. Well, I think what works best is a partnership at
the Federal, State, and local level. I am not prepared to say
what the cost sharing should be among the various parties
because a lot of that depends on how the project is used. Some
of the projects will be almost entirely environmental benefits.
Some of them will be almost entirely water user benefits. Those
cost shares should be different.
I will say this. I think every project ought to mitigate
its own impacts, but only its own impacts, and too often, there
are various stresses on the system that are not accounted for
and so all of the impact mitigation is placed on the project,
the water project.
Well, in the Bay Delta Estuary, we have a lot of stress on
fish. Some of that comes from invasive species. There are a lot
of species that are not native to those waters that have moved
in through a variety of means. They are predators to the fish
that are endangered or they compete for food or they just
compete for habitat. They have had a tremendous impact. In
fact, some ecologists think they have had more impact than any
other single factor. That is not accounted for. Pollution is
not accounted for. Over-fishing is not accounted for. Every
time there is a mitigation requirement, it is on water
projects.
Frankly, that is not appropriate, because what happens is
on those water users, it has placed the entire burden for
mitigating for all of those impacts and for meeting the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered
Species Act provides broad societal benefits through the
preservation of species. The costs for that preservation should
be broadly shared.
So whatever test, whatever cost-sharing formula is created,
in our view, it has to meet the test of, is it fair to place
all of the burden on a few water users or should broad societal
benefits be shared broadly in terms of their cost. We obviously
believe they should be shared broadly.
And what is going to happen is that you are going to take a
lot of water that has been developed in previous years which is
relatively inexpensive and you are going to replace that with
high-cost water and then you are going to say, well, you water
users are just going to have to pay the bill, when, in fact,
that water has been reallocated to meet a broad societal
benefit. I can tell you, we are going to argue very vigorously
that we ought to mitigate the impacts that we create, but we
ought not be responsible for anything beyond that.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Radanovich?
Mr. Radanovich. One last quick question. Mr. Chairman, you
had mentioned balance between three stakeholders, the way I see
it, environmentalists and agriculture and urban water users in
California, and I know back in 1995, when the first funding of
CALFED began to originate, the idea was that no stakeholder
would be pushed out or let out ahead too far of the other one
in order to keep everybody on the same page in developing a
California water plan. Can you tell me, though, Mr. Hall, what
has been the proportion of funding between urban and ag and
water since that time?
Mr. Hall. You mean how much for water supply and quality
versus the environment?
Mr. Radanovich. Yes, or if we want to do it as simply as
possible, a ratio between fish and people, which would lump up
ag and urban together.
Mr. Hall. It is clear that the Federal money, there was
$430 million authorized and, I believe, $160 million
appropriated, and the vast majority of that, virtually all of
it, went to environmental projects. Now, I want to say, in
fairness--
Mr. Radanovich. But there were ancillary benefits to
agriculture and urban users.
Mr. Hall. Right, there were, no question about it. I mean,
stabilizing the population helps. Plus, some of that money was
invested in fish screens. Fish screens allow people to pump
water without hurting the fish, so there is a multiple benefit
there, no question about it. But all of that money, virtually,
went to the environmental side. It is just that it did have
some ancillary benefits.
On the State side, there was a $1 billion bond issue in
1996. That was an environmental bond issue. Again, some
ancillary benefits. And last year, there was a $2 billion bond
issue and that went for multiple things. It went for
environmental work, it went for water reclamation and
conservation, it went for local groundwater projects, it went
for some improvements in the delta. It is much harder to sort
out how much for water supply, how much for the environment.
The bulk of it to date has been for environmental restoration.
But I want to say something about that. I am glad that has
happened, because if we had not done that work, I do not
believe we would be even poised to make the investments that we
are making today because those fish populations would have
crashed. I firmly believe that. I am glad we did it, but we
cannot stop there. If we do, we are going to be in water where
we are in energy, and that is not just going to impact
California, it is going to impact the entire West.
Mr. Radanovich. And I think it is important for members to
recognize that when we do get into additional funding, that the
lion's share has been environmental funding up to this point
and the focus does need to be on long-term storage.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mrs. Solis?
Mrs. Solis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You touched on a sensitive nerve there for me in my
district because we have obviously a problem with contaminated
water in our area, a Superfund site out in the San Gabriel
Valley. And when you talk about sharing the responsibility for
cleanup, if a project comes in and begins the mitigation
process and they find that there are other ancillary or other
problems that have come about through other responsible
parties, this has been an ongoing issue for us down there, in
trying to make those responsible that have been identified by
the Federal Government to come to the table. We have had 20
years of litigation and we have yet to see any resolution.
What would be a quick way, or I am sure you have put a lot
of thought into this, that we could start to begin this process
of providing relief, because as you say, this is a benefit for
everyone down there? We are talking about over three million
people in that area.
Mr. Hall. I certainly believe in the concept that whoever
is responsible for the contamination should bear that
responsibility, though, as you point out, it is often extremely
difficult to find them and to compel them to pay. In the
meantime, you cannot let the resource be further degraded. I
think both at the local and the State as well as at the Federal
level, steps do need to be taken to provide the necessary
cleanup and remediation of those contaminated sites, because if
you do not, then it does not matter who is paying in the end,
they are going to pay a lot more.
So I guess I would advocate a two-prong strategy. Go after
the responsible parties, but at the same time, do not wait
until all those ``i''s are dotted and ``t''s crossed to start
cleaning it up, because if you do, the mess is going to be a
lot bigger.
And the other thing is--forgive me for getting on my
soapbox--I think Congress can do some things to stop cleanup
before it starts. One of them is we need to stop using MTBE in
California. We are polluting a lot of groundwater. We can meet
Federal clean air standards without using it and we need to
stop using it.
Mrs. Solis. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. We are not going to bring up
ethanol.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hall. I did not say, do not use ethanol. I just said,
do not use MTBE.
Mr. Calvert. No, that is kind of an inside joke up here on
the Hill. Forgive us.
Mr. Hall. I am pretty familiar with that joke, actually.
Mr. Calvert. All right. We thank the first panel for your
testimony and for answering our questions.
Mr. Calvert. The second panel with us today is Ms. Sunne
McPeak, President and CEO for Bay Area Council; Mr. Ryan
Broddrick, Director of Conservation Programs for Ducks
Unlimited; and Mr. Stuart Woolf, President of Woolf
Enterprises.
Ms. McPeak, once you get situated there, you may begin your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF SUNNE McPEAK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, BAY AREA COUNCIL
Ms. McPeak. Mr. Chairman, I am President of the Bay Area
Council, a business-sponsored, CEO-led public policy
organization that was established in 1945 to promote economic
prosperity and quality of life in the region that includes nine
counties that rim San Francisco Bay and the metropolitan cities
of Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose, including Silicon
Valley. The economy of that region today is about $250 billion
annually.
The organization that I represent has been involved in
California water policy issues for more than a decade and has
closely followed the CALFED process since its inception and the
signing of the Bay Delta Accord in 1994. I personally have been
involved for about 28 years in California water politics and
various water issues.
We come here today to commend your leadership, your spirit
of cooperation, and your commitment to moving forward, and to
doing so with a focus on the future. We want to urge you to be
a full partner in the implementation of solutions that came out
of the CALFED process. A full partner is not only investing in
funding, although I am going to emphasize that point, but it is
moving ahead together with the Federal agencies as partners at
the table and Members of Congress also fully engaged in the
oversight of managing California's water resources, not just
for California but for the nation as a whole.
The bay area clearly has an economy that has been built on
a very important and valuable ecosystem, the Bay Delta Estuary,
but we also have joined with other employer organizations
throughout California, and I attach to my testimony today a
position paper that we had submitted 2 years ago that
foreshadowed the solution for the CALFED program that was
joined in by 15 organizations, some Statewide, some other
regional in California, because we see our region connected to
others in our State and to the nation as a whole.
I guess the message that we would like to underscore is
that it is time to move forward with the solutions. The
solutions involve the full mix that you heard from Mr. Hall. We
have actively and aggressively pursued efficient water use,
conservation, and reclamation. We urge a robust water market.
But we also respectfully have ardently supported and urge you
to invest in the infrastructure, conveyance and storage.
The mix is needed in order to be able to protect the
environment as well as to ensure a continual prosperous
economy. It is not possible in our State to be able to handle
the differences in weather. The wet years and the dry years are
often the abnormal rather than the normal that we sometimes
talk to in statistics, and we have got to be able to have
flexibility in the system. So we are here to urge the
participation of Congress in that continuing partnership and to
invest in storage, to invest in the conveyance facilities.
We also had discussion on the last panel about groundwater
storage or sometimes we would call it a dual-use or a mixture
between storage that is surface and underground storage. May I
suggest that oftentimes advocates for underground storage
forget that it is a lot more difficult to get water into the
ground and it takes a lot longer to do the recharge than it
takes to collect it. In other words, we have precipitation
rates that always exceed percolation rates, and so if you do
not have the combination of surface storage, we cannot actually
optimize groundwater storage.
With that, we would be happy to answer questions as a part
of the panel.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the lady.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McPeak follows:]
Statement of Sunne Wright McPeak , President & CEO, Bay Area Council,
San Francisco, California
The Bay Area Council is a business- sponsored, CEO- led, public-
policy organization founded in 1945 to promote economic prosperity and
quality of life in the region. The Bay Area region encompasses the nine
counties that rim San Francisco Bay and 100 cities, including Oakland,
San Francisco and San Jose, the heart of Silicon Valley. The economy of
the Bay Area is approaching $250 billion annually. The regional economy
not only is dependent on an adequate supply of quality water to thrive,
but also is closely linked to the environmental health of the Bay-
Delta Ecosystem. As an association of major employers, the Bay Area
Council has been involved in California water policy issues for more
than a decade and since 1994 has been deeply engaged in the Bay- Delta
CALFED process.
The following points summarize the perspectives of the Bay Area
Council as a regional organization of major employers with a history of
involvement in California water policy.
<bullet> LCalifornia water policy is at a critical juncture.
Decisions that are being made today about how to improve California's
water infrastructure will having profound and lasting implications for
the nation and the state, now the sixth largest economic power in the
world.
<bullet> LWater policy decisions and the manner in which they are
implemented will affect every resident and every business in
California, which in turn has major implications for the national
economy.
<bullet> LWhile we have come a long way over the last several years
to craft an action plan to restore the critical hub of the state's
water system, the Bay- Delta, we need investment to move that plan to
reality.
<bullet> LThat is why the employers who are members of the Bay Area
Council have invested in the development of the solutions and are now
focusing authorize of the funds necessary to implement the solutions.
We have joined with other business organizations in California to
advance workable solutions. As an example, attached is a position
statement issued in 1998 from employer organizations regarding the Bay-
Delta CALFED program.
<bullet> LFollowing the prolonged drought of the late 80s and early
90s, California businesses invested literally billions of dollars to
increase their water efficiency, getting more production out of every
gallon.
<bullet> LThose efforts have paid off tremendously. California
water agencies now more people and more industries than in the early
80s with almost the same amount of water. However, as the limits of
efficiency from the current supply are approached, new investments must
be made.
<bullet> LAs we know, permanent reductions in water usage that have
been achieved through retrofitting industries with water efficient
hardware lead to demand hardening. This means that conservation efforts
in the future will not free up the additional water that will be needed
to sustain a strong economy.
<bullet> LIronically, businesses that drive economic growth and
productivity are among the most dependent on reliable, high quality
water.
<bullet> LTo ensure that the economy continues to thrive, business
needs a reliable, good quality supply of water. This is especially true
in the high tech industry where variances in supply and quality can
translate into more costs and a higher bottom line.
<bullet> LIt goes without saying that thriving businesses lead to
more jobs which leads to a strong economy. Water is one of the key
threads that holds those pieces together.
<bullet> LThe demand for jobs will only increase as California's
population is estimated to reach 40 million by 2010 and almost 50
million by 2020. The Bay Area is projected to generate more than 1
million new jobs by 2020 and grow by perhaps as much as 1.4 million
people.
<bullet> LLast year, the state and Federal Government and
stakeholders, including the business community, supported the final
plan to fix the Bay- Delta, California's major water infrastructure
system. The plan is multi- faceted and calls for enormous investment in
water quality and supply, as well as restoration of the environment.
<bullet> LSevere water shortages and economic impacts are predicted
for California if the investments are not made now. In fact, it is
likely that significant shortages and economic impacts will be
experienced before all of the improvements and facilities included in
the Bay- Delta plan can be completed and brought on line.
<bullet> LThe current energy crisis in California is a stark
reminder of what can happen when investments are not made in
infrastructure, resulting in deterioration of both capacity and
flexibility to meet normal demand levels, not to mention the ability to
respond in case of emergencies.
<bullet> LThe Bay- Delta program provides essential ingredients to
rebuild the nation's water infrastructure in California. But
significant financial resources will be needed at both the Federal and
state level.
<bullet> LThe program calls for $1 billion to expand existing
storage facilities and construct new ones. It includes $1 billion
toward environmental and ecosystem restoration. Another $1 billion is
earmarked to upgrade the aging water conveyance system. Improvements to
drinking water quality for all water users is slated to receive $800
million. Approximately $1 billion is earmarked for water conservation
and reclamation programs.
<bullet> LThese investments are critical to drought proof
California and to protect this vital economy.
<bullet> LA Federal funding authorization is pivotal to improving
California's water infrastructure. Agreement last year on a plan of
action signaled a new era of cooperation and water management that is
historic. It is time to seize this opportunity and move forward. The
Bay Area Council and major employers in the region join with business
organizations throughout California in urging Congressional action to
invest in the water infrastructure needed to support the nation's
economy for the 21st Century.
______
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Ryan Broddrick, you may begin your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF RYAN BRODDRICK, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION PROGRAMS,
DUCKS UNLIMITED
Mr. Broddrick. Chairman Calvert, members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Ryan Broddrick. I am the Director of
Conservation Programs in California specifically for an
initiative that is called the Valley Care Bay Care. That
initiative focuses on the Central Valley of California. The
Central Valley of California represents approximately 400
miles, from Red Bluff to Bakersfield, approximately, consists
of the Sacramento Valley, the delta, and the San Joaquin
Valley.
One of the issues that is critical to understand, Ducks
Unlimited has been involved in the wetlands conservation
business since 1937 and the focus in California over the last
ten, 15, 20 years has been significant for the principal reason
that 60 percent of the Pacific Flyway's total population of
waterfowl resides at one point in their migration in the
Central Valley of California, literally 100 percent of some
populations of waterfowl, such as the Aleutian Canada goose,
recently delisted from the Federal listing, 100 percent of the
Pacific tule geese, 66 percent of the North American tundra
swans, and 65 percent of North America's pintails.
The point of one of the questions to me was, why is it
important on a national basis to invest in the ecosystem of
California? From Ducks Unlimited's viewpoint and from my
personal experience, the ecosystem of California is obviously a
system that has driven a tremendous economy, it has tremendous
diversity, it has tremendous challenges as it relates to water
supply and as it relates to population growth.
For us to maintain essentially the contribution to the
North American waterfowl populations that this nation agreed to
under international treaty as well as developed in the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan, and as Congress has
supported financially through the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act, we have to recognize that wetlands in
California are highly managed and they are highly dependent
upon managed irrigation systems. These are not the lowlands
that happen to be non-economical from the standpoint of pumping
water of. They are highly dependent in the Sacramento Valley on
the rice culture. The rice farming in the Northern Sacramento
Valley provides substantial wintering habitat. We are highly
dependent upon the same irrigation system that provides water
to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley is also the system that
provides water to wildlife areas in one of the largest
contiguous blocks of wetlands left in California.
California in the Central Valley is meeting this obligation
through the North American waterfowl populations with less than
5 percent of its historic wetlands, a tremendous success story.
The issues, as we look over the next ten to 20 years, the
Central Valley is going to add approximately, if you can
believe the projections, 12 million additional people. The
demand on resources, whether it be transportation, flood
control, water supply, is going to be very substantial. Your
investment in the development of management of water and
management of lands and innovation and how we do that, applying
some of the best management practices that have been developed
for agriculture in the context of wetlands, be sure that the
fish passage that we develop and the flows for fisheries, I
think, have been very substantial.
Our interest at Ducks Unlimited has been very specifically
making sure that salmon restoration was done in a fashion that
ensured the recovery of salmon, but also provided a reliable
supply for the adjoining lands that oftentimes are seasonally
flooded that provide support to waterfowl, but more importantly
or as importantly provide the terrestrial habitat to hundreds
of other species, many of which are threatened or endangered.
So the reality is the ecosystem in California is a
landscape improvement. It has to be done in concert with all
the beneficiaries of the water system. It has a history of
obviously having a chance for conflict. There are great
opportunities. It is a good national investment. Lots of
imagination, energy, and local money can go into the solutions
and we look forward to the opportunity to doing that. Thank
you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Broddrick follows:]
Statement of Ryan Broddrick, Director of Conservation Programs, Ducks
Unlimited, Inc.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. On
behalf of Ducks Unlimited, Inc., the world's leading wetlands and
waterfowl conservation organization, thank you for the opportunity to
address the question of why it is important to direct private, state
and Federal resources towards improving the ecosystems in the State of
California.
Since 1937, the mission of Ducks Unlimited has been to fulfill the
annual life cycle of the needs of North American waterfowl by
protecting, enhancing, restoring and managing important wetlands and
associated uplands. To accomplish this mission it has been helpful to
form alliances with a variety of public and private partners. Over the
last 10 years in California it has been increasingly important to find
opportunities to accomplish our mission for waterfowl within the
broader context of improving the ecosystem overall. Our approach has
been to focus on practical cooperative solutions to conservation
challenges.
California, specifically the Central Valley, is one of the most
important wintering waterfowl areas in the Pacific Flyway with up to 60
percent of the total duck and goose population using the Central Valley
during their annual migration. The Central Valley consists of the
Sacramento Valley in the north and the San Joaquin Valley in the South.
The Valley extends approximately 400 miles from Red Bluff in the north
to Bakersfield in the South. As an illustration of how unique
California's role is in the Pacific Flyway, consider that in an average
year, the Central Valley supports 100 percent of the world's population
of Aleutian Canada Geese; 100 per cent of the Pacific Tule Geese; 66
percent of North America's Tundra Swans; and, 65 percent of North
America's pintails.
The Central Valley is providing this nationally significant role in
support of continental waterfowl populations with only a fraction of
the historic wetlands, two thirds of which are privately owned, and
dependent upon large acreages of rice and other grain crops that
provide significant habitat value during the winter migration. The
wetland, riparian, upland, and agricultural lands that provide habitat
for waterfowl, also provide essential habitats for hundreds of other
wetland dependent plant and animal species, supporting over 50 percent
of California's threatened and endangered species during some stage of
their life cycle. Accomplishments to date are quite remarkable, but
that success is tenuous.
Projections for growth in the Central Valley approach 12 million
new residents over the next 20 years, placing tremendous demands on
natural resources. Demand for additional water supplies, improved flood
control, housing, transportation, conversion of agricultural lands, and
changes in crop selection will provide significant challenges to
maintaining a healthy and diverse ecosystem.
In a recent survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of
California in collaboration with the Great Valley Center, 81 percent of
respondents indicated support for, preserving wetlands, rivers, and
environmentally sensitive areas. To capitalize on this support, as well
as meeting the obligations established in various local, state, and
Federal laws, we must approach our opportunities for sustainable
growth, economic vitality, and ecosystem restoration as interrelated
and interdependent.
The Central Valley does not represent the full spectrum of
ecosystem improvement opportunities that exist in California, yet it is
illustrative of how dynamic and adaptable solutions must become. The
Sacramento Valley drains to the south, while the San Joaquin drains to
the north, both converging in the Delta where the waters combine before
flowing to the San Francisco Bay. The natural hydrology of the Central
Valley has been dramatically altered by water development. That water
development has fueled economic growth of national significance. To
maintain those benefits the investment in ecosystem improvement must be
continued. However, the Central Valley is highly dependent upon the
availability of managed water. As demand for water grows and historical
uses are modified to meet emerging urban, agricultural, and
environmental needs, great care must be taken to insure we do not
unconsciously trade one ecosystem or economic improvement at the
expense of another.
My experience, to date, indicates that the public in California has
recognized the interrelated and interdependent relationship with a
history of support for various propositions and initiatives that have
directed billions of dollars into the protection and restoration of
wildlife resources, while at the same time supporting investment in
infrastructure to maintain and build economic vitality. The dynamics of
support for both ecosystem health and economic growth has forged
interest-based alliances that bring remarkable resources to focus on
conflicts that have persisted for decades. Private landowners in
California remain the backbone of wetland ownership providing
stewardship to two-thirds of the remaining wetlands of the Central
Valley. Through Ducks Unlimited, Inc. and other conservation
organizations, millions of dollars are generated through grassroots
fundraising, foundations, trusts, and grants to improve various
habitats and invest in research.
Ducks Unlimited believes that wetland conservation in the west is a
race against time and that the next 10 years will significantly
determine if the North American Waterfowl Management Plan population
objectives will become a reality. In recognition of this limited window
of opportunity, Ducks Unlimited will be initiating major new
fundraising efforts in support of the Pacific Northwest and California
Central Valley/S. F. Bay.
California has great potential to improve ecosystems for a variety
of reasons that include not only the diversity and resiliency of its
natural resources, but also the history of diverse public/private
partnerships. We believe precedent exists to show that improving
ecosystems in complex environments such as California, are of national
concern and can aid with resolution of similar problems elsewhere in
the nation.
S6602_
[A chart included in Mr. Broddrick's statement follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1508.008
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Woolf?
STATEMENT OF STUART WOOLF, PRESIDENT, WOOLF ENTERPRISES
Mr. Woolf. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my
name is Stuart Woolf. I am the President and CEO of a family
farming operation in Western Fresno County. Our operation grows
a diversity of crops and we have also integrated into some food
processing businesses, including a tomato processing plant
known as Los Gatos Tomato Products, and almond processing,
known as Harris Woolf California Almonds.
I want to speak for just a moment about the value of
California agriculture to this nation. California represents
less than 3 percent of this nation's harvest cropland. It
receives less than 3 percent of USDA program support payments,
and yet it generates about 13 percent of the Nation's gross
farm product. It also generates a like amount of the Nation's
net farm exports. The costs of farming in California are
slightly higher, so it only represents about 12 percent of the
Nation's net farm income. California agriculture is a great
investment.
As California's success is due in great part to it's God-
given resource of extremely fertile land. Most of the state's
farmland rank in class one or class two soil classifications.
They are very productive. We also enjoy long hot summers, with
a Mediterranean climate. Harvest seasons are longer, our yields
are higher than most anywhere else in the world. We can grow
over 250 different crops in the State. The long summer also
allow for a very efficient and productive processing industry.
We can run our processing facilities longer than they can
anywhere else in the world.
With that said, I would like just to comment briefly on our
own operation and offer it as an illustration as to what some
of these advantages may look like. Currently on our ranch, we
are growing more tomatoes than Australia. This past year, we
grew over 400,000 raw tons. Our neighbors grew a like amount.
We ran the fruit through an energy-intensive tomato processing
facility. Our yields are typically twice that of our foreign
counterparts, and we do this using less natural resources than
virtually anywhere else. Once we harvest the tomatoes and send
them through our plant, we capture the water that is in the
tomato and recycle it. The same yields and efficiencies can be
found in the other crops we grow.
Considering these strengths, I have been very optimistic
about the growth of our business. Over the past 10 years, we
have grown our business tenfold. We did it internally, without
buying other businesses. And yet today, as I look out to our
future, I do not know that I can keep investing given the risk
of unreliable energy and water.
As it relates to water, I can assure you that the water
being used within the Valley is generating a great return from
agriculture. Given the fact that we are receiving less water at
a higher cost, we have been forced to be far more efficient
than we ever thought we could be. Today's issue is whether or
not we will be able to have a reliable and affordable source in
the future. I can be the most efficient grower in the world,
and yet if I do not have access to the basic resources required
to farm, it really makes no difference.
So today, I am trying to make decisions about my company's
future based upon the State and Federal Government's commitment
to infrastructure. I strongly encourage you to consider the
value of California agriculture and its dependence upon basic
resources. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Woolf follows:]
Statement of Stuart Woolf, President & CEO, Woolf Enterprises
Chairman Calvert and members of the Subcommittee, I would like to
thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the many farmers
in California and the United States who feed and clothe our families
and provide the people of our world with safe and affordable food and
fiber products.
History of the Woolf Family
I grew up on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, in the midst
of a large farming operation. My father, Jack Woolf began his career
shortly after World War II as the general manager of Giffen Inc., a
pioneer farming operation owned by Russell Giffen. At its peak, Giffen
Inc. farmed more than 120,000 acres in the area. My brothers and
sisters and I quickly became an integral part of west-side agriculture.
Federal Reclamation Law came to the Westlands Water District
service area in the early 1960's. As part of the contract offered by
the United States to provide water and drainage service to these lands,
Mr. Giffen entered into an agreement to sell his landholdings after 10
years of receiving Federal water benefits. Giffen Inc. was ultimately
sold to over 50 family farmers seeking to become part of the
development of the arid west. My father acquired land from Mr. Giffen
in 1974 and began farming on the basis and commitment of a 40-year
contract for a reliable surface water supply from the Federal Central
Valley Project.
As a farmer in a Federal reclamation water district, we are limited
to the number of acres we can own and farm with Federal project water.
In some cases, such as the Giffen Inc. situation, lands must be sold at
Bureau of Reclamation-approved price levels. These restrictions were
embraced on the promise of reliable water supplies, completed water
distribution systems, and drainage service. However, today we attempt
to farm with inadequate water supplies, no drainage service and the
debt associated with on-farm water distribution systems that were
financed with our own dollars when the United States failed to meet its
contractual commitments.
My three brothers, two sisters and I are shareholders in Woolf
Enterprises, a collection of family operations. Our interests include
landholdings in western Fresno and Madera counties; Los Gatos Tomato
Products, one of California's largest bulk tomato paste processing
plants; Harris Woolf Almond, an almond processing and marketing
company; Huron Cotton Ginning Co.; and Cal-West Rain, a drip-irrigation
equipment company. We employ over 560 people each year, 139 full-time
and 424 seasonal, and are actively involved in the community of the
The Woolf Mission
The mission of the Woolf operation is to be known as ``The Best Ag
Resources Managers.'' Virtually every decision made in our operation is
measured against this objective. As one of many, many farmers in this
country, we are challenged to manage land, make water use decisions,
employ a workforce, and apply inputs to our landholdings that meet this
objective. Farming requires a great deal of resources--each year the
Woolf farming entity uses surface water, groundwater and market
transfers to meet the crop water requirements, applies over 1 million
labor hours, and over 224,000 decatherms of natural gas and 9.3
megawatts of electricity for groundwater production. Los Gatos Tomato
Products uses over 1 million decatherms of natural gas during the
annual tomato processing season, which runs from July 1 to September
30. Harris Woolf Almond uses over 1 million kilowatts of electricity
each season. In today's agricultural economy, utilization of these high
cost inputs must be done with a high commitment to efficiency.
I believe that we, as one of the nation's farmers, are the ultimate
stewards of this country's natural resources. We care about soil
quality and invest dollars and sweat to improve the productivity of our
lands; we care about efficient water use and take the necessary steps
to assure maximum applied water efficiency; and our trees and vines
produce clean air by scrubbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and
converting it to oxygen. We have installed high-cost drip irrigation
technology on more than one-fourth of our landholdings, employ laser-
leveling to the majority of our ranch, and utilize global positioning
satellite technology on our field equipment to reduce capital, fuel and
labor costs and allow us to work over installed drip equipment without
damaging it. A prerequisite of successfully farming in California and
the rest of the nation is to ``do more with less'' and we are truly
committed to this objective.
The Significance of California Agriculture
My family grows almonds, pistachios, processing tomatoes, Pima
cotton, wine grapes, garlic, lettuce, and onions, contributing to the
$3 billion dollar gross annual farm income of Fresno County, the number
one ag-producing county in the United States. Our neighbors, Kings,
Tulare, and Kern Counties, typically rank in the top five in the nation
each year. The San Joaquin Valley of California, where all of these
counties are located, is truly the fertile valley of the United States,
serving to feed not only Californians, but all of our neighbors and
fellow citizens throughout the country, as well as a few hundred
million people world wide.
We are a member of a very large family, California's farmers, who
in 1998 produced $27.7 million in total farm income, approximately 13
percent of the total ag production of the United States. This gross
farm income multiples through the state and national economies,
generating sales and income taxes that support social programs and
county services, and provide key revenues to the state and Federal
budgets. These dollars multiply through the economy over 2.5 times,
generating nearly $80 billion in gross state and national product each
year.
Expansion of the California population will present more challenges
to our state and Federal political leaders. Urban encroachment
continues to whittle away at prime farmlands. In California between
1988 and 1998, about 166,000 acres of cropland (1.5 percent of total
cropland) were converted to urban and build-up uses. This conversion
will continue to occur at ever-increasing rates, challenging the
remaining farmers to produce more with less and our political leaders
to develop Federal policies that maintain our diverse and high quality
food supply.
If there are any questions about the significance of California
agriculture and it's effects on the nation's food supply and ag
economy, consider these facts from the California Department of Food
and Agriculture:
<bullet> LFor more than 50 consecutive years, California has been
the number one food and agricultural producer in the United States.
<bullet> LCalifornia produces 350 different crops and commodities.
Products exclusively (99 percent or more) grown in California include
almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, kiwifruit, olives, persimmons, cling
peaches, pomegranates, pistachios, prunes, raisins, clovers, and
walnuts.
<bullet> LNearly 1 in 10 jobs in California are ag-related.
<bullet> LCalifornia exports in 1997 totaled $6.7 billion, about 20
percent of the total California ag production and about 13 percent of
the total United States ag export.
<bullet> LLeading exports for California commodities include
cotton, almonds, wine, table grapes, and oranges; destined for Japan,
Canada, Hong Kong, South Korea, Germany and the UK.
But California does not stand alone. Farmers in the other top-
producing agriculture states of Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois and
throughout the country are all key contributors to the national
economy. Years ago, our political leaders recognized that a safe and
independently produced food supply was critical to our success. Farm
support and land reclamation programs have contributed to our
independence and productivity as a nation. These programs have focused
on the needs and benefits of various regions in our country. Land
reclamation has developed the arid western states into a widely
diversified agricultural machine. Commodity supports have served to
protect and maintain the corn, soybean and grain-producing engine of
the central states. These programs have been among the greatest
investments of the American people, by generating huge economic
productivity many times greater than the Federal support.
Impacts of Water Supply Uncertainty
Unfortunately, this economic engine can only run with adequate
water supplies. The current energy crisis highlights the impact of
shortages in basic resources on the citizens and businesses of this
country. Water supply uncertainty has the same impact and has plagued
the Woolf operation and other farmers in California. In 2001 we will
fallow approximately 20 percent of our total landholdings due to
inadequate water supplies from the Federal Central Valley Project. With
adequate water supplies, these lands are capable of generating
additional gross farm income. Without adequate water supply, these
lands present our operation with annual carrying costs of nearly $300
per acre, with little or no opportunity to generate income.
The rapid decline of CVP and State Water Project water supply
reliability is forcing many farmers in California to idle land and sell
water supplies to cover a portion of their annual debt. A conservative
estimate is approximately 20 percent of the ag land in the CVP export
service area will be fallowed in 2001, despite average rainfall
conditions and above normal water storage throughout the State. While
it remains to be seen how much we can mitigate this massive fallowing,
we can certainly expect a large negative impact on the California ag
and national economy.
Looking forward, we are very concerned about our ability to sustain
our historical operating levels. If water supplies are inadequate today
in normal to above-normal conditions, what will happen when we enter
the inevitable drought? Who will have the ability to survive? What will
be the impact to local communities, the State and national economies?
The answers to these questions depend on the ability of our Federal
and state legislators to develop balanced and effective policies in the
critical arenas of water and energy resource management. We are all
here today because we recognize the opportunity to address matters of
national significance. If balanced resource management policies can be
developed and implemented, then California agriculture will survive. If
equitable and sustaining policies can not be developed, then a large
part of the United States'' food producing capabilities will be lost.
In 1994, we embraced the Secretary Babbitt/Governor Wilson Bay-
Delta Accord because it promised interim stability and a program, later
titled CALFED, that would restore balance to the regulatory decision-
making process and establish hope for future water supply improvements
through increased water storage and conveyance capacity. CALFED became
our hope, our promise that things would ultimately get better.
Today, we remain convinced that CALFED is the best opportunity for
Californians, and particularly its farmers, to regain the critical
level of water supply stability to maintain our unique and high level
of ag productivity. However, if CALFED is to succeed, Congress must
take legislative action to authorize this program and establish basic
guiding principles and direction for the current and future
administrations. These principles must restore balance to the
implementation of regulatory actions and environmental restoration
programs. Congress must provide direction that balance and preservation
of our agricultural economy is a critical component of national
resource management policy.
Conclusion
The basis of every great society is a strong commitment to
agriculture. Over the years, our political leaders have recognized the
importance of a safe and affordable food supply to the American people.
Farmers have been provided the tools and supports to lead the United
States to the highest standard of living and the safest and most
diverse food supply of any country in the world. Our economic diversity
and productivity starts at the farm - The successes of America's
farmers has allowed millions of American citizens to pursue careers
outside of agriculture instead of growing their own food supply.
The productivity of the California farmer has played a key role in
allowing the United States to achieve a strong position in
international trade, contributing food products to other countries,
strengthening the American dollar, and allowing affordable access to
foreign commodities critical to the US economy. In order to maintain
these incredibly high standards and accomplishments, we have reached a
point where our legislators must reconfirm our nation's commitment to
agriculture and provide the appropriate policy direction, program
authorization, and funding.
It is very clear that California agriculture is critical to the
nation, in terms of food production, safety, economic strength, and
international trade. This is a resource that we must protect.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and stand
ready, as one of millions of farmers in the nation, to assist you in
preserving a very important segment of our economy.
______
Mr. Calvert. Ms. McPeak, could you describe for us how the
recent power crisis and the issue of future water supplies have
affected the business climate in California, both now and as
businesses look at future plans to expand or to do business in
California?
Ms. McPeak. Both the power crisis and the prospect of
unreliable water supplies threaten continued investment. The
power crisis has reminded us why we are here talking about
water. We want to invest in the infrastructure when we have the
opportunity to do so.
Let me talk about just the power shortage and the quality
of power availability problem for a moment. We have
experienced, as has the rest of the State, rolling blackouts,
and when high-tech manufacturing has a 60th of a second
interruption, the whole plant will go down. It will be offline
for maybe 4 hours at a time, but that is multi-million dollars
lost. That kind of an experience has caused companies to
publicly announce they will no longer invest in California.
They will no longer invest in the Bay Area, but they are
talking about the entire California.
Mr. Calvert. Specifically, that was Intel Corporation?
Ms. McPeak. Intel. I mean, Peg Barrett announced at our
annual outlook conference on January 12 that he will no longer
invest and he referenced the State as a third world country,
because that is what he in his plants, if they are abroad, have
to face in countries that are not as developed.
The under-investment in our water infrastructure has a
similar parallel, which is it is very unstabilizing,
destabilizing, to not have access to a quality, reliable water
supply.
Mr. Calvert. Is it accurate to say, just to add in here, I
talked to a lot of CEOs of various companies in California,
that they look at the future of the infrastructure in
California, whether it is transportation, water, or other
infrastructure needs, certainly electricity, and they look at
the prospects of that being fixed or not fixed and then make
those decisions with, quite frankly, being responsible to their
stockholders and the people who invest in their companies. And
so if they do not see that, then they make decisions like Intel
and Sun Microsystems and others to no longer do business in
California. Is that basically what you see happening right now?
Ms. McPeak. Yes. Certainly the looking at whether or not to
continue to invest is a question that all of the companies are
facing.
Mr. Calvert. Certainly, you mentioned not only the quantity
of water and electricity but also the quality. The water
quality that is utilized in the manufacturing process has to be
of a high quality, is that not also correct?
Ms. McPeak. That is correct.
Mr. Calvert. You mentioned by 2020, there will be 1.4
million new jobs in the Bay Area.
Ms. McPeak. I did in my testimony, written testimony.
Mr. Calvert. Right. How are you anticipating to meet the
water demand of this new growth?
Ms. McPeak. We are supporting the implementation of the
CALFED solution, so it is possible to meet not only those needs
in the Bay Area but all of California by the combination of
tools that we have already discussed here today.
Mr. Calvert. That also includes expansion of the Los
Vaqueros reservoir?
Ms. McPeak. Los Vaqueros Reservoir is one of those projects
that is identified in the record of decision that could be
expanded. I will just say to you that I supported that facility
in 1988 when it was before the voters and I advocated that it
be three times as big then.
Now, there is also a regional dimension. The topic of this
discussion is the regional perspective. Part of the CALFED
program is that the regions themselves also are partners in the
solution, and so there is a cooperation among the large water
agencies within the Bay Area to look at blending and
cooperation in a way they have not before, and part of that may
very well be a partnership around the expansion of Los
Vaqueros.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Broddrick, many of the programs,
environmental programs specifically, are sometimes quite
expensive and some members are concerned about the costs,
especially indirect costs, are falling disproportionately on
agriculture. How can the funding of these conservation programs
be distributed fairly among the beneficiaries? That was brought
up by Mr. Hall, also. What kind of method would you suggest to
do that?
Mr. Broddrick. That is a difficult question. I think the
foundation--I am not going to give you a formula, because
unfortunately, I do not know the one that would be durable. I
think the allocation of the funding as it related to the $160
million that, to a large degree, went to what you could
identify as environmental benefits. Steve Hall referenced the
fact that a lot of those were screening of agricultural
diversions, and I think that in identifying the priorities for
that screening, in part, the allocation there was, let us go to
those screens that we know have the largest entrainment of
fish. Let us go to those screens and have a variety of partners
involved, both a landowner and organizations such as Ducks
Unlimited, where we know that the water that goes through that
screen has multiple benefits. It was having significant
benefits to agricultural interests. It was having very
substantial benefits to the terrestrial habitats that Ducks
Unlimited and the wetland habitats that Ducks Unlimited was
very interested in.
So I think in terms of apportioning future expenditures, I
think you need to look for the same mix. Target those projects
that do, in fact, benefit agricultural interests, do, in fact,
benefit the urban interest, and also provide a benefit for
environmental restoration. That does not have to be limited to
what I refer to as the obvious opportunities that were involved
in fish screening.
In Southern California, in the San Jacinto Wildlife Area,
that wildlife area has a wetlands component exclusively because
of the availability of water from a wastewater treatment plant.
There are numerous opportunities, I think, similar to that. In
the San Joaquin Valley, I have had farmers in the last 2 weeks
contact me and say, I have land that I believe is marginal in
today's economic standing. It has some availability of water
during October-November-December when it is of specific
interest to wetlands values and Ducks Unlimited's mission. That
does not detract that water supply from farming interests later
in the year, and they are looking at making some conversion of
existing lands back to wetlands because it makes economic
sense.
I think we should invest in those where we have partners on
the ag and urban side that say, this is a good investment for
all of us on the environmental front. It complements--it
contributes to an ecosystem restoration. That formula will be
different on every single project, I assure you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Dooley?
Mr. Dooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Broddrick, in terms of the record of decision that was
prepared last year, is Ducks Unlimited supportive of that?
Mr. Broddrick. Ducks Unlimited is not a signature,
obviously, to the record of decision. Ducks Unlimited has
participated prior to the record of decision actually on
projects that were funded through what they referred to as
category three funding. We believe that there is a role for
Ducks Unlimited with our engineering services and our survey
services, with land owners that we are close to in terms of
improving and enhancing wetlands and doing them in a fashion
that actually meet the ecosystem goals of CALFED.
I think the view of Ducks Unlimited, and we have not been
engaged to the degree that the agencies have been, but the fact
that there is an ecosystem plan and that plan will be
implemented over a 30-year time frame, that that has some sense
of rationale in terms of you do not change the environment and
environmental conditions with just one year's activity.
There is still significant debate as to what components of
the environment are receiving the most attention, and quite
frankly, and I think appropriately so, those species that are
threatened and endangered, primarily fish species, have
received the majority of the focus. Ducks Unlimited is in a
position of trying to make sure that as they focus on
threatened and endangered species, whether it be steelhead
salmon or delta smelt, that it is done so in a fashion that
complements our mission and objectives, which is maintaining
wetlands.
So the ecosystem restoration component that is in CALFED,
it is a master plan. It is a good master plan. It needs a lot
of refinement. It will be very much a product of adaptive
management. They have committed to that. I think the science
that they have committed to in CALFED as it relates to the
ecosystem restoration plan is going to be critical. We do not
know as much as we would like to know. Sometimes we do not know
what we think we know when it comes to science. The fish and
the wildlife have a tendency to respond sometimes out of script
with our assessments. So I think maintaining that adaptive
management is going to be critical.
Mr. Dooley. In terms of the balanced approach that a lot of
people have been talking about, does Ducks Unlimited also
support, besides the ecosystem management, the need for the
water storage and the water supply components that were part of
the record of decision and are part of the bill that Senator
Feinstein is introducing?
Mr. Broddrick. I have not read Senator Feinstein's bill,
and I apologize for that lack of fulfillment on homework. But
in terms of storage in surface supply as well as groundwater
supply, the more flexibility that you have in a system, the
better we will be in a position to respond to those drought
cycles, the better we will be in a position to capitalize on
those high-water years, or a year that may not be a high-water
year but you have got a lot of flood flows.
We need to find a way to park, to invest that excess water
so that we can draw upon it in subsequent years. We know in
California we will have droughts. When we have droughts,
fisheries, farmers, and wetlands suffer. Urban environments
suffer. So it is prudent for the long-term management of the
ecosystem to have as many tools at the table as you can.
Groundwater storage, surface storage, not to predispose which
ones, but certainly gravity-flow water and maintaining
wetlands, concerning that the economic return on wetlands is
not 400,000 tons of tomatoes, we do not have that opportunity.
So the economics of water for wetlands can really drive and
diminish the availability of wetlands. We are dependent upon
irrigation systems for most of the wetlands in California, and
two-thirds of those wetlands are owned by private interests,
but they choose not to pay the increase in water cost and those
wetlands go away.
Mr. Dooley. Ms. McPeak, in terms of the Bay Area Council's
support of the record of decision and also Senator Feinstein's
approach, which this Committee is obviously going to be
considering and most likely will introduce a bill also, in
terms of her approach to the water supply issues, we are
basically embracing the record of decision and then asking for
some of the ones that Mr. Hall identified coming back to this
Committee for authorization. Is that a position that you
support and your Council supports?
Ms. McPeak. The Bay Area Council enthusiastically supported
the record of decision. We advocated for perhaps a little more
emphasis on certain things that we thought might have been
structured somewhat differently in the record of decision but
had represented a major landmark accomplishment and a new
plateau to move forward in implementing solutions.
I have only briefly read a draft of legislation that
Senator Feinstein is contemplating. I am sure we will be making
comments, because what we want to see, as I have testified
here, is Congressional action and the Federal Government being
a full partner, the Federal agencies and Members of Congress,
Congress as a partner in this solution.
Mr. Dooley. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Radanovich?
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. I have a question for both Mr.
Broddrick and Ms. McPeak. Did your respective organizations
take positions on the Trinity River decision?
Ms. McPeak. We did not advocate one way or another except
to acknowledge that the Trinity decision, when we add up all of
the, if you will, the reductions in available supplies on one
side of the ledger, when we add up all of the efficient water
use measures we can think of, conservation in the urban sector,
in the agricultural sector, add reclamation, add a water
market, add a good watershed management, flexibility in
operating the system, and you still end up with, in a normal
year, which we do not have most times, an excess of demand over
supply. And so that is why we sit here today acknowledging not
only the Trinity River but the 4.4 plan on the Colorado, that
there has to be an investment in the infrastructure to capture
water when it is truly surplus.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Broddrick?
Mr. Broddrick. Ducks Unlimited did not take a position on
the Trinity Decision.
Mr. Radanovich. You were smart.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Woolf, can you give me an idea of what
has been the level of commitment on water deliveries to
Westlands, say, in the last five to 10 years?
Mr. Woolf. I know we have not received 100 percent in any
year. I think--
Mr. Radanovich. Say that again, though, because I think it
is important.
Mr. Woolf. Well, we have had here the last, I believe, four
or five water years prior to this season have been wet ones,
and in our--well, in Westlands, I would think the average would
have to be somewhere 50, 55 percent, and I am just taking a
stab at it. I do not have the figures in front of me. This
year, even with the reservoirs that were, relatively speaking,
at great levels and a snowpack that was not quite 100 percent,
we are now faced with about 40 percent in allocations.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Those are all the questions I
have.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mrs. Solis?
Mrs. Solis. Yes. For Ms. Sunne McPeak, with all the
problems we are seeing now with the energy crisis and what have
you, and articles that I have been reading about the users of
our precious resources, water and electricity, has the Bay Area
Council come up with a kind of a plan so to address this
compelling issue that we have before us and perhaps some
solutions as to how the Federal Government, along with the
State, can work to help provide for assistance to meet that
infrastructure need that you talk about?
Ms. McPeak. With respect to power, we do have a position
that we have shared with primarily our State representatives
and I would be happy to--
Mrs. Solis. Can you share that for the record?
Ms. McPeak. --to send that to you, because it has some
similarities to the water infrastructure that we just talked
about. The employers that I represent for both the solutions on
water and on power would start with saying we must be very good
stewards of our resources. So optimize conservation, employ
market-based solutions, but invest in infrastructure. When I
have talked about water, I do not think personally and the
organization I represent has concluded we must have additional
storage, surface and groundwater, and improved conveyance.
Likewise, on power, there must be additional generation
facilities.
And it is not either/or. That has been a false debate that
we have had for too many decades in California. The common-
sense approach is, as we say, it is a sin to waste water, it is
a crime to waste money, and so if you do not optimize
conservation, be it water, be it power, we are being stupid. If
we do not invest in infrastructure, we are being dumber,
stupider. So it is a combination and no one tool will get us
there.
Mr. Calvert. Any additional questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Calvert. I have a couple of questions. Mr. Woolf, just
can you explain in layman's terms, for the benefit of us at the
dais that are not farmers, a couple of us up here, the
differences between row crops and permanent crops?
Mr. Woolf. Certainly. Permanent crops would be crops that
certainly you do not rotate on an annual basis, and so almonds,
pistachio, wine grapes, anything that will stay in the ground
for probably five to 50 years.
Mr. Calvert. Why have the Central Valley farmers been
converting to permanent crops?
Mr. Woolf. That is a good question, because permanent crops
are usually, more often than not, more water-intensive. The
reason that we have switched a number of our acres over to
permanent crops is because when we run our budgets against our
return per acre foot of water--we run all of our budgets based
against our limiting resource. We can earn more per acre foot
of water with our permanent crops.
Mr. Calvert. So water reliability certainly affects both
types of crops, but more importantly--
Mr. Woolf. Absolutely. As we have converted over to higher-
value crops, our needs become more well-defined. We know
exactly for the next 20 or 30 years that we are going to need
X-amount of acre feet to service the pistachios or the wine
grapes or whatever. So now our row crop acreage swings with the
wind as it relates to our allocations on a year-to-year basis.
Mr. Calvert. How does water quality affect crop production?
Mr. Woolf. Different crops require different qualities of
water. Most of the row crops, you can get by with using some of
the local well water in conjunction with the higher-quality
water that comes through the Project. Some crops, like almonds,
are very sensitive and you want to use your higher-quality
water on those. If we do not get the surface supplies, I can
tell you it dramatically impacts your crops.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Broddrick, land retirement programs are
certainly a big issue in California. I have heard a lot about
them lately. How have conservation programs helped maintain
land in California after it has been retired?
Mr. Broddrick. In terms of land retirement, frankly, I do
not think that--and I am speaking perhaps very quickly from the
Ducks Unlimited standpoint. Ducks Unlimited has not per se been
a recipient of the lands that were retired from a large
retirement program that is being considered in Westlands. So we
have not from a strict land retirement program been engaged.
I think, however, for lack of a better term, the surrogate
land retirement, where a land owner decides that it is no
longer economically feasible to farm for whatever the
circumstance, whether it be water supply or straight economics,
we have participated where they have developed those into
wetlands. We have been a partner with other State and Federal
agencies in the design and facilitation of the Wetlands Reserve
Program, as an example, where lands that have been in
agriculture have made an economic decision to sell those. In an
easement, they retain ownership, but we help them in the
development of a wetlands plan, nothing on the size of as being
contemplated as I understand Westlands.
Mr. Calvert. Mrs. Napolitano? No additional questions?
Mrs. Napolitano. No.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Dooley?
Mr. Dooley. I just have one other question or line of
questioning. In terms of this balanced approach and when the
administration was working with the State and other
stakeholders to put together the CALFED and the record of
decision, Secretary Hayes made a very strong statement that on
normal years is that Westlands should receive 65 to 70 percent
of their contracted water, and as Mr. Woolf pointed out, even
in the last few years, they have been not receiving oftentimes
that 65 to 70 percent, and that is certainly water deliveries
which is important not only into the Bay area but in the
Central Valley to allow for investment decisions to be made.
Ms. McPeak, it would be, I guess, a question directed to
you. In order to try to achieve a balanced approach here where
there is something in the CALFED reauthorization for everyone,
would you think it would be appropriate that we set a standard
that on a normal year, an irrigation district such as Westlands
should, at a minimum, be able to receive 65 to 70 percent on a
normal rainfall year?
Ms. McPeak. Perhaps I could address this in a couple of
ways. First, in addition to the word ``balance,'' we would use
the word ``integrated,'' that it is not just trade-offs, it is
optimizing a set of tools that are important. So it is an
integrated approach in the CALFED.
Secondly, as the Chairman was asking Mr. Woolf about
delivery, say at 40 percent, and the difference between
permanent and row crops, when you have low or less than optimal
deliveries, what many farmers have done is go to more efficient
irrigation practices. Those are pretty permanent installations.
And while if you are growing it you have increased your company
tenfold, maybe you do not have to go to the bank, but if you
do, you are likely going to come to one of my members who are
going to say right back, do you have any reliance on getting
delivery of water so that you can pay me back on what you are
borrowing to put in that efficient irrigation practice. So we
have a relationship here.
With respect to the assurance on delivery of water, the
record of decision did have some language on that that we want
to respect. I think there are different interpretations of that
language. We would want to see as much reliability and fairness
and assurance of delivery for the Westlands and agricultural
areas of the State as we would want for our own region.
Mr. Dooley. Mr. Broddrick, in terms of Ducks Unlimited,
again, would you folks see that it would be in your long-term
interest, specifically with Ducks Unlimited, that if Westlands
was going to move in a direction where there is going to be
some significant land retirement, which even Senator
Feinstein's CALFED bill does include the provision of, still,
by providing some certainty in terms of water deliveries, that
that would also enhance the ability for some of these land
owners and some of this land that was to be retired to be able
to invest more in wetlands restoration, which would benefit
that, is that something that you folks have looked at and have
taken any type of position on?
Mr. Broddrick. We were looking at it. We have not taken a
position. How we are looking at it at this point and have
reached no conclusions is that, as Ms. Peak indicated, it would
need to be integrated wetlands and wetlands development. There
is an ingredient there that is called water, and to the extent
that that water is available or that this restoration can be
part of and integrated with maybe a regional or local water
supply program that may not be huge yield, but nonetheless, we
think there are opportunities to design in the San Joaquin
Valley a wetlands that capture high spring flows, provide some
wetlands value, some agricultural value, but the landscape
obviously has to be there and that would mean in many cases a
retirement of existing farm operations. But we are looking at
it, but once again, it needs to be integrated with the needs of
the region. We would love to have the opportunity to recreate
some wetlands down there.
Mr. Dooley. And Mr. Woolf, what would be the practical
impact in your operation if you did have a greater certainty of
a delivery of 65 to 70 percent of the contract amount to
Westlands in a normal water year, which would mean that in an
abnormal year, there could be a reduction from that baseline?
Mr. Woolf. It would have a huge impact. Right now, I am
trying to figure out, whether or not to start making the
investments in additional drip irrigation and conservation. Why
make the investments in conservation if there is no water to
conserve? I must have some fundamental level of assurance of
delivery in order to make these decisions.
I should also point out that in our farming operations,
when we are talking about a 65 percent delivery, that
translates into about 20-25 percent of what I actually need to
grow my crops. The balance of my water comes through pumping,
it comes through water exchanges with other farmers. And so the
greater the reliability of that base amount, the greater
reliability I have in making additional investments and the
greater reliability I have in water marketing. But when you
allow water allocations to shrink to possibly zero, I feel a
huge swing not only in my base allocation but in water that is
no longer available to market and trade.
Presently, the only alternative is to pump, which means
burning more natural gas, using more electricity, during an
overpriced, unreliable energy crisis.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
If there are no further questions, I want to thank this
panel for their excellent testimony and staying here to answer
our questions. This was a very interesting session and we will
have more as we move this process along. So we thank you, and
with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material supplied for the record follows:]
[The prepared statement of The Honorable Robert Meacher
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Robert Meacher on behalf of the Regional
Council of Rural Counties
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide this written
testimony on behalf of the Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) to
the Subcommittee for your hearing of April 3, 2001. We hope that what
we have to say will underscore the importance of the counties that make
up RCRC to the rest of California and to the Nation.
We would like to emphasize three main points:
First, that the landscape that makes up rural California is
important because it provides most of the water, much of the
electricity and much of the food that fuels and feeds California. Much
of this land also is treasured by the nation because it refreshes us
emotionally with its grandeur.
Second, rural California includes examples of resources management
that are successful and some which have become environmental tragedies,
dependent upon the ability of people in Washington and our state to
work cooperatively.
Third, we would like to underscore the value of partnerships with
locally elected county supervisors. They are closest to the people who
live on the land and they best understand the problems associated with
managing the land and the possible solutions to them.
RCRC is an association of twenty-eight of California's fifty-eight
Counties. Our membership is represented by 140 locally elected County
Supervisors, many of whom comprise the Board of Directors for RCRC.
RCRC's membership area is one of California's richest and most
diverse environments. Its value is unquestioned for its beauty,
resources and utility. It contains rich, productive farmland in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys that feed the nation. It includes
the soaring Trinity Alps, the Cascade Range, the Coastal mountains and
the mighty Sierra Nevada Mountain Range. It includes extensive forests
that are both privately and publicly held, including 13 National
Forests (Klamath, Shasta, Trinity, Modoc, Mendocino, Humboldt, Lassen,
Plumas, El Dorado, Tahoe, Stanislaus, Sierra and Inyo).
The RCRC member counties also provide 80 percent of the San
Francisco Bay-Delta water supplies that quench the thirst for 20
million people in urban areas. That same water is also used to generate
up to 20 percent of the electricity used by California and other parts
of the West. They include the watersheds of the Trinity River, the
Sacramento River, the Mokelumne River, the Merced River and the San
Joaquin River, as well as the Central Valley Project's largest man-made
dams.
RCRC's territory is well known to people outside of California for
the scenic Yosemite Valley that has been so beautifully captured
photographically by Ansel Adams, the Calaveras Frog Jump written about
so colorfully by Mark Twain, and as the home of the Gold Rush, which
helped America discover California. But beyond the scenery, there is
one very clear and important point. Without the RCRC and the people it
represents, there can be no long-term solution to water and natural
resource problems in California or elsewhere in the West.
In California, the responsibility for managing this land is
primarily the responsibility of counties. For well over 100 years our
counties have statutory land use planning authority under California
law. They are charged with developing comprehensive General Land Use
and Resource Plans, zoning ordinances and a process to approve orderly
growth, while protecting the environment and providing for a viable
economy.
In addition, our counties are the lead agencies responsible for
environmental analysis, according to the California Environmental
Quality Act. Counties have regulatory authority over groundwater in
California, as validated by a California Supreme Court decision, Tehama
v. Baldwin. Some of the member counties also serve as water agencies to
supply the people and lands within their boundaries. Others have their
own public power agencies to provide electricity.
The elected supervisors from our member counties must understand a
multitude of issues. They include forestry, farming, water resources,
flood control, power supplies, wildfires, police and fire protection,
the environment, recreation, housing, traffic circulation, and health
care.
Most important of all, our county supervisors are responsible to
their constituents. They are no different than the elected officials on
this Committee, responsible to the people who put them in office. In
our rural counties, the numbers of those people doubled between 1970
and 1990. Some of the fastest growing areas in California are within
RCRC's membership area, which increases the strain on each county's
ability to provide services for local residents while maintaining the
support for people to whom they export their resources.
Our people fundamentally believe that those closest to the land,
who live on the land, make the best decisions about those resources. We
believe that a farmer in the Sacramento Valley knows how to maintain
the agricultural viability of his land to support his family and to
feed millions of other people without compromising the environment for
the ducks and geese on the Pacific Flyway. A forester, standing in a
crowded tangle of undergrowth during a crackling hot summer day knows
that a spark is a fire, and that a fire means decades of devastation
for thousands of acres and countless wildlife. In a far away office in
San Francisco or Washington, it is less clear what nature's signals
mean, or if they will be heeded.
RCRC's member counties contain places that evoke powerful memories
and emotions to many people. Some speak to some of the greatness of
this nation, such as Yosemite National Park. Others are sad testimony
to environmental failure. Who can ever forget the photographs of the
twisted and malformed animal life in a place called Kesterson Wildlife
Refuge; a place that was supposed to be a sanctuary for birds that,
instead, became a poisoned well of deformity because of failed
government policies. Let us compare the benign use of Lake Tahoe, one
of the nation's greatest environmental treasures, with the abuse of
Mono Lake and its legacy of dust storms that choke the Owens Valley.
There were many factors that contributed to success or failure. But
among the most important was the degree of partnership and cooperation
between the Federal Government, which makes decisions in far-away
Washington, D.C., and local elected officials who are closest to the
problems and their solutions.
The RCRC membership counties have a rich history and tradition of
contributing valuable resources to benefit people in other portions of
the state--and the rest of the West. That's true, for example, when
electricity generated by hydro facilities in California's rural
counties is exported to the Pacific Northwest to help people in that
area meet their winter-time heating needs.
California depends heavily on rural California for its water,
hydroelectric energy production, minerals, food, fiber, building
materials and outdoor recreation. Even so, the interests of rural
counties are often overlooked or ignored because their political
representation is so overshadowed by the more populated urban regions
of California. But people in rural counties today are more vigilant.
They are unwilling to do business on a firm handshake, a pat on the
back and promises for the future.
California's rural counties are undergoing tremendous change. In
some areas, significant population growth strains the ability to share
resources. And that growth demands the opportunity for economic
development in years ahead. They see the promise of becoming part of
the technological future of our state, while still being connected to
the landscape. They have no intention of allowing that future to be
traded away as off-site mitigation for another area's problems.
The leaders of these counties firmly believe that all people's
views are valuable. They also believe that the best solutions are those
developed locally. Our leadership sees the Federal and State government
as potential partners in problem solving. But, it is a partnership
that, in the past, has not lived up to its full potential to protect
the interests of all the people who are affected by the decisions it
makes.
How decisions are made can ultimately be more important than the
decisions themselves. If the people on the landscape have no faith in
the decision-makers, the process implementing the decision will fail.
Our Republic is anchored on the premise that the people's elected
representatives make the decisions that affect their lives. Further,
there must be a fundamental accountability between those who make the
decisions and those whose lives are affected by them. The Supervisors
of our rural counties live with that reality each week during their
board meetings and every four years during elections. However, all too
often they are caught between poorly thought out Federal and state
actions and a public whose lives are harmed by those actions.
There is a new Federalism in Washington. It encourages, rather than
stifles, local solutions and collaborative processes. There is a new
vision of government in Washington, in which local people have a voice
and a role in making decisions. There is a new leadership ethic in our
nation's capital; one that gives those it leads a voice in their own
future. There is new hope for Washington, and it is that those elected
to serve in Washington will hear those who are elected to serve back
home.
And in that spirit, the supervisors who represent the Regional
Council of Rural Counties, looks forward to a cooperative partnership
with people in Washington. A partnership that will help California and
the West meet its water and energy needs; that will preserve national
treasures for the country to enjoy; and that will preserve the ability
of rural counties to maintain their quality of life, provide services
to its citizens and protect its ability to develop economically.
Thank you for your consideration.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1508.009