<DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:73637.wais]
MANAGEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
July 9, 2001 in Salt Lake City, Utah
__________
Serial No. 107-46
__________
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
-------
73-637 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
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
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 9, 2001..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 6
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 1
Napolitano, Hon. Grace, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Anderson, D. Larry, Director, Utah Division of Water
Resources, and Utah Commissioner, Upper Colorado River
Commission................................................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Davidson, Thomas J., Wyoming Commissioner, Upper Colorado
River Commission, and Deputy Attorney General, Wyoming
Attorney General's Office.................................. 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Dishlip, Herb, Assistant Director, Arizona Department of
Water Resources............................................ 19
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Holsinger, Kent, Assistant Director, Colorado Department of
Natural Resources.......................................... 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Jones, Jeanine, Drought Preparedness Manager, California
Department of Water Resources.............................. 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Mulroy, Patricia, General Manager, Southern Nevada Water
Authority.................................................. 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Mutz, Philip B., Upper Colorado River Commissioner, State of
New Mexico................................................. 41
Prepared statement of.................................... 45
Additional materials supplied:
Graff, Thomas J., Regional Director, Environmental Defense,
Letter submitted for the record by The Honorable Grace
Napolitano................................................. 81
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON MANAGEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER
----------
Monday, July 9, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Resources
Salt Lake City, Utah
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., at the
Department of Natural Resources, 1594 West North Temple, Salt
Lake City, Utah, Hon. James V. Hansen (Chairman of the
Committee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
The Chairman. Good morning. We welcome you here this
morning to the Committee of Natural Resources of the U.S. House
of Representatives. I'm the Chairman of the Committee, Jim
Hansen. Grace Napolitano is from California, who is here on my
left. Ken Calvert is the Chairman of the Subcommittee of Water
and Power, and is from California. Seated next to him is Chris
Cannon from the state of Utah in the Third District. We expect
any moment to have Jim Gibbons of the state of Nevada. And I
understand that these mikes work differently than they do in
the House of Representatives. Jim Gibbons should walk in any
minute from the state of Nevada.And so, because we believe in
starting on time, we're going to go ahead. And I'll have some
opening remarks and I'll turn to my colleagues.
This field hearing will explore the broad issues of the
management of the Colorado River in the coming decades from the
perspective of the Upper and Lower Colorado Basin states.
Today's witnesses represent each of these states, will provide
insight to the Committee of the various and often contentious
issues that we must grapple with in the coming years.
In light of the legislation recently introduced which
authorized the massive CALFED water projects, it is appropriate
that we also explore the future management of the Colorado
River and California's relationship with other Basin states as
well.
We are all familiar with the contentious issues of the
Colorado River, ranging from the operation of the Federal dams
to the protection of endangered species, to Indian water
rights, to the marketing of water between states and water
users. While each of these issues have been the subject of
numerous hearings, we will likely only be able to touch on
these topics today. But as we discuss the water needs of
California and other states, we should strive to reach a
reasonable balance between the water users, recreationists, and
environmental concerns.
Unfortunately, some have already made up their minds to
take an unreasonable and unbending position that is neither
realistic nor conducive to public discourse. And so I think we
should be very careful as we look at this; we would hope that
people would have an open mind, that they would see that the
southwest part of America is predicated on the Colorado River
drainage. And there are a lot of states involved in this, and
we would appreciate it if people, as this thing unfolds, would
work on that.
Some people are of the opinion that we should drain Lake
Powell. I think you might as well forget that. I don't think
that will ever occur, but who knows. And that we have to
realize if we find ourselves without the water and power that
comes out of Lake Powell right now, we would be in very tough
shape.
Some who advocate preaching recycling and conservation
often refuse to accept the fact that the Colorado water and its
tributaries are the cleanest source of energy in the West. All
sources of energy need a fuel; in this case fuel is water. The
Colorado River water is used and reused nearly a half dozen
times between its headwaters and the delta through a series of
highly efficient dams. Unfortunately, no one ever seems to talk
about that.
I would challenge anyone to come up with an alternative
source of power that uses the same fuel four or six times over,
providing power to literally millions of homes and businesses,
with zero greenhouse gas emissions. You just simply can't.
Simply put, hydropower is among the most environmentally
friendly sources of water we have, and we should not overlook
that fact as we discuss the management of the Colorado River.
Unfortunately, I have no doubt that someday some well-
meaning and naive Member of Congress from the East, eager to
curry favor with the green lobby, will introduce legislation to
decommission Glen Canyon Dam. I don't think that day is too far
away. And as long as I'm Chairman of the Committee, don't count
on it. At that time it will be our responsibility as Members of
the Committee to educate that person to the reality of the role
that water plays in the West.
In light of this drain-it movement under way, I believe
that Members of this Committee should also be concerned with
the discussion that will take place between the United States
and Mexico in September regarding the Colorado River delta.
There is significant pressure coming from these same
environmental groups to reallocate substantial amounts of water
to restore the Colorado River delta. This will undoubtedly have
immediate and long-term ramifications on all the basin states.
The secretary should be very careful not to enter into
agreements without the consultation and agreement of the
states.
I don't know if the witnesses are prepared to discuss this
issue today. But the Committee should certainly be prepared to
provide the Secretary with guidance if necessary. And as many
you of folks know, what the secretaries do can be overturned by
legislation, and is done on a very regular basis, whether it's
the Defense Department or the resources somewhere else, and in
the last 8 years we spent an awful lot of time doing it.
I want to thank Chairman Calvert for all the work that he
has done on these issues. Ken has just been a Godsend to us on
the Committee, and he's working here with Josh Johnson, who's
holding this button down so I can talk to you folks. Josh has
served on my personal staff for a while, he's been over on
Energy and Water, and now is Chief of Staff of this
Subcommittee. Ken has devoted a tremendous amount of time and
energy over the recent months in working for solutions to
address California's long-term water and energy needs.
I also want to thank the other Members of the Committee who
have arranged their schedules and travel plans to be here
today.
Finally, I want to extend the Committee's appreciation to
the Utah Department of Natural Resources and Director Kathleen
Clark for hosting today's hearing. They have been most
accommodating in making arrangement for this hearing in such
short notice.
Now it is my pleasure to hear from the Chairman of the
Subcommittee, Mr. Calvert of California, and then the
gentlelady from California, the gentleman from Utah, and the
gentleman from Nevada.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, you know, we
hear a lot about exports of water from the Colorado River to
California. I was happy when I came here today that--relieved
that we're importing water here to Utah from California. So I
just wanted you to know that it's not just a one-way street,
you know, so.
The Chairman. Yes, you've stolen our water fair and square.
Mr. Calvert. Recently I've been doing a series of field
hearings in my home state of California, discussing issues
related to water supply, quality, and reliability. And
throughout these hearings I've learned that California's water
security is directly tied to water security in the entire
western United States.
Water issues cross borders here in the West like the
meandering river. One issue that continually comes before my
Subcommittee, particularly when it comes to California's water
security, is the management and operations of the Colorado
River. As each of you know, this river has been a focal point
of water for all of us in the West for many decades, and
promises to continue to be.
We speak of the collective body of law, how to regulate
Colorado River water in the West as the Law of the River.
Though we've made good progress defining that law, challenges
certainly continue. The environment, the possibility of a long-
term drought, California's 4.4 Plan, and the simple lack of
enough water will be challenges in the future. So I certainly
look forward to today's hearing and each state's perspective on
issues surrounding the management and operations of the
Colorado River.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being the host in such a
delightful location here in the state of Utah. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water
and Power
Recently, I have been doing a series of field hearings in my home
state of California'discussing issues related to water supply, quality
and reliability. Throughout these hearings, I have learned that
California's water security is directly tied to water security in the
entire Western United States. Water issues cross boarders here in the
West, like a meandering River. One issue that continually comes before
my Subcommittee, particularly when it comes to California's water
security, is the management and operations of the Colorado River. As
each of you know, this river has been a focal point of water for all of
us in the West for many decades, and promises to continue to be. We
speak of the collective body of law about how to regulate Colorado
River water in the West as the ``Law of the River.'' While we have made
good progress defining that law, challenges certainly continue. The
environment, the possibility of a long term drought, the California 4.4
Plan and the simple lack of enough water will be challenges in the
future.
I look forward today to hear each State's perspective on issues
surrounding the management and operations of the Colorado River.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. Miss Napolitano?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GRACE NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a
pleasure to be here. And mine is very short and sweet. I have
been involved with the Colorado River for a number of years
simply because I was privy to a lot of the information at the
state level. And essentially I have vested interests in the
fact that the Colorado River provides good, quality water for
the whole basin in my area. And it isn't just for my
constituents that I'm concerned for the future of that delivery
of that water, but also for my children and my grandchildren
and their grandchildren.
I think all of us need to understand that no matter what we
decide, what happens in the decades to come is something that
we need to be concerned about, because things are changing. Not
only do we not have what--we go through the cycles of drought
all through this western area, and I think if we work together
we can come to solutions that are going to be beneficial to all
of the western states. It is my hope that we will continue to
work together, as we did on getting the Colorado River Moab
site addressed that had been sitting for a long time.
I was asked repeatedly, why do you have an interest? Well,
we do drink the Colorado water, and so the interest has to be
there for all of us. And I think working together we can come
to some solution. I'm glad I'm here to listen to what is said
so that we can then move forward and begin the work that needs
to be done.
Thank you, sir, thank you, my colleagues.
The Chairman. Thank you, gentlelady. The gentleman from
Utah, Mr. Cannon.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRIS CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing today. Geez, being in Congress would be a
lot more pleasant if we could have all of our meetings out
here. Or at home, for those from other states. I'd also like to
thank the gentlelady from California, Ms. Napolitano, for her
interest in this subject over the long- term. We've worked
closely together on moving the tailings out of the Moab area
and off the Colorado River. I know many people downstream have
a concern about that.
I'm pleased to have this opportunity to examine the
management of the Colorado River. We who live in the arid West
know just how critical water supply issues are. The Resources
Committee and the Colorado River managers are faced with dual
tasks. We live in an era where we're more sensitive to
environmental effects or actions, and on the other hand, we
must ensure an adequate supply of water for a burgeoning
population.
A study by the University of Colorado's Center for the
American West projects that 48 million more people will be
added to the 11 Western states by 2050. Utah alone will grow by
about 59 percent, to reach about 3.6 million people, according
to these projections, and therefore must adopt a forward-
looking approach to water management to accommodate this
growth. In other words, the Colorado River will play a key role
in providing the water we need; both the Upper and Lower Basin
states must find ways to make better use of the water that we
have.
I'm pleased to be working on a bill to, among other things,
encourage wastewater reuse in the Central Utah Project. This
kind of innovative management applied to the Colorado River is
the only way to ensure that we have the water necessary to
sustain our Western population.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses.
They have a chance to offer us information that we need to make
good policy decisions and ensure the preservation of the
Colorado River, while continuing to provide for the needs of
the generations to come.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Utah
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. Being in
Congress would be all the more enjoyable if we could always stay in the
beautiful state of Utah to get our work done.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to examine management of the
Colorado River. We who live in the arid West know just how critical
water supply issues are. The Resources Committee and Colorado River
managers are faced with dual tasks. We live in an era where we are more
sensitive to the environmental efforts of our actions. ON the other
hand, we must ensure an adequate supply of water for our burgeoning
population. A study by the University of Colorado's Center of the
American West projects that 48 million more people will be add3ed to
the 11 Western states by 2050. Utah alone will grow by 59% to almost
3.6 million people. We must adopt a forward-looking approach to water
management if we are to accommodate this growth.
Management of the Colorado River will play a key role in providing
the water we need. Both the upper and lower basin states must find ways
to make better use of the water that we have. I am pleased to be
working on a bill to, among other things, encourage wastewater reuse in
the Central Utah Project. This kind of innovative management applied to
the Colorado River is the only way to ensure that we have the water
necessary to sustain our western population.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses. They are
the true experts who can offer us the information that we need to make
good policy decisions and ensure the preservation of the Colorado
River, while continuing to provide for the needs of the generations to
come.
______
The Chairman. Gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And as a
Representative from Nevada whose state contains the southern
part of the Colorado River Basin in that area, I'm honored and
pleased to be here. Thank you for the invitation to invite us
to attend.
And let me say that I do believe that the future of the
Colorado River is not only more secure, but it's much brighter,
through hearings that we're having here today and through the
leadership of not only you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Calvert as
well, but I think because of the groups and the interests that
everyone is showing in now improving the Colorado River as we
have here today.
As for my good colleague and friend, Mr. Cannon from Utah,
I am in complete agreement with him that we should move at
least to Salina, Kansas, the capital of the United States; it
would make the commute a whole lot easier. And I do appreciate
the fact to be here.
Once again, thank you for the invitation and your
leadership on this issue.
The Chairman.All of the statements will be included in
their entirety in the record. And if people want to abbreviate,
by all means, please do it.
The Chairman. For today's hearing, we just have one panel,
but we've structured it that way. We want to hear from you
folks, what you want to say, what you feel strong about.
And normally we limit you to 5 minutes. We purposely did
not bring our clock that cuts you off, but we would appreciate
it if you would just kind of speak from the heart. If you want
to read your statement, that's up to you. But following that, I
will turn to Members of the panel here to ask you all the tough
questions.
So this is the order they tell me we're supposed to do this
in. Mr. D. Larry Young? Larry Anderson. Put my glasses on to
get this straight, Larry. Director of Utah Division of Water
Resources; Mr. Herb Dishlip, Assistant Director, Arizona
Department of Water Resources; Mrs. Jeanine Jones, Drought
Preparedness Manager, California Department of Water Resources;
Mr. Kent Holsinger, is that correct?
Mr. Holsinger. Holsinger.
The Chairman. Close enough. Assistant Director, Colorado
Department of Natural Resources; Miss Patricia Mulroy, General
Manager, Southern Nevada Water Authority; Mr. Phillip Mutz,
Upper Colorado River Commissioner, State of New Mexico; and Mr.
Thomas J. Davidson, the Governor's Representative, Wyoming
Attorney General's Office. We'd be happy to take you in that
order. Larry, if you want to start, you're on.
STATEMENT OF D. LARRY ANDERSON, DIRECTOR, UTAH DIVISION OF
WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Anderson. Thank you very much. I don't know if I have
to touch this, or maybe it doesn't work. Anyway--
The Chairman. Have you got power? Can everybody hear Mr.
Anderson?
Mr. Anderson. Congressman Hansen and Members of Congress,
those from the Resources Committee, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the states--State of
Utah concerning management of the Colorado River. I am Larry
Anderson, the Director of the Utah Division of Water Resources,
Utah Interstate Streams Commissioner, and Governor Leavitt's
representative on Colorado River water issues.
From the dawn of recorded history down to our time, men
have prayed and fought for the water that makes soil productive
and sustains life. If an area receives less than 20 inches of
precipitation annually, irrigation is necessary.
As you can see from the map over here that I brought in
showing the annual precipitation, the western United States,
and particularly the Colorado River Basin, there in those nice
red--
The Chairman. Do you want to bring that out so the rest of
the folks here in the audience can see it?
Mr. Anderson. Those nice red and orange colors there, the
hot ones show that the western United States, particularly the
Colorado River basin, is in what I would call the great
American desert. We receive within the Colorado River basin
about 14 inches of precipitation annually, and you can see as
you move east how that--colors get a lot calmer and cooler as
you move there, and see that the precipitation on the East
Coast varies from about 30 inches up to as much a 100 inches.
So we truly do live in the great American desert.
Because of the critical role of water in the arid West, the
Colorado River has been the subject of extensive negotiations
and litigation. This has resulted in the development of a
complex set of Federal and state laws, compacts, court
decisions, treaties, and other agreements, collectively known
as a Law of the River. The principal documents forming the Law
of the River again are shown over here on this poster.
While some may want you to believe that the Law is archaic
and unresponsive to current problems, you will note that the
list of items comprising the Law of the River continues to
grow, showing a dynamic and static law--and not a static law,
with the most recent additional item added to the Law of the
River being the Interim Surplus Guidelines, which were added in
January of this year.
In the mid-1990's, the Colorado River Basin states began
discussions on the development of a plan to encourage
California to implement measures to reduce its use of Colorado
River water from 5.2 million acre-feet annually back to its
allocated amount of 4.4 million acre-feet.
With the encouragement of the Secretary of Interior, the
basin states were able to reach a consensus agreement of what
we call Interim Surplus Guidelines. The Secretary of Interior
adopted those guidelines in January of this year, and issued a
record of decision that was acceptable to all of the basin
states.
The advantage of the Interim Surplus Guidelines is it gives
California water users more certainty on when and how surpluses
will be determined for the next 15 years. The advantage to the
other six basin states is that it requires California to
systematically ratchet down its use of Colorado River water,
and by the year 2016, California has committed to live within
its Compact allocation of 4.4 million acre-feet.
A document that goes hand in hand with the Interim Surplus
Guidelines is the California 4.4 Plan. This plan outlines the
measures California water users will implement to achieve the
conservation benchmarks outlined by the record of the decision.
We support and fully expect California to finalize the plan,
their 4.4 Plan, by December of 2002.
Because a continuation of the Interim Guidelines is
dependent upon California's being successful. We encourage
Congress and all Federal agencies to support and assist
California wherever necessary in completing all of the
agreements that they must sign within the state of California
and all the environmental regulations that they must comply
with. And if necessary, expedite any Federal reviews required
to help California be successful in their plan.
In recent years Federal legislation has been introduced to
protect the Salton Sea ecosystem. I am concerned that such an
effort may conflict with the California 4.4 Plan. Remind you
that the Salton Sea is a man-made lake created in the 1900's by
the failure of a canal carrying Colorado River water to
irrigators in the Imperial Valley, and the Salton Sea is
maintained today by agricultural inefficiency and runoff. Any
efforts to guarantee additional flows to the Salton Sea could
conflict with conservation efforts to transfer agricultural
water to M&I uses as contemplated in the California 4.4 Plan
and in the Interim Surplus Guidelines.
Environmental groups have recently expressed a concern over
the Colorado River delta ecosystem in Mexico. The Federal
Governments of both the United States and Mexico have agreed to
meet to discuss delta concerns and issues, and have scheduled a
joint educational symposium in Mexicali, Mexico on September
11th and 12th. The basin states request that the U.S.
Government invite us to be involved in the development of any
solutions to the problems in the delta.
I don't have to remind this group that the Colorado River
is totally appropriated, the water has been allocated to the
basin states and to the country of Mexico in the use of water.
Any additional water will have to be--will have to come from
one of those sources.
Even though there are many unresolved issues facing the
Colorado River water users, the basin states are trying to work
cooperatively with the Federal Government, Indian tribes, and
nongovernment organizations to resolve them. While the process
is not easy, history tells us that if those involved exercise
trust and comity among themselves, acceptable solutions are
likely to be found. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]
Statement of D. Larry Anderson, Utah Commissioner, Upper Colorado River
Commission, and Director, Utah Division of Water Resources
The Colorado River falls more than 12,000 feet as it flows from the
Rocky Mountains to its outlet in the Gulf of California. The river has
a huge drainage basin that covers over 244,000 square miles. The seven
Colorado River Basin states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New
Mexico, Utah, Wyoming) comprise about one-twelfth of the area of the
continental United States. Despite the size of the watershed, the
Colorado River ranks only sixth among the nation=s rivers in volume of
flow, with an average annual undepleted flow in excess of 17.5 million
acre-feet (MAF) (15 MAF at Lee Ferry, the compact division point).
Demands on the Colorado River are not limited to needs within the
basin. In fact, more water is exported from the basin than from any
other river in the country. The river provides municipal and industrial
water for more than 24 million people living in the major metropolitan
areas of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Denver, and
hundreds of other communities in the seven states. It also provides
irrigation water to about 2.0 million acres of land. The river has over
60 MAF of storage capacity and 4,000 megawatts of hydroelectric
generating capacity. The river is often described as the most regulated
river in the world. Considering its importance to the basin states,
Native American Indian Tribes and Mexico, the agreements that have been
reached to divide the rivers water must be considered of the utmost
importance.
Over half of the state of Utah is located in the Colorado River
Basin, and the river is an important economic, recreational, and
environmental resource for the citizens of the state. A significant
portion of Utah=s economy revolves around and is supported by the use
of the Colorado River and its tributaries for power generation,
irrigation, and tourism as well as a water supply for Utah=s growing
population. Thus, Utah is vitally concerned with the management of the
Colorado River in the 21st Century.
THE LAW OF THE RIVER
Because of the critical role of water in the arid west, the
Colorado River has been the subject of extensive negotiations and
litigation. This has resulted in the development of a complex set of
federal laws, compacts, court decisions, treaties, state laws and other
agreements collectively known as ``The Law of the River.'' The
principal documents forming ``The Law of the River'' include:
<bullet> The Colorado River Compact of 1922;
<bullet> The Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928;
<bullet> The Mexican Treaty of 1944;
<bullet> The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948;
<bullet> The Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956;
<bullet> The U.S. Supreme Court's Arizona v. California decision
and decree of 1963;
<bullet> The Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968;
<bullet> Criteria for Coordinated Long-Range Operation of Colorado
River Reservoirs of 1970;
<bullet> Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water
Commission of 1973;
<bullet> The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974;
<bullet> The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992;
<bullet> Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria of 2001
In addition to these documents, several other federal and state
laws impact use of the river. Some are California=s Self Limitation
Act, the federal Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy
Act, Clean Water Act, and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
While some groups may have you believe ``The Law of the River'' is
archaic and unresponsive to current problems, it should be pointed out,
as evidenced by the preceding information that ``The Law of the
River,'' has evolved over time and adapted to various needs and
situations. The key to this process has been the comity and respect the
participants have shown each other while also ensuring the newer
elements are consistent with and conform to the principals embodied in
the previously existing compacts, laws, treaties, and court decisions.
INTERIM SURPLUS GUIDELINES
One of the most important issues in the Colorado River Basin today
is the increasing municipal and industrial demands in the Lower
Division States of Arizona, California, and Nevada versus available
water supply as allocated by ``The Law of the River.'' Unless and until
the Lower Division States take the necessary steps to live within their
basic entitlement of 7.5 MAF per year, Utah=s ability to continue to
develop and use its Upper Basin allocation could be impaired. With the
goal in mind of protecting Utah=s future development and use of
Colorado River Water, Utah joined with the other six Basin states in
responding to a call from the Secretary of the Interior to develop a
plan by which the short term needs of the Lower Division States could
be met during a transition period while the Lower Division States,
specifically California, develop and implement a plan to limit use of
Colorado River water to the amount allowed under ``The Law of the
River.''
The result of this process in essence is the ``Colorado River
Interim Surplus Guidelines'' as adopted in the Secretary of the
Interior=s Record of Decision (ROD) dated January of 2001.
The Surplus Guidelines allow the Secretary to provide water to meet
municipal and industrial (M&I) uses in the Lower Basin, particularly in
California, during an interim period 2001- 2016 when Colorado River
reservoirs are projected to be relatively full. Water users in
California have been using approximately 5.2 MAF annually over the past
20 years, 800,000 acre-feet more each year than their compact
allocation. Interim surplus guidelines allow California 15 years to
implement conservation programs to reduce their demand for Colorado
River water by 800,000 AF annually. During this 15-year time frame, the
basin states have agreed to give California a greater assurance than
hydrology may afford that surpluses will be declared and M&I water
demands met. These criteria, however, are structured in such a way as
to also provide protection to the other basin states against the
potential impacts of dry hydrology in the next 15 years. This
protection will reduce the allowable California M&I water demands that
can be met by surpluses as the reservoirs are lowered because of
drought. Utah strongly supports the consensus reached by the seven
Colorado River Basin states and requests the federal government and
Secretary of the Interior continue to follow through on the commitments
of all parties and be willing to enforce the provisions of the Interim
Surplus Criteria Guidelines outlined in the ROD if that is necessary to
assure that certain time sensitive bench marks are met. Utah believes
such monitoring and, if necessary, enforcement is critical to
protecting the rights of the Upper Division states (Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) and the water allocated to them under ``The
Law of the River.''
CALIFORNIA 4.4 PLAN
Of great interest and concern to all the Colorado River Basin
states is the success of the California 4.4 Plan (4.4 Plan), which is
an integral part of the Interim Surplus Guidelines ROD. This plan
outlines the necessary steps California water users must take to meet
the requirements of the Interim Surplus Guidelines ROD. Utah supports
California=s development of the 4.4 plan and fully expects this plan to
be finalized and in place by December of 2002 with all necessary
agreements and compliance documents executed. While we have some
concern over the conflicts the 4.4 plan has generated in California, we
fully anticipate and expect the water users in California to solve
their problems as the viability of the ``Interim Surplus Guidelines''
hangs in the balance. Similarly, there are some agreements which
involve parties in Arizona and Nevada along with parties in California
that need to be completed. Utah encourages Congress and federal
agencies to provide support for and facilitate these agreements
wherever appropriate, and if necessary, expedite any required federal
review processes.
SALTON SEA
Somewhat related to the 4.4 Plan are current federal efforts to
protect/restore the Salton Sea. Some of the proposals being considered
may be at odds with the 4.4 Plan. While the Salton Sea has become an
important wildlife habitat, it should also be recognized that the
Salton Sea is a manmade habitat dependent upon agricultural
inefficiency and runoff. Any water dedicated for use in the Salton Sea
will have to come from existing water uses in the area, which may
conflict with the transfer of agricultural water to municipal use as
contemplated in the 4.4 Plan and the benchmarks in the ROD. Given the
relationship between the Salton Sea and Colorado River water use under
the 4.4 plan, the impacts of both efforts should be carefully
evaluated.
COLORADO RIVER DELTA
The Colorado River is an international resource. Recently several
environmental organizations have raised concerns over the Colorado
River Delta ecosystem in Mexico, and the Mexican government has asked
the United States to enter into a dialog concerning the restoration and
protection of the Colorado River Delta. Utah expects the federal
government will continue to consult with the seven Colorado River Basin
states concerning any and all issues related to Colorado River flows to
Mexico. At the present time environmental groups, research
institutions, the Basin states, and the federal governments of both the
United States and Mexico are looking for options to find ways to
protect and restore the Colorado River Delta in Mexico. A joint, two-
country educational symposium is currently scheduled to be held in
Mexicalli, Mexico on September 11 and 12 to discuss what is known about
the Delta today.
As international issues are considered, the federal government and
Congress should recognize that the Colorado River is fully allocated
and used. Thus, any water dedicated to the Delta will have to be taken
from current water users and existing allocations. Also, once water has
been delivered to the international boundary, the United States can do
nothing about how the water is used in Mexico. The sovereign right of
Mexico to control waters within Mexico is the same right the United
States and the Colorado River Basin states have within their respective
boundaries. Further any changes in Colorado River water deliveries to
Mexico will have to take into account not only the traditional ``Law of
the River,'' but specifically state water rights.
FUTURE OF GLEN CANYON DAM AND LAKE POWELL
In connection with the Colorado River Delta discussions, we have
begun to hear the first inkling of a supposed connection between the
operation of Glen Canyon Dam, and the well-being of the Colorado River
Delta downstream. The erroneous theory seems to be that if the dam were
decommissioned, the Delta would thrive. Utah opposes this and other
unwise efforts to drain Lake Powell. Lake Powell is an integral
component of the management and operation of the Colorado River, is
essential to the Upper Basin states= continued effort to implement
their responsibilities under ``The Law of the River,'' and provides
uncounted recreation, flood control, power generations and other
benefits. The Utah Legislature recently passed a resolution (copy
attached) opposing the draining of Lake Powell. Utah, and, we believe,
other Colorado River Basin states steadfastly oppose any efforts to
decommission Glen Canyon Dam or drain Lake Powell. As stated in a Salt
Lake Tribune editorial, it is ``Dam Foolishness.''
UPPER COLORADO RIVER ENDANGERED FISHES RECOVERY PROGRAM
Utah=s development of its remaining allocation of Colorado River
Water is dependent upon compliance with the Endangered Species Act
(ESA); particularly treatment of the four listed Colorado River fishes
(Colorado Pikeminnow, Humpback Chub, Razorback Sucker, and the
Bonytail). To comply with the ESA, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS), the United States Bureau of
Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration, and Environmental
Defense Fund entered into a cooperative agreement in 1988 to recover
these species. Much research has been completed during the last 12
years to help us learn more about these fish. Today participants in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fishes Recovery Program (Recovery
Program) have developed a Recovery Implementation Program and a
Recovery Action Plan that will, to the best knowledge of the scientists
involved, recover these fishes while still allowing water use and
development in the Upper Colorado River Basin. With the help and
support of Chairman Hansen and this Committee, long term funding
authorization has been obtained from Congress, along with a commitment
by the states to cost-share at substantial levels. Utah asks that
federal appropriations for this purpose continue.
Revised recovery goals are currently undergoing review by the
USF&WS and will be published this fall. Comparison of the preliminary
drafts of the recovery goals with current population estimates indicate
the Colorado Pikeminnow and the Humpback Chub are recovering to the
point that down-listing is a distinct possibility in the near future if
population trends continue. Utah is very supportive of the program and
has committed $3.4 million over the next five years for capital
construction of facilities for fish recovery. This is in addition to an
ongoing commitment of resources for research, monitoring, and
maintenance. The need for consensus in decision-making is an important
factor in the success of the Recovery Program. The unity of purpose and
trust among the participants along with a manageable committee size
(currently nine members) helps the Implementation Committee make
decisions and set policy that allows the program to succeed. Utah would
also like to commend the federal agency participants and the
environmental organization members of the Recovery Program for their
willingness to discuss issues and work out solutions.
MULTI SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Fundamental to the original intent of the Recovery Program
Cooperative Agreement was the implicit understanding that the listed
fishes could be recovered, down-listed, and eventually de-listed in the
Upper Basin independent of the Lower Colorado River Basin status of the
fish.
Utah supports the Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) in the
Lower Colorado River Basin. We note, however, that the size and scope
of the MSCP both in terms of issues and species to be addressed, as
well as the shear number of participants will make the success a
difficult challenge, because consensus and unity of purpose and action
becomes exponentially greater as the number of participants and issues
increase. Thus, Utah believes it is imperative that recovery, down-
listing, and de-listing of currently-listed species in the Upper Basin
not be tied in any direct or indirect way to the status of the fishes
in the Lower Basin.
GLEN CANYON ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Grand Canyon Protection Act directed the Secretary of the
Interior to operate Glen Canyon Dam to enhance the downstream resources
along the river through the Grand Canyon while still meeting the
purposes for which the dam was built. To reduce downstream impacts to
fisheries and habitat, one of the changes made was to modify the
hydroelectric power plant operation from a peaking power facility to a
partial peaking power facility.
There is a growing concern over the objectives and goals of the
Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program principally because many
participants fail to recognize this program is constrained by ``The Law
of the River.'' The Adaptive Management Workgroup, established by the
Grand Canyon Protection Act, is an advisory group to the Secretary of
the Interior and thus has no formal decision responsibility, a fact
sometimes ignored by some members of the group.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, while philosophical musings and an emotional desire
to return to simpler times have a powerful appeal, we as a society must
acknowledge that our standard of living is, in large measure, based on
changes we have wrought to our natural environment, including rivers
such as the Colorado. Changes to river operations will have to be based
on facts established using sound science and need to take into account
the social and economic costs and benefits derived from current
operations. Congress and the Administration need to recognize that the
constraints of ``The Law of the River'' have been carefully and
painfully established by legislation, negotiation, and litigation over
a period of many years. Even though there are many unresolved issues
facing the Colorado River water users, the basin states are trying to
work cooperatively with the federal government, Indian tribes, and non-
governmental organizations to resolve them. While the process is not
easy, history tells us if those involved continue to exercise comity,
acceptable solutions are likely to be found to most problems.
______
(Attachments to Mr. Anderson's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3637.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3637.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3637.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3637.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3637.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3637.005
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Mr. Dishlip?
STATEMENT OF HERB DISHLIP, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Dishlip. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, on
behalf of Governor Hull, I'd like to thank you for the
opportunity to be here today to address Colorado River issues
to the 21st century as it relates to the state of Arizona.
I'm Herb Dishlip. I'm Assistant Director for the Arizona
Department of Water Resources. Within the Arizona state
government, the Department of Water Resources is the agency
that is responsible for policy development and coordination of
activities with regard to the Colorado River. Within Arizona,
the Colorado River is probably our most important renewable
water resource.
Our current use of water averages about six and a half
million acre-feet a year. We're a growing state. One of our
biggest challenges is to manage the water supply, to
accommodate growth, and still be able to live within our means.
The 2.8 million acre-feet of entitlement that we have for the
Colorado River between the Upper and Lower Basins represents
about half of our water supply. Especially when you consider
the fact that we are able to use water more than one time, use
the water, generate return flows, and recycle that same water
supply more than one time. So it is obviously the critical
renewable water resource.
By comparison, our local rivers generate about 1.5 million
acre-feet, and the balance of our water supply comes from
groundwater. And a great deal of that groundwater supply has
been chronically mined, resulting in lowering of water tables
over the last 60 years.
Within our state, our biggest challenge is to reverse the
overdraft situation and become much more reliant upon a
renewable and reliable supply such as the Colorado River. In
large part because of the importance of the Colorado River and
the allocation of that river to our state, Arizona's had a long
history of being very cautious and somewhat contentious with
regard to the Colorado River supplies.
Back when they did the first issue on the Law of the River
in 1922, our state was only 10 years old; we'd become a state
in 1912. And so one of the very first major political issues
faced by our leadership was the Colorado River and the
formation of the Colorado River Compact. And while we
participated in the negotiation of the Compact, when they
brought that Compact back to our state legislature, our state
legislature refused to ratify it; we were the holdout. And so
that didn't make them very popular, but it was a message really
that in Arizona, when it comes to the Colorado River, people
take it very, very seriously.
Ultimately, our holdout didn't work; the Compact was
ratified without our signature, and Hoover Dam was allowed to
be built and development of the river supply moved forward.
Finally, in 1944, the state realized being recalcitrant
wasn't getting anywhere, and they did ratify the Compact and
entered into a contract to utilize our Lower Basin supply of
2.8 million acre-feet. Once they did that, they got fairly
serious about putting that water to use.
And probably the cornerstone of the ability to put that
water to use was the development of a major diversion project
from the river to bring it into the central basins in the
Phoenix and Tucson area called the Central Arizona Project. But
development of the Central Arizona Project was very long, it
was hard-fought, it ended up in having to go to the Supreme
Court for long years of litigation in the Arizona versus
California case. And coming out of that case, there finally was
a decision, and finally in 1968 it did lead to the
authorization and beginning of construction of the Central
Arizona Project. But again, I think it left kind of a feeling
of a siege mentality within our state historically; that in
order to get Colorado River supplies put to use, we were going
to have to fight very hard for it and we were going to have to
protect that water supply any way we can.
With the utilization of the Central--construction of the
Central Arizona Project though, now we are fully utilizing our
water supplies. And it really is a new era with regard to water
and water management in Arizona that we have now full
capability to use all 2.8 million acre-feet of our Lower Basin
entitlement.
Realizing that things really have turned the corner with
regard to the development and use, we really have focused our
attention now on management of the Colorado River. And that's
where, in today's issues, the interim surplus criteria was so
important.
As we look to the development of the river supply, one of
the things that are--is our greatest concern is that over the
long-term this supply is overallocated, that there is not
enough water generated from the Colorado River to meet all the
needs in the basin. And one of the compromises made to get the
Central Arizona Project was that that project would take on a
junior priority relative to California in particular in times
of shortage. And that compromise that was made, that we
accepted to take shortages, really has had a critical factor
with regard to how we've looked at use of the Colorado River
and trying to make sure that other users live within their
means.
Considering where we are with regard to use within our
state, we're just building up to full utilization. The
development of surplus criteria would have normally been a
fairly low priority for our state; we're not really in need of
water above the 2.8 million acre-feet on occasion, although we
are trying to develop ways to take advantage of it through
groundwater recharge projects. But it normally would not have
been a high priority. But when California raised the issues
with regard to needing more flexible reservoir operating
criteria, we did become engaged, along with the other basin
states, in a strong dialogue, seeing if ultimately we could get
California to agree to reduce their overall demand, especially
for municipal use of water, to get it back down to within their
normal year entitlement.
We feel that's probably the greatest security policy that
the State of Arizona could buy, that having California living
within its means lowers the risk of shortages to Arizona
considerably. So we were willing to enter into these interim
surplus arrangements.
Part of the agreement we worked out with California and
Nevada on the Interim Surplus Agreement is that in many years
Arizona will actually forebear its use of the 46 percent of our
legal entitlement to surplus water, and we will do that in
deference to the promise by California that they will be
reducing their demand over a 15-year period.
Now historically, with that background I gave you about how
contentious Arizona's been, you would have thought that a
proposal for us to waive our rights to water would have been
dead on arrival in our legislature. But quite frankly, there is
a new attitude in Arizona, much more willingness to work with
the other states to have a better management program. And I'm
pleased to say that at the end of the last legislature, both
House and Senate passed a concurrent resolution, and Senator
Hull signed that resolution, which fully endorsed the interim
surplus criteria and allowed the provisions of that criteria to
go into place with regards to Arizona and Arizona water use.
That's kind of--fortunately now, that took an awful lot of
time, maybe six to 10 years of discussion and negotiation.
Hopefully, that issue is now behind us and the interim surplus
criteria in place, and we can look forward to future working
together with the other states.
A number of issues are emerging with regard to the Colorado
River. First of all, just coming off of the interim surplus
criteria, the need to reduce the 4.4 million acre-feet by
California. Inherent in that agreement is an understanding that
we're going to have to better manage and account for the
Colorado River water. We need to know who is using water, how
much, how much return flow is generated, and are we living up
to these agreements by living within our means. We definitely
need to have better accounting mechanisms. And included in that
determination, we need to know whether the water that is pumped
from the flood plain near the Colorado River should be
considered Colorado River water, subject to Federal law, or
should it be considered groundwater, subject to state law.
These are important decisions that have to be made, mostly on a
technical basis, but it's critical to doing that better
accounting.
We have a number of issues emerging. Arizona shares the
border with Mexico, our southern border, and in particular, we
even have a section of Arizona that has--about 26-mile section
where we share the border, that the Colorado River west of
Arizona is the Republic of Mexico. And this is in our Yuma
area. And the management of water supplies in the Yuma area has
long been subject to a lot of issues, especially with regard to
the salinity of the water and how return flows are generated.
And really emerging issues have to do in large part with how
are we managing the water supply that we deliver to the
Republic of Mexico.
The salinity issue at the south international boundary has
been raised through the International Boundary Water
Commission. We are working with the Bureau of Reclamation and
the IBWC to see if we can find ways at certain periods of time
to improve the quality of the water that is delivered at the
south boundary.
Related to the issue of south boundary deliveries is the
issue of the Yuma Desalting Plant. I think the--coming out of
the interim surplus criteria was a recognition that as we
manage the water supply, what happened back in the early 1970's
under the Salinity Control Act and the authorization of the
desalting plant, which has not been operated, that issue is now
coming into focus, should it be operated, shouldn't it be
operated, if it's not operated, what alternative means can be
done. The primary focus is not really so much in most years to
improve the quality of the water so much to deliver to the
Republic of Mexico, but to actually reclaim some water and make
it more usable within our entitlement, and save water supplies
in Lake Mead from being released.
One of the difficult issues with the Yuma Desalting Plant
is that in the interim period that has evolved, drainage water
from the Wellton-Mohawk project has resulted in a very high
quality riparian habitat in the Republic of Mexico called the
Cienega de Santa Clara. There's a great deal of wildlife value
and benefit associated with that use of that water.
The State of Arizona is very interested in making sure that
some kind of solution is put in place, whether we run the
desalt plant or find an alternative, but something that's done
that doesn't create an impact to our water users, does not
create increased risks of shortages.
But we are willing to work with the Bureau of Reclamation
and the IBWC to see if other alternatives are out there. Right
now I don't know that there are any, but we are willing to try
to solve that problem as well.
The delta has been mentioned by Mr. Anderson. This is
another emerging issue. The delta again is a valuable wildlife
resource in the Republic of Mexico. The difficulty is on an
overappropriated river where a treaty, an international treaty
has been in place for many years, where can we generate
additional water resources to restore the delta. This is a very
difficult problem.
I think as Arizona has looked at this issue, we want to
make sure that if any effort is put into delta restoration for
wildlife, it's being done in the most scientifically useful
way. And again, it has to be done in a way that has no impact
on Arizona water users and on the reliability of that supply.
The last issue I want to mention is Endangered Species Act.
The Endangered Species Act, while many people feel needs to be
modified, I think most water users now are of the understanding
that it's not going to go away, and that we have to accommodate
the needs of the endangered species somewhat as a cost of doing
business.
In that regard, the state of Arizona is participating with
Nevada, California, and the Federal Government to develop a
multispecies conservation program, to invest funding and
resources in trying to restore habitat along the Lower Colorado
River Basin. We think this is a very valuable program.
One of the difficulties though is that the cost of doing
business for endangered species can become very high, and there
is a lot of uncertainty with where the funding will come from
with regard to putting that program in place, how much will it
cost, how much will that translate into impacts on existing
power and water users.
Those are some of the highlights of the issues with regard
to the Colorado River as we look at the 21st century. I just
want to reiterate how important the Colorado River is to the
state of Arizona. It really is our lifeline. And as our history
has shown, we're willing to invest a great deal of time, money,
energy, hopefully not any more litigation, that's hopefully not
the direction we're headed with the Colorado River any more,
but it is a really critical water supply for our state. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dishlip follows:]
Statement of Herb Dishlip, Assistant Director, on behalf of Joseph C.
Smith, Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources
Good Morning. I would like to thank the House Committee on
Resources for the opportunity to provide the State of Arizona's
perspective regarding management of the Colorado River for the 21st
century. The Arizona Department of Water Resources is the agency within
Arizona that is statutorily authorized to represent the State's
position regarding Colorado River matters in dealings with the
Department of the Interior, other federal agencies and the
representatives of the other basin states.
The Importance of the Colorado River to Arizona
The Colorado River is Arizona's largest and most valuable renewable
water resource. Arizona has an annual water demand for about 6.5
million acre feet (maf). Our primary internal stream systems, the Salt,
Verde, Gila and Little Colorado Rivers produce only about 1.5 maf
annually. On the other hand, our Colorado River entitlements in the
Lower and Upper Basins total 2.85 maf. Some of that supply is used more
than once since irrigation uses along the Colorado River produce
useable return flows. When that fact is considered, the Colorado River
can meet over half our needs. The final primary water source used in
our State is groundwater, and much of that withdrawal and use
represents a mining condition. In many of our State's basins, water
tables have dropped by hundreds of feet over the last sixty years.
In large part due to the importance of the Colorado River in
Arizona's water budget, the State has had a history of being very
conservative and protective with its supplies and its claims for water
rights. While Arizona participated fully in the negotiation of the
Colorado River Compact in the early 1920's when it came time to ratify
that agreement, the Legislature refused. The Compact negotiations were
successful in apportioning water between the Upper and Lower Basins,
but did not apportion the water between the Lower Basin states.
Arizonans believed that they would need, and indeed deserved, a much
larger share of the Colorado River supply than what California was
offering. The Arizonans believed that if they continued to hold out and
use their political influence to delay the construction of Hoover Dam,
the California representatives would relent and Arizona would get a
larger share of the Colorado River. While that was the theory, the
reality was that the other Basin states lost patience with Arizona's
recalcitrance and moved forward to have the Compact ratified by six
states as long as California ratified and as long as they agreed to
limit their share to no more than 4.4 maf. This event allowed the
beginning of the development of the Colorado River, but it also fixed
in place within Arizona a very long-term perspective of caution
regarding Colorado River management.
Arizona finally relented to the inevitable and agreed to ratify the
Compact in 1944. It then began to move forward aggressively to develop
its water share, primarily through the construction of the Central
Arizona Project (CAP). Federal authorization for the construction of
the project came slowly due to objections first from California and
then from the Upper Basin states. This process, which finally came to a
head in 1968, left Arizona with somewhat of a siege mentality regarding
protecting its Colorado River supplies. Another outcome of the CAP
negotiations was that Arizona had to accept a lower priority for its
CAP water in times of river shortage. In other words, California would
be entitled to all of its 4.4 maf so long as the CAP received any
water. This one compromise of establishing priorities between the
states, while very common in the west, was new to the Colorado River.
The risk of having to bear shortages to our basic entitlement has had a
greater impact on Arizona's perspective on Colorado River management
than any other factor.
While it is clear that the water supply from the Colorado River is
critical to Arizona's economy, there are many other ways that Arizona
benefits from the Colorado River. Hydroelectric power from the Bureau
of Reclamation (Bureau) dams is widely used within Arizona.
Recreational activities, including boating and rafting, are very
important to our citizens and to a much broader national and
international community. The Colorado River is also very valuable as a
wildlife resource. It provides both sport fishing and extremely
valuable riparian habitat for non-sport fishing and other wildlife.
Today's Colorado River Issues
This background history sets the stage for dealing with today's
Colorado River issues. By far the greatest issue in recent years has
been the development of Interim Surplus Criteria. While California has
been using more than its basic apportionment of 4.4 maf for many years,
Arizona is just now approaching full use of its entitlement. Without a
significant need for additional water, the development of surplus
criteria would normally have been a low priority. Arizona water users
would be perfectly satisfied to hold reservoirs high thereby maximizing
carryover storage to protect against shortages.
Arizona could have dug-in like we have in the past and refused to
cooperate with California. However, in recognition that the conditions
and issues of the late 1990's were very different than the early
1920's, Arizona's water community decided that reaching a reasonable
compromise with California was preferable to continuing to fight.
Somewhat due to a strong linkage between the two state's economies and
somewhat due to the recognition that our interests have a lot more in
common than we have differences, we attempted to put together a package
which provided California with the necessary relief it needed, but
still protected Arizona from impact of shortage. We believe that the
seven basin states proposed agreement presented to the Secretary of the
Interior and ultimately adopted as his preferred alternative, while
somewhat complex, set the stage for a new era in dealing cooperatively
to solve future water management issues.
In recognition that the overall agreement will result in a
reduction of California's water demand to 4.4 maf over 15 years,
Arizona has agreed to a surplus criteria that will in many of those
years waive its rights to its 46% of annual surplus entitlements.
Previously, such an agreement would be dead on arrival in Arizona, but
that was not the case. The good faith agreements made by California
water agencies, especially the San Diego County Water Authority, the
Imperial Irrigation District, the Coachella Valley Water District and
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, have been
treated with a new sense of trust. Recently, the Arizona Legislature
passed, and Governor Jane Hull signed, a concurrent resolution that
will provide Arizona's official blessing to the agreements that
underlie the surplus criteria.
Emerging Colorado River Issues
With the surplus criteria issue hopefully behind us it is time to
look forward to solving new critical issues along the Colorado River.
<bullet> Better measurement and water accounting
The Interim Surplus Criteria and the California 4.4 Plan define
limits on various water users. Those limits must be enforced. The
Bureau must now begin to act as the water master or state engineer. The
Bureau must refine its definition of the Colorado River water
accounting surface to more firmly establish what water is considered
Colorado River water subject to the ``Law of the River ``and what is
considered groundwater subject to state laws. Another part of
enforcement will be to define when water users have exceeded their
entitlement and then require payback or mitigation. More accurate
methods of determining consumptive uses must be adopted including more
accurate accounting of measured and unmeasured return flows.
<bullet> Mexican border issues
Salinity levels have long been an issue and resulted in a
modification of the 1944 treaty through adoption of Minute 242.
Management of irrigation return flows in the Yuma area plays a critical
role in deliveries to Mexico. The Mexican officials have expressed
concern about rising salinity levels at the southern international
boundary. Opportunities are being investigated to provide an alternate
water supply during critical periods to alleviate some of the water
quality concerns.
The implementation of the Interim Surplus Criteria has put focus on
the issues associated with the running of the Yuma Desalting Plant
(Desalting Plant). This Desalting Plant was constructed as an
authorized feature of the Colorado River Salinity Control Act, but it
has never been operated. Currently, over 100,000 acre feet of
irrigation return flows in the Yuma area are being bypassed to Cienega
de Santa Clara. The Salinity Control Act established a national
obligation to reclaim that supply and make it useable for delivery to
Mexican water users. However, in the intervening years, the return
flows have created a very valuable wildlife resource in the Cienega.
The Bureau must find ways to meet the obligation established by the
Salinity Control Act. Arizona is willing to work with the Bureau in
identifying alternatives that will not require the use of the Desalting
Plant. However, Arizona is not willing to bear any additional risks to
its water supplies or increase the risk of shortages to the CAP that
could be the result of alternatives that would be less effective than
the original concept of reclaiming the water through the Desalting
Plant.
Restoration of the wildlife habitat associated with Colorado River
Delta in Mexico has been the subject of much recent discussion.
Arizona, along with the other basin states, has begun to engage in a
dialogue with non-governmental organizations and the International
Boundary and Water Commission to better define the problems and needs
of the Delta. Arizona believes restoration efforts must be done using
the best scientific information about the needs of region. Arizona is
cautious about proposals that might require water resources that would
be in addition to those provided to the Republic of Mexico in the 1944
Treaty. As mentioned earlier in this testimony, Colorado River
resources are extremely important and valuable to Arizona. We cannot
foresee support for any plan that would put Arizona's ability to fully
utilize its share of that resource at risk because more water would
need to be made available to the Delta.
<bullet> Endangered Species Issues
The Lower Colorado River area has been identified as critical
habitat for a number of endangered species. Arizona has joined with the
other Lower Basin states and the federal agencies to develop a
comprehensive management approach called the Multi-Species Conservation
Program (MSCP). Arizona believes that the MSCP currently represents the
best approach to providing for recovery of existing endangered species
while at the same time providing adequate habitat to avoid the listing
of any new species. The comprehensive nature of the MSCP is intended to
provide the means to allow the Bureau and the various water and power
users to continue to operate the Colorado River system to provide
traditional benefits while still protecting critical habitat. While
there are many who advocate that the Endangered Species Act should be
modified, it is not going away. It must be dealt with as part of the
``cost of doing business''. The MSCP is a positive cooperative Federal,
state and private process to mitigate endangered species impacts and to
recover species. Unfortunately, this new cost of business can be very
expensive. How will the funding be obtained? What is a fair
distribution of the costs? Resolution of these issues will make or
break the program.
Conclusion
Arizona has long recognized the importance of the Colorado River to
its economy and its quality of life. As the 21St century begins, we
recognize that without increased attention paid to the management of
the River's resources, new issues and conflicts will arise. Arizona's
involvement in the development of the Interim Surplus Criteria should
be viewed as an example of how the State and its water and power users
have recognized that parties with differing points of view can work
cooperatively to find innovative solutions and avoid litigation. New
issues are emerging and will undoubtedly be difficult to solve. It is
Arizona's desire to be an active participant in finding solutions to
those issues.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Jeanine Jones.
STATEMENT OF JEANINE JONES, DROUGHT PREPAREDNESS MANAGER,
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Ms. Jones. Mr. Chairman, Members, thank you for inviting
California to testify at your field hearing today. I'm Jeanine
Jones, the Drought Preparedness Manager for the California
Department of Water Resources, and an alternate board member of
California's Colorado River Board.
The Colorado River is our largest interstate water supply
and it's very important to urbanized southern California, which
is about 60 percent reliant on imported supplies. About half of
California's population lives within the service area of the
Metropolitan Water District in southern California, and more
than half of the service area's imported water supply comes
from the Colorado River.
If we were limited today to our basic annual interstate
apportionment of 4.4 million acre-feet, MWD's Colorado River
Aqueduct would be flowing only about half full. And this fact
has been one of the significant inducements for our local
agencies who use river water to work together to develop the
Colorado River Water Use Plan. The Plan describes actions that
the local agencies will take to reduce their use of river
water, such as, for example, transfers of conserved
agricultural water to the urban areas, lining the remaining
unlined portions of the major U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
conveyance facilities, and groundwater storage projects.
Implementing the Plan can't be accomplished, however,
without further quantification of the agencies' historical
rights to river water that were established in the 1931
agreement. So therefore, this entails negotiating a new
agreement among the local agencies that's known as the
Quantification Settlement Agreement, or the QSA. This master
agreement, together with a number of other documents and
accompanying agreements, will establish the framework to allow
Plan activities, such as the agricultural to urban water
transfers.
In 1999, the local agencies reached agreement on the key
terms to be used for this QSA and its water budget, and work
since then has focused on finalizing the QSA, the related
agreements, as well as on the state and Federal environmental
compliance activities that will allow the agencies' boards of
directors to execute this package of agreements.
The QSA and related agreements are expected to be finalized
for environmental review by the end of this year, leaving next
year for completion of the Federal and state environmental
processes. It is imperative that the QSA and its accompanying
agreements be executed by the end of 2002, as was already
mentioned, or else the benefits to California of the recently
adopted Interim Surplus Guidelines will be suspended until such
time as California does execute the agreement. The Guidelines,
in essence, are providing a safety net for California while the
measures in the Water Use Plan are being put in place, and
their suspension would put urbanized southern California at
substantial risk of shortages.
California appreciates the recognition of the other basin
states of this risk of substantial M&I shortages as well as the
other states' cooperation in developing the joint proposal that
eventually became the Interim Surplus Criteria that were
approved earlier this year.
The local agencies are making good progress toward
implementing on-the-ground actions to reduce use of river
water, assisted by substantial state funding that's been made
available through the state's general fund and through voter-
approved bond measures for the water management actions. For
example, we recently executed a contract providing $74 million
of state financial assistance to Metropolitan Water District
for lining the remaining portion of the Coachella Canal, and
we're very near signature of another contract providing $35
million in state funding for MWD's Hayfield Groundwater Storage
Project, which will cost a little more than double the amount
of our contribution.
The most significant obstacle at this point to the local
agencies being able to finalize the QSA package and move
forward with the Water Use Plan is uncertainty associated with
Salton Sea environmental restoration plans. When the agencies
had agreed to the key terms in 1999, it was expected that a
Salton Sea restoration program would be adopted fairly soon,
prior to QSA execution, therefore defining a baseline against
which the environmental impacts of the proposed urban water
transfers could be assessed. As it has turned out, selection
and implementation of the Salton Sea Restoration Plan remains
pending. And if these issues aren't addressed in a timely
manner, the local agencies may not be able to reach agreement
on the QSA before the initial compliance date for the Interim
Surplus Guidelines, which is, of course, a concern to everyone.
We remain hopeful that a way can be found to accommodate Salton
Sea restoration programs while allowing the QSA to go forward.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jones follows:]
Statement of Jeanine Jones, Drought Preparedness Manager, California
Department of Water Resources
Mr. Chairman, Members, thank you for inviting California to
participate with the other Basin States in your field hearing. My
testimony will briefly describe the role of the Colorado River in
California's overall water supplies, then summarize the status of
implementation of California's Colorado River Water Use Plan and the
Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines affecting Lake Mead
operations. The Colorado River Water Use Plan is a framework document
identifying how California will reduce its use, over a multi-year
period, to the basic interstate apportionment provided in statute. The
Interim Surplus Guidelines, adopted by the Department of Interior this
January, are a key component of the Water Use Plan.
Role of Colorado River in California's Water Supplies
The Colorado River is California's largest interstate water supply.
To put the river into perspective with California's overall water
supplies, the State's average annual intrastate surface water runoff is
about 71 million acre-feet; average annual interstate Colorado River
supplies have historically been about 5.2 MAF. Colorado River supplies
have been highly reliable, buffering urbanized Southern California
against the impacts of the State's 1987-92 drought. Nearly 60 MAF of
surface water storage has been developed on the river system as a
whole, corresponding to about four times the river's average annual
flow. This substantial storage capacity makes possible the operational
flexibility key to implementing the Interim Surplus Guidelines.
Much of the area within California served by the Colorado River has
no other significant water supply. The river supports agricultural
water users in the southeastern corner of the State--providing
virtually all of the water used by Imperial Irrigation District (IID),
Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID), and the Yuma Project, as well as
much of the water used by Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The
river supports urban water users in the intensively developed Southern
California coastal plain, an area that includes all or parts of six
counties and half of the State's population. More than 60 percent of
urbanized Southern California's water supplies have historically been
imported from elsewhere--from the Central Valley by the California
Department of Water Resources' (CDWR's) State Water Project, from the
Mono-Owens River area by the City of Los Angeles Aqueduct, and from the
Colorado River by Metropolitan Water District's (MWD's) Aqueduct. More
than half of the region's imported water supply has historically come
from the Colorado River. The river provides valuable hydrologic
diversification for Southern California in the event of dry conditions
in Northern California watersheds.
Use and management of Colorado River water is governed by the
complex body of statutes, decrees, court decisions, and contracts known
collectively as the Law of the River. One key California element is the
Seven Party Agreement of 1931, which divided the Colorado River waters
apportioned to California among local water users--PVID, Yuma Project,
IID, CVWD, MWD, the City of Los Angeles, and the City of San Diego and
the County of San Diego. (The City of San Diego and the County of San
Diego are both now represented in Colorado River matters by the San
Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA)). The local water users receive
their share of California's apportionment through contracts with the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). Expanding upon the Seven-Party
Agreement to further quantify rights and priority to use of Colorado
River water lies at the heart of implementing California's Colorado
River Water Use Plan.
Development of a Plan
California's use of Colorado River water has historically exceeded
its basic apportionment of 4.4 MAF annually (plus half of any available
surplus water in the Lower Basin), because California has been able to
put to use surplus water as well as the unused apportionments of Nevada
and Arizona. Completion of USBR's Central Arizona Project, Arizona's
1996 enactment of a state groundwater banking act, population growth in
Nevada and Arizona, and increased Upper Basin water use have all
contributed to the diminution of unused apportionment water and surplus
water. Water use in the Lower Basin States is now exceeding the yearly
7.5 MAF basic limit established by the Law of the River.
Renewed interest among the other Basin States regarding
California's need to reduce its historical reliance on river water
began during the 1987-92 drought, when shortages in imported Northern
California supplies highlighted urban Southern California's dependence
on the Colorado River. As set forth in the Seven Party Agreement of
1931, this densely urbanized area is the junior water user within
California with respect to its basic apportionment of Colorado River
water. MWD's Colorado River Aqueduct would flow only about half full if
California were to be suddenly limited to the 4.4 MAF basic annual
apportionment, reducing Southern California's water supplies by as much
as 600 thousand acre-feet and creating severe economic impacts.
Discussions among the Basin States regarding California's need to live
within its apportionment resulted in preparation of a document by the
Colorado River Board of California (CRB) illustrating how the local
agencies would reduce their use of river water through actions such as
the conservation of agricultural water and its transfer to urban
agencies. The first of these conservation and transfer actions was
embodied in a 1988 agreement between MWD and IID. Subsequently, initial
agreements were reached between SDCWA and IID for another project of
this type.
CRB's document, then known as the draft ``4.4 Plan'', was released
in December 1997; it has expanded over time into the draft Colorado
River Water Use Plan. The Plan remains in draft form today, pending
completion of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), other
related agreements, and resolution of Salton Sea environmental issues.
The Plan, also intended to resolve pending legal disputes within
California, is based on the premise that its interlinked water
management actions and agreements among California's users of river
water will be implemented as a package; its components are not intended
to be separable.
The draft Plan describes water management actions to be taken in
the near-term to reduce river water use, and identifies other actions
that need further evaluation before they can be implemented. Actions
identified for near-term implementation by the local agencies involved
in Plan preparation include lining the remaining unlined sections of
USBR's All-American and Coachella Canals, implementation of the IID-
SDCWA transfer, and development of groundwater conjunctive use and
storage projects. The Plan also describes actions that may be taken by
individual water retailers or water users, especially within urbanized
Southern California, to reduce their dependence on imported water
supplies. These actions, including water conservation, water recycling,
and groundwater management projects, are eligible for State financial
assistance from voter-approved bond measures. Department of the
Interior adoption of the Interim Surplus Guidelines for Lake Mead
operations and the development of certain water administration/water
accounting procedures are also key components of the Plan. The
accounting procedures include an inadvertent overrun and payback policy
under development by USBR in consultation with the Basin States.
It was apparent during initial development of the 4.4 Plan that new
Colorado River water management practices, such as the proposed
agricultural to urban water transfers, could not be implemented without
further quantification of rights and priority to use of Colorado River
water. In essence, the negotiators of the 1931 agreement simplified the
task before them by making only a partial division of California's
apportionment, leaving it for others to complete the task. Most
importantly, the agreement does not specifically quantify the 3.85 MAF
of water contained in its first, second, and third priorities and
allocated to the agricultural agencies, nor does it quantify the
division of third-priority water among the agencies. The agreement also
does not contain water operations or accounting provisions, such as
measurement locations and methods and treatment of return flows.
Much of the time needed for Colorado River Water Use Plan
development has been spent by the local water agencies in negotiating
the further quantification of rights and priority to the use of
Colorado River Water needed to enable Plan implementation. The initial
result of these negotiations was a document known as the Key Terms for
Quantification Settlement, completed in October 1999. This document
sets forth water budgets and transfers associated with Plan
implementation. As stated in the document, This is not a contract or an
enforceable legal document. Rather these key material terms will be
utilized by the Districts to obtain public input and by the Districts'
attorneys and negotiators to prepare legal documents that will contain
all of the terms and provisions of the Quantification Settlement.
Following release of these Key Terms, the local agencies began
negotiation of the QSA, an over-arching agreement to incorporate the
Key Terms and link together other separate agreements (among the local
agencies themselves, between individual local agencies and the
Secretary of the Interior, and between individual local agencies and
the State of California) associated with elements of the QSA. These
other agreements include, for example, local agencies' water
acquisition agreements to match the water budgets established by the
Key Terms. Related work includes preparation of environmental
documentation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and
National Environmental Policy Act.
Current Status of Plan Implementation
It is expected that the QSA and its related agreements will be
completed for consideration by the boards of directors of the local
water agencies by the end of this year, pending completion of
environmental documents. The local agencies are now focusing much of
their time on preparing the environmental documents. Addressing Salton
Sea impacts associated with planned projects such as the IID-SDCWA
transfer is key to moving forward with execution of the QSA and its
related agreements. When the Key Terms were adopted in 1999, Salton Sea
restoration work--the outcome of studies being prepared by the Salton
Sea Authority and by the federal government--was expected to be
implemented before the effective date of the QSA. The restoration work
subsequently did not proceed as expected, substantially complicating
QSA negotiations.
Meanwhile, a major milestone was reached in January 2001 when the
Secretary of the Interior signed a Record of Decision for the Interim
Surplus Guidelines, as jointly recommended to him by all seven Basin
States. Subsequently, the State of Arizona ratified a Surplus
Guidelines Agreement with MWD as part of enabling implementation of the
guidelines. A Surplus Guidelines Agreement is also under development
between MWD and the Southern Nevada Water Authority. Surplus conditions
have been declared for 2001, allowing MWD to maintain a full Colorado
River Aqueduct. If the QSA and its related agreements are not fully
executed in their final form by December 31, 2002, the benefits to
California of the Interim Surplus Guidelines will be suspended until
such time as the agreements are completed, and the reliability of
Southern California's water supplies will be at risk.
The Guidelines describe how USBR will manage Lake Mead releases
over the next 15 years, and have been characterized as providing a
``soft landing'' for California water agencies while they carry out
Plan actions to reduce their use of river water. The Guidelines allow a
greater fluctuation in reservoir operating levels within the historical
range of Lake Mead operations, providing increased certainty that urban
water users in MWD's service area will continue to experience a full
Colorado River Aqueduct through federal declarations of surplus
conditions. The Guidelines also provide surplus water benefits to urban
water users in Southern Nevada and Arizona. California has appreciated
the cooperative spirit with which its neighboring Lower Basin States
have helped make this limited-term reservoir reoperation possible.
The Guidelines contain incentives for California to implement the
Water Use Plan in a timely manner. They provide that if California does
not meet specified water use reductions during the 15-year period, Lake
Mead operations will revert to the historical spill-avoidance mode and
MWD will bear the associated risk of shortages to its urban service
area. In particular, it is critical that the Plan's canal lining
projects be completed by 2006 for MWD to avoid the risk of shortages.
In 1998, California legislation authorized the provision of $235
million from the State General Fund to support Water Use Plan
implementation by providing financial assistance for lining parts of
the All American and Coachella Canals and for groundwater storage and
conjunctive use projects. CDWR has executed an agreement with MWD to
provide $74 million for the Coachella Canal lining; this project is now
at the design stage. CDWR is nearing completion of a similar agreement
with MWD to provide $35 million for its Hayfield groundwater storage
and conjunctive use project. Up to 800 TAF of surplus Colorado River
water, when available, could be stored in a groundwater basin adjacent
to the Colorado River Aqueduct at Hayfield Valley, located in a desert
area east of the Coachella Valley. This estimated $68 million project
is expected to be completed by 2006. Negotiations have also begun on an
agreement with IID for funding the All American Canal lining. The 1998
legislation placed conditions on the availability of State canal lining
funding, including a requirement that no money be expended until
specified environmental compliance actions were completed. Expenditure
of State funds is pending completion of environmental compliance
actions.
In addition to these State monies specifically targeted for
Colorado River Water Use Plan implementation, financial assistance
provided by recent State bond measures will further help local agencies
in Southern California reduce their reliance on Colorado River water.
Statewide, the 1996 Proposition 204 made available $60 million for
water recycling loans/grants and $25 million for groundwater recharge
and water conservation loans, plus $2.5 million for Salton Sea
environmental studies. Proposition 13 in 2000 provided $40 million for
water recycling loans/grants, $155 million for recharge and water
conservation loans/grants, $200 million for groundwater storage grants,
and $235 million for Santa Ana River watershed project grants that
include groundwater reclamation/water conservation/water recycling.
In summary, water agencies throughout Southern California have been
moving forward with projects to lessen their dependence on imported
supplies from both the Colorado River and the SWP, facilitated by the
substantial State bond funding recently made available, and by initial
implementation of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. It remains important
for the State and federal governments to support the agencies' efforts
to maximize their locally available supplies and to maintain the
quality of the environmental resources associated with use of the
imported supplies.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Holsinger.
STATEMENT OF KENT HOLSINGER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Holsinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. I'm Kent Holsinger, Assistant Director of Colorado
Department of Natural Resources. It's a real pleasure and a
real honor to be here today before the Committee here in Salt
Lake City to talk about Colorado River issues.
Nearly four-fifths of the flow at Lee Ferry in Arizona
originates from Colorado, the headwaters of Wedge Harbor, the
Colorado River. From there it begins its 1,400-mile descent
over 12,000 vertical feet until it eventually reaches the Sea
of Cortez in the Republic of Mexico.
Millions of Coloradans on both sides of the Continental
Divide depend upon the Colorado River for drinking water,
irrigation, power production, and other uses, such as
recreation. We are allocated some 51.75 percent of the Upper
Basin's allocation of the Colorado River. That equates to about
3.855 million acre-feet, as set forth under the compacts.
But Colorado, as you well know, as many of the Western
states, is experiencing rapid growth and rapid increases in
demand on Colorado River water from a variety of different
sectors, and our infrastructure has not kept up with the
demand. With 4.2 million people, we have more and more demand
on the Colorado River for increasing drinking water supplies
for municipal areas and other uses.
And as we know, the best protection against increasing
demand, against drought that is certain to occur, prolonged
drought, is new water storage in the basin. The Army Corps of
Engineers estimates that water storage in Colorado has saved
some $20 billion against flooding and drought in the state;
that's about $6 for every dollar spent on new water storage in
our state. And demand is certain to point to the need for more
in the future.
Today we have several challenges on the Colorado River. One
is implementing California's Water Use Plan. The State of
Colorado greatly appreciates the work of the other basin
states, and particularly of California, to coming to this
historic agreement to limit them to their 4.4 million acre-
feet. But now we need to see that that Plan is implemented in a
way that comports with the Plan itself and the Law of the
River.
Pressure from environmentalists on the Mexican delta is a
topic that you've heard about today and one that we share great
concerns about. I might point out to the Committee that we're
in compliance with the 1944 treaty that regards Colorado River
water use among the two nations, and certainly with the Law of
the River.
I might also add that Mexican agriculture lies between the
border of the United States and the Sea of Cortez, and nearly
every drop of the Colorado River is diverted for that
agriculture in Mexico. Similarly, they have plans, great plans
for development along the delta, and we urge the Committee to
consider how Mexico's use of Colorado River water affects the
environment in the delta. And we strongly oppose using Colorado
River water from the United States to address any perceived
problems there.
We also see Federal challenges to Colorado River water use.
The Endangered Species Act was mentioned earlier today. We also
have Federal reserved rights claims, bypass flows, and other
challenges to grapple with. Among the foremost in that arena
may be recovery goals for the endangered Colorado River fish.
The State of Colorado is working very hard to see that any
goals published are consistent with the Law of the River, state
laws, and interstate compacts that make it up, and that
recovery goals are based on species response and not Federal
control over the Colorado River.
We also face quantification of the National Park Service's
reserved rights claims to the Black Canyon and the Gunnison.
The flows claimed by the Park Service there are so great they
would greatly impact power production, they would ruin gold
medal trout habitat, and potentially cause dam safety and
flooding problems in the towns of Delta and Grand Junction in
Colorado.
We have the U.S. Forest Service continuing to impose bypass
flows on our water providers whenever they have permits that
come due, and we hope the Committee will take an interest in
maybe creative ways to resolve problems with the Forest Service
in protecting flows on forest lands without extorting them from
our water providers.
We have forest management issues as well. The same--the
same problems that have caused the wildfires in recent years in
the West are also greatly diminishing water yields on National
Forest lands that otherwise would be in the system for the
states to use. With 40 million acres subject to catastrophic
wildfires, we've got a real problem with the density of our
forests and how that affects our water yields.
The best state of the science says that there is a direct
relationship between our forest and our water, and would urge
the Committee to consider that, and the United States Forest
Service and the administration as well.
Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Work Group, we have
concerns with where we're going there, where we've been. It's
been several years now without significant oversight, I think,
or even an audit into how this process was proceeding, how what
they're doing affects power production and water supply issues
in the West.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, there's a myriad of difficult
issues along the Colorado River. We greatly look forward to
working with the other basin states, the Congress, and the
administration to address these issues. We have much in common.
Perhaps, most importantly, we share a need to educate the
public about the value of our water resources and the risk to
our water resources.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude my remarks. And
again, I appreciate the chance to be here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holsinger follows:]
Statement of Kent Holsinger, Assistant Director, Colorado Department of
Natural Resources
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear today to discuss management of the Colorado River
for the 21st Century. With ever-increasing demands on Colorado River
water, the seven Colorado Basin States must protect their ability to
manage, allocate and use it under the complex array of state laws,
interstate compacts, treaties and agreements that comprise ``the Law of
the River.'' For over a century, some form of the doctrine of prior
appropriations has guided Western states through economic prosperity
and depression, through wet years and dry years, through thick and
through thin. Water defined the history of the West, as it will surely
influence its future.
Background
The first European explorers labeled what is now the State of
Colorado an arid wasteland--a ``Great American Desert'' unfit for
settlement or cultivation. Easterners considered agriculture in
Colorado impossible and irrigation absurd. But thousands traversed the
Great Plains and followed Horace Greeley's call to ``Go West young man
and grow with your country.'' With courage, ingenuity and grit, the
pioneers transformed the arid desert into the fertile land we recognize
as Colorado today.
Perhaps no river defines the State like the Colorado River. It
begins in the tundra of the Rocky Mountains as trickle of frigid
snowmelt cascading down the West side of Longs Peak. There, it begins
its fourteen hundred mile, winding descent. From its humble beginnings,
the Colorado River quickly swells, sweeping in runoff from countless
tributaries in Western Colorado. It then carves through mountains,
canyons, plains and desert before quietly disappearing into the Sea of
Cortez. Millions of people in Colorado and the West depend upon the
Colorado River for drinking water, irrigation, recreation and power
generation. It has earned the reputation as the most ``legislated,
litigated, and debated'' river in the world.
Colorado's Use of the Colorado River
The Colorado River is a vitally important resource for the State of
Colorado. Approximately 11.0 million acre feet (MAF) of the River's
average annual flow of 15.0 million acre feet at Lee Ferry, Arizona
originates in Colorado. Of this 11.0 MAF, Colorado consumptively uses
roughly 1.9 MAF. The balance currently flows out of the State for the
benefit of downstream users. Under the Compacts, Colorado is entitled
to the consumptive use of 3.855 MAF or 51.75% of the flows of the
Colorado River allocated to the Upper Basin.
More than 4.2 million people currently reside in Colorado. Within
the State and within the Colorado River Basin, farmers and ranchers
irrigate roughly 850,000 acres. Irrigated agriculture uses roughly 1.5
MAF of Colorado River water and contributes hundreds of millions of
dollars to the State's economy each year. Thousands of families depend
on these irrigated farmlands for their livelihoods and their
sustenance. Within the basin, rural communities are held together by
the bonds of agriculture and water. But the river also serves some 3.0
million people outside the basin. Eastern Slope water providers divert
500,000 AF annually from the river to serve growing needs on Colorado's
booming Front Range.
The Colorado River Basin offers the only significant source of new
developable water for the State with approximately two million acre
feet still available under Colorado's compact apportionment. The State
favors incentives to more efficiently use water, building additional
water storage and improving forest management to increase supplies for
the benefit of people and the environment. Several challenges loom in
regards to Colorado's compact apportioned share of the Colorado River.
The California Water Use Plan
The State of Colorado commends the State of California and its
stakeholders for all of the hard work, negotiations and compromise that
led to the development of the Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria.
Limiting California to its compact apportioned 4.4 MAF is of primary
importance to the State of Colorado. However, the efforts to fully
implement this plan are far from complete.
The present plan requires over 30 separate agreements in order for
successful implementation to occur. Those agreements will include
federal legislation and funding mechanisms. While Colorado strongly
supports California's efforts, such support should not come at the
expense of present and future needs to develop compact water within the
State of Colorado. We urge the Congress to carefully evaluate these
agreements, and particularly any federal legislation, and to work with
the seven Colorado River Basin States to ensure such proposals comport
with California's Water Use Plan.
State officials will be closely monitoring several other issues
related to the implementation of this plan. For example, some of the
legislative proposals to address water quality problems with the Salton
Sea may complicate implementation of the California 4.4 plan. Any use
of Colorado River water for the Salton Sea will be hotly contested.
Given the short time frame anticipated before publication of the
proposed inadvertent overrun accounting policy, several issues remain
unresolved. We will be working with the other states to schedule a
meeting soon to complete these discussions. We hope to see an example
of the proposed accounting from California prior to any such meetings.
The State of Colorado has received assurances from California
officials that the power crisis will not affect the implementation of
California's Water Use Plan nor negate the benefits of the Interim
Surplus Criteria set forth in the January 17, 2001, Record of Decision.
Nevertheless, we remain concerned about how increasing demands for
power generation will affect water supplies in this dry year.
Mexican Delta Issues
The State of Colorado wishes to emphasize the importance of
proceeding with due caution on issues related to the Mexican Delta. The
Congress should be aware that all water resource use on the Colorado
River within the United States has been consistent with the 1944
Mexican Treaty and other aspects of the ``Law of the River.'' The State
of Colorado stridently objects to any suggestion that water for
restoration efforts in Mexico come from the Colorado River in the
United States. We urge the Congress and the Bush Administration to
ensure any discussions regarding the Colorado River Delta be done in
full and complete consultation with the seven Colorado River Basin
States.
Between the American border and the Sea of Cortez, lies Mexico's
largest and most productive agricultural land. Each year, Mexico
diverts nearly every drop of the Colorado River into the Central Canal
for agricultural uses. Moreover, President Vicente Fox plans a vast
network of upscale marinas around Baja California and the Mexican
Delta. The program, labeled ``Nautical Steps'' would cover more than
2,500 miles of coast, and is aimed at luring the 1.6 million boat
owners from California and other nearby states into a new system of
harbors, wharves, hotels and restaurants. President Fox says the
development is critical for economic growth but some environmentalists
call it a threat to the Mexican Delta.
The previous Administration initiated discussions with Mexico and
environmental organizations to address perceived water needs of the
Colorado River Delta in Mexico. These efforts have resulted in a new
conceptual Minute (306) to the International Treaty with Mexico. A
symposium on these issues is planned for September. The State of
Colorado has serious concerns with the symposium and believes Mexico
should be responsible for water use issues within its borders. If
environmental issues need to be addressed, we encourage Mexico to
pursue flow management and structural alternatives within their
borders.
We urge the Bush Administration and the Congress to carefully
consider how actions within Mexico affect the Delta. Specifically, more
information is needed on water use, fishing pressure, development
proposals and environmental laws in Mexico. A complete understanding of
complex intrastate, interstate and international issues must predicate
further decisions on this important issue.
Federal Challenges to State Administration
Federal reserved water rights, bypass flows and endangered species
requirements also strain Colorado River resources. Water rights, water
laws and interstate compacts must be protected from unwarranted federal
intervention. At the same time, the federal government must be held
accountable for its own actions related to the management of land and
water resources. For example, sound management of federal forest lands
in the Colorado River Basin could lead to healthier, more diverse
forests and increased water supplies for endangered species,
agriculture and drinking water.
Endangered Species Act Issues
The State of Colorado recognizes the importance of balancing the
needs of native species with continued economic development. With an
emphasis on collaboration, voluntary action, partnerships and property
rights, the State of Colorado will take aggressive steps to keep
species from being listed, and to delist those that are already
federally protected. Meanwhile, the State continues its involvement in
the Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program and the San
Juan River Recovery Implementation Program. Work continues on the Glen
Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, and Lower Basin Multi-Species
Conservation Program (MSCP) as well. All of these programs need to be
collectively coordinated.
In the 1960s, the federal government and the states attempted to
eradicate native Colorado River fish in favor of non-native trout,
catfish and other species. The State is now working with stakeholders
and the federal government to recover these native species. Recovery
program participants have long recognized the need to remove non-
natives and restock the endangered species. Recently, and most
importantly, the State of Colorado has been working with other program
participants to develop achievable recovery goals based upon sound
science. Through these efforts, we hope to achieve the ultimate goal of
the these efforts'recovery and delisting of the species.
These goals must, however, be consistent with State laws,
interstate compacts and the Law of the River. Moreover, recovery goals
must be based upon species response--not federal control and influence
over flows in the Colorado River. The State of Colorado will veto the
continuation of the Upper Colorado River Recovery Program until those
two conditions are fulfilled. Without the program, programmatic
biological opinions will be invalidated and millions of acre feet of
decreed water rights will be subject to rigorous Section 7
consultations under the Endangered Species Act.
The State of Colorado believes both basins will benefit from sound
goals that will lead to the recovery and delisting of the species and
expects the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to publish recovery goals
soon. The Colorado pikeminnow are increasing to the point where de-
listing, or at least down-listing, is a distinct possibility. Similar
progress is being made with the humpback chub. Razorback suckers are
also beginning to show signs of improvement, but we need additional
emphasis on the bonytail chub. The State does not support the
designation of Distinct Population Segments for the pikeminnow and
humpback chub. Rather, they should be recovered and delisted throughout
their historic ranges. Any such designation for the razorback sucker or
bonytail chub should be made only when more information on the species
is available.
Glen Canyon Adaptive Management Program
Revised recovery goals are being developed for the basin and the
Upper Colorado and San Juan programs appear to be on fairly solid
ground. However, we have serious concerns about the effectiveness of
the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program. The Glen Canyon
Adaptive Management Workgroup established pursuant to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act has not operated within the documents that were
to govern its actions. As a result, its activities have far exceeded
the scope of the program. Section 1804 of the Act calls for an audit of
the costs and benefits of the adaptive management program to water and
power users and to natural, recreational and cultural resources. It is
high time for such an audit to occur.
National Parks Service Reserved Water Rights Quantification on the
Black Canyon
The State of Colorado filed a Statement of Opposition to the ill-
founded National Park Service quantification of a water right filing in
Colorado water court. After repeated requests to work with the State
were ignored, the National Park Service filed for quantification of
reserved water rights to the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park. State officials believe flows requested on this major tributary
to the Colorado River will seriously impact Colorado's right to develop
compact apportioned water, power production, fish habitat and cause dam
safety issues and potentially flooding in the towns of Delta and Grand
Junction.
Some 383 Statements of Opposition were filed to the National Park
Service claims'more than any other filing in the State's history. State
representatives will be working closely with water providers and the
Department of Interior to see that these issues are coordinated with
flow recommendations pending for endangered fish and eventually
resolved in a way that protects Colorado's compact apportionment.
Western States Join Colorado's Fight Against Federal Bypass Flows
Many of Colorado's water supply facilities are located on, or
transport water across, federal lands. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
has imposed bypass flows requirements on water providers as conditions
to permit renewals in an attempt to provide instream flow protection on
federal lands. These hotly controversial, and largely unsuccessful,
bypass flows fail to provide any real environmental protection and
instead create an environment of hostility and distrust. Bypass flows
fly in the face of well-established principles of federalism and
property rights. Moreover, they simply don't work.
Opposition to bypass flows is a bipartisan issue in Colorado.
Attorney General Ken Salazar, in an article published by the Colorado
Water Congress, pointed out that the federal government has spent some
$70 million dollars fighting the states over water with little to show
for it. Last fall, the Forest Service stated its intent to use bypass
flows more frequently. Recently, it even advocated condemnation of
water rights. On March 15th, the States of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho,
Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming filed an amicus brief in support of
Colorado's position that the U.S. Forest Service has no legal authority
to impose bypass flows on water providers as a condition of permit
renewals. The case at hand was filed in federal court by Trout
Unlimited against the U.S. Forest Service. Trout Unlimited argues in
their complaint that not only is the federal government authorized to
impose such extortive requirements'they are obligated to do so.
Rather than continue with this unnecessary and wasteful practice,
the State of Colorado favors the creation of an incentive program
funded by the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). One of the
purposes of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 is to
``authorize the purchase of lands, waters or interests in land or
waters within the National Forest System. In the past, this fund has
primarily been used for the purchase of new recreational lands. Over
the past 35 years, 7 million acres of land has been protected using the
LWCF. With the help of the Congress, we may be able to achieve similar
success protecting water. Given this kind of incentive, there will be
tremendous opportunities for the states to work with the U.S. Forest
Service to protect water resources on forest lands.
The State of Colorado proposes Congress amend the LWCF to direct
the Forest Service to use its allocated LWCF monies, some $130.9
million if fully funded, to provide incentives for water right holders
to transfer their rights to the agency. The amendment could then
instruct the agency to donate those rights to states with instream flow
programs, enter into contractual arrangements, or pursue other creative
means to work with the states. Any and all measures, however, must be
consistent with State laws, the McCarran Amendment, interstate
compacts, and the Law of the River.
Drought and the Need for Water Storage
Continued growth within the State of Colorado strains our ability
to meet increasing demands on water. The failure to develop new water
supplies has not slowed Colorado's rampant growth. It has contributed
to the dry up of irrigated agriculture. Without new water supplies, the
conversion of agricultural water rights will continue to threaten
communities, ranches and farms, open space and wildlife habitat.
The last two summers' hot, dry conditions provide a sobering
reminder of cyclic drought and devastation. In December of 1999,
Colorado Governor Bill Owens convened a state-wide conference on flood
and drought preparedness. There, we learned the question is not ``if''
but ``when'' we will enter another severe, long-term drought like the
dust bowl of the 1930s or the drought of the 1950s. Only water storage
provides adequate protection against these natural disasters. So a
recent survey that found 90% of Coloradans believe we should build
reservoirs to conserve surplus Colorado River water did not come as a
surprise.
The first Europeans to explore what is now Colorado labeled it an
arid wasteland. In this century, water storage and irrigation
transformed the State. Cottonwoods and willows dot the once-treeless
plains. Rivers that dried up in the summer months now provide drinking
water, irrigation, recreation and wildlife habitat year-round. However,
last year, Colorado suffered a dry spring and record-breaking summer
heat which led to drought conditions. South Platte River flows were
lower than ever in recorded history and demand for irrigation water
drained several key reservoirs. Nearly two dozen counties were forced
to seek federal drought disaster relief. Several other communities
placed restrictions on lawn watering, showers and even toilet flushing.
Conditions are not markedly better this year.
In a sustained drought, farmers and ranchers would lack water
required to produce food. Many could be forced to sell their land or
water, thereby encouraging development of open space and loss of
wildlife habitat. Even farms with senior water rights could be gobbled
up by municipalities thirsty for drinking water. The impact on rural
communities could be devastating. Conservation measures help stretch
limited supplies, but conservation alone may not be enough. Some water
users are collaborating to stretch supplies through innovative new
measures such as conjunctive use and water reuse. These efforts, which
examine how to recharge aquifers in wet years and reuse municipal water
for irrigation and industrial use, hold real promise. But the most
certain drought protection is a long-term water supply through storage.
At Governor Bill Owens' flood and drought conference, the Army
Corps of Engineers calculated reservoirs have saved Coloradans $19.8
billion from natural disasters like floods and droughts. That equates
to a six dollar savings for every dollar spent on reservoirs for flood
control and drought mitigation. Water storage also provides resources
for recreation and wildlife. Our challenge is to bring together diverse
interests to find common goals for the benefit of local communities and
the environment. Without adequate planning, innovative measures and new
water storage, the West could once again resemble the hostile and arid
wastelands disparaged by early travelers.
Power Production
Because today's society is driven, more and more, by electronic
devices such as computers, cell phones, pagers and electronic address
books, the importance of dependable supplies of electrical power is
more important than ever. However, power generation in the Colorado
River Basin must be consistent with the Law of the River. Some
legislative proposals to alleviate power demand would upset the
delicate balance of state laws, compacts, treaties and agreements along
the Colorado River. We urge the Congress to work with the seven
Colorado River Basin States on any such proposals.
Forest Management
National forests along the Colorado River are losing their
diversity and ecological balance. A dense understory has choked out the
hardy, fire-resistant ponderosa pines that were typical of historic
Western forests. Paired, then-and-now photographs reveal the open
meadows and productive savannas that once dotted healthy forests have
been replaced by overcrowded forests choked by dense understories and
canopies. These crowded, unnatural stands are left susceptible to fiery
infernos, insect infestation, disease and decay. They also degrade the
quantity of water in river systems. Only through careful, but active
management can these destructive trends be reversed.
An April, 1999 report from the General Accounting Office (GAO) to a
congressional subcommittee concluded, ``[T]he most extensive and
serious problem related to the health of national forests in the
interior West is the overaccumulation of vegetation, which has caused
an increasing number of large, intense, uncontrollable, and
catastrophically destructive wildfires.'' These fires threaten not only
the forests but human lives, safety, property, and infrastructure and
the species that inhabit the forests. These crowded forests are also
depriving river systems of valuable water in the arid West.
For over one hundred years, the relationship between forests and
water has been acknowledged. In fact, the 1897 Organic Act established
the national forest system for two primary purposes: to secure
favorable supplies of timber and water (the Multiple Use Sustained
Yield Act of 1960 provided other uses, but the United States Supreme
Court in U.S. v. New Mexico ruled they are merely secondary or
supplemental to the primary purposes).
Since 1937, U.S. Forest Service scientists have been studying the
relationship between forest management and water yields in the Fraser
Experimental Forest near Fraser, Colorado. Their studies conclude that
water yields from the forests have been decreasing due to dense stands
with low rates of soil moisture and high rates of evapotranspiration.
The scale at which we are losing water resources is staggering. As an
example, flows in the North Platte basin in Colorado are said to have
decreased by a staggering 185,000 acre feet per year (one acre foot is
sufficient to supply a family of four for a year) over the last 140
years due to excessive vegetative growth. Without action, future yields
in the basin are projected to diminish even more!
The deficit results from the same mismanagement that fueled nearly
seven million acres of catastrophic wildfires in the West last summer.
These super-hot, unnatural wildfires have taken lives and property,
ruined fish and wildlife habitat, fouled the air with smoke and denuded
water quality. The aftermath can persist for years. Battling sediment
and erosion from the 1996 Buffalo Creek fire in Colorado, (which burned
a mere 12,000 acres) has already cost the Denver Water Board $25
million.
Public lands management has far-reaching impacts on forest health,
wildfire risk, water, wildlife and even endangered species. Forest
Service scientists warn the state of our forests is not sustainable. To
reverse this trend, policy makers should pursue a cohesive strategy of
thinning, prescribed fire and other treatments to address forest health
problems. Sound science and proven techniques could improve the state
of forests and watersheds.
Conclusion
Across the West, our future is forever linked to our water. Given
ever-increasing demands, the basin requires more, not less, water
storage. The seven Colorado River Basin States have much in common.
Perhaps most importantly, the states share a common need to educate the
public about the value of water resources and the risks to water
supplies.
Mr. Chairman, we hope that you will continue this dialogue with the
seven Colorado River Basin States as these important issues progress.
Thank you for your interest in this important issue.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Patricia Mulroy.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA MULROY, GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN NEVADA
WATER AUTHORITY
Ms. Mulroy. Chairman Hanson, Chairman Calvert, on behalf of
Governor Guinn I'd like to thank you very much for the
opportunity to testify here before you today. Chairman Hansen,
it's a pleasure to be here in the state of Utah and a pleasure
to see you again.
I'd like to tell you that your water officials have been a
delight for us in Nevada to work with. Kathleen Clark and Larry
Anderson, Don Christiansen and Ron Thompson over the years,
they have been great partners and wonderful friends to the
State of Nevada.
I'd also like to thank you and your staff for your help in
passing the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. As you
know, southern Nevada has exploded in growth, and this Act has
been of great benefit to southern Nevada to help us manage our
growth in our community.
Congressman Calvert, it's been some time since this
Committee has had a hearing on the Colorado River and one has
been convened like that, and I'd like to thank you for your
leadership. I think the timing of this hearing is extremely
appropriate, because I think Herb expressed it very well, what
we have here is a history of states that have been cantankerous
with one another and have mastered the art of battle and of
warfare, and have evolved in the last 10 years to a group of
seven states that have proven that they can work together and
solve some major issues, some would have said 10 years ago
would not have been possible.
Southern Nevada has been late coming to the table. And over
the past decade the Southern Nevada Water Authority, in
partnership with the Colorado River Commission under the
leadership of its Chairman, Richard Bunker, has aggressively
been pursuing a strategy to augment our measly 300,000 acre-
feet of water that we have in southern Nevada. As little as
that amount of water is, it represents 85 percent of the water
in the--in southern Nevada, which is 75 percent-plus of the
population of the state of Nevada. So you can appreciate the
significance of this river system to those of us in Nevada.
We realize that being the fastest growing community in the
nation presents its own set of unique challenges. And even
though our--we've been very successful with water conservation
and wastewater reuse programs that can stretch our supply, we
also realize that without additional water resources, we are
going to be out of water by the year 2007. Just like all the
bones of the body are connected, that's the way the water
supply in the West is all interconnected.
We've labored for the past decade with the other Colorado
River Basin states through countless meetings to achieve a
consensus among the states around solutions that are innovative
and bold. And I'd like to point out at the outset that this has
been a state-driven process, that we've appreciated the support
and encouragement and partnership of the Department of
Interior, but the solutions that my friends in the other states
have laid out to you were born from within the seven-states
process. They have made it possible.
And I've often said that the Law of the River, as immovable
as some would paint it, really is a protection to all the
states, that none of the states can get rolled. If all seven
states agree to a solution, then the Law of the River is
flexible enough to allow for that solution to occur. I think
the interim surplus criteria that were just recently signed and
adopted stand testament to that. It wasn't easy for the states
to come to an agreement around those interim surplus criteria.
And Nevada found itself in a unique position. On the one
hand, we sit on the shores of Lake Mead, and any subsidence or
drop in Lake Mead's water levels would have had severe impacts
on southern Nevada's economy and, quite candidly, on our
environment. On the other hand, we stand to benefit by the
interim surplus criteria. And the reality of it is now that it
is--assures southern Nevada's water supply through the year
2016. Because we too, just like California, will be allowed to
use that water for M&I purposes and sustain southern Nevada's
existence.
One of the things that's unique about the interim surplus
criteria is that for the first time it went opposite of what
would be considered the traditional law of western water. For
the first time M&I uses have priority over first in time, first
in right. And the interim surplus criteria very carefully
drafted around supplying municipal and industrial water first.
Insofar as southern Nevada's water future is dependent on
the interim surplus criteria, it also creates a unique
relationship between ourselves and our friends in California.
Because whether the interim surplus criteria sustains or not
through 2016 depends on southern California's success in
reducing its use of its Colorado River water along a very tight
time frame, with trigger points along the way in which its
ongoing success and progress will be measured. So we have a
vested interest in California's internal efforts to conserve
water and for things such as the IID transfer to San Diego to
succeed.
And so we support your efforts, Representative Calvert, and
those of Senator Feinstein to pass the CALFED authorization
bill, but we would not presume to tell California which CALFED
projects should be built and which should not be built. But
just like the other states, we are watching very closely to
make sure California does meet its triggers and achieves its
targets on its way to 4.4.
The other thing that's happened in the last decades for
southern Nevada has been a unique partnership with the State of
Arizona. And we intend over the next years to bank 1.2 million
acre-feet in Arizona's groundwater basin.
I can tell you with all sincerity and honesty that 10 years
ago, when I first started in this, I would probably have been
shot and run out of the room had anyone suggested that we would
be banking water in the state of Arizona; relationships were
that tense at the time. Over the last 10 years, however, the
State of Arizona has come forward and has, in great partnership
with the State of Nevada, presented Nevada solutions that will
solidify its water use well--or its water supply well beyond
the year 2040. Because in banking that much water in the state
of Arizona, we will be able to use it through a forbearance
agreement with the State of Arizona when we need it.
And when you look at southern Nevada's water needs to the
year 2050, it only represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the
flows of the Colorado River. So from a volume standpoint,
southern Nevada's need for additional Colorado River water is
truly infinitesimal, but in terms of its significance to the
state of Nevada, it is tremendous.
My friends in the other states mentioned the issues that
are facing us in the future, and I would agree with them that
the Mexican delta is probably one of the more significant
things that we're going to be facing. I think, sitting here
today, none of us know what ultimately a solution for the delta
would be. But one thing that I think we can all agree to, and
that is that if a solution is to be found, that solution can
only be found with the full cooperation and participation of
the seven states. No one understands that river better and no
one understands the consequences of various solutions better
than those of us in the states who live with this river system
and depend on it so heavily. So as we begin the discussions on
the delta on September 11th and 12th, I would also ask that the
seven states become an integral part of that process.
We also have the challenges of the endangered fish in the
lower basin, and recovering some of those is going to be very
difficult, if not impossible. We also know that we face...
The Chairman. I didn't do it, just go ahead.
Ms. Mulroy. We also know that we--that the challenge of
finding a practical and an affordable solution for the Salton
Sea looms out there. As you can see, all of these stretch the
normal confines of what was traditionally perceived as the
Colorado River supply. But I also know that in this collection
of people within the--from the seven states, solutions can be
found.
And so with that I would conclude, and thank you for this
opportunity to testify, and just reiterate that I know that the
innovative solutions that I know are going to be needed for the
future, not only for southern Nevada and for California but for
the delta and for the environment as well, can be found from
within the seven states. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mulroy follows:]
Statement of Patricia Mulroy, General Manager, Southern Nevada Water
Authority, Representing the State of Nevada
Introduction
Chairman Hansen, Chairman Calvert, I thank you for the invitation
to testify today. Chairman Hansen, it is a pleasure to come to Utah and
to see you once again. I am sincere when I say that Nevada has no
better friends along the Colorado River than your water officials in
Utah. I have tremendous respect and admiration for Kathleen Clark,
Larry Anderson, Don Christiansen and Ron Thompson. They are leaders in
the field of western water resources. I also want to thank you and your
staff for your help passing the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management
Act. It has been a great benefit to our community as we try to manage
our growth and I know of the significant role you played in its
enactment.
Congressman Calvert, it has been some time since a Committee of the
Congress was interested enough in the Colorado River to convene a
hearing such as this one. Thank you for the leadership you have shown
during your short tenure as Chairman of the Water and Power
Subcommittee.
For over a decade, the Southern Nevada Water Authority and the
Colorado River Commission of Nevada, which is chaired by Richard
Bunker, have aggressively pursued a strategy to augment Nevada's
minuscule 300,000 acre foot entitlement to Colorado river water. As the
fastest growing community in the nation, we recognized that although
our successful water conservation and wastewater reuse programs would
only serve to stretch our supplies and that without additional
resources, we would be out of water by 2007.
Do you remember the song that goes, ``the head bone's connected to
the neck bone, the neck bone's connected to the back bone'' etc. etc?
Well that is the way it works in water. Everything is connected. For
that reason we have labored for almost a decade with the other Colorado
River basin states through countless meetings to achieve consensus
among the seven basin states around solutions which are innovative and
bold and still preserve the underlying fabric of the Law of the River.
I want to point out at the outset that this has been a state driven
process. We have appreciated the support and encouragement of the
Interior Department, the solutions which have evolved all had their
genesis within the seven state process and not in Washington.
Interim Surplus Criteria and the California 4.4 Plan
Possibly the most difficult issue we have faced is the need for
California to ween itself away from overuse of the Colorado and live
within its 4.4 million acre foot entitlement. This will require nearly
800,000 acre feet reduced deliveries from the amount California has
been regularly using. The seven states developed a proposal which
allows California an assured water supply for the next fifteen years
during which time it must make substantial progress with periodic
milestones to reduce its use of Colorado River water. This assured
supply comes in the form of what we call Interim Surplus Criteria,
which in layman's terms means that all the states agree to allow the
Secretary of the Interior as water master for the lower basin, to
declare each year for the next fifteen years, that there is enough
surplus water in the reservoirs to release an extra amount above the
lower basin's entitlement of 7.5 million acre feet. The surplus amount
that is to be released each year depends upon the elevation of Lake
Mead.
This remarkable plan was signed by the Secretary of Interior last
January and for the first time schedules the delivery of this
additional water based upon type of uses, with Municipal and Industrial
needs first, then agriculture, rather than on the old western water law
doctrine of prior appropriation or put another way, first in time is
first in right.
Nevada benefits significantly from these surplus deliveries.
Because we are an M&I delivery, the Interim Surplus Criteria will all
but ensure an adequate water supply for all of southern Nevada's needs
through 2016. Nevada shares with California these interim surplus
supplies and therefore are vitally concerned that California meet its
milestone targets to ramp down usage of Colorado River water. If
California fails to do so, we will lose our assured water supply rights
along with them. In other words, we are connected to California at the
hip bone.
For that reason, Nevada has a vested interest in the success of
California internal efforts to conserve water such as the IID to San
Diego transfer as well as to develop additional sources of supply for
southern California. We understand the relationship between the Salton
Sea issue and the IID-San Diego transfer and we are supportive of the
proposal we have reviewed to provide federal funding to assist with the
Salton Sea environmental studies and other projects needed to ensure
the success of that water transfer.
To the same end we support your efforts Rep. Calvert, along with
those of Senator Dianne Feinstein to pass a CALFED authorization bill
providing for funding for water development projects throughout
California. These projects will help California reduce its over
dependence upon the Colorado. Nevada is not going to presume to tell
you Californians which CALFED water projects to build or not to build,
that is up to you to fight out amongst yourself.
Groundwater Banking
Another innovative solution for Nevada's problems came from Arizona
and is called water banking. This concept was discussed for years by
the seven states and with the Bureau of Reclamation. Just last week on
July 3 Nevada and Arizona signed an agreement that will allow Nevada to
store or ``bank'' unused Arizona entitlement in the ground water
aquifers within Arizona. Over the next decade or so before Arizona's
own needs require the full use of its Colorado river entitlement, we
hope to be able to bank up to 1.2 million acre feet which we can use in
the future as needed. This banking opportunity is also available for
California and even the federal government for some of its needs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Nevada's water future looks far more secure today
than it did ten years ago. This is the result of some significant
achievements brought about by the seven basin states working together
along with a supportive Interior Department. There is more to do.
California has just begun its difficult task of conserving and finding
enough water to meet its needs. We face significant and important
environmental challenges such as the endangered fishes recovery
program, finding a practical and affordable Salton Sea solution and
addressing the international consequences associated with the Mexican
Delta. I am confident in our ability to find more innovative solutions,
working together, connected. Thank you again for the opportunity to
testify.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Mutz.
STATEMENT OF PHILLIP MUTZ, UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSIONER,
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Mutz. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee and the
Subcommittee, my name is Philip Mutz. I am Upper Colorado River
Commissioner for the State of New Mexico and represent the
State on the Upper Colorado River Commission, which is an
interstate agency created by the Upper Colorado River Basin
Compact of 1949. The Compact--the Commission is charged with
administration of the Compact and represents the four states on
matters concerning operations of the Colorado River.
Someone once observed that no river is asked to do so much
with so little water as has the Colorado. Every acre-foot of
water of the river's average annual flow has been apportioned
and, as the Chairman indicated earlier, every acre-foot is used
and reused.
The Colorado River supplies water indirectly or directly to
more than 25 million acre--or 25 million people located both
within its drainage boundaries and without its drainage
boundaries due to the large transbasin aqueducts that transport
the river water outside the basin. With so many--much reliance
for so many people, it might appear that management and
distribution of the waters of the Colorado River for the next
decades is somewhat predetermined. All the works--or at least
most all the works are now in place to distribute its waters,
and with the experience of existing management, it would appear
that much of the future administration of the river is merely
to improve efficiency. The implication may be then that change
should not be effected, but that's not realistic. Change has
become necessary, and will continually need to be implemented
to accommodate the growing and differing demands placed on the
river.
Among the challenges of the past several decades has been
to accommodate environmental needs of endangered species. The
recovery programs for endangered fishes in the Upper Basin and
the effort to establish a multiconservation--a multispecies
conservation program in the Lower Basin are recent examples of
changes brought about to accommodate differing needs.
New Mexico is generally satisfied with the progress and
results of most of the programs and initiatives initiated in
the Colorado River Basin in recent years. The Interim Surplus
Guidelines is a very important step to manage available supply
to meet the growing demand on the river. Coupled with
California's Colorado River Water Use Plan to step-down its
current use, these two major accomplishments resulted from the
collaborative efforts of many people, and likely would not have
succeeded if those individuals involved had not recognized the
need to cooperate to achieve a workable solution rather than
rely on an unpredictable result via the litigation process to
resolve differences.
The other six states of the Colorado River Basin have
insisted that the Surplus Guidelines be an interim measure and
that benchmarks be included to measure California's progress in
reducing its current use of Colorado River water. The continued
implementation of the Surplus Guidelines is entirely dependent
upon that progress by California to reduce its annual use of
Colorado River water. Implementation of the steps necessary to
reduce its use have taken and will continue to take time, a
concentrated effort, and a large investment of money. We
support California and its water use agencies involved in these
efforts.
As indicated by the previous commenters, an emerging issue
concerns efforts by some to increase the flow of the Colorado
River in its limitrophe section and its associated delta in
Mexico to restore and preserve the riparian and estuarine
ecology. The International Boundary Water Commission, through
its respective Commissioners of the United States and Mexico,
have executed Minute 306. The Minute states the intent of the
two governments to establish a framework for cooperation in
studies looking toward recommendations for the work needed.
By letter dated June 18, 2001, the Governor's
representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin states have
directed letters to the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of State expressing their views on and requesting a
meeting to discuss emerging issues on the Colorado River delta.
The letters noted the United States has been in full compliance
with its obligations under the treaty, and pointed out that
there is no existing or anticipated action within the United
States, including operations under the Interim Surplus
Guidelines, that would result in any violation of any
obligation under the treaty.
The letter stressed that any proposal to manage or deliver
water for any purpose in the delta must be undertaken pursuant
to the Law of the River and must not enhance, diminish, or
abrogate any provision of the treaty or the Law of the River.
Further, the letter requested that the United States
recognize the legal authority of the Colorado River Basin
states over the appropriation and management of their
apportioned water and the important role of the states in the
operation and management of the river established by Federal
law.
What does New Mexico get out of all this management of the
Colorado River in the Lower Basin? The competition for water
has been a fact of life for New Mexicans for several
generations and it continues. More than 80 years ago, New
Mexico achieved its first goal for a reliable, though at that
time not completely defined, share of the Colorado River by
becoming part of the Colorado River Compact. Then about 50
years ago, a circumscribed share of the water available to the
Upper Basin was apportioned in perpetuity in New Mexico under
the Upper Basin Compact.
The current use of Upper Basin water in New Mexico by
authorized projects will require about 90 percent of New
Mexico's apportioned share of its supply now reasonably
available in the basin.
Quantification of Indian water right claims in the San Juan
River, which is the primary source of water for New Mexico from
the Colorado River, is a key element to ensure reliability to
both Indian and non-Indian water users in New Mexico.
Two Indian water rights settlements have been completed in
the San Juan River Basin in Colorado, but remain to be fully
implemented pending completion of the Animas-La Plata project.
Although these settlements are in Colorado and use Colorado's
water, they're important to New Mexico downstream water users
because a differing settlement could adversely affect their
supply.
Also in New Mexico, the claims of the Jicarilla Apache
Nation have been settled; however, not all that water has yet
been put to use. The water right claims of the Navajo Nation
remain to be quantified, and they are quite large. The Nation
and the State of New Mexico have been involved in formal
discussions for some time now, and we believe considerable
progress has been achieved.
New Mexico also has considerable area in the western part
of the state that is in the Lower Basin of the Colorado River,
in the Little Colorado and the Gila River drainages. The
available supply in the Little Colorado River is very meager
and essentially developed. Use of water from the Gila River and
its tributaries in New Mexico was apportioned by decree of the
United States Supreme Court in 1964, but that apportionment was
only sufficient to cover existing uses. New Mexico was able to
secure recognition in the decree that should conditions prevail
in the future that would provide for additional water, the
decree could be adapted, and that additional water can be
provided under the Central Arizona Project Act of 1968, which
authorized an additional 18,000 acre-feet of water per year for
use by New Mexico, subject to the provisions of the
legislation. That supply is vital to the future of that area
and must be preserved.
This discussion is intended to convey that New Mexico has
much to benefit from the Colorado River. To ensure the
availability and reliability of water in this state, we're
committed to guarding that supply and to putting it to
beneficial use at the earliest practical time.
I'd like to stress that the Law of the River, however
complex some might characterize it, has resulted primarily from
an effort of those individuals who recognized the need for a
basic foundation on which the apportionments and the operation
and administration of the river are built. I believe the seven
basin states have established a collaborative working
relationship to approach the issues that face us in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mutz follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3637.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3637.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3637.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3637.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3637.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3637.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3637.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3637.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3637.014
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mutz. Mr. Davidson, can you
get that mike over there?
STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. DAVIDSON, GOVERNOR'S REPRESENTATIVE,
WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
Mr. Davidson. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and
honorable Members of the Committee and Subcommittee, on behalf
of myself and on behalf of Governor Geringer, I'd like to thank
you for the opportunity to address you today.
My compadres that have gone before me, and I can safely say
they are compadres these days, a little different scenario than
we might have encountered, as has been indicated to you in the
past, several years ago, but now we have a very close and good
working relationship. They have addressed the main issues that
are confronting us, and so I'm going to utilize the luxury of
going last. And I'm going to heed the Chairman's suggestion
that I summarize my comments, and I think I can be fairly
brief.
I am the Commissioner for Wyoming on the Upper Colorado
River Compact Commission. I also, in another different life, I
guess, am also the lead litigator for Wyoming in interstate
water disputes. I can certainly attest firsthand to the
difference between the litigation route which we have just
hopefully concluded with respect to a water dispute over the
flows of the North Platte River with the State of Nebraska.
After in excess of $20 million expended by each state in
prelitigation costs, we finally wound up on the courthouse
steps, and hopefully resolved the dispute before we ever
actually opened the courtroom doors.
That, in contrast to the relationship that has been
developed with the other six states with respect to the
Colorado River, I think makes a very profound statement as to
the desirability and the utility of working together with our
compadres, working together with the other basin states to try
to reach the solutions, the solutions that allow the Law of the
River to be flexible into the future.
And I will state that the main theme of my testimony to you
today is one that I'm merely echoing from many of the others,
is the reason that the interim surplus criteria were able to be
achieved, the reason that we had success like we did and didn't
have to have the kind of litigation that I've referenced with
respect to Wyoming and Nebraska is because of the basic premise
that was recognized by each of the seven basin states,
including California, as we're not going to mess with the
entitlements under the Law of the River.
California didn't come into the process contending that it
needed to change its entitlement from 4.4 million acre-foot a
year, it came into the process with the view that, we're over,
we've got a problem, we got to address the problem, we need
your help; we're not trying to take your entitlement, Wyoming,
we're not trying to take your apportionment, Colorado, we're
trying to address the problem of getting back to 4.4 million
acre-feet; we don't deny that that's what our entitlement is,
we don't deny that Wyoming has its entitlement, that the Upper
Basin states have their entitlement, that all of the states
have their entitlements; what we need to do is try to work out
a solution. And that's what we were able to achieve with the
interim surplus criteria in the California 4.4 Plan.
I think Pat put it best. The reason that the deal came
together is nobody was in jeopardy of getting rolled. I can
assure you that Wyoming, and I know my friends from the other
states, are not going to allow themselves to get rolled, and
whether it's $20 million or $200 million that has to get spent,
if someone's going to take one of the state's entitlements
under the Law of the River, it's going to be a long,
protracted, agonizing litigation.
Again, the reason that this deal came together, the interim
surplus deal came together is because that concept was
maintained, and the states were provided the certainty that
they were provided under the Law of the River.
I was encouraged to hear the Chairman in his opening
remarks state that clearly water won't be provided for some of
these other uses without the concurrence of the seven basin
states. Certainly that is Wyoming's view, certainly that is the
view of the other basin states.
I guess in quick summary, we have a long history of
fighting hard for our water in Wyoming. This procedure has
resulted I believe in a much better, much preferable end result
and process; it provides flexibility that is not provided
through litigation. And though I do love to litigate these big
cases, this--the result that comes out from this kind of
approach certainly is a preferable result to the 300 pages of
settlement documents that we have in the Nebraska versus
Wyoming litigation.
So if I can leave you with three concepts that are very
important to the State of Wyoming and I believe all of the
basin states. One is preserve the certainty of the Law of the
River; and that is, more emphatically, don't mess with our
apportionments. And finally, we will do all that we can to
ensure that California meets its obligations and that we all
can meet these new environmental, Mexican, and other
requirements for the future, while maintaining the preservation
of the certainty of the Law of the River.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davidson follows:]
Statement of Thomas J. Davidson, Wyoming Commissioner, Upper Colorado
River Commission, and Deputy Attorney General, Wyoming Attorney
General's Office
This testimony provides the perspective and views of the State
of Wyoming concerning ongoing and prospective Colorado River
water use, reservoir operations and basin management activities
in the context of a House Resources Committee field hearing.
Wyoming is generally pleased with the current and recently
implemented collaborative and cooperative efforts that the
seven States are conducting collectively and in concert with
the Department of the Interior. The implementation of the
Interim Surplus Operating Guidelines for the Colorado River
System in early 2001 was an important step in implementing a
comprehensive plan to reduce California's long-term dependence
on the Colorado River. Management of the Colorado River in this
new century involves not only reservoir operations but
environmental management efforts of varying types and scopes.
Wyoming has long been a participant in the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program and a partner in the collaborative
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation
Program. These and other efforts, Wyoming believes, are
critically important to Wyoming's ability to continue to
develop its compact-apportioned water supplies in the future.
Chairman Hansen and Members of the Committee and Subcommittees,
thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the State of
Wyoming at today's field hearing concerning management of the Colorado
River. My name is Thomas J. Davidson. I am the State of Wyoming's
Commissioner on the Upper Colorado River Commission and Deputy Attorney
General of the State of Wyoming. The Upper Colorado River Commission is
an interstate administrative agency created by the Upper Colorado River
Basin Compact of 1948. Since its inception, the Commission (made up of
Commissioners appointed by the Governor of each Upper Division State
[Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming] and one appointed by the
President of the United States) has actively participated in the
development, utilization and conservation of the water resources of the
Colorado River Basin. The Commission was created to administer the
apportionment of the waters of the Upper Colorado River Basin system
and represents the Upper Basin States in consultations with the
Secretary of the Interior on matters pertaining to the operations of
the Colorado River.
Long known as the ``Lifeblood of the West,'' the Colorado River is
often referred to as the most intensely regulated and over appropriated
river in the country. Neither the biggest nor the longest river in the
West, it is among the most disputed rivers in the world. The Colorado
River has played a crucial role in this country's history, a role often
overlooked or misunderstood. Perhaps no other river has been asked to
do so much with so little. The Law of the River was born out of the
necessity to provide secure water supplies. It is the product of two
interstate compacts, a U.S. Supreme Court decree, and a treaty with
Mexico allocating the River's water. It reflects the fact that, for
over 100 years, the financial strength and national authority of the
Congress have been absolutely necessary to avoid interstate and
intergovernmental disputes and to secure economic stability for the
entire Colorado River Basin.
Before the Federal Government could construct a dam on the lower
Colorado River, and as a result of California's increasing diversions,
the states with an interest in the Colorado's waters needed to sort out
their rights. The upstream states feared that a storage facility that
made water available downstream before they could put their share to
use upstream might form a basis for claims of appropriative rights in
the water by downstream states. Appropriative rights are based on the
rule ``first in time, first in right.'' Likewise, the downstream
beneficiaries of such a storage facility feared California's existing
lead in their race toward development. It appeared that a resolution
could only be achieved either by a suit in the United States Supreme
Court under its original jurisdiction over disputes between states, or
by an agreement of the parties. The seven basin states chose the
latter. The significance of the decision to utilize the more flexible
interstate compact option, even though this method had never before
been used to allocate waters of an interstate river, was realized in
1922. In that year, the Supreme Court decided Wyoming v. Colorado (259
U.S. 419), which, in part, utilized the doctrine of prior appropriation
to allocate rights to water across state lines.
Wyoming's State Engineer (and later Governor) Frank C. Emerson
served as Wyoming's Commissioner on the Colorado River Commission that
negotiated the compact. It is very clear that Emerson, as Wyoming's
negotiator, recognized the very long-term perspective that this seven-
state agreement necessarily had to take and the certainty that it would
provide. Emerson noted in his Sixteenth Biennial Report of the State
Engineer of Wyoming (1921-1922):
``The present apportionment of the use of 7,500,000 acre feet
per annum to the Upper Basin is ``in perpetuity.'' These two
words are of especial significance as their use means that
Wyoming and the other States of the Upper Division will find
water supply available for the developments of the future
whenever our projects may become economically feasible of
undertaking, and whether the time may be in the near future or
a century or more from now.''
The seven states recognized the importance of the Colorado River at
the time of the Compact and correctly understood that the River would
become ever increasingly important over time. The Compact provided a
means to recognize the profound differences between the development the
two segments -- Upper and Lower -- of the Colorado River Basin. On page
19 of Emerson's report on the Compact to the Wyoming State Legislature,
he succinctly noted:
``All can realize the natural physical situation which causes
the division of the river into two great basins; that the
economic conditions that apply to the two basins are entirely
different, and that therefore a division of water between the
two basins is a very logical plan; that the additional
development of the Green River and the Little Snake River
basins in Wyoming will be very tardy as compared with
development in California; that if proper agreement can now be
had between the great conflicting interests upon the Colorado
River this accomplishment would be most desirable for all.''
Wyoming's leaders and citizens believe that the Compact really
means what it says -- that Wyoming will, to again cite our Compact
negotiator, ``find water supply available for the development of our
future whenever our projects may become economically feasible of
undertaking, and whether that time be in the near future or a century
or more from now.''
The State of Wyoming has recently engaged in river basin planning
for each of the seven major river basins in the State. The intent of
this water-planning program is to provide accurate, contemporary water
information to enable state and local decision makers to manage water
resources efficiently, maintain a water data inventory and project
future water demands so the state can prepare for the effects of
growth. In addition, Wyoming believes this planning process will
provide the State with information to assist in responding to the
mandates of federal legislation and regulation. Under the Upper
Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948, Wyoming was apportioned 14
percent of the total quantity available for use each year in the Upper
Colorado River Basin as apportioned by the 1922 Colorado River Compact,
after deducting the 50,000 acre-feet per year apportioned to Arizona.
Using this percentage and making several best-case assumptions, Wyoming
has estimated its probable long-term available water supply from the
Green River and its tributaries is 833,000 acre-feet per year. In our
Green River Basin Water Plan, we have estimated our current, normal
year uses to be approximately 611,200 acre-feet per year. Depending on
whether a moderate or high growth forecast scenario is assumed,
Wyoming's present estimate of our consumptive use of the Upper Colorado
River system's waters will be between 683,000 and 767,000 acre-feet per
year in the year 2030. In the instance of the high growth forecast
scenario being used, Wyoming would therefore be consuming about 92
percent of its share of the water resources of the Colorado River by
2030.
On account of the certainty created by the Compact, the development
of the large projects that has occurred in the lower basin has not
jeopardized the water supply remaining for future Wyoming water
development activities nor has it precluded or impeded additional
beneficial consumptive uses of water in our State. The Compact did, and
has continued to, provide ``broad basic principles for the equitable
apportionment and use of the waters of the Colorado River System...''
(cited from page 18 of the Emerson Report on the Compact). Consistent
with principles that were recognized in Wyoming from the initiation of
its water law (first as a territory of the United States and later, by
virtue of the Wyoming Constitution), beneficial consumptive use was
adopted as the measure of the allocation of the waters of the Colorado
River. It is Wyoming's belief that management of the Colorado River in
the 21st Century must continue to rely on the preservation of
sovereignty, integrity and self-determination of welfare, in short, the
certainty, which has been afforded to Wyoming and each of the seven
Colorado River Basin states through the legal framework of the Law of
the River.
Contrary to popular perception, California and the other Lower
Division States of Arizona and Nevada have not been using ``Wyoming's
water.'' The Colorado River Compact of 1922 allocated to the Upper
Division States, which include Wyoming, a perpetual right of
development. It avoided the untenable situation where we in Wyoming
might have been forced into a race for development with California
(under the application of the prior appropriation doctrine on an
interstate basis), requiring us to hoard water and prevent California
from getting it. The Compact preserves our future economic opportunity
and our ability to rationally plan for our future here in Wyoming.
This interstate agreement expressly preserved state-created water
rights systems. It is the foundation upon which the large federal
reservoirs, including Lake Mead, Lake Powell, Blue Mesa, Navajo and
Flaming Gorge, were built and are operated. These reservoirs hold water
for use in the Upper Basin and for delivery to the Lower Basin. The
security for future development provided by the Compact, and operating
flexibility of Flaming Gorge and the other Upper Colorado River Basin
reservoirs, allows for water to be managed in environmentally enhancing
ways. Were Glen Canyon Dam and the others not in place, the situation
would be entirely different with regard to our ability to engage in
many ongoing cooperative efforts, including the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program and the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
Recovery Program.
Just as Emerson drew attention of the ``especial significance'' of
the words ``in perpetuity'' in his report to the Wyoming Legislature,
any discussion of the future, from Wyoming's perspective, must be laid
upon the foundation of continuity assured by the administration of the
provisions of the Colorado River Compact. That future must continue to
provide the certainty of a water future for Wyoming's citizens
dependent upon development of our share of the water resources of the
Colorado River Basin.
While a primary intent of the Compact was to provide certainty of a
future water supply from the River for each of the affected States,
many Federal statutes and policies affecting water and related natural
resources use and management can and do affect Wyoming's and the other
Basin States' abilities to use and develop additional water. Thus, the
search for certainty that was being sought in negotiating the Colorado
River Compact is still a paramount factor in our present day views and
concerns with regard to Colorado River management. Among the federal
statutes and policies of concern are the federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA), for example. Further, the manner
in which these laws, regulations and policies are administered by the
many federal agencies, each having different and often conflicting
missions and jurisdictions, can profoundly impact Wyoming's water
developmental difficulties. Accordingly, Wyoming has found it necessary
to assist in developing, implementing and to continue to be involved in
many programs, collaborative activities and multi-state and multi-
entity endeavors. We view our participation in these collaborative
processes as being essential and necessary to avoid further and future
impediments to developing our Compact-apportioned water supplies. In my
testimony today, I wish to draw attention to several of the major
efforts underway and to provide Wyoming's perspective on the progress
of those efforts and their significance.
CALIFORNIA'S COLORADO RIVER WATER USE PLAN
Wyoming is encouraged by the progress presently being made by the
Colorado River water users within the State of California, who are
endeavoring to implement an enforceable program to reduce California's
dependence on Colorado River water over its basic entitlement. If
implemented as envisioned, California's plan to gradually step-down
from its current use of over 5.2 million acre-feet (``maf'') of
Colorado River water to its basic apportionment amount of 4.4 maf over
a fifteen year period will be an extremely significant accomplishment.
Wyoming has been directly and substantially involved since its
onset in 1991 in the ongoing dialogue which and effort that will result
in California reducing its annual dependence on the Colorado River to
its basic apportionment level in ``normal'' water supply years. Just as
California's dependence on using more than 4.4 MAF did not occur
``overnight,'' implementing the steps to reduce its use are taking, and
will continue to take, considerable time, investment and hard work. We
heartily support these ongoing efforts.
The California Plan works by conserving California's agricultural
water and redirecting that water for urban use. The Surplus Guidelines
adopted this year allow water anticipated to be surplus to reservoir
storage to flow to California for 15 years, while the conservation/
transfer programs are being implemented. This ``bridge'' of surplus
water allows California to reduce its demand at an achievable pace,
without economic dislocation. The continuation of the Surplus
Guidelines is contingent upon California Plan progress, including
completing a binding agreement among the California agencies to
implement conservation/transfer programs, and achieving defined
conservation /transfer targets by specified dates.
The California Colorado River Water Use Plan (``California Plan'')
is dependent upon using Colorado River water made available from
surplus declarations on the Colorado River as a way to ease the State's
transition to living within its basic apportionment. The other Colorado
River Basin States have been insistent that changes to the reservoir
operating criteria on the Colorado River to accommodate California must
only be an interim measure while California steps down its Colorado
River water use. The Six States insisted that California demonstrate a
tangible commitment to reduce its water use before entertaining
discussions of reservoir operating criteria that might facilitate that
reduction. That commitment has been demonstrated in several ways,
including the appropriation by the California State Legislature of over
$238 million dollars for the lining of the All-American and Coachella
Canals.
Further, it seems prudent to address why the Interim Surplus
Guidelines were needed and what would have happened in their absence.
``Surplus water'' is available to agencies that have contracted with
the Secretary for delivery of surplus water, for use when their water
demand exceeds their basic entitlement, and when the excess demand
cannot be met within the basic apportionment of their state. By
adopting these specific interim surplus guidelines, the Secretary will
be able to provide California users of surplus Colorado River water a
greater degree of predictability and certainty with respect to the
likely existence, or lack thereof, of surplus conditions on the River
in a given year. Adoption of the interim surplus guidelines recognizes
California's plan to reduce reliance on surplus deliveries, will assist
California in moving toward using only its basic apportionment during
years of ``normal'' water supply (as determined in the AOP process) and
softens the impacts during the transition period and avoids hindering
such efforts.
Importantly, continuing implementation of the interim surplus
guidelines is entirely dependent on progress by California in reducing
its dependence on the Colorado River. The surplus guidelines will be
used to identify the specific amount of surplus water which may be made
available in a given year, based upon factors such as the elevation of
Lake Mead, during a period within which demand for surplus Colorado
River water will be reduced. The increased level of predictability with
respect to the prospective existence and quantity of surplus water will
assist in planning and operations by all entities that receive surplus
Colorado River water pursuant to contracts with the Secretary. Without
the guidelines, there would be no capability for a transition period
during which California can and will reduce its Colorado River
dependence and use ``rather, there would be surplus until it is gone
and all of a sudden California would have to cut back. This would
create severe hardship that would have attendant economic impacts in
California.
REDUCING THE RIVER'S SALINITY BENEFITS ALL USERS
Since the enactment of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Act in 1974 (Public Law 93-320), the seven Basin States and the Federal
Government have been engaged in a basin-wide program to manage the
salinity concentration of the waters of the Colorado River. The
importance of implementing basin-wide water quality standards, as
opposed to the very common approach of instituting Stateline standards,
should be recognized at the onset of any discussion of what has been
perhaps the nation's most successful non-point water pollution control
program. Improving the quality of water received and available for use
in the Lower Colorado River Basin is not dependent upon curtailing in
any manner the development of compact-apportioned water in the Upper
Colorado River Basin states.
All states regulate water quality constituents related to health
concerns. Other constituents may be regulated for aesthetic and
economic reasons pursuant to the provisions of the Clean Water Act.
This is the case with salinity in the Colorado River System, where the
seven States who share the River's water adopted basin-wide water
quality standards in 1974. For all practical purposes, the terms
``total dissolved solids'' (TDS) and ``salinity'' are synonymous and
are used interchangeably. High salinity levels make it difficult to
grow winter vegetables and popular fruits. Water containing high TDS
will more quickly corrode plumbing and water-using appliances and
industrial equipment. Highly saline water has limited use for
irrigation of agricultural crops and landscaping vegetation. Economic
impacts (reduced crop yield, higher drainage and soil leaching
requirements, water treatment costs, equipment repair and replacement,
etc.) from salinity damages associated with dealing with highly saline
water in the Lower Colorado River Basin are currently estimated at $330
million per year, while those suffered in Mexico are presently
unquantified.
About one half of the salinity in the Colorado comes from natural
sources and the other half from human uses of the water and activities
near the river. Near its headwaters in the Rocky Mountains, the
salinity concentration of the Colorado River is typically 50 milligrams
per liter (mg/l) or less. Large amounts of salt load are added as the
River flows downstream. At Hoover Dam, the River delivers about 9
million tons of dissolved salts a year. Upon reaching the last
diversion point in the United States at Imperial Dam, concentration
frequently exceeds 800 mg/l.
When Congress enacted the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
in 1974, primary responsibility for the federal program was given to
the Secretary of the Interior, with the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) being instructed to investigate and build several
salinity control units. Amendments to the Act in 1984 mandated the
creation of comprehensive salinity control programs by the Department
of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The USDA has
instituted a highly successful, voluntary on-farm salinity control
program which provides for voluntary replacement of incidental fish and
wildlife values foregone due to the installation of on-farm salinity
reduction measures. The 1984 amendments to the Act (P.L. 98-569) also
directed the BLM to implement comprehensive salinity control activities
on the large land area administered by BLM within the Basin and,
further, directed the Secretary of the Interior to give preference to
those projects that reduce salinity for the least cost per ton of
salinity control.
In 1996, the Farm Bill (the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act, P.L. 106-20) combined the USDA's Colorado River Salinity
Control Program and three other conservation programs into the new
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Since that time,
funding for the USDA's salinity control efforts has dramatically
decreased, despite the efforts of Wyoming and the other Basin States
urging USDA to adequately fund these important basin-wide water quality
maintenance program efforts. With this Congress enacting a new farm
bill to go into effect for the next fiscal year (2002), we are quite
hopeful that the Congress will see fit to direct the Department of
Agriculture to give it Colorado River salinity control program the
emphasis and funding which the Basin States believe it deserves.
While we are generally supportive of the concept that government
closest to the people is better, in the case of the USDA's EQIP there
is a disconnect. EQIP's locally led, locally derived resource
management priorities are both displacing and preempting salinity
reduction program activities that have both international and basin-
wide significance and importance. Working experience gained with EQIP
has shown that local working groups and state technical committees are
unable and cannot be expected to maintain the ``national perspective''
regarding maintenance of basin-wide water quality standards and a water
quality commitment to the Republic of Mexico. Further, the great
majority of the water quality improvements occurring as a direct result
of the CRSCP irrigation water management practices are accruing to
beneficiaries far downstream (in Arizona, California and Nevada) and
distant from the point at which the practices are being implemented (in
Colorado, Utah and Wyoming). EQIP's locally led process also does not
provide a forum for the many municipal and agricultural interests in
the Lower Colorado River Basin who are directly benefiting from the
salinity reduction efforts to engage in dialogue with local working
groups and state technical committees in the Basin's upstream states.
As noted above, the Bureau of Land Management was directed by
Congress in the 1984 amendments to the Salinity Control Act to
implement a comprehensive program to reduce salt loading to the
Colorado River System. Nearly 40 percent of the Basin's land area is
BLM-administered public land. Through improved management practices,
there is tremendous opportunity for the BLM to decrease salt
contributions from public lands. Public Law 106-489, enacted to
increase the funding authorization for the Bureau of Reclamation's
basin-wide salinity control program, also contained a directive to the
BLM to report to the Congress on the status of its salinity control
program <SUP>1</SUP>. We appreciate the interest the Resource Committee
has shown in this program by including this directive to the BLM in
that law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Secretary of the Interior shall prepare a report on the
status of implementation of the comprehensive program for minimizing
salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by the
Bureau of Land Management directed by Sec. 203(b)(3) of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1593). The report shall
provide specific information on individual projects and funding
allocation. The report shall be transmitted to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives no later than June 30, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly, we have been disappointed for many years at the lack of
emphasis that BLM places upon its responsibility to implement a
comprehensive salinity control program. In its agency section of the
Federal Accomplishments Report to the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Advisory Council (created by Section 204 of P.L. 93-320) dated
October 2000, BLM began with the following: ``The Bureau of Land
Management recognizes and is committed to its role in reducing the
mobilization of salt from public lands. As in past years, we undertake
this responsibility through the multitude of individual management
decisions that are made within each BLM jurisdiction. While salinity is
not segregated as a specific program, it is affected by almost all
other land management decisions that are made'' (emphasis added). This
acknowledgment that the BLM does not segregate salinity as a specific
program is contrary to BLM's Land Use Planning Manual which states:
``The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, 43 U.S.C. 1593,
requires a comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to
the Colorado River from BLM lands.'' How can the BLM be meeting the
directive, recognized in its own agency planning manual, requiring
``... a comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions...''
through efforts, explicitly acknowledged in its October 2000 progress
report that are not even ``... segregated as a specific program?'' This
presents a clear incongruity. Either BLM has a salinity control program
or it does not. We sincerely hope that the BLM will address this
incongruity in its report to your Committee, and we look forward to
working with your Committee on this matter.
Ongoing support of the Congress is necessary to maintain the needed
implementation of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
The Program is a carefully designed series of sequentially staged
elements that are only put in place as needed. The Program's success is
dependent upon continued funding by Congress of the federal portions of
the three agency's successful, cost-sharing, salinity-reduction
partnership programs. Greater levels of Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) funding dedicated to the Colorado River
Salinity Control Program for implementing on-farm salinity reduction
practices would assist in reducing the backlog of USDA projects
awaiting federal cost-share financial assistance. More focus on the
lack of initiative and accountability on the part of the BLM to
actually conduct a comprehensive salinity control program is warranted.
MANAGING ENDANGERED SPECIES AND WATER DEVELOPMENT CONFLICTS IS CRITICAL
Having a compact-apportioned water supply remaining available for
further use and development is of no practical benefit whatsoever if
users cannot obtain federal permits (be they CWA Section 404 dredge and
fill permits, right of way or special use permits) on account of
``jeopardy'' biological opinions rendered under Section 7 of the
federal Endangered Species Act. An impasse occurred in the early 1980s
between further water development and administration of the federal
ESA, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service taking the position that
any additional depletion of the waters of the Upper Colorado River
system would jeopardize the continued existence of the endanger native
fish species. Faced with this tremendous problem, water users, the
States of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and involved federal agencies,
along with power consumer and conservation community interest groups
negotiated, and in 1988, initiated, an innovative, collaborative
partnership program to resolve these difficult endangered species and
water management and development conflicts. The Program's negotiators
were very clear in establishing dual objectives for the Program: allow
further water development to occur while carrying out the mandate of
the ESA to recover, and delist, the four Upper Colorado River
endangered fish species. A sister program was initiated in the San Juan
River Basin in 1992.
On behalf of the State of Wyoming, let me take this opportunity to
thank Chairman Hansen and members of the Resources Committee for their
leadership and support in enacting H.R. 2348, which became Public Law
106-392 on October 30, 2000. This Act's authorization of funding for
the Bureau of Reclamation to continue as a cost-sharing partner in
implementing the endangered fish recovery implementation programs for
the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River Basins was critically
important to continuing the success that these programs are enjoying.
As you may be aware, then Secretary of the Interior Babbitt, in the
last of what had become annual addresses to the Colorado River Water
Users Association, on December 14, 2000 praised the Upper Colorado
River Endangered Fish Recovery Program as an ``ongoing success story.''
Secretary Babbitt stated that Public Law 106-392 could provide a
pattern for both funding and collaboration for the Lower Colorado River
Multi-species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP) currently being
developed. While we recognize that the levels of cost and commitment
required in conducting endangered species recovery programs such as the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program are very high, we
believe that in the current climate, these types of approaches are the
only viable approach available. We in Wyoming will work with your
Committee in seeking refinements and revisions to the Endangered
Species Act that can facilitate, simplify and generally improve
collaborative, species recovery programs. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, it
is our view that revisions to the ESA must recognize that the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service cannot accomplish recovery of species by itself.
Reform of ESA must include this acknowledgment and provide more
meaningful and greater roles for the states.
INCREASING PRESSURE FOR ADDITIONAL WATER SUPPLIES TO MEET COLORADO
RIVER DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL USES
Over the past several years, those seeking to increase the flow of
the Colorado River at its mouth in the Gulf of California have become
more vocal and visible in their calls for more water for maintaining
and ``restoring'' the ecological values of the estuary area at the
Colorado River's terminus. On December 12, 2000, the International
Boundary and Water Commissioners (IBWC) for the United States and
Mexico executed Minute 306 entitled ``Conceptual Framework for United
States--Mexico Studies for Future Recommendations Concerning the
Riparian and Estuarine Ecology of the of the Colorado River and Its
Associated Delta.''
The Minute indicates the intent of the United States and Mexico to
establish a framework for cooperation for developing studies and
recommendations for preservation of the riparian and estuarine ecology
of the Colorado River Delta. This work will be carried out through an
existing binational technical task force that was established to
facilitate such studies. Further, the IBWC will establish a forum for
the exchange of information and advice among government and non-
government organizations in the United States and Mexico.
As a follow-on to that agreement, the IBWC, working in concert with
small planning committees in both the United States and Mexico, is
completing arrangements to hold a Symposium on Colorado River Delta
ecosystem issues on September 11-12, 2001 in Mexicali, Baja California,
Mexico. The intent of this symposium is to provide United States and
Mexican stakeholders with ``baseline information'' on the Delta. The
two country's planning committees have agreed that the symposium will
address three topical subjects. These are: 1) the legal framework for
water use and allocation in both countries; 2) the water conveyance
systems in the Lower Colorado River Basin from Imperial Dam to the Gulf
of California; and 3) the ecological/scientific knowledge based on
existing studies and research of the Colorado River Delta ecosystem and
its geographical area. We believe that it is important that the
upcoming symposium be on the Congressional ``radar screen'' and that
you are aware there are numerous interests pressing the Federal
Government to provide additional Colorado River water to Mexico. It is,
of course, problematic, to consider that -- even if there were
additional sources of water that could be provided across our Nation's
border -- we have no ability to control how or whether another
sovereign nation, in this case Mexico, decides to allow those flows to
pass down to the estuary environment or diverts that additional
increment of water to consumptive uses enroute to the Gulf. The
Colorado River is fully appropriated so finding additional sources of
water to meet environmental needs is a most challenging proposition.
On June 18, 2001, on behalf of Wyoming, I joined with the other
Governor's Representatives on Colorado River Operations for the other
six states, in sending letters to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton
and Secretary of State Colin Powell concerning the matter of additional
water to meet the estuary environmental needs in Mexico. Our letter
expressed several key points, including the United States' past and
continuing full compliance with all provisions of the Mexico/United
States Treaty of 1944 and all subsequent minutes thereto. Our letters
requested that the United States, through the IBWC and the Department
of the Interior, recognize the legal authority of the Basin States over
the appropriation, administration, development, use and management of
their apportioned water and associated water rights, and the important
and central role of the States in operating and managing the Colorado
River, as established under U.S. law. The letter requested that the
U.S. ``cooperate and communicate closely with, and seek the
participation of, the Basin States'' and noted that each of the
``States are committed to playing a cooperative and constructive role
in addressing these issues.'' Further, ``any proposal to manage water
and other natural resources for environmental purposes in the Delta
that includes the cooperation, participation or funding by the United
States should be consistent with clearly articulated and agreed-upon
habitat, species or environmental goals.''
As with regard to recovery of endangered species, the federal
government of the United States must realize and recognize that these
issues cannot be solved without the Basin States and that attempts to
broker a deal for providing additional flows to Mexico cannot be placed
upon the backs of the Basin States.
CONCLUSION
There are several foundations upon which the ``Law of the River''
rest. Centrally important to Wyoming's long-term interests is the
certainty that is provided to the Upper Basin by the Law of the River,
including the right of future development. Further, the Law of the
River defines the apportionments of the states. Under ``normal'' water
supply determinations, there is a limit in the Lower Colorado River
Basin of 7.5 million acre-feet per year of beneficial consumptive use
from the mainstem Colorado River. The implementation of the California
Plan is necessary on account of that fact. Wyoming's efforts in each of
the management arenas discussed above, and others not addressed and
beyond the scope of this testimony, are important components of
maintaining our ability to develop our apportioned share of the
Colorado River in the 21st Century, and beyond.
As the Basin States, working cooperatively together on a myriad of
issues within the complex framework of the Law of the River, have
certainly come to appreciate, the best escape from a problem is to
solve it. Since water is such an indispensable and scarce natural
resource in the American West, resulting disputes and the manner in
which they are resolved, whether through litigation, or through the
cooperative approaches being undertaken in the Colorado River Basin
presently, deserve careful attention. We greatly appreciate the
interest, concern and attention which this Committee places in these
matters and which are reflected in the conduct of today's field
hearing. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Davidson, and I thank the
witnesses for their excellent testimony. And what we intend to
do now is recognize each Member for 5 minutes. Keep in mind it
will go as many rounds as these folks can handle. If you get so
you can't handle any more, walk out. Of course, if you walk
out, we're going to hammer you and your respective state. Just
kidding.
Ms. Jones, let me say something to you if I may. Mr.
Anderson, Mr. Holsinger, Mr. Dishlip, Patricia Mulroy, Mr.
Mutz, and Mr. Davidson all alluded to California stepping up
and living within their 4.4. This agreement's there, you all
feel good about it, you think it's going to work. And yet
they've all alluded also--Mr. Anderson alluded to the Salton
Sea. If Mary Bono was sitting here, who represents that area,
she would go in great detail how important it is to flush out
the Salton Sea. It would take all of Lake Mead and Lake Powell
probably to do it, but she talks about that on a regular basis.
You have alluded to some drought figures you've got.
California is a growing--I mean, let's face it, the biggest
state in America right now. Two members of this panel are from
California. You really think you can do it, I mean we're all
counting on it. I kind of got the impression from everybody
else here that they're counting on California living up to
their agreement. To add, even more complicated than that, we're
going to talk about the same with our friends from the south,
from Mexico, how are we going to resolve all that. I'd kind of
like to hear your opinion of those things.
Ms. Jones. Well, I think I might start off by noting that
in your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, you had mentioned the
massive bill introduced by our Subcommittee Chairman here with
respect to the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. I think that if you
looked at the CALFED program or the Bay-Delta issues perhaps 10
years ago, as people have mentioned with regard to the Colorado
River, you would never have thought that people came as far on
that issue as they have so far, and that is giving us
encouragement that we can move forward with these Colorado
River issues in a similar way. Certainly, as has been
mentioned, the CALFED Bay-Delta program is a very expensive
proposition to move forward.
The Salton Sea is one of those emerging environmental
issues that has perhaps been in the shadow of more well known
environmental resources to the north in the Bay-Delta, but we
are hopeful that we will be able to work out among the
competing interests and the folks that have different views
about what the future of the sea should be a way that allows
that to be resolved, as well as being able to go forward with
implementing the 4.4 Plan, which is very key to California, and
which we do believe that our local agencies are working with us
to make good on-the-ground progress in some of the projects
such as the canal lining projects, the groundwater storage
projects, and putting together the water transfers.
It hasn't been mentioned here yet this morning, but this
week Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, in its
board meeting, will be asked to consider approving yet another
ag-to-urban water transfer with Palo Verde Irrigation District,
located in the Blythe area of California, yet another thing to
move forward on the 4.4 Plan. So we are hopeful that with
continued effort in this area, we will be able to keep this
process moving.
The Chairman. It's going to be very interesting. It should
be a real challenge to California, because you're accustomed to
using a lot of our Upper Basin water. Mr. Dishlip pointed out
that Arizona was using their full allotment during his
testimony. Mr. Anderson, does Utah use their full allotment?
Mr. Anderson. At the present time the State of Utah's
allocation would be about 1.37 million acre-feet. We're
currently using about 950 to one million acre-feet of water
within the state of Utah. The remainder of our water either
goes down into Glen Canyon Dam and is stored there, or if Glen
Canyon needs to be released downstream because it may spill,
then it would go on downstream to Lake Mead.
The Chairman. And Parker and Davis in California. Mr.
Holsinger, what about Colorado, are you using your full
allotment?
Mr. Holsinger. No, Mr. Chairman, at this time Colorado is
using, on a rough average, about 2.6 million acre-feet per
year. The remainder of our Compact apportionment flows
downstream for storage in Lake Powell and use by the other
states.
The Chairman. Ms. Mulroy, are you using yours?
Ms. Mulroy. Almost.
The Chairman. You don't have much, but how much do you use?
Ms. Mulroy. We expect to use our full apportionment by the
year 2004. That's what we're estimating. We're diverting our
full apportionment at this point, but we're recharging our own
groundwater basins with it. So from--for river purposes from a
diversion standpoint, yes, we are diverting our full 300,000,
but we're not using it for M&I yet.
The Chairman. Mr. Mutz?
Mr. Mutz. Mr. Chairman, New Mexico's Upper Basin allotment
is a little over 700,000 acre-feet. We're presently using about
450,000 acre-feet of that water. But projects are authorized,
and some under construction, most under construction except for
the Animas-La Plata, that will utilize about 90 percent of that
allocation. We are planning a project that will use the
remaining 10 percent of that basic apportionment in the Upper
Basin.
And of course the Upper Basin Compact provides that one
state may use another state's unused apportionment with no
right to it. And we're not bashful about using that for a short
period of time.
In the lower basin, as I indicated earlier, we still have
not put to use any of the 18,000 acre-feet authorized by the
Central Arizona Project, but we're working on it.
The Chairman. Mr. Davidson?
Mr. Davidson. Mr. Chairman, no, we are not, and we're proud
of it. And just as the original framers of the Compact, we
believe that the certainty that we're provided under the Law of
the River and under the Compact allows us to develop that
remaining portion. We have probably, depending on the
estimates, roughly 200,000 acre-foot a year that we're not
using right now that we want to be able to develop reasonably
and responsibly, rather than hurry up and develop before
California gets their hands on it.
The Chairman. So there are only two states that are using
their full capacity, that would be Arizona and Nevada; is that
right? Well, California, they use over their capacity, which
they've done--well, that's what I'm saying. You really got your
work cut out for you, if I may respectfully say so.
Chairman of the Committee on Water and Power, Mr. Calvert,
you're recognized.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think. As was
pointed out, southern California is dependent upon the Colorado
for 60 percent of its water needs. Los Angeles is not able to
import as much water from the Owens Valley area, based upon
recent court decisions; the same applies to the Mono Lake area.
Imported water from northern California has been threatened by
recent decisions both for the Endangered Species Act, and
Native Americans most recently on the Trinity River, which
involves 300,000 acre-feet of water which, by the way, is the
entire allocation for the state of Nevada within the Colorado
River.
On top of that, of course, California, under this interim
agreement, must meet its 4.4 million acre allocation by 2016,
and put on top of that the demand in California, as throughout
the entire West, is going up dramatically. That's before we get
into the Mexican delta, before we get into the Salton Sea,
before we get into ESA and the rest of it. So when people refer
to HR 1985 as a massive bill, it may be, but we've got a
massive problem.
I guess the question, and I think everyone here pretty much
answered that question, is that--and I think Mr. Dishlip of
Arizona said that the best security for Arizona, I suspect the
best security for both the Upper and Lower Basin state, is make
sure that California lives within its 4.4 million acre-foot
allocation. Does everybody agree to that? Yes, I don't see any
disagreement with that. So how do we do that? And that's why we
have legislation that we want to move forward that most
Californians are already on board with.
Miss Jones, do you believe that California in the future
can meet its future needs without additional storage in the
north, on top of--obviously we'll get into other programs, but
let's talk about additional storage, both off stream,
groundwater and the rest.
Ms. Jones. The storage is a very important part of our
package of meeting California's water reliability, as was
alluded to by the other states. Right now the focus has been on
the groundwater storage side. To some extent we have neglected
large-scale groundwater storage programs, you might say, in
past years, and only are recently beginning to implement these
kind of actions. Since California's last drought, for example,
we now have another half dozen or so of large-scale groundwater
storage programs on line, some with capacities of as large as a
million acre-feet, bringing to nearly 20 the number of large-
scale groundwater management programs--
Mr. Calvert. Specifically--
Ms. Jones. Semitrophic Water Storage District, Arvin-Edison
Water Storage District, the programs by the two Alameda
districts in the Bay area, those kinds of projects--
Mr. Calvert. Miss Jones, reclaiming my time. Surface
storage, how about surface storage, is your office prepared to
support additional surface storage in the state of California?
Ms. Jones. I might have to punt that question for the
Governor's office to answer. Surface storage, as you know, is
a--surface storage outside of what is under discretion in the
CALFED Bay-Delta Program remains a controversial subject
politically within California, certainly--
Mr. Calvert. Reclaiming my time again, I just want to make
this point because we're limited to these 5 minutes, and
certainly we'll come back, is that within HR 1985, obviously it
supports all the groundwater storage solutions that we can
possibly come up with, also it does not preclude the fact that
we can move toward surface storage in the state of California
if it--obviously, is what we need. Based upon everything that
I've heard in this testimony today, California's diminishing
supply of water, based upon existing reality and its increasing
demand, we're going to need all of that water in order to meet
our requirement by 2016 to the 4.4 million acre feet Plan
allocation. Wouldn't you agree?
Ms. Jones. Absolutely. We need every resource we can get
our hands on.
Mr. Calvert. Talk to the Governor, if you can get a hold of
him, and let him know that we need to make sure that we--we're
all supportive of this legislation, and so we can develop
additional water resources in the state of California.
The issue on Salton Sea came up, and obviously that's a
tough issue. But--and obviously there's some discussion about
the link between the 4.4 million acre feet allocation and the
Salton Sea. Somebody wanted to get more specific about that. In
the interim agreement is there some legal requirement that the
Department of Interior come up with a preferred solution to the
Salton Sea prior to some of the litigation work with the
irrigation district and the water transfer in San Diego, is
someone aware of that? Is there some kind of--Miss Jones, is
there--
Ms. Jones. The real requirement for us is within the
Interim Surplus Guidelines themselves, which say that if by the
end of 2002 California has not executed the Quantification
Settlement Agreement package and is moving forward, then the
surplus criteria do not take effect. That's the rule.
Mr. Calvert. So that's a real problem that we're going to
have to--Has the Department of Interior indicated to you yet
when they're going to come up with a preferred solution on the
Salton Sea?
Ms. Jones. Not directly, no.
Mr. Calvert. I'll come back for a second round, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Ms. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I feel like I've
been battered. California seems to be the target. And the
reason, as I stated in my opening statement, that I'm very
concerned is because all of us have a vested interest in it.
I've heard a lot of the talk concentrated on the
allocations, on the issues between the different states, but
I've heard nobody talk to the quality of the water of the
river. And my concern, of course, has been Moab, which we
pushed through last administration. And the second one that is
totally a very big bone of contention in my area is the cost of
the salinity, taking the salinity out of the river water. Yet
I've heard nobody say that this is an issue that we need to
look at. Because there's a big cost to taking that salt out of
the water that can be used to promote the underwater--the
underground, the river--underground river, I'm sorry, my mind
is a little on California time yet, the storage of water,
extension of the infrastructure of recycling of water, I mean
all of that can be utilized to be able to help California, yet
I'm not listening to anybody saying these are issues that may
be able to help California meet that 4.4. And I'd like to ask
anybody how they feel about it. Yes, we are under great time
constraints, if you will, we all know it, at least those of us
that have been involved in the water. And we need to undertake,
of course, a big program of education for everybody to
understand how important the correct usage of water, where that
includes agriculture, urban, et cetera. But I'd like to hear
from any of you as to how you feel you could help us deal with
that issue.
Mr. Anderson. I was just going to say we have a program
called Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program in place
in the Colorado River Basin. All seven states are involved.
Many of us here at the table are involved with that program,
serve on the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum. And
it's one of the best programs, if not the best water quality
program in the country. And I know we're trying to do a lot to
control the salts that get into the water.
Much of the salts that enter the water comes in naturally.
The Basin itself sits on an old sea bed and the formations are
such that as the water goes down through, travels through the
country, picks up about 400 part per million of salts. The
remaining salts, another approximately 400 part per million,
almost doubles, comes from irrigation, generally irrigation
runoff, much of it from the Upper Basin, probably most of it
from the Upper Basin. And the Colorado Basin Salinity Control
Program is an effort that we are working on to improve
irrigation efficiency, therefore reducing deep percolation,
reducing runoff from irrigated ground, that has proven to be
very cost-effective in controlling salt loading.
And so I think the reason that we probably haven't talked
about it is we think we have a program in place that is
addressing the issue, and we are meeting all of the water
quality criteria that has been established under the Clean
Water Act for the Colorado River system.
We continue to implement these programs in Utah. We have
numerous programs in the Uintah Basin and in the Price San
Rafael area where we're funding irrigation improvements through
this program--
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Anderson, I understand that, and I'm
very happy to hear that you have those very wonderful programs.
The issue though is that a lot of the water that we receive in
the southern basin, the south basin is heavily--well, it is a
problem for MWD and other water agencies, that they have to
take salt still out of that water.
Now, my understanding, and this is in speaking to the
former Secretary of... I've lost it, Mr. Richardson, Secretary
Richardson, that the lands that provide a lot of the salinity
to the river, over half of them are Federal lands. My concern
then is why are we not asking the Federal Government to take
its share of the cost of taking the salt out of the water,
helping the states that deal with the issues, especially in the
Lower Basin, that will allow us to be able to again conserve
funds to be able to deal with our own reduction of the 4.4
Plan?
Mr. Anderson. Again, some of the others may want to
respond. One of the--you're right, one of the big issues is
that in--for example, in Utah, about 67 percent of the state is
owned by the Federal Government. You get out in the Colorado
River Basin, that percentage goes up much higher than that; it
might be 75 percent of that area is operated--is owned and
controlled by the Federal Government.
The Bureau of Land Management is the biggest landowner out
in that part of the country. Bureau of Land Management is a
participant in the salinity control program. We, as the basin
states, have been trying to get the Bureau of Land Management
to do more, to go into their lands and try and put some money
in to control runoff from their land, to control the amount of
salinity that's coming.
I think there was a bill passed earlier this year requiring
the BLM to submit a report to Congress on their activities. We
support that legislation, and are hoping that will help put
some additional pressure on the Bureau of Land Management--
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I think it goes beyond helping BLM
do its job, I think we need to force BLM to do its job to a
certain degree.
All of you mentioned Mexico. My understanding is you have a
desal plant down near Yuma, if I remember correctly, that
sometimes does not go on line. I don't hear anybody saying that
it is on line, that it is used to be able to clear the water
before going to Mexico, per the treaty. And that's an issue
also. If we're all going to say, well, let's give them water,
what about the quality of water that's required, even for those
riparian areas, or especially for the riparian areas that
they're talking about?
Ms. Mulroy. Herb may want to jump in on the desalter, but
I'll go ahead and take that. We mentioned earlier that the lack
of using the desalter has created the Cienega de Santa Clara,
which is a huge bird sanctuary. I think if the desalter were to
be started and that water would no longer flow into Mexico and
that habitat would be destroyed, you would have a major
international incident. Because there is huge value to the
Mexicans in the Cienega de Santa Clara, so it's not that
simple.
Mrs. Napolitano. Right, no, I understand, and there's also
litigation currently.
Ms. Mulroy. By United States environmental groups.
Mrs. Napolitano. And Mexican environmentalists, right. You
might also note that part of the water that flows into the Rio
Bravo and eventually into the Rio Grande is being dammed on the
Mexican side, creating about a $90 billion loss to Texas
farmers.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I would like to
thank all of our panelists for being here, and welcome to my
district. We're right on the edge here of Mr. Hansen's district
and mine. He got the airport because he loves to fly, but we
got the Department of Natural Resources buildings in my
district. All that may change here in the near future though.
I was pleased to hear about the collegiality among the
states and the development of working relationship that's
happening there. I couldn't help but think about in Utah here,
where we have a bit of a water shortage. And so the last few
days, as the heat has gone up and the ditches have decreased in
their volume, I've gotten to know my neighbors a lot better,
and I'm hoping that we can maintain that same kind of
collegiality that you have.
Interestingly, we have about 12 families that use a
pressurized sprinkler system, and it is so much more efficient
that the water district doesn't even count what we do because
we're way under what our rights would allow there. And that all
worked quite well until recently; one of our neighbors was
unhappy with the flow, and so he decided instead of sprinkling
he would open all his valves and flood his area, which leads us
back I guess to the salinity problem that Ms. Napolitano was
concerned about. So these issues that we're dealing with are
important issues. They go all the way up from individuals and
up to states, of course.
There are a couple things that I was interested in if I
could just get a bit of a follow-up. I appreciate, Miss Mulroy,
your information about the Cienega de Santa Clara. And I'd
actually like to know a little bit more about that, how big it
is, how it works. And Mr. Dishlip, if you could address that, I
would appreciate that.
Mr. Dishlip. Well, the Cienega de Santa Clara is the result
of a project constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation to remove
the drainage water from the Wellton-Mowhawk Irrigation District
that at the time was, back in the 1960's, I guess, was adding a
great deal of salt to the--drainage waters were being
discharged back to the Colorado River and being delivered to
Mexico. And because of that, it was creating a great deal of
problems with irrigation in Mexico. And so it led to an
international negotiation, which led to a Minute to the Mexican
Water Treaty. Part of the result of that Minute was an
agreement that the United States would not put too much salt or
much greater salt loading in the salt--in the Colorado River
than what would divert at Imperial Dam. Well, the solution to
that problem was to make sure that this drainage water did not
discharge any longer to the Colorado River, at least at the
high parts per million that it was.
And for a period of time it was felt we could divert that
water around the Colorado River and discharge it to the ocean
in Mexico, and so the Congress passed the Salinity Control Act,
and on Title 1 of that led to a construction of a bypass canal.
And now the water that's pumped to a drainage in the Wellton-
Mowhawk area which is high is salt is bypassed from the river
and it's discharged. And instead of being discharged actually
to the ocean, it was discharged near the ocean in an area that
historically had some marshlands in Mexico.
Well, what was thought to be a fairly short-term solution
until the Yuma Desalt Plant was up and running turned out to be
a 25- or 30-year issue. And as a result of that, this about
130,000 acre-feet of discharge water annually has been bypassed
to the Cienega. And I believe it's created about 10,000 acres,
or hectares, I'm not sure which, of marshland habitat. That
marshland habitat is very high quality for bird life. The water
is very salty that is discharged there, so you don't get a
diverse riparian habitat, but you get a lot of cattails and
marshes. And as a result it's developed a very high quality
habitat in the Republic of Mexico for bird life.
Now the issue really has come about, I believe, as a result
of these limits being placed on the use of water in the United
States, and California no longer having access to an unlimited
supply of water, the Lower Basin now must live within its
entitlement. As a result of that process that led to the
construction of the desalt plant, which was now we have to
treat that water and not bypass it to the ocean any more, but
treat it and deliver it to Mexico as higher quality water has
become the issue of the day.
And the issue really comes about, what do we do? Do we turn
that desalt plant that has been constructed and it's kind of
mothballed in the Yuma area on--carry out the activity as it
was planned in the early 1970's to offset and reclaim that
water and make it useful and deliverable, or do we maintain
that habitat in Mexico and find some other way to meet the
intent of the Salinity Control Act. And this is a real
challenge.
On top of that challenge is that the operation of the Yuma
Desalt Plant is quite expensive; I think the estimate is it
could cost as much a $25 million a year to run that desalt
plant. And even after you run that desalt plant, it will only
treat about two-thirds of the water supply. The way the desalt
plant works is it treats a portion of the water to very high
quality, and then that's released to the river and blended, but
the remaining part is very high concentration in salts, it's
called the brine stream. And so about a third of the water
supply would continue to have to be discharged to the Cienega
even if you ran the plant, and now the quality of that water is
going to increase in salinity by a multifactor because now
you're dealing with a much higher level concentration.
The Bureau of Reclamation is actively involved in looking
at alternatives of what to do about this issue. From the State
of Arizona standpoint, we look at it as a combination of a
water quality issue, but also water supply issue. This water
that's being discharged to the Cienega is usable water, all it
needs to do is to be treated. And considering the value and the
shortage of supply in the Colorado River, a hundred or 130,000
acre-feet is a significant water resource available not just to
the state of Arizona, but to the entire basin states. But
things have happened over those 30 years and the situation's
changed, and I don't know right now what the answer is.
Mr. Cannon. I think my time has about expired, but can just
I ask one quick--if you turned the desalinization plant on,
what would the cost per acre be? Do you have any idea?
Mr. Dishlip. I believe the Bureau of Reclamation estimates
the cost per acre-foot of treated water, on the order of $350
an acre-foot.
Mr. Cannon. Great. Thank you for your patience, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Coming from
the state that has the smallest appropriated allocation of
Colorado River water, I'm very pleased also to be here as
officious intermeddler on this Committee. I'm also pleased to
see the State of Nevada representative in this issue as well
because of the significance, as Miss Mulroy has said, about the
state of Nevada.
My concern, however, is the fact that there's so much
complexity in our legal system with regard to this, the
complexity of state versus state, state versus Federal, Federal
versus international laws, all riding together to come to some
sort of uniform agreement, and the effect that's going to have
not only on the users, but on the ultimate condition and
quality of the Colorado River as well.
I was very pleased when I read Mr. Holsinger's testimony. I
came to page 6 and in that, Mr. Holsinger, you proposed that
Congress amend the Land/Water Conservation Fund to direct the
Forest Service to use its allocated Land/Water Conservation
Fund moneys to acquire water rights, and then transfer those
water rights to each state. This, to me, sounds like a far
better idea than having the United States own and control water
rights themselves because, as we in the West know, states do
have the right and title to the water that's within the states
themselves. So is Colorado prepared from a political standpoint
to make that recommendation in Congress?
Mr. Holsinger. Thank you, Congressman. The State of
Colorado just recently contacted our delegation about this very
idea. We've yet to have a great deal of dialogue, but we're
optimistic that working with our delegation and others, we'd be
able to try to do something like that.
Mr. Gibbons. Good. Let me, in the bit of time I've got
remaining, talk about some of our state of Nevada issues. Miss
Mulroy, you know, obviously the State of Nevada is either--very
close to its allocated share right now, 300,000 acre-feet.
Knowing that we've gone through a series of steps internally in
the State of Nevada to make more efficient our utilization of
water, in turn, using return flow credits to be able to extend
the utilization of that water, what--what's the State of Nevada
preparing to do in the year 2016, when it reaches the ultimate
cap, even with the bypass surpluses, in terms of its
utilization? What are we--what do we plan to do beyond 2016?
That date is not that far away, and we certainly have a great
deal resting on any planning that may take place.
Ms. Mulroy. That's correct. In the--after 2016, we would
first begin to use the water that we've banked in the State of
Arizona. We have also put some things into place, we have
bought significant shares in the Muddy River within the State
of Nevada, and that's a tributary to the Colorado River, and it
would be our intent to begin utilizing those. We have an
agreement with the Muddy River Irrigation District that will
allow us to begin utilizing that water. So we're looking at any
and all alternatives.
But our safety net is the water that we have banked in the
State of Arizona. Because the combination of the interim
surplus criteria, water conservation, and banking in the state
of Arizona will take us beyond the year 2040.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate that. And I'll reserve any future questions till the
next round.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. If Josh here figured
this right, when you all told me what you weren't using,
there's about three million acre-feet that's flowing to
California that's not being used by the other states. Did I
figure that right, Josh? Anyway, this hearing, to me, jumps out
as the problem that's going to happen in 2016. And I guess it's
kind of a responsibility for all these other states to, as Miss
Mulroy just pointed out, make sure they're able to take care of
their water after that time.
And what I really feel good about is the cooperation that
seems to be here among the seven states on how they're going to
do this. You know, and I hope that stays there. But sometimes
I've seen these things happen, over my 20 years of Congress,
when it finally comes down to push and shove, we're back in
court. And I hope that doesn't happen. So I think what would
avert that is if people make the--whatever is necessary to take
care of those things prior to that date coming about.
I appreciate Mr. Holsinger's comment on what he just said
to Mr. Gibbons. That's a very interesting concept, we'll look
forward to seeing that. There's just a lot of things that are
pretty sacrosanct, you know, when you start talking these areas
of who has control of water. I don't know of anything in the
West that's more important than water; we live and die with
water.
This isn't a hearing on the Endangered Species Act or
energy, but the Colorado River has those two problems also. I
don't think a lot of people realize the ramifications of the
Colorado River. A few of you have alluded to the Endangered
Species Act. Does anyone want to tackle some of that? Let me
tell you what we'll do. The Committee has put together a
working group, comprised of five Republicans and five
Democrats. The Endangered Species Act was passed in 1973, and I
assume most of us probably would have voted for it if the
intent of the Act was carried out. If you go back and read the
original hearing on it and what was said on the House floor and
the Senate floor, it was for kind of major species, for
example, the bald eagle was mentioned a number of times, the
grizzly bear was mentioned a number of times. The Act just
somehow got a little carried away, in the opinion of a lot of
us, and has gone way beyond that. And if there's any Act that
is difficult for BLM, Forest Service, Park Service, you folks
who work with water, people that work with energy, it turns out
to be the Endangered Species Act. We're hoping that it can be
somewhat worked out. It will not go away. I mean, I get letters
every day saying repeal it. It's not going to happen. What has
to be and what should be done is to modify the Act so it's a
more working Act and we can work with it.
I'll throw out one recommendation just that the Committee
has worked on, and you tell me what you think about other
recommendations that you may have that you feel would be
workable, because I'm sure every one of you has to work on it.
Do you know, if you wanted to go into the Grand Canyon right
now and do something, you'd have to have a permit from the
Superintendent of the Grand Canyon? And that's how the Park
Service works.
Now what if someone came in to one of your states and
wanted to explore the possibility of putting some species on to
the Endangered Species Act. Would you feel comfortable if,
right here in the state of Utah, if Kathy Clark, the Natural
Resource Director, if she had a peer-review group, and that
peer-review group said, well, let's see your qualifications,
and let's also see what this species is and why you want to
preserve it. And then if they agree, you get the go-ahead. Now
this is done in other areas, we've done it in the Park Service.
And in a way, it puts a little more responsibility on the
states, but it would probably curtail the listing problem that
we have. Biggest problems we have are listing and delisting,
they're the two biggest problems we have with the Act.
Now with that said, I've used more than half of my time.
Does anybody want to respond to that? Mr. Davidson, you looked
like you could hardly wait to say something. I'd like to turn
to you.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Pretty good mind
reader too, I guess.
The--without knowing the details of this peer-review group
itself, certainly I don't know how capably I can respond to it,
although I think it probably gets at one of the issues that I
believe is at the heart of some of the problems with the
Endangered Species Act, and that is the whole, as you
mentioned, the listing determination. And right now, basically
it takes a postage stamp for an individual organization to
request or insist upon the listing of species. And then of
course, as you all know, that triggers a number of requirements
for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and ultimately can trigger a
number of obstacles for anyone who wants to, for example, float
a portion of the river that--under a situation where they
require some kind of a major Federal action.
So certainly from Wyoming's perspective, we believe that
there needs to be some kind of a realistic assessment of the
science that goes into determination of whether there's a
listing or not. As you all know, it's based upon--currently
based upon the best available science, but that determination
of best available science is oftentimes left to individuals who
use their discretion pretty broadly, I might say, and we
believe that some kind of a peer review to assess the science
behind any type of a listing determination, or delisting
determination, for that matter, would certainly be very useful.
The Chairman. Do you think the economy of the area should
be a consideration on listing species?
Mr. Davidson. Again, Mr. Chairman, absolutely. And I
believe it technically is required to be a determination, but
it is given very short shrift, generally, in the
determinations.
The Chairman. Do any of you feel that when Fish and
Wildlife takes over private property, that they should pay the
market value, or should they pay the depreciated value because
of the species? Does anyone want to tackle that one?
Mr. Davidson. Mr. Chairman, this would be my own personal
viewpoint, not that perhaps of the Governor of the State of
Wyoming, although perhaps it would be, I don't know. Certainly
my viewpoint is that it should be the fair market value, not
the value that's been depreciated as a result of listing.
The Chairman. Coming out of the Attorney General's office,
you read the Constitution where it says just compensation?
Mr. Davidson. That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. That's the way I read it too, as Chairman of
this Committee. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. California certainly
must help themselves, and certainly we're trying to do that in
California to meet our obligation for future water, but would
you all be supportive of Federal assistance leverage to build
water projects in California if it helps us meet the 4.4 Plan?
Why don't we start off with Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. Again, we've been very supportive. I think
California's been very honest with us in their desires. I
believe them when they say they will do whatever's necessary to
be done to comply with the Interim Surplus Guidelines, the
record decision, and implement their four point plan. If it
requires Federal funding for that to be successful, then from
our--from my perspective as a person who visits with them and
sits at the table with them, I would support that.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Holsinger?
Mr. Holsinger. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the State of
Colorado is very supportive of actions such as that for
California to implement their water use plan.
I might qualify it with, so long as it doesn't affect our
ability to go forward with the implementation of Animas La
Plata in Colorado; that's also very important for Colorado and
New Mexico. But yes, we're very supportive of that.
Mr. Calvert. We'll work with you on that. I would hope you
say yes, Miss Jones.
Ms. Jones. Oh, absolutely, and as you probably know, some
of our California water users are starting to talk about a
proposed legislative proposal for such a system.
Mr. Dishlip. I think through the discussions we had with
the 4.4 Plan, we were all educated to a high degree on the
interconnection between state water projects, central valley
projects, Colorado River supplies, and how the plumbing all
links together, including Arizona's perspective that California
does have enough water available if they can find ways to put
it to use. And our interest in the Colorado River was that we
recognize that California's going to have an increasing need
for water, but they needed to reduce on the Colorado River
side, and might require additional expenditures in the northern
California side. We clearly are supportive of that.
But on the other hand, we believe that the proposal that's
been put forth on the 4.4 Plan can be accomplished within
California even without funding from--on the northern
California side.
Ms. Mulroy. We concur with the State of Arizona. We are--we
are very supportive of any funding for CALFED projects, but
would have to leave the burden on the State of California to
meet its obligation. And as--we would be concerned if it would
be in competition with any of the water quality issues that we
have, requests for funding out in front of Congress to help
improve the water quality in Lake Mead, to remove perchlorides
and urban contaminants from entering Lake Mead. And we, with
Congressman Gibbons' assistance, are looking for assistance in
that area. So to the extent that it doesn't compete.
And let me throw in one other thing. We would be supportive
of northern California projects, but there is a project in the
state of California being looked at that we would not only not
be supportive of, but we would violently oppose, and that would
be another aqueduct for diversion into San Diego. If that were
part of any funding plan, then that would crater any support.
Mr. Mutz. Congressman, we, as indicated in our statement,
are supportive of California's efforts to reduce its use of
Colorado River water. And they've got a big job ahead of them.
We recognize the effort that's been put forth to date.
Again, as indicated by my colleagues, we would look
carefully at any competition for funds with projects with which
we are interested in at home. But generally we would support
California in its efforts, looking, however, to California to
take the initiative in doing its development.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Congressman Calvert. We also would
support request for funding from California's part that would
result in their ability to comply with the 4.4 Plan. I would
caution though, sometimes things work slowly through the
Federal processes, and we would not be supportive of any
slippage in the schedule, I guess, whether that's caused by
lack of Federal funds or just through California's own actions.
Mr. Calvert. Yeah, and I'm glad that you primarily seem to
be supportive of this, or you are supportive of that, because
obviously cooperation is important, not just with all of the
Western states in order to meet our future water demands. And
certainly we know water is fungible just like electricity, and
that has an effect on the entire West. And I assure you as the
Chairman of the Subcommittee, I have been and will continue to
work with each one of you to try to meet your future water
needs and demands.
But I just want to make the point that based upon my
earlier statement, based upon the fact that California must
meet its 4.4 Plan based upon the interim decision, based upon
the fact that we have at this point a diminishing supply of
water in California, increasing demand on water, that we're
going to have to do a lot, and we'll need to leverage Federal
money to assist California to meet future demands and make sure
we don't have a problem down the road which will affect the
entire western United States. So I appreciate your support in
that, and look forward to working with each one of you.
And now I will recognize Miss Napolitano from Los Angeles,
California.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. I'm very
interested in a lot of the dialogue on some of the solutions.
One of the questions that I have is--had since the Chairman
brought up the endangered species, and Mr. Dishlip, is there
any program similar to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fish
Recovery Program being--I know there was talk of it to the
Lower Basin to help maintain the endangered species, fish.
Mr. Dishlip. Yes, Congressman Napolitano, the program in
the Lower Basin is called the Multispecies Conservation
program. It's a little different than the recovery program in
the Upper Basin. The recovery program in the Upper Basin is
geared at recovery of certain listed endangered species. In the
Lower Basin, we looked more toward a comprehensive approach to
recover existing endangered species, but also to look at a wide
range of additional species to avoid future listing. And so
it's taken on a broader scale, you might say, in the Lower
Basin. It's a cooperative effort. Right now it's just still in
the formulation standpoint. We really don't have other than a
pilot program anticipated that the current time. But the idea
is to move forward potentially with a 50-year program to lead
to recovery of the species and avoiding of additional listing.
It's a cooperative effort between the water users, the
power users, the Federal Government obviously is a very
critical player in all of this, both because they manage the
Lower Colorado River Basin, and also a considerable amount of
water use in the Lower Basin is for Federal purposes, including
Indian tribes'.
Right now what some of the difficulties are is getting
established exactly what that program will be. There has been
some contractors hired to help a Steering Committee put that
program together to get a better concept of what needs to be
done. Then that has to be costed out, and then some kind of a
funding mechanism has to be put in place.
I think the idea right now know though is to move forward
with a pilot program as soon as possible. And I believe Members
of the Steering Committee have gone back to Washington, maybe a
few weeks ago, even, to discuss that with some of the Members
of Congress about getting some potential funding for some pilot
programs.
I think the idea of a multispecies conservation program is
a very good one, it's a creative program, again, a
collaborative program. Exactly how it's going to work is not
quite in place yet.
Now one of the comments that I had to Chairman Hansen is
that in the lower Basin, one of our particular issues is that
under the Endangered Species Act, Federal actions, and in this
case, since the river really is a Federalized river, it's run
by the Secretary of the Interior, leads directly to
consultation between the Federal Government and the Fish and
Wildlife Service, the Interior Department, the Bureau of
Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife Service. And yet the direct
water users, the beneficiaries, the people who have a big stake
in the water supply is not the Federal Government, it's the
private and the Indian tribes who use the water and the power.
And just the structure of the Section Seven consultation makes
it fairly difficult sometimes for the people who have the most
at stake to be at the table to--
Mrs. Napolitano. How do we improve it?
Mr. Dishlip. Well, we hope that the multispecies approach
does improve that, because that creates a Habitat Conservation
Program where everyone works together, including the Fish and
Wildlife Service, to avoid that problem.
Mrs. Napolitano. That's in a sense just a task force, so to
speak. What if the Federal Government were to allow the input
at--dealing with different--
Mr. Dishlip. I think that is exactly what most of the water
users would like. They would like to be at the table as well as
the Federal Government. I believe that might take a
modification to the Act though. And so short of that, we found
this other solution which may work as well, which is be at the
table through this cooperative effort.
Mrs. Napolitano. Does it also include Indian--
Mr. Dishlip. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. --groups?
Mr. Dishlip. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. And the players are then the lower basin
states?
Mr. Dishlip. The lower basin states and the water users in
the lower basin states, and the power users, the game and fish
departments within the three lower basin states, and also the
Steering Committee and many nongovernmental/environmental
groups.
Mrs. Napolitano. Are they also looking at contamination in
the rivers?
Mr. Dishlip. Not particularly. This focus is to be in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
Mrs. Napolitano. Okay, but is it not--the water quality
affecting the future of the endangered species?
Mr. Dishlip. Well, to the extent it would, I'm sure that
would be a factor. I think right now the focus really is on
habitat, restoration and recovery of currently listed
endangered species.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. Given the time frame for flights this
afternoon, I think I'll pass, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Gibbons?
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you. Mr. Calvert, I have just a couple
of brief questions and maybe some follow-up with regard to what
we discussed earlier. And I was curious if all of you would
agree that once we reach these accommodations and these
agreements and put these programs into place, do you feel
confident that we are fairly well out of the woods with regard
to any long-term protracted litigation over the river? Mr.
Davidson, we'll start down there with you, because you always
have that wonderful smile on your face that you want to talk,
and then we'll work our way back this direction.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Congressman Gibbons. My belief is
that if we can pull all these pieces together with respect to
California and the 4.4 Plan, that we will avoid--we will be
able to avoid an interstate dispute, we will be able to avoid
interstate litigation.
What I can't predict, what I can't give you any assurance
of is that we will be able to avoid a dispute between the
states who comprise the seven states entitled to the flows of
the Colorado River and either environmental groups or some
activity for or on behalf of Mexico. That's just--those are two
unknowns that are--that are out there that we just don't have
enough of a handle on to be able to provide that assurance.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, let me add a part to that question, if I
may. If in fact the states are permitted to join in this
agreement and in the September negotiations in Mexico over the
wetlands down there, do you feel that there is a strong
likelihood that the agreement or any discussions that are
reached would have a likelihood of taking effect contra to the
idea that if you weren't involved with it, there is less of a
likelihood that the seven states would agree?
Mr. Davidson. I'll take a shot and then I'll pass it on to
my compadres here.
I believe that certainly we are going to be involved,
because we believe that there is that possibility, maybe even
rising to the level, we hope, of a likelihood, that we can
avoid those kinds of disputes. And that's why we are intending
to be involved, we are hoping to be included as much as
possible so that we can avoid it. If we're not included, then I
think the disputes are almost inevitable.
Mr. Mutz. Congressman, I would echo what my colleague, Mr.
Davidson, has said. I would observe, however, that one does not
know what might be thrown off the wall by groups that we have
not had a lot of experience with. We have not dealt a lot with
the Mexican nongovernmental agencies, and I'm not--I just
cannot predict where we might come from with them. But as Mr.
Davidson said, that's what we're in this for. We hope to
preclude further dispute.
Ms. Mulroy. I agree with Mr. Davidson, with one extension
on that. I mean I think over the last 10 years I think one of
the things that we as the states have realized is that shared
solutions are really the only solution that can be found on the
river. Litigation is a luxury of abundance, and as the river
becomes tighter and tighter in terms of its supply, the
immediate consequences of litigation become very real. They're
not something that will occur 15, 20 years, 30 years down the
road; they'll happen tomorrow. So in pursuing litigation, I
think all of us are reluctant and would prefer not to go that
route. We would really have to be pushed against the wall.
As this river system becomes tighter, the only real
solutions are those in which we appreciate the situation of our
neighbor and can walk in their shoes, and not ones where we
manage the river as seven separate water supply sources.
Mr. Dishlip. Basically I think that coming out of our more
recent experience, the attitude in Arizona is to avoid
litigation wherever we can. I think our concern in the future
would be that we would still have to be prepared to protect our
rights and protect our interpretation of the Law of the River
as we see it. And the concern may arise, it has not arisen to
date, but it may arise, that the Secretary of the Interior
really is the master of the river, and it's his job to
interpret how he sees the Law of the River. And it could well
be that his interpretation of the Law of the River and how he
chooses to operate it is in conflict with how we see it. That
would be something we would certainly not look forward to,
suing the Secretary of the Interior. But I think that's
probably the hardest issue right now in the future looking--the
Secretary of the Interior wears so many hats and he has so many
trust responsibilities in so many different areas, sometime or
other it could well be that an issue will arise where the hat
that he wears to be the master of the river and the hat that he
wears to be the head of the Fish and Wildlife Service or the
head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs could conflict him in a
way that would lead us to a position where we feel we'd have to
go to court to seek remedy.
Ms. Jones. I wholeheartedly agree with the previous
speakers about the desire that we have to avoid future
litigation. And I think we all recognize that the money that
would be otherwise expended on litigation buys a lot in terms
of on-the-ground habitat restoration or water management
improvements.
Mr. Holsinger. I don't really have much to add, other than
that perhaps the comity that's arisen as a result of the
negotiations that led to the California Water Use Plan is
certainly a good step in the right direction.
Mr. Anderson. Again, I can support the statements that have
been made. I think to me it's obvious that from the perspective
of those who are involved today, we're not looking to
litigation, we're looking to try to find a solution. But we
absolutely have no control of outside groups who may initiate
lawsuits and--but we will be very protective. Our Attorney
General staffs are always meeting when lawsuits are filed to
determine whether we as states should join in in one side or
the other to protect our rights, and we will do that. But I
believe the seven basin states, we have a desire to try to find
solutions to the problems that don't include litigation.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much. And thank all of you for
your presence here and your testimony, it's certainly been
enlightening to hear from you.
And Mr. Chairman, Chairmen, with regard to Chairman
Hansen's question about ESA, I find it very difficult to
envision any statute in the United States that could be applied
outside or extraterritoriality to the borders of the United
States with regard to any Endangered Species Act. First of all,
we have no means of enforcement, we have no means to ensure
that there is a recovery plan that would benefit the species.
And I think that begs a very serious legal challenge, one which
could be directed to the heart of the Endangered Species Act
itself if there is an application of that outside the borders
of the United States.
The Chairman. Almost impossible, I agree with the
gentleman. I don't think a lot of people realize out of all of
the things that have been put on the list, there's only been
about 11 or 12 recoveries. So it's kind of a disaster. I mean
huge amounts of money we've put into that thing, huge amounts
of money, and we don't see any recovery, so we wonder where
we're going.
Is this our last round? Okay, I'll start it out. You know,
there's been some talk by a lot of folks, and a lot of money
raised, about draining Lake Powell. What would that do to you?
Mr. Mutz?
Mr. Mutz. That might bring on a fight, Mr. Chairman. And I
should mention that litigation is a pretty good stick, and the
states, at least New Mexico, is not willing to hold that stick
back when it comes to things like draining Lake Powell. The
future development of the Upper Basin depends on that.
The Chairman. Well, if you consider everywhere you're
talking about the necessity of water, that we're overallocated,
that there's not enough to go around, we can't live with the
growth, the supply, the demand, this whole thing would go down
the tubes. I mean this whole agreement you're just talking
about, it's gone. If you drain the Lake Powell, the whole
shooting match is gone, is that right, am I wrong?
Mr. Anderson. That's right.
Ms. Mulroy. Yes.
The Chairman. All this work, the Law of the River, all the
things we've done, all these times, it's gone.
Ms. Mulroy. There would be no Interim Surplus Guidelines
without Lake Powell, none of this would be feasible without it.
The Chairman. People in the United States, regardless how
they feel, have certain rights to talk to Congress, and we did
have one hearing, what was that, about four or five, 6 years
ago? We had a hearing on this issue. We didn't get much out of
it. Got a lot of talk, but we didn't really get much as far as
the meat of it, the science, the water, the power, all that
type of thing.
Excuse me, did somebody have a comment? Mr. Dishlip?
Mr. Dishlip. Well, obviously Lake Powell has been a major
point of discussion in our state. Glen Canyon Dam's in Arizona,
and it's a major recreation area and a destination resort area
for people in Arizona, and the Navajo Nation are very
supportive.
Probably most important from a water supply standpoint,
what makes the Colorado River work is the storage capability,
that we have more storage on the Colorado River than almost any
other river basin in the United States relative to the average
annual flow. And when you look at the erratic nature of the
flows of the Colorado River, 1 year it may be the driest year
on record and the next year may be the wettest year on record.
The storage is what's evened out the water supply and really
what's allowed the development to occur in the Lower and Upper
Basins. And having those two very large reservoirs, Lake Mead
and Lake Powell, are really the linchpin.
And not only the political and the legal aspect to make
sure that the Compact works, but just to the physical aspect,
to make sure that water supplies are reliable, I just can't
imagine a system without tremendous disruption without a Lake
Powell or something similar.
The Chairman. So every state would oppose that, all seven
of you would really oppose this big time; is that right?
Ms. Mulroy. Yes.
The Chairman. You point out, Mr. Dishlip, the amount of
water that is stored, starting at Fontanelle I guess in Wyoming
and working all way down Parker and Davis and all those in
between, that's a sizeable amount of water stored.
Mr. Dishlip. It's on the order of 60 million acre-feet of
storage, and 54 million of that is located in those two large
reservoirs, 24 million in Lake Powell. Without it, the system
is completely different.
The Chairman. So let the record show that these seven
states totally oppose this. Is that correct?
Mr. Mutz. Agree.
Ms. Mulroy. Yes.
The Chairman. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one
question. I was kind of curious more than anything else. The
gentlelady from Nevada, Miss Mulroy, you mentioned a conveyance
system from--I assume from the purification district area into
San Diego.
Ms. Mulroy. No.
Mr. Calvert. Or from--directly from the Colorado River, all
right. I hadn't heard of that so I was just curious.
Ms. Mulroy. The state of California has funded a
feasibility study for that.
Mr. Calvert. If California met its 4.4 million acre-foot
allocation, why would any state be opposed to any kind of
conveyance system within state?
Ms. Mulroy. Well, it wouldn't be within state. California
has more than enough capacity to move its full allocation into
the state of California.
Mr. Calvert. Well, I was just curious, that hadn't been
brought up to me so--as far as a way to convey water.
But I--since this is the last of my time, I wanted to thank
this panel and look forward to working with all of you to try
to work out the very difficult problem with the Colorado River.
It's a little bit like playing three-dimensional chess, because
there's so much demands that are placed upon such a body of
water that many millions of Americans depend upon. So again, I
look forward to working with all of you, and certainly with
Miss Jones and the State Legislature in California, and we
certainly need the help of the Chairman of this Committee and
the entire House of Representatives to help resolve some of
these major issues that are affecting the West. And I say that
water is right on top of the list, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I couldn't agree more. Gentlelady from
California.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to
introduce for the record as a courtesy a letter from Tom Graff,
Environmental Defense. It's a letter that supports timely
implementation of the 4.4 Plan and expresses support for
legislation to amend the Interim Surplus Guidelines and related
documents.
The Chairman. Without objection, it's admitted.
[The letter from Thomas J. Graff, Regional Director,
Environmental Defense, follows:]
July 5, 2001
Hon. Gale Norton
Secretary of the Interior
1849 C. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Hon. Barbara Boxer
U.S. Senate
112 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510
Hon. Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Secretary Norton and Senators Boxer and Feinstein:
I write on behalf of Environmental Defense to urge your concerted
attention to a proposal for federal legislation now being circulated on
a draft basis by the Coachella Valley Water District, the Imperial
Irrigation District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California, and the San Diego County Water Authority.
The underlying purposes of the draft legislation are crucial to
California's future, as they are to the other six Colorado River Basin
states, to northern Mexico, and to the environments impacted by lower
Colorado River water development and management. These purposes are to
facilitate implementation of the San Diego--IID water transfer
agreement, of the four agency quantification settlement agreement (QSA)
establishing rights within California's 3.85 million acre foot
agricultural entitlement from the Colorado River, and of the California
plan to reduce California's annual usage of Colorado River water to 4.4
million acre feet. Also implicated are a variety of other agreements,
administrative actions, and environmental commitments related to the
Colorado River, including commitments to various Indian tribes, to the
Colorado River Delta, and to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The most immediately crucial objective of the draft legislation the
four above-enumerated agencies are floating is the authorization of a
program to implement a set of habitat enhancement projects meant to
offset the incremental negative environmental effects occasioned by the
San Diego-IID water transfer, the QSA, and the California 4.4 plan.
Given the many environmental benefits that should arise out of the
timely implementation of those agreements, and the risks that would
attend a failure to complete the agreements on the timetable set forth
in the QSA and elsewhere, there is cause here for especially prompt
action on Congress' part.
The proposed legislation as drafted has a number of controversial
provisions, the most significant of which relate to the desire of the
four agencies involved to be called upon to reckon with the negative
environmental impacts only of the subject agreements themselves. It
appears to me that the four agencies are particularly concerned that
other environmental problems, whose origins predate the agreements,
should be addressed in other processes and forums and that solutions to
those problems, including the ultimate solution to the problem of
salinity in the Salton Sea, not be attributed to the San Diego-IID
transfer, the QSA, and the 4.4 plan.
Environmental Defense has long been on record as having sympathy
for this perspective. When EDF published Trading Conservation
Investments for Water: A Proposal for the Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California to Obtain Additional Colorado River Water by
Financing Water Conservation Investments for the Imperial Irrigation
District in 1983, we advocated a water conservation-and-transfer
scenario for southern California even though we recognized that this
could accelerate the rate at which salinity would increase in the
Salton Sea. Administrative and Congressional decisions on what to do
about the increasing salinization of the Sea are pending and should be
forthcoming on an expeditious basis, particularly insofar as they bear
upon the health of endangered species and their habitat. To wait for
those decisions, however, before acting on legislation to facilitate
the San Diego-IID water transfer and other agreements promoting water
conservation in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, in our judgment,
would be to risk those agreements' fruition, without corresponding
benefits.
Significant elements of the draft legislation do require further
discussion and likely amendment, especially those provisions that
affect the proper administration of the Endangered Species Act, that
deal with judicial review of the subject agreements, and that
distribute risks and financial obligations between the United States
and the parties. But, with your assistance and active involvement and
with the continued good faith of the four agencies, I am convinced that
these difficult issues can be resolved on a satisfactory basis.
Please let me know if we at Environmental Defense can be helpful to
you on this matter. Years ago, I personally served on the Colorado
River Board of California. Based on that experience and on subsequent
involvement in many water policy issues in California and elsewhere, I
am convinced that a positive resolution of the issues involved here
would make a crucially important contribution to California's, the
nation's, and even North America's future.
Sincerely yours,
Thomas J. Graff
Regional Director
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. I'd like to ask Miss Jones if
she'd heard of any such plan that Miss Mulroy was referring to,
because it's news to me also.
Ms. Jones. This has been kicking around for a while. In our
State Bond Act in 1996, the Legislature directed that a share
of the money provided for feasibility studies be given for a
feasibility study of what the San Diego Water Authority would
call an alternate conveyance facility from the Colorado River
in the area of Imperial Valley, as a shared facility through
Mexico, going to the San Diego area. And in fact the water
agencies in the San Diego area are continuing to discuss with
their neighbors over the border about joint water management
activities, particularly with the city of Tijuana, that would
include such a feature. There are no plans at the state level
to do anything further with it unless we are otherwise
directed.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. One of the other things that
strikes me as we were listening to the testimony about
California reducing its allocation to 4.4 is that we have been
notified, I say "we," my sanitation district, that tertiary
treated water must now effect a fourth treatment, which will
cost billions of dollars for the taxpayers for a treatment
plant. Has anybody heard anything? Because understand that the
utilization of recycled water is key for not only industrial
and commercial use, but for community use. And that could mean
a great impact, because that's a costly proposition.
I have requested EPA to let us know why they're doing it,
on what basis, what findings they're relating to, and I have
not heard anything. I don't know if you have. But that would
mean a lot of funding from the taxpayer pocket to set up a
fourth treatment plant for use of that recycled water. Nobody's
heard? Well, it will affect every other state, and my
suggestion is look into it. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, gentlelady. Gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I can only
say that I believe at this point in time that what needs to
have been said has been said by everybody, so I'm going to
yield back and thank you for the invitation to come to your
Congressional District. That is, since Mr. Cannon's not here.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Let me thank the
witnesses who have all been very good, excellent testimony,
well thought out, well delivered. We really appreciate it,
believe me. Everything that you've said we will pour over.
Also, I would like the prerogative to be able to send you
questions that we may have from time to time that come up, and
we would like to ask you to elaborate on something. If you
wouldn't mind, we would appreciate it if you would take care of
that.
Let me also thank the Members of the Committee who came
here today for this testimony, and it was very good. I
appreciate the Members being here, as well as the staff people
who had to come from Washington to do this. These field
hearings require more logistics than you can believe, and so we
appreciate the staff for coming, and everyone who is here, for
having the interest to come to hear this very, very important
issue.
Water is the critical thing in America, basically. I got
into this business 42 years ago, trying to fix a water system
in Farmington, Utah, and so the theory is if you've got any
sense, don't try to fix your water system, you'll end up a
Congressman.
Anyway, with that said we'll stand adjourned, and thank all
of you.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]