U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–892 PDF 2016

H.R. 1869, ‘‘ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE COST TRANSPARENCY 

ACT OF 2015’’; H.R. 2993, ‘‘WATER 

RECYCLING ACCELERATION ACT 

OF 2015’’; AND H.R. 4582, ‘‘SAVE OUR 

SALMON (SOS) ACT’’ 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Wednesday, April 20, 2016 

Serial No. 114–39 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Ryan K. Zinke, MT 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Alexander X. Mooney, WV 

Cresent Hardy, NV 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Lois Capps, CA 

Jared Polis, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jason Knox, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

Sarah Lim, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS 

JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman 

JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Jim Costa, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, April 20, 2016 ......................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Denham, Hon. Jeff, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, prepared statement of ................................................................ 12 

Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Louisiana ....................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona ........................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Matsui, Hon. Doris O., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Downen, Bo, Senior Policy Analyst, Public Power Council, Portland, 

Oregon ............................................................................................................ 33 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1869 ............................................................ 35 

Hanson, Charles H., Senior Fishery Biologist, Hanson Environmental, 

Inc. and the State Water Contractors, Walnut Creek, California ............ 13 

Prepared statement on H.R. 4582 ............................................................ 15 

Herberg, Jim, General Manager, Orange County Sanitation District, 

Fountain Valley, California .......................................................................... 25 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2993 ............................................................ 27 

Iseman, Tom, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Water and Science, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, DC ............................................. 29 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2993 and H.R. 4582 .................................. 31 

Ledger, Patrick F., CEO, Arizona G&T Cooperatives, Benson, Arizona ...... 37 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1869 ............................................................ 38 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

Submissions for the Record by Representative Denham 

Northern California Water Association, prepared statement on 

H.R. 4582 ............................................................................................... 52 

Letters of support for H.R. 4582 .............................................................. 53 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1869, TO PROVIDE FOR 

TRANSPARENCY AND REPORTING RELATED TO DIRECT AND 

INDIRECT COSTS INCURRED BY THE BONNEVILLE POWER 

ADMINISTRATION, THE WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION, THE SOUTHWESTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION, 

AND THE SOUTHEASTERN POWER ADMINISTRATION RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH ANY FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS IMPACTING THE CONSERVATION OF FISH 

AND WILDLIFE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE COST TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2015’’; 

H.R. 2993, TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND 

GROUNDWATER STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT TO AUTHORIZE 

FUNDING FOR WATER RECYCLING PROJECTS IN AREAS EXPERIENCING SEVERE, EXTREME, OR EXCEPTIONAL 

DROUGHT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘WATER RECYCLING ACCELERATION ACT OF 2015’’; AND H.R. 4582, TO 

EXCLUDE STRIPED BASS FROM THE ANADROMOUS FISH 

DOUBLING REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 3406(b)(1) OF THE 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT IMPROVEMENT ACT, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES, ‘‘SAVE OUR SALMON (SOS) ACT’’ 

Wednesday, April 20, 2016 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Fleming, Gosar, LaMalfa, Denham, 

Newhouse; Huffman, Napolitano, Costa, Lowenthal, and Torres. 

Dr. FLEMING. The Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans 

will come to order. The subcommittee meets today to hear testimony on H.R. 1869, sponsored by our Vice Chair of the 

Subcommittee, Dr. Gosar; H.R. 2993, sponsored by Ms. Matsui; 

and H.R. 4582, sponsored by Mr. Denham. 

We will begin the hearing with opening statements, and the 

Chair now recognizes himself. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Dr. FLEMING. Today’s hearing is on three well-intended bills 

aimed at improving situations facing water and power ratepayers. 

I thank the bill sponsors for their leadership on introducing their 

legislation. 

There has been a long-standing debate on the role of the Federal 

Government in water projects. Today will not be any different. 

For generations, the Federal Government has used the National 

Economic Development process to determine the appropriate 

2 

Federal role in a project. As part of that calculation, if the benefits 

outweigh the costs based on certain criteria such as flood control, 

power generation, water supply, and environment, among others, 

then a project was deemed ‘‘feasible.’’ 

The cost for a feasible project would be allocated to the purposes 

of the project. This meant that the water and power ratepayers 

would pay for their portions of the project. This policy is called the 

‘‘Beneficiary Pays’’ rule, where those who benefit from the projects 

pay for those projects. 

That philosophy, while still in place today for many of the 

Bureau of Reclamation’s and Army Corps of Engineers’ projects, 

has been shoved aside over the last few decades when it comes to 

certain projects. 

One of those programs is the so-called Title XVI program, which 

was enacted in 1992 and designed to help western communities recycle and desalinate water. These are laudable goals. But the question has always been over what the Federal nexus is for these 

simple projects, especially when those local communities are not required to pay back the 25 percent Federal cost share, and that 

these projects do not undergo a rigorous National Economic 

Development stress test like other projects. 

To bring it home, why should the taxpayers in Louisiana help 

pay for a single-purpose water recycling or desalination project that 

is owned by a California city that is the sole beneficiary? 

H.R. 2993, introduced by our colleague, Doris Matsui, makes 

this situation even worse by giving the Interior Secretary discretion 

to create these so-called Title XVI projects. This would allow the 

program to spiral out of control and create an even bigger Federal 

taxpayer backlog for these projects. We need to subject this program to the ‘‘Beneficiary Pays’’ rule, and the National Economic 

Development process to start, not loosen the rules any further, as 

this bill does. 

The next bill actually improves how the Federal Government operates and was borne out of a recent oversight hearing in this subcommittee. Mr. Denham’s bill, H.R. 4582, eliminates an outdated 

and conflicting fish-doubling requirement imposed by another 1992 

law, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. 

The Federal law, as it stands today, requires the population of 

striped bass and salmon to be doubled in California. That sounds 

like another laudable goal. But it simply does not pass the laugh 

test after we heard that striped bass, an invasive species, are devouring vast amounts of salmon, a native and endangered species 

that ratepayers devote hundreds of millions of dollars to recover. 

This is an instance where one Federal environmental law is 

prioritizing non-native species over the goals of the Endangered 

Species Act. That needs to stop, and that is what Mr. Denham’s bipartisan bill accomplishes at no cost to the American taxpayer. 

Last, we have Dr. Gosar’s H.R. 1869, which requires four 

Federal agencies to be more transparent in how Federal environmental laws impact some electricity ratepayers. This bill provides 

wholesale electric customers a mechanism to better understand 

what they are paying for, and to debate whether these costs are effective, ineffective, or somewhere in the middle. This bill rightly 

3 

shines a light on the government by providing more information for 

those who pay an agency’s bills. 

With that, I welcome today’s debate and thank our witnesses for 

being here. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER, POWER AND OCEANS

Today’s hearing is on three well-intended bills aimed at improving situations 

facing water and power ratepayers. I thank the bill sponsors for their leadership on 

introducing their legislation. 

There has been a long-standing debate on the role of the Federal Government in 

water projects. Today will not be any different. 

For generations, the Federal Government has used the National Economic Development process to determine the appropriate Federal role in a project. As part of 

that calculation, if the benefits outweighed the costs based on certain criteria such 

as flood control, power generation water supply, and the environment among others, 

then a project was deemed ‘‘feasible.’’ The costs for a feasible project would be allocated to the purposes of the project. This meant that water and power ratepayers 

would pay for their portions of the project. This policy is called the ‘‘Beneficiary 

Pays’’ rule, where those who benefit from the projects pay for those projects. 

That philosophy, while still in place today for many of the Bureau of Reclamation’s and Army Corps of Engineers’ projects, has been shoved aside over the last 

few decades when it comes to certain projects. One of those programs is the so-called 

Title XVI program, which was enacted in 1992 and designed to help western communities recycle and desalinate water. These are laudable goals, but the question 

has always been over what the Federal nexus is for these simple projects—especially 

when those local communities are not required to pay back the 25 percent Federal 

cost share and that these projects do not undergo a rigorous National Economic 

Development stress test like other projects. To bring it home, why should the taxpayers in Louisiana help pay for a single-purpose water recycling or desalination 

project that is owned by a California city that is the sole beneficiary? 

H.R. 2993, introduced by our colleague, Doris Matsui, makes this situation even 

worse by giving the Interior Secretary discretion to create these so-called Title XVI 

projects. This would allow the program to spiral out of control and create an even 

bigger Federal taxpayer backlog for these projects. We need to subject this program 

to the ‘‘Beneficiary Pays’’ rule and the National Economic Development process to 

start, not loosen the rules any further as this bill does. 

The next bill actually improves how the Federal Government operates and was 

borne out of a recent oversight hearing in this subcommittee. Mr. Denham’s bill, 

H.R. 4582, eliminates an outdated and conflicting fish-doubling requirement imposed by another 1992 law, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. The 

Federal law, as it stands today, requires the population of striped bass and salmon 

to be doubled in California. That sounds like another laudable goal, but it simply 

doesn’t pass the laugh test after we heard that striped bass—an invasive species— 

are devouring vast amounts of salmon—a native and endangered species that ratepayers devote hundreds of millions of dollars to recover. This is an instance where 

one Federal environmental law is prioritizing non-native species over the goals of 

the Endangered Species Act. That needs to stop and that’s what Mr. Denham’s bipartisan bill accomplishes at no cost to the American taxpayer. 

Last, we have Dr. Gosar’s H.R. 1869, which requires four Federal agencies to be 

more transparent in how Federal environmental laws impact some electricity ratepayers. This bill provides wholesale electric customers a mechanism to better understand what they are paying for and to debate whether these costs are effective, 

ineffective or somewhere in the middle. This bill rightly shines a light on government by providing more information for those who pay an agency’s bills. 

With that, I welcome today’s debate and thank our witnesses for being here. 

Dr. FLEMING. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Huffman for his 

statement. 

4 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the 

witnesses. I am looking forward to a good discussion on these bills 

today. 

First on the agenda we have H.R. 4582, also known as the Save 

our Salmon Act, offered by my friend, Jeff Denham. This bill would 

amend the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, or CVPIA, to 

exempt striped bass from the anadromous fish doubling goals in 

light of concerns that striped bass prey on endangered salmon. 

The science tells us that we ought to be focused on habitat, temperature, and flow as far greater concerns than predation. But I do 

want to commend Representative Denham for his concern about 

California salmon runs. And perhaps this is the beginning of a 

shared interest, where we can work together to do some good 

things for salmon. 

As Congressman Denham and the Chairman know, California’s 

salmon runs sustain numerous jobs in my district. Currently, I am 

sorry to say, we have what can only be described as a salmon crisis 

in California. According to some estimates, 78 percent of our native 

salmon will be extinct or extirpated within the next century if 

current trends continue. 

Last year, the mortality rate for Sacramento winter-run salmon 

was 97 percent. The year before that, it was 95 percent. Simply 

put, Mr. Chairman, many California fishermen are hanging on by 

a thread. Boats are being scrapped because their owners cannot 

pay mooring fees. Fishermen are struggling to pay mortgages. Restaurants, hotels, and other businesses that depend on healthy fish 

runs are struggling just to get by. 

And even now, many are still recovering from the total closure 

of the ocean salmon fishery along the West Coast in 2008 and 

2009. That was because of poor California salmon returns in those 

years. The closure devastated the Pacific Coast fishing industry. 

Ultimately, it required many millions of dollars in Federal disaster 

aid. And, just last month, in an ominous sign, fishery managers 

again announced that the commercial salmon season off the West 

Coast for this summer will be severely restricted. This will be the 

second year in a row because of very low population levels. 

So, Mr. Chairman, Congress and the Administration need to be 

proactive and bold in addressing the salmon crisis. And even 

though H.R. 4582 focuses on predation, it is important to remember that the science clearly tells us there are more important 

stressors we need to address before our salmon runs are going to 

recover. 

Unsustainable water exports from our rivers, degraded habitat 

conditions, a lack of sufficient cold water, all of these are essential 

to sustaining our fisheries. And while they are politically difficult, 

we have to deal with these other stressors that everyone knows 

prevent salmon recovery. Otherwise, we will just be writing off 

thousands of jobs that are very important to my district and beyond, including throughout California, Oregon, and Washington. 

H.R. 4582 will not help California salmon. But, as I said, I hope 

it moves us toward finally working together on things that will 

help salmon recovery, including smarter water policy, updating our 

5 

reservoir operations, and working on habitat conservation 

measures. 

Moving to the second bill, H.R. 1869, offered by Vice Chairman 

Gosar, this is a bill that would require the PMAs to make a special 

note on customers’ bills highlighting the cost of complying with fish 

and wildlife protections. 

I think Mr. Gosar’s laudable goal is transparency and disclosure 

of costs. If that is the case, I would suggest that the legislation also 

require inclusion on bills of all costs that affect power rates, such 

as the cost of irrigation, transmission, and failed investments like 

the Bonneville Power Administration’s nuclear plant default, which 

ratepayers have been on the hook paying back for decades. We 

could actually require these bills to note what the power would cost 

if market rates were being charged, like most other places in the 

country, rather than taxpayer-subsidized cost-based rates. 

Maybe we could also include a line item on customer bills that 

shows the discount that the Power Administration customers are 

getting from U.S. taxpayers subsidizing the construction of hydrodams that generate most of their power. While we are at it, we 

could list the economic benefits of robust ecosystems that PMA 

mitigation activities actually support. These are things with huge 

economic benefits to the American people. They pay for themselves 

many times over. 

So, if we really care about transparency, let’s not cherry-pick a 

sliver of misleading information to include on customers’ power 

bills, while excluding all other relevant information. Let’s include 

all of it, or better yet, maybe let’s leave these bills alone. 

Last on today’s agenda we have H.R. 2993, offered by my friend, 

Doris Matsui. This is a common-sense surgical piece of legislation. 

It would remove the existing requirement that potential water recycling projects have to first receive a project-specific authorization 

from Congress. This will help us stretch our western water supplies. That has always been discussed as something in the national 

interest. I hope we will keep that in mind today as we consider this 

important bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the witnesses. I’m looking forward to 

a good discussion on these bills today. 

Now first on the agenda we have H.R. 4582, also known as the Save Our Salmon 

Act, offered by my friend Jeff Denham. Now this bill would amend the Central 

Valley Project Improvement Act, or CVPIA, to exempt striped bass from the anadromous fish doubling goals in light of concerns that striped bass prey on endangered 

salmon. Now the science tells us that we ought to be focused on habitat, temperature, and flow as far greater concerns than predation, but I do want to commend 

Representative Denham for his concern about California’s salmon runs. And perhaps this is the beginning of a shared interest where we can work together to do 

some good things for salmon. 

As Congressman Denham and the Chairman know, California’s salmon runs sustain numerous jobs in my district and currently, I’m sorry to say, we have what can 

only be described as a salmon crisis in California. According to some estimates, 78 

percent of our native salmon will be extinct or extirpated within the next century 

if current trends continue. Last year the mortality rate for Sacramento winter-run 

salmon was 97 percent. The year before that, it was 95 percent. 

6 

Simply put, Mr. Chairman, many California fishermen are hanging on by a 

thread. Boats are being scrapped because their owners can’t pay mooring fees. Fishermen are struggling to pay mortgages. Restaurants, hotels, other businesses that 

depend on healthy fish runs are struggling just to get by. 

And even now, many are still recovering from the total closure of the ocean 

salmon fishery along the West Coast in 2008 and 2009—that was because of poor 

California salmon returns in those years. The closure devastated the Pacific Coast 

fishing industry. Ultimately, it required many millions of dollars in Federal disaster 

aid. And just last month, in an ominous sign, fishery managers again announced 

that the commercial salmon season off the West Coast for this summer will be 

severely restricted. This will be the second year in a row because of very low population levels. 

So Mr. Chairman, Congress and the Administration need to be proactive and bold 

in addressing the salmon crisis. And even though H.R. 4582 focuses on predation, 

it’s important to remember that the science clearly tells us there are more important stressors we need to address before our salmon runs are going to recover. 

Unsustainable water exports from our rivers, degraded habitat conditions, a lack of 

sufficient cold water, all of these are essential to sustaining our fisheries. 

And while they’re politically difficult, we have to deal with these other stressors 

that everyone knows prevent salmon recovery. Otherwise we’ll just be writing off 

thousands of jobs that are very important to my district and beyond including 

throughout California, Oregon, and Washington. H.R. 4582 won’t help California 

salmon but, as I said, I hope it moves us toward finally working together on things 

that will help salmon recovery including smarter water policy, updating our reservoir operations, and working on habitat conservation measures. 

Moving to the second bill, H.R. 1869 offered by Vice-Chairman Gosar. This is a 

bill that would require the PMAs to make a special note on customers’ bills highlighting the cost of complying with fish and wildlife protections. Now I think Mr. 

Gosar’s laudable goal is transparency and disclosure of costs. If that is the case, I 

would suggest that the legislation also require inclusion on bills of all costs that affect power rates, such as the cost of irrigation, transmission, and failed investments 

like the Bonneville Power Administration’s nuclear plant default, which ratepayers 

have been on the hook paying back for decades. 

We could actually require these power bills to note what the power would cost 

if market rates were being charged like most other places in the country—rather 

than taxpayer subsidized ‘‘cost-based’’ rates. Maybe we could also include a line item 

on customer bills that show the discount that the Power Administration customers 

are getting from U.S. taxpayers subsidizing the construction of the hydro dams that 

generate most of their power. 

While we’re at it, we could list the economic benefits of robust ecosystems that 

PMA mitigation activities actually support. These are things with huge economic 

benefits to the American people. They pay for themselves many times over. So if 

we really care about transparency, let’s not cherry pick a sliver of misleading 

information to include on customers’ power bills while excluding all other relevant 

information. Let’s include all of it, or better yet, maybe let’s leave these bills alone. 

Last on today’s agenda we have H.R. 2993, offered by my friend Doris Matsui. 

This is a common sense, surgical piece of legislation. It would remove the existing 

requirement that potential water recycling projects have to first receive a projectspecific authorization from Congress. This will help us stretch our western water 

supplies. That’s always been discussed as something in the national interest. I hope 

we’ll keep that in mind today as we consider this important bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman. 

Dr. Gosar is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s 

hearing. Today is a step toward making common-sense, bipartisan 

improvements in Federal law. I commend our committee colleague, 

Mr. Denham, for introducing his bill to help protect endangered 

7 

salmon from the voracious appetites of non-native striped bass in 

California. 

Ratepayers and taxpayers pay to help recover these salmon, only 

to see them devoured by the millions from predatory fish that are 

also protected by Federal law. The conflicts between these two fish 

and the laws that protect them is worthy of a mention in Paul 

Gosar’s Top 10 ‘‘You Can’t Believe Your Government is This 

Dysfunctional’’ list. Fortunately, this bill, if enacted, will remove 

this policy from my list. 

Another bill, the Environmental Compliance Cost Transparency 

Act, from Yours Truly, requires needed Federal transparency from 

the four power marketing administrations, or PMAs. These Federal 

agencies sell 42 percent of our Nation’s hydropower resources to 

hundreds of wholesale customers throughout the West and the 

South. These nonprofit utilities comprised of cities, towns, rural 

electric cooperatives, irrigation districts, and Native Americans 

bear the full cost of the environmental mandates imposed on the 

PMAs. 

The millions of retail customers served by these wholesale utilities eat the cost of the Endangered Species Act, the Grand Canyon 

Protection Act, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and 

other Federal environmental laws. These costs result in direct expenditures, such as environmental studies, capital outlays, and operation and maintenance and staff costs. Indirect costs include lost 

hydropower and replacement power costs. These combined costs 

can be real. 

In the Pacific Northwest, 30 percent of the rates are related to 

environmental costs and the Glen Canyon Dam flows in Arizona 

can cost its customers up to $50 million annually, due to foregone 

power. 

My bipartisan bill requires the PMAs to provide these costs on 

a monthly basis to their customers. It does not repeal or change 

any environmental laws, it simply requires transparency and helps 

those who are paying for the bills to better understand what they 

are actually paying for. And it focuses on one of the most variable 

costs that are growing faster than many of the more fixed cost 

items. 

This bill is the result of years of work and input from the PMAs 

and the customers they serve. As an example, the Bonneville 

Power Administration testified that a prior bill should be changed 

so that all fish and wildlife costs should be included, not just 

Endangered Species Act costs. That change has been made. 

[Slide] 

Dr. GOSAR. That agency, under this Administration, even 

stated—and I quote, if you will turn to the monitor—‘‘shares the 

interest in accountability that prompts this legislation. Power bills 

result from complicated calculations and the public debate about 

what affects power rates often strays from hard numbers. The bill 

would take a step towards clarifying the matter.’’ 

Someone suggested this bill will increase electricity rates. 

Nonsense. The PMAs have testified that it would not cost anything, 

and customers support this bill. 

Ms. Leslie James, the Executive Director of the Colorado River 

Energy Distributors Association, testified—and I quote, if you will 

8 

look at the monitor again—‘‘It is our understanding that this information is readily available and can be provided at little or no incremental cost.’’ The problem, as we will hear later, is that one agency 

does not make this information transparent. To that end, let me 

refer you again to another customer group that supports this bill. 

If you will look to the monitor again, Mr. Joe Kay, from the 

Grand Canyon State Electric Cooperative Association said, ‘‘Your 

legislation will allow for a better understanding of how those costs 

are derived. Moreover, through transparency and discussion, your 

legislation will lead to better business practices and improved 

communication between customers and PMAs.’’ 

Some in the so-called environmental community oppose this bill 

because they fear transparency and the debate that may happen 

with that transparency. Well, that debate is sorely needed. 

In closing, I welcome the witnesses before us, and I yield back 

what little time I have left. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Thank you for holding today’s hearing. Today is a step toward making commonsense, bipartisan improvements in Federal law. 

I commend our committee colleague, Mr. Denham, for introducing his bill to help 

protect endangered salmon from the voracious appetites of non-native striped bass 

in California. Ratepayers and taxpayers pay to help recover these salmon, only to 

see them devoured by the millions from predatory fish that are also protected by 

Federal law. The conflicts between these two fish and the laws that protect them 

is worthy of a mention in Paul Gosar’s Top 10 ‘‘You Can’t Believe Your Government 

is This Dysfunctional’’ list. Fortunately, this bill, if enacted, will remove this policy 

from my list. 

Another bill—the Environmental Compliance Cost Transparency Act—from yours 

truly, requires needed Federal transparency from the four Power Marketing Administrations—or PMAs. These Federal agencies sell 42 percent of our Nation’s hydropower resources to hundreds of wholesale customers throughout the West and the 

South. These non-profit utilities, comprised of cities, towns, rural electric cooperatives, irrigation districts and Native Americans, bear the full costs of the environmental mandates imposed on the PMAs. The millions of retail consumers served by 

these wholesale utilities eat the costs of the Endangered Species Act, the Grand 

Canyon Protection Act, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and other 

Federal environmental laws. 

These costs result in direct expenditures such as environmental studies, capital 

outlays and operation and maintenance and staff costs. Indirect costs include lost 

hydropower and replacement power costs. These combined costs can be real: In the 

Pacific Northwest, 30 percent of the rates are related to environmental costs and 

the Glen Canyon Dam flows in Arizona can cost its customers up to $50 million annually due to foregone power. 

My bipartisan bill requires the PMAs to provide these costs on a monthly basis 

to their customers. It does not repeal or change any environmental laws; it simply 

requires transparency and helps those who are paying the bills to better understand 

what they are actually paying for. And, it focuses on one of the most variable costs 

that are growing faster than other more fixed costs. 

This bill is the result of years of work and input from the PMAs and the customers they serve. As an example, the Bonneville Power Administration testified 

that a prior bill should be changed so that ALL fish and wildlife account costs 

should be included—not just Endangered Species Act costs. That change has been 

made. That agency, under this Administration, even stated and I quote, ‘‘shares the 

interest in accountability that prompts this legislation. Power bills result from complicated calculations and the public debate about what affects power rates often 

strays from hard numbers. The bill would take a step toward clarifying the matter.’’ 

Some have suggested that this bill will increase electricity rates. Nonsense. The 

PMAs have testified that it would not and customers support this bill. Ms. Leslie 

James, the Executive Director of the Colorado River Energy Distributors 

9 

Association, testified that, ‘‘It is our understanding that this information is readily 

available and can be provided at little or no incremental cost.’’ 

Let me refer you to another customer group that supports the bill—Mr. Joe Kay 

from the Grand Canyon State Electric Cooperative Association said, ‘‘Your legislation will allow for a better understanding of how those costs are derived. Moreover, 

through transparency and discussion your legislation will lead to better business 

practices and improved communication between customers and PMAs.’’ 

Some in the so-called environmental community oppose this bill because they fear 

transparency and the debate that may happen with that transparency. That debate 

is sorely needed. 

In closing, I welcome the witnesses before us and yield back the little time I have 

left. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Dr. Gosar. 

Well, since Dr. Gosar just described his bill, the Chair will now 

recognize Ms. Matsui of California to describe your bill, H.R. 2993. 

You are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Huffman, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you very much for 

holding this hearing today, and inviting me to testify on my bill, 

the Water Recycling Acceleration Act. 

As your subcommittee knows well, the West continues to face severe drought conditions. In California, this has reignited generations-old disputes over our limited water resources. The answer to 

our drought challenges is not taking water from one group or region in order to benefit another. Instead, we should be looking at 

ways to generate new water sources which benefit all water users. 

When considering new sources, we should consider all options, 

including water recycling. Water recycling is a proven technology 

that has expanded water resources for millions of Americans. 

The Bureau of Reclamation currently supports water recycling 

projects through its Title XVI program, which funds the study and 

construction of projects that reclaim and reuse wastewater and naturally impaired ground and surface water. This program has had 

a record of success since its establishment in 1992, facilitating the 

production of hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of recycled water 

annually, and leveraging $2.4 billion in non-Federal funding. 

But while the program is strong, the project selection process 

under the Title XVI is broken. Currently, projects must be individually authorized by Congress before they can compete for program 

funding. Due to the earmark ban, authorizing new projects is nearly impossible. In fact, despite years of devastating drought, we 

have not had a new Title XVI authorization since 2009. 

My bill would remove the requirement that projects funded 

under the Title XVI program must receive individual congressional 

authorization, thereby expanding the pool of water recycling 

projects the Bureau is able to consider. Because Title XVI is an 

over-subscribed program, we should be prioritizing the most beneficial and deserving projects. The best way to do this is to allow 

more projects to compete for funding. 

Additionally, my bill lays out a Title XVI program that is 

earmark-free, and requires projects to meet comprehensive criteria 

10 

in order to compete and qualify for funds. These criteria ensure 

that we are providing funding for projects that have multiple benefits and serve the needs of an entire region. This new way of distributing funding would facilitate a more competitive process that 

makes our Federal water recycling infrastructure construction dollars go further, and it prioritizes projects in drought-stricken areas, 

which is critical given the current challenges facing the West. 

And, the changes made by my bill do not require Congress to increase spending. Congress would continue to have complete control 

over the Title XVI appropriations allocation. These changes to Title 

XVI and the expansion of water recycling and reuse help us to decouple the West’s water supply from unpredictable weather and 

precipitation conditions. By moving toward a sustainable water 

supply that is more resilient to drought, we can benefit all water 

users, whether urban, agricultural, or environmental. 

In Sacramento, we are exploring our own water recycling project. 

If built, this recycling project in Sacramento will provide the region 

with an opportunity to use wastewater in a more beneficial way. 

By piping reclaimed water to farms and habitat mitigation lands 

in the county, we can irrigate up to 18,000 acres of farmland and 

habitat. 

This would help our local farmers by providing them with a reliable water source that they can count on, even during extreme 

drought. But it would also reduce our farmers’ reliance on groundwater and replenish our aquifer. And by using recycled water for 

agriculture, more potable water would remain for urban uses. 

Importantly, this water would be affordable. In fact, as technologies 

continue to improve, the price of recycled water will continue to 

drop. 

In conclusion, we must continue to expand the role of recycling 

as we envision the future of our water resources. As our population 

grows, all types of water sources must be considered to ensure that 

the West continues to prosper. I ask that you consider supporting 

the Water Recycling Acceleration Act as it moves through your 

committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the 

committee. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Matsui follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and distinguished 

members of the committee for holding this hearing today and inviting me to testify 

on my bill, the Water Recycling Acceleration Act. 

As your subcommittee knows well, the West continues to face severe drought conditions. In California this has reignited generations-old disputes over our limited 

water resources. The answer to our drought challenges is not taking water from one 

group or region in order to benefit another. Instead, we should be looking at ways 

to generate new water sources which benefit all water users. 

When considering new sources, I believe we should consider all options, including 

water recycling. Water recycling is a proven technology that has expanded water resources for millions of Americans. 

The Bureau of Reclamation currently supports water recycling projects through its 

Title XVI program, which funds the study and construction of projects that reclaim 

and reuse wastewater and naturally impaired ground and surface water. This program has had a record of success since its establishment in 1992, facilitating the 

production of hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of recycled water annually and 

leveraging $2.4 billion in non-Federal funding. 

11 

But while the program is strong, the project selection process under Title XVI is 

broken. Currently, projects must be individually authorized by Congress before they 

can compete for program funding. Due to the earmark ban, authorizing new projects 

is nearly impossible. In fact, despite years of devastating drought we haven’t had 

a new Title XVI authorization since 2009. 

My bill would remove the requirement that projects funded under the Title XVI 

program must receive individual congressional authorization, thereby expanding the 

pool of water recycling projects the Bureau is able to consider. Because Title XVI 

is an oversubscribed program we should be prioritizing the most beneficial and deserving projects. The best way to do this is to allow more projects to compete for 

funding. 

Additionally, my bill lays out a Title XVI program that is earmark-free and requires projects to meet comprehensive criteria in order to qualify for funds. These 

criteria ensure that we are providing funding for projects that have multiple benefits and serve the needs of an entire region. This new way of distributing funding 

would facilitate a more competitive process that makes our Federal water recycling 

infrastructure construction dollars go further. And it prioritizes projects in drought 

stricken areas, which is critical given the current challenges facing the West. 

And, the changes made by my bill do not require Congress to increase spending. 

Congress would continue to have complete control over the Title XVI appropriations 

allocation. These changes to Title XVI and the expansion of water recycling and 

reuse can help us decouple the West’s water supply from unpredictable weather and 

precipitation conditions. By moving toward a sustainable water supply that is more 

resilient to drought we can benefit all water users, whether urban, agricultural, or 

environmental. 

In Sacramento, we are exploring our own water recycling project. If built, the recycling project in Sacramento will provide the region with an opportunity to use 

wastewater in a more beneficial way. By piping reclaimed water to farms and habitat mitigation lands in the county we could irrigate up to 18,000 acres of farmland 

and habitat. 

This would help our local farmers by providing them with a reliable water source 

that they can count on even during extreme drought. But it would also reduce our 

farmers’ reliance on groundwater and replenish our aquifer. And by using recycled 

water for agriculture . . . more potable water would remain for urban uses. Importantly, this water will be affordable. In fact, as technologies continue to improve the 

price of recycled water will continue to drop. 

In conclusion, we must continue to expand the role of recycling as we envision 

the future of our water resources. As our population grows, all types of water 

sources must be considered to ensure that the West continues to prosper. 

I ask that you support the Water Recycling Acceleration Act as it moves through 

your committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentlelady. We do not do formal questions to Members who testify, but I will open the dais for any 

follow-up questions that Members may have for Ms. Matsui. 

[No response.] 

Dr. FLEMING. If not, we will—oh, do you have one? Go ahead. Or 

a statement, if you have a statement. 

Mr. COSTA. No, I want to commend the Congresswoman. I think 

this provides flexibility for Congress to try to deal with issues that 

are particular to our various congressional districts across the 

country. And this measure with Title XVI gives us that flexibility 

in using other management tools. 

Yesterday, I pointed out that we do not have a recovery plan for 

the Delta smelt. There are a host of issues, whether it is the tertiary treatment on the city of Sacramento, as the Congresswoman 

pointed out in her testimony, or whether there are other issues in 

our respective districts that we can use the ability that—in the 

past was an option with earmarks, but since we do not have earmarks these days, that is no longer an option. But this creates an 

opportunity, in fact, to do so. 

12 

I think that it should receive bipartisan support because, clearly, 

we all have different circumstances in our congressional districts 

and in regions that we represent in which we want to try to address issues, but we are hand-tied in doing so. I think this legislation would go a long ways toward assisting us in that effort. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I also want to commend Congresswoman Matsui. 

We have an awful lot of water recycling projects that are ready to 

go throughout the West, and it has been a source of great frustration that Title XVI has really been stalled for several years now, 

and the Federal Government has been on the sidelines, not 

partnering with states and local water districts to move these 

supply projects forward. 

I think some of that has just been out of stubborn ideology, applying some sort of a rigid Beneficiary Pays Principle to these 

projects. But if you look at what has happened as we have sat on 

the sidelines these last few years out of stubbornness on the Title 

XVI program, we have sent a lot more money than that in emergency drought relief to the state of California. Here are projects 

that have been ready to go, that are ready to go, that will make 

our state far more drought-resilient. 

So, we can pay now or we can pay later. This is a bill that will 

help make sure that our Federal dollars are leveraged far more efficiently and effectively. So I commend the author, and hope this 

is something that we can take a serious, objective look at, and try 

to work on together. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Again, we thank the gentlelady. And certainly 

you are welcome to stick around or get back to your important 

duties. But we thank you. 

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you. 

Dr. FLEMING. Our next panel can now go ahead and begin 

moving forward. 

As Mr. Denham is not here to give a statement—he is tied up 

at the moment in another committee meeting—he has provided a 

statement for the record. So I ask unanimous consent to enter it 

into the record. 

[No response.] 

Dr. FLEMING. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Denham follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEFF DENHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Chairman Fleming, thank you for holding this important legislative hearing 

today. 

Over the past year, our committee has heard a recurring theme in hearings that 

predation is a key stressor in efforts to protect fish listed under the Endangered 

Species Act, especially in California. 

In February, this subcommittee held an oversight hearing on predation, and a 

National Marine Fisheries Service witness testified that some salmonid populations 

in California are ‘‘extremely low due to an abundance of striped bass.’’ As the oversight hearing highlighted, in California, the problem of predation has been perpetuated in part by a counterintuitive provision in the Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act of 1992. 

As part of an effort to protect fish populations, the CVPIA mandated population 

doubling for all anadromous fish. This requirement applies to the endangered 

salmon and their non-native predator, the striped bass. 

13 

Quite simply, my bill, H.R. 4582, the ‘‘Save our Salmon Act’’ aims to remove this 

doubling requirement for striped bass. 

I am grateful for the bipartisan support and local interest that is growing behind 

my common-sense bill. To that end, I would like to make a motion to include these 

letters of support, representing 15 irrigation and water districts or associations 

throughout California, in the official record. 

I would like to thank Dr. Hanson and Mr. Iseman for their testimony here today. 

I find your opinions and technical insights most informative and I look forward to 

working with the U.S. Department of the Interior to make the technical changes 

necessary to accomplish my bill’s intent. 

Thank you both for your endorsement and with that I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. As our panel—yes, go ahead and move forward, 

please, and I will be introducing you as you step forward. 

First we have Dr. Charles Hanson, Senior Fishery Biologist of 

Hanson Environmental, Incorporated. It is located in Walnut 

Creek, California. Dr. Hanson is also representing the State Water 

Contractors today. Dr. Hanson will testify on H.R. 4582. 

Next is Mr. Jim Herberg, General Manager of the Orange 

County Sanitation District, which is based out of Fountain Valley, 

California. Mr. Herberg will testify on H.R. 2993. 

Mr. Tom Iseman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Water and 

Science at the U.S. Department of the Interior in Washington, DC. 

Mr. Iseman will testify on H.R. 2993 and 4582. 

Mr. Bo Downen, Senior Policy Analyst for the Public Power 

Council, which is in Portland, Oregon. Mr. Downen will testify on 

H.R. 1869. 

And, Mr. Patrick Ledger, CEO of Arizona G&T Cooperatives in 

Benson, Arizona. Mr. Ledger will also testify on H.R. 1869. 

I would also like to note that the Department of Energy was invited to testify on H.R. 1869, but once again has refused to testify 

before this subcommittee. 

Each witness’s written testimony will appear in full in the 

hearing record, and we will have 5 minutes of oral statements. 

The lights work thusly: you will be under a green light for the 

first 4 minutes, then a yellow light for 1 minute; and if you have 

not finished by the time the red light comes on, we ask for you to 

quickly conclude so we can keep things moving. 

Trust me, your written statement, no matter how long it is, will 

be included in the record. And we thank you for appearing here 

today. 

I now recognize Dr. Hanson for your testimony, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. HANSON, SENIOR FISHERY 

BIOLOGIST, HANSON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. AND THE 

STATE WATER CONTRACTORS, WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 

Dr. HANSON. Good morning, Chairman Fleming, Ranking 

Member Huffman, and members of the subcommittee. My name is 

Chuck Hanson. I am a fisheries biologist, and as mentioned, I am 

here representing the State Water Contractors. 

My background is: I studied Chinook salmon at the University of 

Washington. I studied striped bass in the Potomac and Chesapeake 

Bay at Johns Hopkins University. I have spent 35 years working 

on San Francisco, Sacramento, and San Joaquin Bay Delta fisheries issues, and have a Ph.D. from UC Davis. 

14 

This morning I would like to speak on the CVPIA, the Central 

Valley Project Improvement Act, which included an anadromous 

doubling goal and which was inclusive of a variety of fish species 

including non-native striped bass. When the CVPIA was being developed back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, striped bass were 

viewed as one of the key indicator species of the health of the 

Delta. They were also a very, very popular sport and recreational 

species. So it was natural to include them as part of the consideration of various indicators of the health of the estuary. 

Starting in the 1990s and continuing to date, however, that perspective has changed. Priority has now shifted from non-native 

species to recovery of listed native populations. We have a number 

of fish species that inhabit the Bay Delta estuary that have been 

listed under the state or Federal Endangered Species Act as either 

threatened or endangered, and those include two runs of Chinook 

salmon, which I am going to focus on this morning. 

[Slide] 

Dr. HANSON. In terms of fish life history, the CVPIA includes 

anadromous species. Anadromous species are those fish that live 

part of their life cycle in the ocean, but return to fresh water to 

spawn. The adults migrate up the rivers, they spawn in the upper 

reaches of the rivers, and then the juveniles migrate back down to 

the ocean to rear. Next slide. 

[Slide] 

Dr. HANSON. This is a map that shows the geographic distribution of spring-run Chinook salmon, a threatened species in the 

Sacramento River system. The red indicates areas of spawning activity; the greener areas are juvenile rearing and migration. The 

importance of this figure is that all of the spring-run Chinook salmon migrate through the Lower Sacramento River and the Delta as 

juveniles on their way from the upstream spawning and rearing 

areas to the coastal marine rearing waters. It is an area of constriction, geographically. Next slide. 

[Slide] 

Dr. HANSON. The importance of that constriction is that these juvenile spring-run Chinook are migrating downstream during the 

spring—typically, March, April, and May—and that coincides with 

the period when adult striped bass are migrating upstream into the 

Lower Sacramento River in preparation of spawning. 

So, we have a co-occurrence of adult striped bass, we have juvenile Chinook salmon that are migrating at the same time and the 

same location through a reach of the river that is channelized, has 

riprap levies, it is about 500 feet across. There is no cover for juveniles to avoid predators. So we have a co-occurrence with a predatory fish and their juvenile prey. 

These are results of some acoustic tag survival studies done on 

the Sacramento River. These were with late fall run Chinook. The 

fish were released upstream in the area near Red Bluff, then migrated downstream and were monitored in terms of their survival. 

The importance of this figure is that it shows by the time those fish 

reach the Golden Gate, about 90 percent had been lost as a result 

of some source of mortality. This does not tell you what the mortality was, but we had about 90 percent loss, on average, for these 

Sacramento River fish. 

15 

These are similar results of survival studies conducted on the 

Lower San Joaquin River. Again, for the last decade, survival has 

roughly averaged 5 percent: very, very low survival estimates. 

As Mr. Huffman pointed out, predation is not the only cause of 

mortality that occurs in our system. We have a number of other 

stressors. We have had habitat changes. We have cold water pool 

and water temperature issues. We have water project operations. 

We have the dams themselves that create a physical blockage to 

otherwise suitable upstream habitat. There are a variety of factors 

that are all interacting that result in the survival rates being so 

low that I mentioned. Next slide. 

[Slide] 

Dr. HANSON. We have also identified a number of what we call 

predation hot spots. This is Clifton Court Forebay, and there is 80 

percent mortality across this—about a 1-mile reach. 

Striped bass have co-occurred in the Delta for 150 years. And the 

question that arises is, are they the cause of the decline of salmon? 

And the answer to that question is no. They are a contributor. Next 

slide, please. 

[Slide] 

Dr. HANSON. In conclusion, increasing the population abundance 

of a non-native predator as a goal under the CVPIA is counterproductive to the goals of the ESA recovery. Salmon survival is low 

on both the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems. Striped 

bass contribute to that predation mortality, and the poor survival 

that we see reflects a variety of stressors. I am an advocate of not 

saying we should deal with the striped bass predation issue in and 

of itself, but rather as a portfolio of diverse actions to help benefit 

salmon in general. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hanson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. HANSON, HANSON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., 

REPRESENTING CALIFORNIA STATE WATER CONTRACTORS ON H.R. 4582 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the 

subcommittee, I am Charles Hanson, Senior Biologist and Principal of Hanson 

Environmental, Inc., located at 446 Green View Court, Walnut Creek, California. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am here representing 

the State Water Contractors, a statewide, non-profit association of 27 public agencies from Northern, Central and Southern California that purchase water under 

contract from the California State Water Project. Collectively the State Water 

Contractors deliver water to more than 26 million residents throughout the state 

and more than 750,000 acres of agricultural lands. 

My academic training includes Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees 

in fisheries from the University of Washington, College of Fisheries, graduate studies in environmental engineering at the Johns Hopkins University and a Ph.D. in 

fisheries and ecology from the University of California, Davis. I have been involved 

in issues related to the status of fish species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin-San 

Francisco Bay-Delta since 1976. These issues include state and Federal Endangered 

Species Act studies regarding fisheries populations, including the biological monitoring of listed fish species, preparation of biological assessments, preparation of 

habitat conservation plans, and service as a member of the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes Recovery 

Planning Team and the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) Central Valley 

Salmonid Technical Recovery Team, Santa Ynez River Technical Advisory 

Committee, Kings River Technical Steering Committee, Mokelumne River Technical 

Advisory Committee, and San Joaquin River Restoration Program Technical 

Advisory Committee. I served as a member of the National Scientific Peer Review 

Panel for Stanislaus River Water Temperature Criteria for Salmonid Restoration. 

16 

I serve as co-chair of the Collaborative Adaptive Management Team (CAMT) 

Salmon Scoping Team. 

This morning I would like to discuss the inclusion of striped bass under the anadromous species doubling goal of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

(CVPIA). As introduced, H.R. 4582 would eliminate striped bass from the CVPIA’s 

doubling goal. I am not here to advocate a position on H.R. 4582, but to provide 

expert testimony on the impact of predation on salmon and steelhead species in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. 

ORIGINAL GOALS FOR CVPIA

The CVPIA was enacted in 1992 in an effort to improve the abundance of anadromous fish inhabiting the Central Valley rivers and streams including the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin River watersheds and the Bay-Delta estuary. 

Anadromous fish are those that spawn in freshwater but live a part of their life as 

juveniles and pre-spawning adults in saltwater, including native species such as 

Chinook salmon and steelhead. 

Striped bass were intentionally introduced into the Bay-Delta estuary from the 

East Coast to serve as a recreational and food resource for those living in the San 

Francisco Bay Area. Although they are not native to the Central Valley, striped bass 

were identified as one of the anadromous fish species under the CVPIA doubling 

goal. At the time the CVPIA was being developed, striped bass were considered to 

be a key indicator species on the health and condition of the Bay-Delta estuary as 

well as a valued recreational fish species. Part of the appeal of striped bass as a 

recreational species was their large size and aggressive predation foraging on smaller fish. Since striped bass actively forage on small fish, including shad, smelt, 

salmon, herring, anchovy, and others, they can be readily caught by recreational anglers fishing from boats and the shoreline throughout the Bay-Delta estuary and 

rivers. 

GROWING CONCERNS FOR NATIVE SPECIES

In the 1990s and later, a shift occurred in the fisheries’ management priority 

away from non-native fish to native fish species, particularly those that have been 

listed for protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the 

California Endangered Species Act (CESA). These listed species include winter-run 

and spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley and Central Coast steelhead, green 

sturgeon, delta and longfin smelt. For purposes of this presentation I have focused 

on Chinook salmon, however, striped bass are known predators of all of the listed 

fish species inhabiting the estuary. 

The Central Valley supports four species of Chinook salmon including winter-run 

(Endangered), spring-run (Threatened), fall-run and late fall-run. The name of each 

species is based on the seasonal time of year when the adults migrate upstream into 

freshwater prior to spawning. 

SALMON CHARACTERISTICS AND BEHAVIOR

Chinook salmon have a life history (Figure 1) in which the adult salmon migrate 

upstream from the ocean into freshwater rivers where they dig a shallow depression 

in gravel deposits, known as a redd, where the female deposits her eggs which are 

then fertilized by a male and covered with gravel. Chinook salmon, unlike some of 

the other listed fish, die after spawning. Incubation occurs with the eggs buried in 

the gravel over a period of months depending on factors such as water temperatures. After hatching from the egg the young salmon with their attached yolk sac 

remain in the gravel for a period of weeks while they grow and develop. As the 

young salmon develop into juveniles, they emerge from the gravels and begin 

rearing in the rivers near where they were hatched. A portion of the juvenile 

salmon, known as fry, may disperse downstream soon after emergence, where they 

rear in the lower reaches of the rivers and estuary. Other juveniles may continue 

to rear in the upper reaches of the rivers for months or up to 1 year until they are 

large enough to undergo the physiological transformation known as smolting which 

allows the juveniles (typically 2 to 4 inches in length) to migrate downstream from 

freshwater and enter coastal marine waters where they continue to grow and develop. The juvenile salmon reside in marine waters for a variable period of time 

ranging from approximately 1 to 5 years before returning to the freshwater rivers 

to spawn and complete their lifecycle. 

17 

Figure 1: General anadromous salmonid lifecycle. 

Central Valley salmon spawn and juveniles rear in the upper reaches of larger 

rivers including the Sacramento, Feather, Yuba, American, Mokelumne, Consumes, 

Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers depending on salmon species. The red 

areas shown on Figure 2 are an illustration of the areas of the Central Valley where 

spring-run Chinook salmon spawn and are also primary areas of juvenile rearing. 

As a result of their life history and habitat requirements, all of the juvenile springrun Chinook salmon produced in the Central Valley, in this example, migrate downstream in the Sacramento River and through the Delta during their passage to the 

ocean. The juvenile salmon downstream migration typically occurs during the late 

winter and spring months. A large portion of the Sacramento River used as the 

juvenile migration route is characterized by a trapezoidal channel with very little 

shallow water, riprap banks with little or no riparian vegetation, very little to no 

in-channel cover or protection from predators, with a river channel typically only 

500 feet across through which all juvenile salmon must migrate. 

18 

Figure 2: Spawning areas for spring-run Chinook salmon. 

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS IMPACTING SALMON SURVIVAL

Survival studies have been conducted in both the Sacramento and San Joaquin 

Rivers over a number of years. In the past, survival of juvenile salmon was estimated based on the number of marked juveniles that were released into the river 

(juvenile salmon have typically been marked using a small metal wire implanted in 

the fish’s nose—a coded wire tag) and the number of marked fish subsequently recaptured at a downstream location such as Chipps Island. More recently, advances 

in tag technology have led to the development of small battery powered tags that 

emit an underwater sound (acoustic tags) that can then be detected as an individual 

fish passes an acoustic detector. By placing acoustic tag detectors in a number of 

locations and channels in the river and Delta, juvenile salmon survival can be estimated. Figure 3 shows an example of juvenile Chinook salmon survival as the fish 

migrate downstream in the Sacramento River and Delta. In these studies, only 

about 10 percent of the juvenile salmon survived the migration down the 

Sacramento River to the Golden Gate. Results of similar survival studies conducted 

on the lower San Joaquin River and Delta for juvenile Chinook salmon (Figure 4) 

have shown a pattern in which survival declined in the early 2000s and has been 

less than 5 percent every year for the past decade. 

19 

A variety of factors have been identified that are thought to contribute to the poor 

survival of juvenile salmon in the Bay-Delta estuary including: 

• Changes in habitat/wetland reclamation/channelization; 

• Dams and water project operations; 

• Natural hydrology/water quality (e.g., temperature); 

• Food web changes; 

• Invasive non-native species as predators and competitors—— 

— Inadvertently introduced (Asian clam) 

— Intentionally introduced (striped bass) 

• Entrainment at unscreened diversions; 

• Loss of riparian vegetation; 

• Loss of shallow channel margin habitat and seasonal floodplains; 

• Reductions in suitable spawning gravels and juvenile rearing habitat; 

• Ocean conditions; and 

• Harvest (of some species). 

The relative importance of these and other factors affecting habitat quality and 

availability and survival of native fish interact in dynamic ways geographically and 

in response to within and between-year biologic and environmental conditions. 

Figure 3: Survival estimates for acoustically tagged late fall-run Chinook 

salmon in the Sacramento River. 

(Source: Michel 2010) 

20 

Figure 4: Estimated survival of Fall-run Juvenile Chinook Salmon from 

Mossdale (MOS), Durham Ferry (DF), or Dos Reis (DR) to either Jersey 

Point (JPT; CWT) or Chipps Island (CHP; AT). Intervals are 95 percent 

confidence intervals, truncated to 0 if necessary. 

Source: SJRGA 2013, USFWS 2014 

THREAT OF NON-NATIVE PREDATORS

Predation mortality has been identified as an important factor effecting juvenile 

salmon survival in the rivers and Delta. Primary predator fish species in the Delta 

include both striped bass and largemouth bass (both introduced species). The geographic and seasonal co-occurrence of adult striped bass and juvenile Chinook 

salmon (Figure 5) in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers is one of the factors 

that increase bass predation on juvenile salmon. Adult striped bass migrate upstream into the rivers during the spring where they stage and forage prior to 

spawning (typically during April–May). During the spring months (typically during 

April–May) a majority of the juvenile Chinook salmon migrate downstream through 

the rivers on their way to the ocean. The adult striped bass actively forage on juvenile fish in the size range of juvenile Chinook salmon. The adult striped bass and 

the juvenile salmon are both limited to the channelized river approximately 500 feet 

wide where the juvenile salmon have little or no cover or protection from predators. 

The result is increased vulnerability of juvenile salmon to predation. High levels of 

juvenile mortality contribute to reduced adult salmon abundance. 

21 

Figure 5: Co-occurrence of adult striped bass and juvenile Chinook salmon 

in the Sacramento River during spring. 

SUBJECTING SALMON TO AMBUSH

In addition to predation that occurs throughout the rivers and Delta, specific locations have been identified where juvenile salmon are particularly vulnerable to 

predators. For example, observations of acoustic tags from juvenile salmon released 

into the San Joaquin River showed an unusual accumulation of tags in the vicinity 

of several bridge crossings that were thought to provide structure and ambush locations for predatory fish. In other studies, evidence showed increased predation mortality of juvenile salmon that were exposed to a scour hole in the river channel. 

High levels of predation on juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead have been observed experimentally within Clifton Court Forebay (Figure 6), part of the State 

Water Project diversion facility, where juvenile mortality attributable to predation 

was estimated to be approximately 80 percent. 

22 

Figure 6: Clifton Court Forebay: Juvenile salmon and steelhead predation 

mortality is approximately 80 percent between the radial gate and the 

Skinner Delta Fish Protective Facility. 

IS PREDATION A NEW PROBLEM?

There is no question that adult striped bass prey on juvenile Chinook salmon 

(Figure 7). The question that typically comes up is why would striped bass predation 

on juvenile salmon be a problem now if the fish have coexisted in the estuary for 

over 150 years? As noted above, there are a wide variety of factors that affect juvenile salmon survival in the rivers and Delta. Predation by striped bass is one of 

those factors. One potential scenario is that as a result of long-term degradation of 

aquatic habitats, in combination with a variety of sources of mortality, the Chinook 

salmon population resilience to adverse conditions has been degraded and the populations are now less able to withstand added stressors that result in greater mortality and further reductions in abundance. A second potential scenario is that 

salmon population resilience has declined as a result of cumulative stressors such 

as poor ocean rearing conditions, reduced river flows and increased water temperatures resulting from drought conditions, increased predator abundance, and other 

factors that reduce the ability of the population to withstand the incremental contribution of one or more stressors such as increased predation mortality. The low 

levels of survival observed for juvenile Chinook salmon migrating through the rivers 

and Delta are a major challenge in generating healthy and robust populations of 

salmon that contribute to ESA recovery and sustainable fisheries. Doubling the 

abundance of striped bass as part of CVPIA would be expected to contribute to an 

increase in the cumulative stressors affecting Central Valley Chinook salmon populations and would be expected to contribute further to low juvenile survival and 

reduced adult abundance. 

23 

Figure 7: Juvenile Chinook salmon preyed upon by an adult striped bass. 

SWP AND CVP INFLOW:EXPORT RATIO OPERATIONS AND SALMON SURVIVAL

As part of the overall effort to improve juvenile salmon and steelhead survival in 

the Central Valley and Delta, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has 

identified a number of management actions related to SWP and CVP export operations. One of those actions specific to the lower San Joaquin River is the regulation 

of export rates as a ratio of San Joaquin River flow at Vernalis during April and 

May. The action, which was outlined in the 2009 Biological Opinion, is intended to 

improve survival of juvenile steelhead produced in San Joaquin River tributaries. 

Although steelhead survival studies have been conducted in the lower San Joaquin 

River over the past 6 years, a complete set of results from these studies is not yet 

available for use in assessing a potential relationship between the I: E (San Joaquin 

River inflow: SWP and CVP export) ratio and juvenile steelhead survival. Available 

results from lower San Joaquin River juvenile salmon survival studies (Figure 4) 

have shown no improvement in survival (survival has been less than 5 percent) during the spring in every year since the mid-2000s despite variation in river flows, 

export rates, inflow-export ratios, and other environmental variables. Although more 

rigorous statistical analyses of the survival study results are currently underway, 

preliminary results suggest that the consistently low survival of juvenile salmon 

from the San Joaquin River over the past decade has occurred despite implementation of management actions targeting SWP and CVP export operations outlined in 

the 2009 Biological Opinion. 

24 

CVPIA SHOULD SUPPORT SPECIES PROTECTIONS

The CVPIA specifically identifies striped bass as part of the goal of doubling 

abundance of anadromous fish inhabiting the Central Valley and Bay-Delta estuary. 

Policy and management priorities have changed, however, since enactment of 

CVPIA to include: 

• In the later 1990s priorities shifted in response to the Endangered Species 

Act to emphasize protection of depressed native fish species; 

• The Bay-Delta estuary provides spawning and rearing habitat for several 

ESA protected salmonid species; 

• Results of juvenile salmon survival studies have shown low survival on both 

the Sacramento River (typically survival less than 10 percent) and San 

Joaquin River (typically survival less than 5 percent); 

• A variety of factors interact to effect habitat conditions and survival of 

juvenile and adult salmonids including predation mortality; 

• Striped bass are a predator of juvenile Chinook salmon and other listed fish 

species; 

• Predation mortality by striped bass and other non-native fish has been 

identified as a major stressor; 

• Research by California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Services, NMFS, and others on predation is underway; and 

• Increased striped bass abundance in response to CVPIA goals is expected to 

increase the risk of predation mortality for juvenile salmon and other 

protected species and contribute to reduced abundance of native fish species. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, increasing the population of non-native species that prey on 

protected species is counter-productive to species recovery efforts currently underway in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and surrounding watershed. Therefore, 

striped bass, a known predator of endangered native species, should be excluded 

from the doubling goal for anadromous species in the CVPIA and initiatives should 

be undertaken to address other stressors impacting these protected species to improve their chance of survival. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this important topic. I 

would be happy to answer any questions. 

Dr. FLEMING. Yes, thank you, Mr. Hanson. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lowenthal for an introduction. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am very pleased to introduce today, Jim Herberg. Jim Herberg is the General Manager 

of the Orange County Sanitation District, the OCSD, managing a 

staff of 626 employees and serving 2.5 million people, including 

many in my district. 

Prior to becoming the General Manager, in 2013 Jim was the 

Director of Engineering responsible for OCSD’s biosolids program, 

environmental compliance, and source control permitting, in addition to managing the planning, design, and construction of the 

agency’s $2.6 billion capital improvement program. 

Jim has been with the Orange County Sanitation District since 

1995. Jim is a registered civil engineer in the state of California, 

and is board certified as an environmental engineer by the 

American Academy of Environmental Engineers. He holds a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering from the University of 

Oklahoma, and a master’s degree in engineering from my institution, Long Beach State, where I taught for many years. 

Jim, we are happy to have you here today to talk about all the 

leadership role that OCSD has done in water recycling, and about 

how we can do even more in the future. 

25 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Herberg, you are now 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JIM HERBERG, GENERAL MANAGER, ORANGE 

COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HERBERG. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal, for that introduction; 

and good morning, Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, 

and members of the committee. I am Jim Herberg, and I appear 

before you today as the General Manager of the Orange County 

Sanitation District, located in Orange County, California. I want to 

express our appreciation for the opportunity to testify on the important need to accelerate the way in which we support water 

recycling. 

I also want to acknowledge our partner agency, the Orange 

County Water District. Orange County Water District’s first vice 

president, Dennis Bilodeau, is currently testifying before the 

Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works on the 

vital role that water recycling and other innovations can play in delivering a safe and reliable water supply for the arid West. 

It is also important to highlight that a number of other organizations, including the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, 

the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the Water 

Environment Federation, Water Reuse, and the Association of 

California Water Agencies have worked to advance water recycling 

policy. Clearly, this is an issue that crosses the divide between 

water and wastewater. 

The Orange County Sanitation District serves the needs of 2.5 

million citizens in 20 cities. We are the sixth largest county in the 

United States, in terms of population. We believe that today’s hearing into H.R. 2993 is especially timely because of the era of scarce 

water resources and the need to develop new ways to deliver sustainable water supplies. 

As former Department of the Interior Secretary Luja ́n noted, the 

last great river to tap is wastewater. At Orange County Sanitation 

District, working with Orange County Water District and the 

Federal Government, we are harnessing this resource. 

Our commitment to using wastewater as a resource led us to 

partner with the Orange County Water District and construct the 

internationally acclaimed groundwater replenishment system. This 

would not have been possible without this committee’s support, and 

we thank you for that support. 

A little background on the project. In the midst of the drought 

of the late 1980s and early 1990s, facing population growth, 

groundwater depletion, seawater intrusion, and uncertain imported 

water supplies, we looked for an innovative solution. This is the 

groundwater replenishment system. 

We took a valuable but underused resource, wastewater, and developed a breakthrough technological approach. Today the partnership between the two agencies delivers more than 100 million 

gallons of treated water each day, serving the needs of 850,000 citizens. And with the expansion, we plan to deliver up to 130 million 

gallons a day to more than 1.1 million citizens. 

26 

The system provides multiple benefits—most notably reducing 

our dependence on imported water supplies and improving the 

region’s environment through the diversion of effluent that would 

have otherwise been discharged to the Pacific Ocean, and 

producing this highly purified water locally requires only one-half 

of the energy that it would take to move water from the 

Sacramento Delta to Southern California. 

This accomplishment would not have been possible without a 

Federal partner. Congress appropriated $20 million through Title 

XVI. This assistance helped us to reduce the product water costs 

and increase public acceptance. Our project is just one of the successes under Title XVI. Title XVI has contributed to the development of projects contributing $369,000 acre-feet of water per year 

across the arid West. 

One important lesson we learned was the sustainable water 

projects are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Different technologies 

will be required to address the new challenges that were not envisioned in the past. And this lesson is what makes us believe that 

the new approach needs to be implemented to fund promising solutions. This would be H.R. 2993. 

H.R. 2993 provides a road map to restructure the partnership 

between the Bureau of Reclamation and local agencies like ours. 

This new approach would ensure that the most promising projects 

are funded. Under the old way of doing business, a project undergoes a feasibility study, and the study is reviewed to determine if 

it is feasible. Assuming a positive finding, then the project sponsor 

would seek a constructive authorization. Then, if successfully authorized, an appropriation from Congress would be sought. This is 

a several-year process with no certainty of success. 

H.R. 2993 recognizes that we are in a changing world and we 

need to accelerate the process, and it is a responsible acceleration. 

If a project is deemed feasible, then the Secretary would have the 

authority to fund construction, assuming that Congress appropriated funding for the overall Title XVI program. This acceleration 

is a timely response to the new normal of heightened water scarcity. A series of criteria are spelled out to ensure that any project 

funded would be grounded in the purpose to support regionalism, 

multiple benefits, public acceptance, and water resource flexibility, 

among other purposes. 

In short, this new competitive approach would ensure that the 

biggest benefit is gained for the dollars provided by the Federal 

Government. An annual report to Congress on the status of the 

program and its implementation would also be useful. 

Again, we hope that the subcommittee and the committee will 

consider the value that H.R. 2993 would deliver to our shared interest of drought-proofing the West. I would be pleased to respond 

to any questions and, again, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you on this important and timely matter. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Herberg follows:] 

27 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES D. HERBERG, P.E., GENERAL MANAGER, 

ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA ON

H.R. 2993 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman and members of the subcommittee, I am Jim Herberg, General Manager of Orange County Sanitation 

District (OCSD). I appear before you today as one half of a local partnership that 

developed and constructed an internationally acclaimed sustainable water supply 

project known as the Groundwater Replenishment System or GWRS. Our partner 

agency, the Orange County Water District (OCWD) operates GWRS and I want to 

acknowledge their leadership on this effort. I also want to acknowledge OCWD’s 

First Vice President Denis Bilodeau, who is currently testifying before the Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works on the vital role that water recycling 

and other innovations can play in providing a sustainable water future. 

The Orange County Sanitation District is a public agency located in Fountain 

Valley and Huntington Beach that provides wastewater collection, treatment, and 

recycling for approximately 2.5 million people in central and northwest Orange 

County. OCSD is a special district that is governed by a 25 member Board of 

Directors comprised of 20 cities, four special districts, and one representative from 

the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Orange County is the sixth largest county 

by population in America. This distinction is important as it drives our priority to 

find sustainable water supplies for our growing region. 

OCSD is pleased to be part of today’s hearing to highlight ways in which we can 

develop cost-effective water recycling solutions. Indeed, in California, we have taken 

steps with the help of the Federal Government to tap what former Secretary of the 

Interior Lujan termed the last great river, wastewater. Today’s hearing is especially 

timely because we are entering an era of water resources needs that demands a new 

way of developing sustainable water supply projects. Similar to the digital revolution, the technology revolution in water is changing the way we develop projects to 

meet our municipal, agricultural and environmental water demand. OCSD would 

like to note the efforts to advance the Nation’s commitment to sustainable water 

practices through the activities and efforts of organizations including the California 

Association of Sanitation Agencies, National Association of Clean Water Agencies, 

Water Environment Federation, Association of California Water Agencies, 

WaterReuse, and its state chapter California WateReuse. 

OCSD has always taken pride in advancing the treatment of wastewater through 

the use of innovative technologies. In fact, it was this dedication that led us to a 

decision to work with our water agency, OCWD, to design and construct a sustainable water supply to address a growing population and changes in precipitation patterns. This commitment is demonstrated vividly by the expansion of the GWRS. The 

GWRS is the world’s largest advanced water purification system for potable reuse. 

The project receives OCSD’s treated wastewater that otherwise would be sent to the 

Pacific Ocean and purifies it using a three-step advanced process. I would like to 

express our gratitude for the committee’s past support that helped make GWRS a 

reality. 

Today, I would like to address how OCSD and its partner OCWD have developed 

a meaningful response to the drought conditions and what policies need to be implemented for the future to assure that projects can be constructed to address our 

changing environment. I want to emphasize that the past winter’s El Nino has only 

served to validate the value of Federal programs and projects that we pursued. El 

Nino brought above average snowpack and almost brimming reservoirs to northern 

California. But in our region, the record rainfall we anticipated did not occur. Clearly, the new normal of rainfall and snowfall events along with accelerated evaporation and melting means that it is incumbent to develop and implement policy 

approaches to advance sustainable water supply. It has often been stated that 

California has always met challenges and succeeded, defying the conventional wisdom that our state is too big and the problems are too big to find a long-lasting 

solution. In our circumstance, OCSD and OCWD designed a solution and with the 

vital support of Congress and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, we constructed 

GWRS, a project that has won international acclaim and helped establish the 

United States as a leader in the field of sustainable water projects. This solution 

can be replicated throughout arid and semi-arid regions of our Nation and the 

world. 

In Orange County, our climate is becoming more arid. The base flow of the Santa 

Ana River, our main source of surface water, continues to decline. Imported water 

supplies from Northern California and Colorado River are restricted. We expect 

droughts to occur 3 out of every 10 years. Population growth within our region is 

28 

expected to increase and so will water demands. There was and is a need to address 

these multiple matters. 

In the late 1980s, it became apparent that to preserve our region’s economic and 

social vitality, the challenges of our groundwater depletion, seawater intrusion and 

unreliable surface water supplies demanded an innovative solution. An aggressive 

program was implemented to develop a novel water treatment process with the 

GWRS. 

Unlike traditional approaches to water treatment, our approach recognized that 

wastewater is a valuable resource. The ability to design a technological approach 

that would capture this resource, remove the impurities and recycle it back into the 

environment would address multiple needs ranging from supplementing water 

supply to protecting our natural resources. 

The GWRS takes treated wastewater from OCSD that would otherwise be discharged into the Pacific Ocean. It implements a sophisticated process to purify this 

water. The process involves using a three-step advanced treatment system consisting of microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide. This treatment and purification process produces high-quality water that 

exceeds all state and Federal drinking water standards. Let me emphasize this 

point. OCWD is able to exceed public health standards in developing a sustainable 

water supply. 

GWRS was achieved through a partnership with Federal and state agencies that provided vital assistance in making this project a reality. The $20 million in assistance under Title XVI leveraged over $70 million in state and local funding to provide for the $481 million construction cost of the GWRS. Today, the partnership is 

responsible for delivering enough drinking water for 850,000 people with a production of 100 million gallons of water per day. When GWRS became operational it was 

a project that delivered on the promise of providing a safe and reliable water supply. 

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to water reuse. The GWRS establishes a technology foundation to design and build individual approaches to sustainable water 

supply needs. Water needs of a specific community, water sources, public health regulations, costs, and the types of water infrastructure in place, such as distribution 

systems, man-made reservoirs or natural groundwater basins, determine if and how 

your reused water becomes part of the drinking water supply. And these factors are 

driving our belief that we need a new approach to funding promising water recycling 

projects. 

As the state of California and the entire West faces severe drought conditions, 

increased attention must ultimately turn to locally developed projects and programs 

like GWRS that provide reliable water supplies. But the risks in developing projects 

require partnerships and the Federal Government is a vital partner. The support 

provided through Federal assistance helps to reduce project costs through lower borrowing rates and public acceptance. 

Today, the West faces challenges to our urban and rural economies that we never 

envisioned as drought conditions persist with greater frequency and extend for 

longer periods of time. 

The changing hydrological conditions in the West demand a new model to spur 

on innovation that can lead to sustainable water supplies. OCSD and OCWD are 

currently in the process of taking on the challenge of finding new ways to develop 

the last river in the West. We recently completed a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation supported feasibility study to leverage our wastewater supply by reconfiguring and expanding our facilities to reuse nearly 100 percent of the wastewater generated by 

the 2.5 million residents of our service area. This final expansion would generate 

an additional 30 million gallons of water per day for groundwater recharge. When 

added to our current capacity, the total will be enough to serve a total population 

of 1.1 million. We are hopeful that the results of this study will position us to move 

forward with construction as our area continues to suffer the worst drought conditions since rainfall records have been recorded. I would also like to note that water 

agencies throughout California are currently generating approximately 750,000 

acre-feet of water through reuse operations, and are planning for reuse projects that 

would more than double that total. 

We seek to accelerate the development our project, however, the current Title XVI 

program imposes procedural delays on feasible projects at a time when expeditious 

project approvals would help us meet the water scarcity challenges that we face. 

Therefore, like changes in technology that have reformed and restructured the way 

in which we work, we need to reform and restructure the way in which the Federal 

Government supports the clear need for a meaningful partnership to develop water 

supply projects. 

One approach that we believe offers a road map to restructure this partnership 

is the Water Recycling Acceleration Act of 2015 (H.R. 2993). Under H.R. 2993, the 

29 

old approach of conducting a feasibility study and then requiring project sponsors 

to secure an authorization for a project deemed feasible would be reformed to accelerate construction of critical water infrastructure. If a project is deemed feasible, it 

would then be allowed to proceed to actual construction with Federal assistance, if 

selected by the Secretary of the Interior assuming Congress approves the budget for 

such programs. 

Any assistance must be targeted to achieve maximum benefits from Federal 

assistance to reduce the adverse consequences from today’s water scarcity impacts. 

H.R. 2993 would facilitate this objective by establishing a series of criteria that address the challenges of today and thus to allow a project to receive construction 

assistance. 

These criteria include: 

• Deliver a reliable water supply 

• Protect, restore, and enhance ecosystems 

• Improve water resource flexibility 

• Regional in nature 

• Multiple stakeholders 

• Multiple benefits including groundwater management and water quality 

improvements 

Each of these criteria would create an approval process through the U.S. Bureau 

of Reclamation’s Title XVI program. It would enable project sponsors to develop 

projects that would guarantee multiple benefits to the greatest degree possible. The 

criteria would also ensure that when a project is selected to proceed to construction, 

Congress would be assured that the investment of Federal resources would enjoy 

broad support from stakeholders and that the project has regional benefits. 

Again, OCSD deeply appreciates the subcommittee convening today’s hearing on 

this important policy issue and specifically H.R. 2993. OCSD and our sister agency 

OCWD look forward to working with you to advance H.R. 2993 through the 

legislative process. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Herberg. The Chair now recognizes 

Mr. Iseman for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TOM ISEMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF WATER AND SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. ISEMAN. Thank you, Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member 

Huffman, and members of the subcommittee. I am Tom Iseman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on two 

of the three bills before the subcommittee today: H.R. 2993 and 

H.R. 4582. I will briefly summarize my written statements, which 

have been submitted for the record. 

H.R. 2993, the Water Recycling Acceleration Act, would amend 

Title XVI of Public Law 102–575, the Reclamation, Wastewater, 

and Groundwater Studying Facilities Act. Under that statute, the 

Bureau of Reclamation works with local partners to investigate opportunities for the reuse of municipal, industrial, and agricultural 

water. Reclamation administers Title XVI as a competitive grant 

program incorporated into the WaterSMART program. Funding opportunity announcements are posted every year, and project sponsors apply for finite amounts of planning, design, or construction 

funding that are awarded once appropriations are received. 

Since 1992, Reclamation has provided approximately 

$637 million in Federal funding to congressionally authorized Title 

XVI water recycling and reuse projects. This funding has been 

30 

leveraged with non-Federal cost share of over $2.4 billion to make 

available almost 370,000 acre-feet of water in 2015. 

A central requirement of that program is that the applicant 

projects must be authorized for construction funding by Congress. 

H.R. 2993 would remove that requirement by amending Title XVI 

to state that any project for which funding may otherwise be made 

available shall not be required to have been previously authorized 

for such funding. 

The Department believes it is timely to examine program eligibility as contemplated by H.R. 2993. A wider base of Title XVI 

applicants could bring more worthy projects into the program. 

Given that no new Title XVI projects have been authorized since 

2009, it is possible that newer projects can enhance the effectiveness of Title XVI in addressing drought, reducing dependency on 

imported water, and making local water supplies more reliable. 

That said, it must be noted that Title XVI is an over-subscribed 

program, and each year brings many more applicants for Reclamation funding than can be accommodated. There are presently 53 

authorized Title XVI projects, 21 of which are active projects that 

have not yet received their full Federal cost share. 

If H.R. 2993 were enacted, it should be made clear to project 

sponsors that competition for limited resources would increase, and 

the dollar value of awards per project may need to be revisited. 

H.R. 4582, the Save our Salmon Act, would amend the Central 

Valley Project Improvement Act, or CVPIA, to remove striped bass 

from the fish doubling goal provisions of the CVPIA. While the 

striped bass is an anadromous fish, it is not native to the 

Sacramento San Joaquin Bay Delta, or even to California. Implementation of the CVPIA has focused on improving populations and 

habitat for native fish, and the striped bass is a predator of native 

Delta fish species, including Delta smelt and various runs of salmon and steelhead. 

Given that the striped bass contributes to mortality for listed 

species and is not native to the Bay Delta or even California, the 

Department does not object to the removal of striped bass from the 

CVPIA’s fish doubling goals. 

My written statement contains recommendations for some technical modifications to conform the bill to striped bass references 

contained in the CVPIA statute, and better assure that the bill’s 

intention is met. The Department would be glad to work with the 

subcommittee and Representative Denham to provide more detail 

on these recommended changes. 

In closing, Reclamation and the Department appreciate the interest in reducing threats to the survival of listed fish in the Bay 

Delta. We believe that the CVPIA has been successful in promoting 

the recovery of fish species in the Bay Delta and its tributaries. 

With the changes noted in my written statement, the Department 

would be pleased to support H.R. 4582. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the 

subcommittee today. I would be pleased to answer questions at the 

appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Iseman follows:] 

31 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM ISEMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER

AND SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

STATEMENT ON H.R. 2993 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman and members of the subcommittee, I am Tom Iseman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at 

the U.S. Department of the Interior (Department). I am pleased to provide the views 

of the Department on H.R. 2993, the Water Recycling Acceleration Act of 2015. 

With consideration for the points described in my statement, the Department supports the goals of H.R. 2993. 

Title XVI of Public Law 102–575 created the Reclamation Wastewater and 

Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.). That statute authorizes the Department, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), to 

investigate opportunities for the reuse of municipal, industrial, and agricultural 

wastewater, and fund the planning, design, and construction of demonstration and 

permanent facilities. The statute has been amended several times, and, in general, 

Title XVI projects are funded at 75 percent or greater local funding, with a Federal 

cost-share of no more than $20 million or 25 percent of the total project cost. Some 

projects, including six of the original Title XVI projects, have been authorized with 

a Federal cost share that exceeds $20 million. And while Congress provided blanket 

authorization for the funding of feasibility studies and demonstration projects under 

Title XVI, the statute and subsequent amendments contemplate that Federal funding for actual project design and construction must be individually authorized. 

Today, Reclamation administers Title XVI as a competitive grant program incorporated into the WaterSMART Program. Funding opportunity announcements 

(FOAs) are posted every year and project sponsors apply for finite amounts of planning, design, or construction funding that are awarded once appropriations are received. Eligibility criteria and prioritization measures for the award of funding are 

public and part of every FOA, and the total funding request has exceeded the available appropriations in every year since 2011. Applicant projects must be authorized 

for construction funding by Congress. 

H.R. 2933 would remove that requirement by amending Title XVI to state that 

any project for which funding ‘‘may otherwise be made available’’ shall not be 

required to have been previously authorized by law for such funding. The bill also 

directs that priority for the award of funding be given to projects located in areas 

experiencing drought, or having been a designated disaster area between 2014 and 

2018. Section 2 also provides for criteria to be applied to applicant entities. 

The Department believes it is timely to examine expanding program eligibility to 

any projects that are determined to be feasible and which compete well under 

Reclamation’s existing prioritization criteria. These criteria were submitted for public review in 2010, and are consistent with the program’s statutory origins in Public 

Law 102–575. 

Title XVI is an integral part of the Department’s efforts through the 

WaterSMART Program to increase water supply sustainability. Over the past 20 

years, projects have been developed under the Title XVI program that are now contributing an estimated 369,000 acre-feet of water annually to address water demands in drought-stricken states like California. This has reduced demands on the 

oversubscribed Colorado River and Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta, and proven 

to be one tool in building regional resilience to drought. 

The Department recognizes that a wider base of Title XVI applicants potentially 

brings more merit to the limited pool of projects eligible for funding. With no new 

Title XVI projects having been authorized since 2009, it is possible that newer 

projects can further enhance the effectiveness of Title XVI in addressing drought, 

reducing dependency on imported water, and making local water supplies more 

reliable. 

Having said that, it must be noted that Title XVI is an oversubscribed program, 

and as stated above, each year brings many more applicants for Reclamation funding than can be accommodated in this era of limited budgets and Federal deficits. 

There are presently 53 authorized Title XVI projects, 21 of which are active projects 

that have not yet received their full Federal cost share. If H.R. 2933 were to be enacted, it should be made clear to project sponsors that competition for limited resources would increase and the dollar value of awards per-project may need to be 

revisited. 

This concludes my written statement. I would be pleased to answer questions at 

the appropriate time. 

32 

1www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Inland/Striped-Bass#35540374-history. 

2Page 183 and throughout, U.S. FWS Biological Opinion for the Proposed Coordinated 

Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. 2008. www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/ 

documents/SWP-CVP_OPs_BO_12-15_final_OCR.pdf. 3Page 147 and throughout, National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion for Proposed 

Long Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. 2009. 

www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov / publications / Central_Valley / Water %20Operations / 

Operations, %20Criteria %20and %20Plan/nmfs_biological_and_conference_opinion_on_the_longterm_operations_of_the_cvp_and_swp.pdf. 

STATEMENT ON H.R. 4582 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman and members of the subcommittee, I am Tom Iseman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at 

the U.S. Department of the Interior (Department). I am pleased to provide the views 

of the Department on H.R. 4582, the ‘‘Save our Salmon Act’’. My statement today 

will detail technical changes that should be amended into H.R. 4582 in order to assure that it meets the bill’s stated intent. The issues addressed by H.R. 4582 are 

significant, and if amended, the Department could support the enactment of this 

bill. 

The Central Valley Project (CVP) is one of the largest and water management 

projects in the United States—extending from the Cascade Range in northern 

California to the semi-arid but fertile plains along the Kern River in the south. 

Initial features of the project were built primarily to protect the Central Valley from 

water shortages and floods, but the CVP also improves Sacramento River navigation, supplies municipal and industrial water, generates electricity, conserves fish 

and wildlife, and creates opportunities for recreation. The CVP serves farms, homes, 

and industry in California’s Central Valley as well as major urban centers in the 

San Francisco Bay Area; it is also the primary source of water for much of 

California’s wetlands. 

In October 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed Public Law 102–575, which 

included Title 34, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). The CVPIA 

amends the previous authorizations of the CVP to include fish and wildlife protection and mitigation as project purposes having equal priority with irrigation and domestic uses, and makes fish and wildlife enhancement a project purpose equal to 

power generation. 

Section 3406 of the CVPIA directs the Department to implement a ‘‘fish doubling 

goal’’ for anadromous fish, and this provision is addressed by H.R. 4582. Anadromous fish are defined in Section 3403(a) as those stocks of salmon, steelhead, 

striped bass, sturgeon, and American shad that ascend the Sacramento and San 

Joaquin rivers and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to reproduce after maturing 

in San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean. The statute directs that the Department 

‘‘implement a program which makes all reasonable efforts to ensure that, by the 

year 2002, natural production of anadromous fish in Central Valley rivers and 

streams will be sustainable, on a long-term basis, at levels not less than twice the 

average levels attained during the period of 1967–1991[.]’’ An Anadromous Fish 

Restoration Program and associated Restoration Plan guides the implementation of 

the CVPIA’s fish doubling goal. 

Implementation of the CVPIA by Federal agencies and their non-Federal partners 

has focused on improving populations and habitat for native fish, which are key to 

a healthy ecosystem. While the striped bass is an anadromous fish, it is not native 

to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta,1 and it is actually a predator of native 

Delta fish species, including Delta smelt (threatened under the Endangered Species 

Act, or ESA) and various runs of salmon and steelhead. As has been noted in the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s biological opinion for the operation of the CVP, 

striped bass are likely the primary predator of juvenile and adult delta smelt given 

their spatial overlap in pelagic habitats.2 The National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) has also noted that striped bass show a strong preference for juvenile 

salmon in their studies.3 In testimony before this subcommittee on February 10, 

2016, NMFS detailed the impacts of predation on Pacific coast salmon, including 

ESA-listed salmon in the Bay-Delta. And a wide body of evidence from the 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife shows similar findings that point to 

striped bass as a stressor on fish species that are threatened or endangered under 

the ESA. 

In consideration of the striped bass’s function as a fish that contributes to mortality for listed species and is not native to the Bay-Delta or even California, the 

Department has no concern with the removal of striped bass from the CVPIA’s fish 

doubling goals. 

33 

However, in order to address the intent of the proposed legislation, there are some 

technical modifications that are necessary. First, the introduced wording of 

H.R. 4582 requires changes to conform to the enacted language of the CVPIA. For 

example, the bill only amends Section 3406(b)(1) of CVPIA, and makes no change 

to other relevant subparagraphs such as Sections 3406(b)(18), (19), and (21), which 

also provide for taking actions to protect and assist ‘‘anadromous’’ fish. Section 

3406(b)(18) states that, if requested by the state of California, the Bureau of 

Reclamation will assist in management measures to restore the striped bass fishery 

of the Bay-Delta estuary and its tributaries. While no agency has requested that 

Reclamation perform this action, a change to this subsection would seem to be intended by the language of H.R. 4582. 

In addition, Section 3406(b)(19) requires re-evaluation of operational criteria at 

the CVP’s Sacramento and Trinity River Reservoirs to protect and restore the anadromous fish in accordance with the requirements of 3406(b). Section 3405(b)(21) 

requires Reclamation to assist the state of California in efforts to develop and implement measures to avoid losses of juvenile anadromous fish resulting from 

unscreened or inadequately screened diversions. The language in H.R. 4582 adding 

the ‘‘except striped bass’’ language to the fish doubling goal does not impact these 

other provisions, thereby creating an internal conflict in the language of the CVPIA 

and in the responsibilities of Reclamation toward all anadromous fish. In order to 

fulfill the legislative intent, the bill should be modified to address these potential 

conflicts. The Department would be glad to work with the committee to provide 

more detail on these recommended changes. 

In closing, Reclamation and the Department appreciate the interest in reducing 

threats to the survival of listed fish in the Bay Delta. We believe that the CVPIA 

provides a useful framework for promoting the recovery of fish species in the Bay 

Delta, and its tributaries, and with the changes noted above, the Department would 

be pleased to support the CVPIA amendment provided by H.R. 4582. 

This concludes my written statement. I would be pleased to answer questions at 

the appropriate time. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Iseman. 

Mr. Downen, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF BO DOWNEN, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, 

PUBLIC POWER COUNCIL, PORTLAND, OREGON 

Mr. DOWNEN. Good morning, Chairman Fleming, Ranking 

Member Huffman, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1869, the Environmental Compliance Cost Transparency Act of 2015. 

I am here today representing consumer-owned utilities of the 

Pacific Northwest with statutory first rights known as preference 

rights to purchase power that is generated by the Federal 

Columbia River Power System and marketed by the Bonneville 

Power Administration. 

These preference rights were granted to publicly- and cooperatively-owned utilities because they have a mandate to pass the benefits of the system through to the citizens of the Northwest, the 

consumers who are their owners, and as consumer-owners are responsible for the costs of BPA power, not the American taxpayer. 

These utilities, being both some of the largest and smallest in the 

Northwest, serve approximately 40 percent of electricity consumers 

in the region. And these utilities are committed to preserving the 

value of the Columbia River System for clean, renewable hydropower, and for the system’s multiple other uses. 

We appreciate the initiative of Representatives Gosar and 

Newhouse in proposing this bill as the consumer-owned utilities of 

the Northwest have a long history of support for fish and wildlife 

mitigation for the dams of the Columbia River system, and we beVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:18 Oct 28, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\114TH CONGRESS\WATER, POWER & OCEANS\04-20-16\99892.TXT DARLEN
34 

lieve this legislation would result in the production of useful information that would offer greater understanding of that mitigation. 

The fish and wildlife costs associated with the rates BPA charges 

for wholesale power are approaching $1 billion annually. At $757 

million last year, this single category of costs accounted for about 

30 percent of the power costs charged in BPA rates. While customers in the Northwest often ask about the nature of the costs 

that make up their electricity rates, some have little to no knowledge about the level of fish and wildlife costs affecting these rates. 

Local control over management of the utility is a fundamental 

priority of each consumer-owned utility in the Northwest, and this 

bill offers the opportunity for ratepayers to be better informed 

managers and consumers. While this bill is narrowly tailored to require that power marketing administrations display costs related to 

compliance with Federal environmental laws impacting fish and 

wildlife conservation on the monthly wholesale power bill sent to 

utilities, it is then up to the local utility to decide what to do with 

that information. 

Support for this bill should not depend on whether or not you believe these expenditures in the name of fish and wildlife should be 

lower, higher, or just about right. The issue here really is information. More knowledge about fish and wildlife costs is not an impetus to do less for fish and wildlife. Rather, it is an opportunity to 

create ownership in the efforts currently underway, and serves as 

an inducement to create better, more effective means of assisting 

fish and wildlife in the future. 

Highlighting the costs on power bills could lead to more scrutiny 

over the effectiveness of fish and wildlife mitigation measures. But 

that is a good thing. Better information yields greater understanding, and the resulting information discussion would improve 

the processes in place where programmatic decisions related to fish 

and wildlife are made. That would benefit fish and wildlife, as well 

as ratepayers, by ensuring the greatest impact for the funds being 

spent. 

There may be a question of why fish and wildlife costs are of specific interest. Well, there are very few, if any, costs in BPA’s power 

rates that are both of this magnitude and this level of volatility. 

In addition, these costs are particularly driven by Federal laws 

that do not directly relate to the business of producing power. This 

distinguishes them from many of the cost categories that flow into 

the rates of power marketing administrations. 

H.R. 1869 is a straightforward approach to providing more information and accountability regarding a major factor in the power 

rates of consumer-owned utilities. Timely release of useful information is a worthy goal, in and of itself. Just as important is the 

potential that this information may create incentives for better 

management of our natural resources that could benefit fish and 

wildlife and ratepayers alike. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify today, and I look 

forward to working with you on this matter and addressing any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Downen follows:] 

35 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER (BO) DOWNEN, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, PUBLIC POWER COUNCIL ON H.R. 1869 

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of 

the subcommittee. My name is Bo Downen. I am a Senior Policy Analyst of the 

Public Power Council. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1869, 

The Environmental Compliance Cost Transparency Act of 2015. 

The Public Power Council is a trade association representing the consumer-owned 

electric utilities of the Pacific Northwest with statutory first rights (known as 

‘‘preference’’) to purchase power that is generated by the Federal Columbia River 

Power System and marketed by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). These 

preference rights were granted to publicly and cooperatively owned utilities because 

they have a mandate to pass the benefits through to the citizens of the Northwest, 

the consumers who are their owners. Our member utilities have service territories 

in portions of seven western states and serve approximately 40 percent of the electricity consumers in the region. 

These utilities, being both some of the largest and the smallest in the Northwest, 

are committed to preserving the value of the Columbia River system for clean, 

renewable hydropower and for the system’s multiple other uses. Customers pay for 

all of the power costs incurred by BPA; the agency is a pass-through entity of its 

costs and obligations. Because the utility members of PPC are owned by and answer 

directly to their customers, they are very sensitive to the rates they pay for wholesale power and transmission of electricity. 

We appreciate the initiative of Representatives Gosar and Newhouse in raising 

this issue, and for proposing this legislation. H.R. 1869 is narrowly tailored to require the power marketing administrations to display costs related to compliance 

with Federal environmental laws impacting fish and wildlife conservation on the 

monthly wholesale power bill sent to utilities. Local utilities can then decide what 

to do with that information. 

Local control over management of the utility is a fundamental priority of each 

consumer-owned utility in the Northwest, and this bill offers the opportunity for 

ratepayers to be better informed consumers. Our members provide retail electricity 

service to millions of citizens throughout the Northwest, including Washington, 

Oregon, Idaho, and parts of Montana, California, Nevada, and Wyoming. While 

these consumers often ask about the nature of the costs that make up their electricity rates, some have little knowledge about the level of fish and wildlife costs 

affecting those rates. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE COSTS

In the case of BPA, the fish and wildlife costs in the rates the agency charges for wholesale power are inordinately large. At $757 million last year alone, this single category of costs accounted for about 30 percent of the BPA power costs charged 

in rates. The total BPA ratepayer cost for fish and wildlife since 1980 is more than 

$15 billion. That does not count the amounts contributed through other Federal, 

state, and local entities. 

The latest assumption for fish and wildlife annual costs in the BPA power rates for the period that started on October 1, 2015 is likely to include $736 million 

annually, broken down as follows: 

• $271 million for direct expenditures under the Integrated Program; 

• $6 million for internal costs of the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council related to fish and wildlife; 

• $33 million for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 

• $49 million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 

• $6 million for the Bureau of Reclamation; 

• $200 million of indirect operational costs; and 

• $171 million in capital investments. 

The efficiency and effectiveness of some of the specific projects and methods for 

salmon recovery are questions with which the region has struggled significantly over 

the last two decades as the underlying science continues to develop. Certainly, highlighting the costs on power bills could lead to more scrutiny over the effectiveness 

of salmon mitigation measures. If it does, then that would be a useful byproduct 

of H.R. 1869 that would benefit fish and wildlife as well as ratepayers. In the 

meantime, the Federal agencies overseeing salmon recovery efforts, along with most 

of the states and tribes in the region, have collaborated in support of a scientifically 

36 

sound plan (‘‘biological opinion’’) under the Endangered Species Act. This biological 

opinion commits to an enormous sustained effort for the region’s salmon and 

steelhead. 

More knowledge about fish and wildlife costs is not an impetus to do less for fish 

and wildlife. Rather, it creates ownership in the efforts underway and serves as an 

inducement to create better, more effective means of assisting fish and wildlife in 

the future. 

PROVIDING VALUABLE INFORMATION

Support for this bill should not depend upon whether you believe these expenditures in the name of fish and wildlife should be lower, higher, or are just about 

right. The issue here is information. Certainly, it would make the understanding of 

these costs clearer if they were displayed directly on the power bill each month. 

What happens to the information after that, or to the opinions of consumers receiving that information, will vary greatly from utility to utility and from customer to 

customer. 

Some may argue that a utility and its ratepayers could gain this information 

without this bill. This is not necessarily the case. In the case of BPA, only the 

agency itself is in the best position to determine with accuracy the costs it expends 

on fish and wildlife. The processes in place to determine those costs and inform 

customers about them are lengthy and complex. Utilities would benefit from having 

one official estimate that is produced by the agency and disclosed on the actual 

power bill. 

Some might question why only fish and wildlife related costs should be displayed 

on the bill. There are very few costs in BPA’s power rates that are of this magnitude 

and this level of volatility. In addition, these costs are particularly driven by Federal 

laws that do not directly relate to the business of producing power. This distinguishes them from many of the cost categories that flow into the rates of power 

marketing administrations. Existing accounting systems would allow the agency to 

produce the amount of fish and wildlife costs with little additional administrative 

burden. 

DEFINING COSTS RELATED TO COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Under H.R. 1869, some may argue about whether the number that a power marketing administration displays is the correct reflection of fish and wildlife costs. 

Those arguments are inevitable, and there are plenty of venues in the region for 

all of us to voice our concerns to the agency. That discussion, however, should not 

inhibit the agency from making a final determination and getting that information 

to customers. 

H.R. 1869 correctly includes the indirect costs as well as the direct costs of compliance with Federal environmental laws. To a ratepayer they are one and the same. 

Water spilled over a dam rather than creating electricity impacts ratepayers just 

as much as direct projects, capital costs, or operations and maintenance. Whether 

the action causes a loss of generation or whether it is a direct expenditure, the impact is pressure on rates to be higher than they otherwise would be. 

CONCLUSION

H.R. 1869 is a straightforward approach to providing more information and accountability regarding a major factor in the power rates of consumer-owned utilities. 

Timely release of useful information is a worthy goal in and of itself. Just as important is the potential that this information may create incentives for better management of our natural resources that could benefit fish and wildlife and ratepayers 

alike. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I look forward to working with 

you on this matter and addressing any questions. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Downen. The Chair now recognizes 

Dr. Gosar to introduce our final witness. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. Patrick Ledger, the Senior Vice President and Chief 

Executive Officer of Arizona’s G&T Cooperatives. 

Patrick Ledger oversees 250 employees and $200 million in annual revenues. He is also the Executive Manager for three associated electric generation cooperatives. Patrick received his law and 

37 

master’s degree from the University of Arizona. He has served on 

multiple boards and has presented at professional conferences 

throughout the country. 

As a corporate counsel and then the CEO of multiple cooperatives, Patrick has a wealth of experience and can provide a unique 

perspective on both regulatory and technical challenges. 

Throughout his career, Patrick has improved management structures, reduced base rates, and streamlined efficiencies. It is an absolute pleasure to have his testimony here before this committee, 

and I yield the floor to Mr. Patrick Ledger. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK F. LEDGER, CEO, ARIZONA G&T 

COOPERATIVES, BENSON, ARIZONA 

Mr. LEDGER. Thank you very much, Vice Chairman Gosar, Mr. 

Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member Huffman. On behalf of Arizona 

Electric Power Cooperative, I am appearing today to discuss 

H.R. 1869, the Environmental Compliance Cost Transparency Act 

of 2015. I have provided a written statement, as well, that will be 

submitted into the record. 

As the Chief Executive Officer and a customer of the Western 

Area Power Administration, which is what we call Western—we 

are both a hydropower customer and a transmission customer of 

Western—I am supportive of the objectives of the legislation and 

encourage its passage. 

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative is a not-for-profit wholesale 

power and transmission provider for six Class A cooperative 

members, with service territories in Arizona, California, and 

New Mexico. We provide transmission and energy services to multiple cities and districts around Arizona, as well. 

Based in Benson, Arizona, we own and operate a 605 megawatt 

power plant. We operate over 600 miles of transmission. We schedule over 1,000 megawatts of energy throughout the state. We are 

also a power and transmission customer of Western. 

In recent years, Arizona electric power, like much of the electric 

utility industry, has faced some serious challenges, particularly on 

the regulatory front with ever-widening compliance requirements 

to increasingly strident environmental regulations. We face the difficult task of managing mounting cost impacts resulting from these 

challenges, while continuing to ensure that our customers have a 

reliable and affordable electric power supply. 

Unlike investor-owned utilities, every cost impact on real 

cooperatives or public power utilities is passed on directly to our 

customers, residents of rural parts of Arizona who are already 

struggling. Our responsibility, therefore, is to do everything in our 

power to manage these risks and costs. Arizona Electric Power has 

generally succeeded in managing external threats and controlling 

costs with one recent exception: our relationship with the Western 

Area Power Administration. 

We have a long history with Western, stretching back more than 

50 years. More than just a long-standing partner, they are intertwined in our business model, because historically we could rely on 

them, just as many other cooperatives and public power utilities do 

to help us manage risks and keep costs down. 

38 

Today, however, we can no longer rely on them in the ways we 

once did. They have become one of our more significant risks. In 

recent years, we have seen rates for power and transmission services charged by Western increase with little correlation to market 

fundamentals. Unlike a traditional power supply counter-party 

that relies on the same market fundamentals that we can observe, 

we do not have the insight into their fundamentals that underlie 

the Western operations. 

For example, we cannot adopt a hedging or trading strategy to 

compensate for Western price increases. Our best option to address 

Western price increases is to anticipate when and how prices will 

increase, and plan our internal strategies accordingly. This approach, however, is limited by the information that Western provides in support of its rates. We do not have details on certain 

trends, such as the need for staffing increases at headquarters or 

adjustments in the use of budget authority. Moreover, we also do 

not have a sense of how operational changes within Western’s 

sister generating agencies are affecting power supply and associated pricing. 

While many of the dedicated personnel at Western are willing to 

share anecdotal information on how environmental compliance affects hydro-generation, the precise cost breakdown is missing from 

the public domain. H.R. 1869 would help address this information 

gap by requiring the disclosure of compliance costs with Federal 

environmental laws impacting the conservation of fish and wildlife. 

In this context, we believe it is important to gather and disclose 

both direct and indirect costs. Moreover, because the legislation 

will require a line item in each monthly billing, customers, including APCO, would have a better understanding of the true cost of 

the resources they are buying. 

My fundamental concern with Western in recent years has revolved around transparency and understanding the basis for rate 

increases that I must pass along to my members and eventually to 

their customers. Western faces many of the same compliance costs 

that my organization has to shoulder, but it is not always clear to 

me or other Western customers how these costs are calculated. A 

paragraph or two in the Federal Register notice does not always reveal the same impact that a line item in a bill would convey. 

Indeed, the proposed legislation would provide valuable insight into 

an important cost driver that has affected Western’s power marketing in recent years, and Arizona Electric Power encourages its 

passage. 

This concludes my testimony. 

I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to appear today, 

and I am happy to answer any questions that Members may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ledger follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK LEDGER, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARIZONA

ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE ON H.R. 1869 

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, on behalf of Arizona Electric Power 

Cooperative, I am appearing today to discuss H.R. 1869, the Environmental Compliance Cost Transparency Act of 2015. As the Chief Executive Officer of a customer 

of the Western Area Power Administration’s (‘‘Western’’) marketing area, I am supportive of the objectives of the legislation and encourage its passage. 

Arizona Electric Power Cooperative (‘‘AEPCO’’) is a not-for-profit wholesale power 

and transmission provider for six Class A cooperative members with service terriVerDate Mar 15 2010 11:18 Oct 28, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\114TH CONGRESS\WATER, POWER & OCEANS\04-20-16\99892.TXT DARLEN
39 

tories in Arizona, California, and New Mexico. Based in Benson, Arizona, we own 

and operate a 605 MW power plant and over 620 miles of transmission lines. We 

are also a power and transmission customer of Western. 

Over the course of a year, we purchase about $2.4 million in energy from Western 

that is generated at Bureau of Reclamation (‘‘Bureau’’) projects. To serve our distribution members and wheel the power supplied by the Bureau projects, we also 

buy transmission service from Western. Over the course of a year, we pay Western 

about $5.5 million for transmission services. They are a significant partner in our 

operations. 

In recent years, AEPCO, like much of the electric utility industry, has faced serious challenges, particularly on the regulatory front, from ever widening compliance 

requirements, to increasingly strident environmental regulations. We face the difficult task of managing mounting cost impacts resulting from these challenges while 

continuing to ensure that our customers have a reliable and affordable electric 

power supply. 

Unlike investor-owned utilities, every cost impact on rural cooperatives or public 

power utilities is passed-on directly to our customers—residents of rural areas who 

are already struggling. Our responsibility, therefore, is to do everything in our 

power to manage these risks and costs. When, several years ago, the railroads doubled our fuel transportation costs, we fought them at the Surface Transportation 

Board and won. When the EPA unexpectedly imposed a Federal implementation 

plan on Regional Haze that would have forced us into bankruptcy, we developed an 

alternative that was $180 M less costly and produced better results. And, when new 

compliance responsibilities required significant operational changes, rather than 

adding new full time employees, we shifted staff and found a way to make those 

changes cost neutral. 

AEPCO has generally succeeded in managing these external threats and controlling costs, with one recent exception. We have had a relationship with one power 

and transmission supplier that goes back more than 50 years. More than just an 

important partner, this supplier is intertwined in our business model because historically we could rely on them, just as many other cooperatives and public power 

utilities do, to help us manage risk and keep costs down. Today, however, we can 

no longer rely on this supplier in the ways we once did, rather they have become 

one of our more significant risks. This power and transmission supplier is the 

Western Area Power Administration. In recent years, we have seen rates for power 

and transmission services charged by Western increase with little correlation to 

market fundamentals. Western is a one of its kind power supplier in the West. Its 

statutory mission is to market and deliver power to customers in Western’s marketing area from a broad fleet of largely paid for hydropower projects. 

Yet, today, Western customers, including AEPCO, face any number of challenges 

in addressing costs. Unlike a traditional power supply counterparty that relies on 

the same market fundamentals that we can observe, we do not have the insight into 

the fundamentals that underlie Western’s operations. For example, we cannot adopt 

hedging or trading strategies to compensate for Western price increases. Our best 

option to address Western price increases is to anticipate when and how prices will 

increase and plan our internal strategies accordingly. 

This approach, however, is limited by the information that Western provides in 

support of its rates. We do not have details on certain trends such as staffing increases at headquarters or adjustments in the use of budget authority. Moreover, 

we also do not have a sense of how operational changes with Western’s sister generating agencies are affecting power supply and associated pricing. While many of the 

dedicated personnel at Western are willing to share anecdotal information on how 

environmental compliance affects hydropower generation, the precise cost break 

down is missing from the public domain. 

H.R. 1869 would help address this informational gap by requiring the disclosure 

of compliance costs with Federal environmental laws impacting the conservation of 

fish and wildlife. In this context we believe it is important to gather and disclose 

both direct and indirect costs. Moreover, because the legislation would require a line 

item in each monthly billing, customers including AEPCO would have a better 

understanding of the true cost of the resource that they are buying. 

My fundamental concern with Western in recent years has revolved around transparency and understanding the basis for rate increases that I must pass along to 

my members and eventually their customers. Western faces many of the same compliance costs that my organization has to shoulder but it is not always clear to me 

or other Western customers how those costs are calculated. A paragraph or two in 

a Federal Register notice does not always reveal the same impact that a line item 

in a bill will convey. Indeed, the proposed legislation would provide valuable insight 

40 

into an important cost driver that has affected Western’s power marketing in recent 

years. 

Before concluding my testimony today, I should note that in the last few months 

Western’s focus does appear to have shifted toward greater transparency. They 

have, for example, developed a page on their Web site called ‘‘The Source.’’ While 

it is a work in progress, it may show promise in providing some of the information 

that we have long been requesting. Western has also indicated that they are assembling background cost information and some of the underlying data that have driven 

rate increases in recent years. These are positive developments that may help us 

understand some of the fundamentals driving the rate increases. The passage of 

H.R. 1869 would provide another important tool in helping us manage costs for our 

customers and we would encourage its passage. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Thank you, Mr. Ledger. And we thank you, 

panel, for your valuable testimony today. At this point we will 

begin our questions of our witnesses. To allow all Members time to 

participate, we will limit questions to 5 minutes. 

If we have further questions we may do a second round, just depending on the time and amount of questions and interest. I now 

recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Iseman and Mr. Hanson, the subcommittee heard a few 

months ago that non-native striped bass predation has a substantial direct impact on native species like salmon and Delta smelt. In 

some parts of California, up to 97 percent of ESA-protected juvenile 

salmon were consumed by striped bass. Yet we have a Federal law 

that has a goal of doubling these non-native predators in 

California. Do you believe that increasing the population of nonnative species that prey on endangered species is counterproductive 

to recovering that species? Mr. Iseman and Dr. Hanson? 

Mr. ISEMAN. Yes. In this case, as we testified, we agree that the 

striped bass is causing predation on endangered species, and we 

think it is appropriate to remove them from the fish doubling goals 

in the CVPIA. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Dr. Hanson? 

Dr. HANSON. And I agree with that position. But just to be clear, 

you cite some numbers with regard to incremental survival, or mortality. And it is difficult. Those mortality rates vary substantially 

from year to year, so it is very difficult to attribute a certain mortality rate to striped bass predation. We know that they are a predator, we know that they consume juvenile Chinook salmon. They 

are an incremental stress on the population, as a whole. And, 

therefore, I agree that doubling the abundance of striped bass 

would be counterproductive to recovery of ESA-listed species. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Does this bill help reverse the counterproductivity at the Federal level? 

Dr. HANSON. This bill would remove the incentive to achieve a 

doubling goal. And, therefore, I think it would shift the priorities 

within the CVPIA with regard to allocation of resources and the 

types of resources that get allocated to improving fishery habitat 

and other conditions. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Mr. Iseman? 

Mr. ISEMAN. Currently, our priorities do focus on trying to 

restore the native fish species, and that is where we are investing 

our resources. As I said, I think it makes sense to remove the 

striped bass from the doubling goals. But I don’t think it will 

41 

significantly change the way that we are investing in recovery 

activities in support of the CVPIA. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Again, back to Mr. Iseman. The Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act, which has a fish doubling goal for both 

non-native striped bass and native ESA-listed salmon, has perpetuated one stressor to salmon and smelt. This bill proposes one 

change to that Act. You suggest making additional changes to that 

Act. 

You testified in support of the intent of the bill, but would the 

Administration support that bill if we made the additional changes 

to that 1992 law that you suggested? 

Mr. ISEMAN. I believe the only change that we suggested was to 

agree with the legislation, which would remove striped bass from 

the doubling goals in the CVPIA. If you wanted to engage in a discussion on broader amendments or changes to the CVPIA, we 

would be willing to have that discussion. We would need to involve 

our departmental leadership, certainly, including Deputy Secretary 

Connor and Commissioner Lopez, as well as other parts of the 

Department. And I think it is appropriate that that conversation 

would need to include many other stakeholders, as well. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK, thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Huffman for questions. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So we are here talking 

about a 26-year-old goal that was in the Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act signed by President Bush in 1992 that refers to 

doubling of all anadromous fish. And by the fact that it did not exclude striped bass, that included the striped bass. 

And Dr. Hanson, it is good to see you again. 

Dr. HANSON. Nice to see you, as well. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I think I agree with the premise of your testimony, which is that if we have these very low salmon populations, 

and we are trying to increase striped bass populations, knowing 

that it is one of many stressors, the predation issue, that that does 

not make any sense. 

Dr. HANSON. Correct. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. But we are having that discussion as if that is 

happening. The working premise of this discussion is that we are 

actually trying to increase striped bass population, when, in fact, 

since the passage of that law in 1992, we have never done a single 

thing to try to increase striped bass population. 

Now, I am happy to have a witness correct me on that, but I 

know that the law originally called for the development of a fishdoubling plan that never happened. I know that still on the books 

we have this standard that says we have a goal of doubling all 

anadromous fish. Yet, I am not aware of a single thing the 

Department of the Interior or any other Federal agency has ever 

done in a program or even a single activity to increase striped bass 

population. 

So, let me start with you, Mr. Iseman. Can you correct me if I 

am wrong about that? 

Mr. ISEMAN. I cannot correct you. I agree with the point, certainly, that recently our activities have focused on enhancing native fish populations, and that some of those may have incidental 

42 

benefits for striped bass. But that certainly has not been our focus 

or our intention—investing in striped bass doubling. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Dr. Hanson, did I miss something? Are there 

Federal programs or activities underway right now that are focused 

on increasing striped bass population? 

Dr. HANSON. There are a couple of activities that have been implemented. There are certainly regulations that have been imposed 

on recreational harvest of striped bass, in part intended to protect 

the population. And specifically—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Those would be state—— 

Dr. HANSON. Those are state regulations. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Right. So this is not—— 

Dr. HANSON. Not at a Federal level. 

Mr. HUFFMAN [continuing]. Federal activity or program, as I 

believe to be the case. So—— 

Dr. HANSON. I think that is true. 

Mr. HUFFMAN [continuing]. It is really an interesting discussion, 

but it is also an enormous strawman, because we are not doing 

anything to increase striped bass. So, my friend, Mr. Gosar, if this 

makes your top 10 list of government dysfunction outrage, it is a 

pretty hollow list, because there is nothing going on. And as much 

as I am glad to be talking about salmon here in this subcommittee, 

it would be great if we could focus on real threats to salmon, instead of fictional ones like increasing striped bass population when, 

in fact, there is nothing like that happening. 

I want to turn, Mr. Iseman, to the issue of Title XVI. And actually, let me start with Mr. Herberg. Thanks for joining us from 

Orange County. I am a big fan of the recycling and advance water 

treatment work you have done there. You mentioned 21 active authorized projects that are waiting for their Federal cost share. Do 

you have any approximation of how much water could be generated 

if we would step in and provide that cost share? 

Mr. HERBERG. For those 21 projects? I think that might be a 

better question for Mr. Iseman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I am happy to direct it to Mr. Iseman, so thanks. 

Mr. ISEMAN. I am sorry, I don’t actually have that number with 

me. We did look at that list, but I don’t recall that number. I would 

be happy to provide that number for the record. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. OK. Fair to say that we are probably looking at 

well over 100,000 acre-feet of water, maybe in the multiple 

hundred thousands of acre-feet? 

Mr. ISEMAN. Yes, I think that is fair to say, but as I said, I would 

like to check and confirm. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. There has been some criticism by the Chair and 

others of this program for the lack of beneficiary pays, a sort of fiscal concern that has been levied at it. But my understanding is 

that 75 percent or greater of the cost of every one of these projects 

is borne by the locals. Is that correct? 

Mr. ISEMAN. Yes, Representative Huffman. As I mentioned, at 

least 75 percent would be borne by the local participants. And in 

fact, our cost share has actually exceeded that. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I think that is important, because if we are concerned about beneficiary pays, that is a pretty strong beneficiary 

pay component, much greater than we see for the surface storage 

43 

and other traditional Federal water projects that my colleagues 

across the aisle consistently support. 

In the case of those projects, we are continually looking to redefine public benefits, which creates a subsidy that does not have a 

local cost share. We are giving them generous repayment terms 

over long periods of time at zero percent interest, and we are forgiving those repayments when there is no ability to pay. None of 

that applies in Title XVI. 

So, I think it is important to note, if beneficiary pays and fiscal 

responsibility is a concern, this program is a shining light. And I 

appreciate your testimony. 

Dr. FLEMING. The Ranking Member yields. Dr. Gosar is 

recognized. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Ledger, your testimony refers to the associated risk and lack 

of transparency from Western. How would H.R. 1869 help customers like Arizona Electric Power Cooperative? 

Mr. LEDGER. As I said in testimony, Western’s costs are unique 

in the industry. They have to supply power and transmission services at cost. But they are driven by costs that sometimes are not 

transparent. 

So, whereas in the market we are often able to ascertain the direction of costs based on fuel prices, for example, the costs at 

Western are very unique. So, it is very difficult for us to sort of unpack the components of those costs. And as cost increases occur, we 

are sometimes befuddled by the origins of those cost increases. 

Dr. GOSAR. Are the Endangered Species Act compliance costs one 

of the top concerns for your organization? 

Mr. LEDGER. It is among the top concerns. We, as a utility that 

operates transmission throughout the state, from time to time, as 

we site new transmission or we are doing O&M work, we have to 

be very attentive to the ESA. Obviously, we are concerned about 

the ESA impacts, the analysis that is done and the management 

of the hydropower projects that we are customers of, particularly 

the Crist project. But it is among a sort of a myriad of compliance 

requirements that we have and we operate every day. So it is certainly very important to us. 

Dr. GOSAR. My next question is to both you and Mr. Downen. 

Much of the West has experienced multiple consecutive years of 

drought, and oftentimes releases from the dams for ESA-listed 

species and other environmental mandates further constrains and 

already-dwindling supply of water. This bill mandates that the 

Federal power agencies report costs due to spills, fish flows, and 

other actions that cause loss of hydropower generation. 

When the generation is lost, replacement power has to be found. 

That replacement power is almost always more expensive and/or 

fossil fuel based. Are these costs borne by the utilities you 

represent? 

Mr. DOWNEN. Representative, yes they are, is the short answer. 

All Bonneville Power costs are recouped by their ratepayers, and/ 

or paid for. 

Mr. LEDGER. I would repeat that. 

Dr. GOSAR. And are these fixed costs? Do they fluctuate from 

year to year? 

44 

Mr. DOWNEN. Yes, they do, in large part due to these fish and 

wildlife costs. 

Mr. LEDGER. Yes, they can be volatile. 

Dr. GOSAR. Now, both Mr. Ledger and Mr. Downen, some claims 

here have been made that your rates are subsidized, and that these 

so-called costs should be listed on customers’ bills. What are your 

thoughts on that claim? 

Mr. Downen first, and then Mr. Ledger. 

Mr. DOWNEN. Well, subsidization, we don’t see that at all. In 

fact, all the costs that Bonneville has are paid for by their ratepayers. So, I suppose that if we want to go back historically during 

the work project era over 75 years ago, the dams were built in assistance with the Federal Government. But those have long been 

paid out by the region’s ratepayers. So, every cost borne by 

Bonneville is actually borne by that end-of-line ratepayer. 

Dr. GOSAR. Would you agree with that, Mr. Ledger? 

Mr. LEDGER. I would. 

Dr. GOSAR. Mr. Downen, you testified—and I quote—‘‘In the case 

of BPA, the fish and wildlife costs in the rates the agency charges 

for wholesale power are inordinately large. At $757 million last 

year alone, this single category of costs accounted for about 

30 percent of the BPA power costs charged in rates. The total BPA 

ratepayer cost for fish and wildlife since 1980 is more than 

$15 billion. That does not count the amounts contributed through 

other Federal, state, and local entities.’’ 

These costs are passed down to the consumer-owned electric 

utilities you represent, correct? 

Mr. DOWNEN. That is correct. 

Dr. GOSAR. Now, while I personally disagree, some people in this 

room may think these costs are not high enough, and that we 

should be spending more on fish and wildlife at taxpayer expense. 

My bill does not repeal a single environmental law or take a position on the amount of money being spent. All it says is customers 

have a right to know these costs. Is there anything wrong with allowing those paying the bills to better understand what they are 

actually paying for? 

Mr. DOWNEN. No, Representative. I don’t think there is anything 

wrong with that. In fact, as I had mentioned, the ratepayers of the 

Northwest are proud of the investment made in fish and wildlife 

mitigation. However, we believe that greater transparency would 

lead to better management of the resources and longer partnership 

between fish and wildlife mitigation and the ratepayers that cover 

those costs. 

Dr. GOSAR. Mr. Downen, I thank you so very much. I yield my 

time. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields. The Chair recognizes Mr. 

Lowenthal. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to our 

witnesses for being here today, and the Chair for including 

H.R. 2993 in this hearing, which I believe is vital legislation to 

stimulate new water recycling projects in the West. 

Let me reiterate a few of the many reasons why water recycling 

is so important to California and the arid states of the West. 

45 

First, recycling is a secure and resilient source supply. This is a 

time of changing and more variable precipitation patterns: hotter 

and dryer years, as we know, and reduced snow packs. On the 

other hand, water from reclamation and recycling is not, and I repeat not, subject to supply disruptions in the ways that imported 

waters can be. 

Recyclable water is one of—and I think this is critical across the 

aisle—is one of the cheapest ways to increase water supplies, as 

was recently found by the non-partisan Congressional Research 

Service. It is important for our side of the aisle, also. 

Finally, recycling water can be done with minimal ecological impact, compared to increasing other kinds of supply sources. So, I 

fully support water recycling as a key piece of the water solutions 

in the West. 

I also want to take this opportunity to really highlight the true 

leadership work that my local communities have accomplished. It 

has been said, but I want to repeat the Orange County Sanitation 

District, in particular with the Orange County Water District, have 

built the largest potable water reuse facility in the world—in the 

world. The system now produces 100 million gallons per day of 

local drought-proof water supply, which is enough water for 

850,000 people. 

Other nations come all the way to Orange County to understand 

the engineering feat accomplished in Southern California. And just 

to the north, Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia is working to increase storm water capture in the San Gabriel River, and to complete a recycled water purification plant that will reduce imported 

water demands by 1.9 billion gallons per year. 

These investments have helped to protect my district in Southern 

California from drought and import dependence, and I have set up 

an internationally-recognized standard for sustainable water use. 

But these infrastructure achievements took time, planning, and 

lots of capital, and many times Federal Government support. 

Mr. Herberg, my question to you is, under bill H.R. 2933, what 

is your understanding of how the new process would look for authorizing and funding new water recycling project constructions 

that have a Federal cost share? What would happen to the existing 

authorized projects? 

Mr. HERBERG. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. As I 

understand it, there would be a solicitation for projects, and agencies, such as the Sanitation District would submit our projects for 

consideration by the Secretary. Those projects would be considered 

alongside the projects currently residing in the backlog, and those 

projects would be evaluated based on the criteria that are contained in H.R. 2993. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. How would this bill affect your future plans? Do 

you think it would stimulate more water recycling projects in the 

future and in the West? 

Mr. HERBERG. I think it has the potential to do that because the 

bill, as we read it right now, would accelerate the approval process, 

and there would be more certainty as to the ability to get grant 

funding. That grant funding is important in reducing the cost per 

acre-foot of recycled water, so that it would not take as long as the 

46 

current process. I think it would give us more certainty, going 

forward. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. I want to thank you, and I want to thank the 

Chairman for holding this hearing on H.R. 2993, and I hope to see 

our committee act on a bipartisan manner in a markup on this bill 

soon. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. Mr. LaMalfa is 

recognized. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of issues are 

really important for my area, as well. 

Much money is being spent on the CVPIA to improve conditions 

for salmon. One such plan that is even touted was, like, a 

$50 million idea to truck salmon around the Shasta Dam, put 

them above in Lake Shasta, which is something I think even 

environmental groups have said would not be very successful. 

We are seeing that there was a threat earlier this year to not 

allow diversions from the Sacramento River to senior contractors 

until June 1 if the Lake did not reach a particular level. Then they 

started dumping water out of the lake to keep it from reaching the 

level so that farmers would not receive diversions until June 1. 

And if anybody knows anything about the spring and when you 

plant, that is an extreme hardship. 

Now, the lake reached the level they needed to, so the water will 

be delivered. But there was a threat that it may not happen. So, 

bringing up an earlier subject, under CVPIA, again, it is tasked 

with doubling the population of striped bass. How much is being 

done on that, I am not sure how much our striped bass deniers 

want to dispute that, but there is a very robust population of them, 

and they have devastating effects on the salmon population that we 

are trying to save. 

So, any effort that would continue to want to double that striped 

bass population, whether it is being expended, or whether the government is following its law or not, we have a problem as is. 

So what I would like to ask is, Mr. Iseman, what actions are 

Federal agencies already taking to address the predation of salmon 

in the river, whether it is striped bass or other means? What 

proactive actions are being done to do that? 

Mr. ISEMAN. Well, we know, under the CVPIA and the biological 

opinions, that we are taking a suite of actions to try to recover the 

fish species that includes dealing with predation, but also other activities to promote habitat and recovery of the species. 

If you would like more information about specific investments in 

dealing with predation on endangered species, we could provide 

that for the record. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, just off the top of your head on predation 

itself, can you give an instance of efforts that are being used on the 

predation of the salmon? 

Mr. ISEMAN. Well, as I said, I would prefer to consult with our 

biologists in the field and get you a more complete and accurate response on our—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. So nothing for the committee today. All right. 

Mr. ISEMAN. Sorry. 

47 

Mr. LAMALFA. What additional actions that are not being done 

that you know of could be done on the predation? 

Mr. ISEMAN. Again, I would like to consult with our biologists, I 

apologize. I am just not the expert on non-native predation. 

Mr. LAMALFA. All right. Very good. Do you think that fishing 

regulations, if they were allowed to be updated in order to increase 

the take, removing or opening up the number of striped bass that 

can be taken by fishermen, would that be a positive component of 

the overall need? 

Mr. ISEMAN. Well, we know, as I said, predation is a significant 

issue. Fishing regulations are decided by the state—— 

Mr. COSTA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LAMALFA. Certainly. 

Mr. COSTA. To your point, as was noted earlier, there is a state 

regulation on the limits of catch, as you are noting. But, for the 

record, I think we should state that the catch is two fish per day, 

and the length is 18 inches. That is the current limit. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Costa. That is kind of where 

I am going with that, is that maybe that catch number should be 

larger, and the type of fish you could take, the size should be expanded as well, if we want to make significant gains. So I appreciate that. 

Switching gears to a different topic under CVPIA. Western 

Power, their administrator testified just a few weeks ago that 

environmental costs by the CVPIA have driven the power prices to 

twice the market rate of approximately $30 per megawatt. 

Constituents that I have in Reading, Gridley-Biggs, and other contractors are paid approximately $60 per megawatt, and yet have 

little information, which alludes to Mr. Gosar’s bill about how revenues are used, or even less input on the decisionmaking process. 

So, over a billion dollars spent, and I better hurry here. 

Mr. Downen, do you think these purchasers of Federal power 

have made clear to them what the value is in knowing these costs? 

Or should they be in on knowing what these costs are? 

Mr. DOWNEN. I think any transparency creates a lot better discussion in the Northwest or any region of the country. So, yes, I 

think that these costs should be put on the PMA power bill. 

Mr. LAMALFA. My understanding is that these contracts could 

run out fairly soon, and they can see other contractors to get this 

power from, leaving the CVP. 

Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. Will we have a second round a 

little bit later? 

Dr. FLEMING. We do not have a plan for a second round. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. 

Dr. FLEMING. Do you have a quick question you want to go ahead 

and dispatch, or we will go to Mr. Costa next, but I want to make 

sure you are—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. I appreciate the indulgence on that. 

Dr. FLEMING. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So, as it is, the contractors who CVPIA—they 

receive little more than just a bill. If there was greater transparency—do you think the ratepayers receive enough information, 

as is? 

48 

Mr. DOWNEN. I think that this additional information would be 

very useful, because per your earlier comment, the ratepayers, the 

utilities in the Pacific Northwest currently have long-term contracts that are 20-year contracts but 12 years from expiring. And 

at that time, yes, they can leave Bonneville Power to have their 

electricity loads met in other ways. If we continue to see these cost 

trajectories with fish and wildlife, utilities could leave Bonneville 

Power and that would essentially negate a fish program, because 

without ratepayers to pay for the fish program, it is very difficult 

for Bonneville to find funding. So, yes—— 

Mr. LAMALFA. So, perhaps they would feel a little bit better 

about the process if it was disclosed and maybe continue to be 

contractors in the future. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I 

appreciate the extra time. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Mr. Costa is recognized. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member. I want to confine my comments and questions to the Save 

our Salmon Act, H.R. 4582, that Congressman Denham has introduced, and that Congressman Garamendi and I are co-sponsors of. 

And my comments or questions will be confined to Dr. Hanson and 

to Mr. Iseman. 

As we deal with the salmon recovery, Salmonid Recovery Act, 

that was noted by Mr. Iseman, that NOAA has been attempting to 

implement with the CVPIA program, what are the percentage of 

numbers that you used for native and non-native species within the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta? How much are native, how much 

are non-native? Dr. Hanson? 

Dr. HANSON. In terms of abundance, I would say there are probably 80 percent non-native species and about 20 percent native 

species, currently. 

Mr. COSTA. Would you agree with that number, Mr. Iseman? 

Mr. ISEMAN. I don’t have any reason to disagree, and I could 

check with our biologists in the field for the record. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. When we talk about the Save our Salmon 

Act and the predator problem that we are dealing with, and in essence, acknowledging that 80 percent of the fisheries there are nonnative to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River systems and that 20 

percent are native, this makes a very difficult challenge that we 

face. 

Richard Pool with the Salmon Fisheries Federation testified last 

month before the committee that there had been 31 pilot programs 

proposed. I believe that was the number. And none of them have 

been implemented. Dr. Hanson, Mr. Iseman, can you indicate why 

none of these predator control programs, as part of the recovery 

plan, have been implemented? Mr. Iseman? 

Mr. ISEMAN. Representative Costa, I was trying to address this 

question earlier. I am not aware of the specific information—— 

Mr. COSTA. Well, become aware of it and provide the information 

to us—— 

Mr. ISEMAN. Yes, we will provide the information for the record. 

Mr. COSTA [continuing]. Because I want to enter it for the record. 

I have here the winter-run Chinook salmon stressor matrix that is 

part of the recovery plan that was prepared by NOAA in July 2014. 

This is part of the recovery plan. And it states in here the various 

49 

impacts of trying to deal with native species and recovery. It lists 

them very high or high, in terms of the overall stressor category. 

And high on the list are loss of habitat, predation, predation, loss 

of habitat, water quality, water temperature, loss of spawning 

availability, water temperature, harvesting and angling impacts. 

Although it is an impact, and we have always acknowledged it as 

an impact, it is 24th on the list before you get to the level of entrainment by the Delta pumps, either the Central Valley or the 

State Water Projects. 

So, it is amazing that we have a recovery plan, but all the other 

impacts as a part of recovery plan are not being done. We are using 

one management tool, as I was told yesterday by the head of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and that is the pumping issue that is a 

problem. 

Do you think politics might be a problem with this, Dr. Hanson? 

You are familiar with legislation that was introduced in the State 

legislature to increase the catch, and that did not go anywhere. 

Dr. HANSON. That did not go anywhere. We have had a number 

of discussions with Dick Pool and others regarding these various 

actions, and there is support for these actions. But I do believe 

there are politics—— 

Mr. COSTA. Why do you think we could implement either our politics—and, Dr. Iseman, we have predator programs on the 

Columbia River that have been implemented, but not on the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin River. I am at a loss to figure out why. 

When you are responding to us, could you do that comparative 

analogy? 

Mr. ISEMAN. Absolutely, we will provide that information. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. It is very frustrating, because we look at trying 

to do all the tools in our management toolbox during devastating 

drought conditions that have affected the San Joaquin Valley, 

ground zero, and yet we continue to play politics with this, in 

terms of our regional approach. 

My time is running out, but Peter Moyle, noted biologist, has indicated that, in his view, as a result of climate change, which we 

have not even talked about, that a lot of the native species in this 

area, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River, will probably go extinct 

in the next 20 to 40 years. Do you agree with that, Dr. Hanson? 

Dr. HANSON. I agree with Dr. Moyle, that climate change is a 

huge issue facing salmonid populations in the Central Valley. I do 

not have an opinion with regard to the specific time frame. But 

Chinook salmon in the Central Valley are on the southern edge of 

their geographic distribution. Hydrology, drought, and water temperature are all major drivers of population success. And to the 

extent that climate change, over time, increases seasonal water 

temperature, that will be devastating to Chinook salmon spawning. 

So, I agree with the philosophy, I just don’t know specifically 

about the time frame. 

Mr. COSTA. Which begs the question, what are we trying to do 

here in a recovery plan, it seems to me, in terms of logic? 

My time has expired, but just a note for the subcommittee, because Congressman LaMalfa and I get into the weeds in this kind 

of stuff, along with my other California colleagues. Last year, we 

stopped the movement of water because of 1 degree of temperature 

50 

on the Sacramento River between 56 and 57 degrees of water temperature in which we had to curtail our ability to move water. 

So, it begs the question. How do we make this thing work, given 

the constrictions that we are facing in trying to provide water for 

an entire state? 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Newhouse is 

recognized. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 

being here this morning and discussing these three important bills. 

I want to focus first on H.R. 1869, which I think is a good step in 

transparency. 

I have heard some people claim that this potentially could, as it 

requires reporting of costs, be considered an attack on the 

Endangered Species Act and would question also why other costs 

are not included in this bill. 

So, to Mr. Downen, could you respond to those claims? Are they 

valid, in your opinion? 

Mr. DOWNEN. No, we do not see this as an attack on the 

Endangered Species Act. We realize that is a Federal law, and the 

biological opinion on the Columbia River meets the requirements of 

that law and is a federally-created plan for mitigating for the dams 

there. So, there is no effort to shirk any duties that we have regionally to comply with the ESA. 

I apologize, your second question? 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Well, I just want to let you expound, I think I 

heard you say that people in the Northwest take some ownership 

or pride in the fact that we are doing some good things. 

Mr. DOWNEN. Yes. The Northwest does take some pride and ownership in that. And I believe that, by exhibiting this on the 

Bonneville Power bill, there would be greater discussion as to what 

is actually being accomplished for those ratepayer dollars, and 

there would be greater efficiencies made if that conversation was 

held a little more broadly across the region. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. So, if people actually knew what their money is 

being used for. Some may also argue that a utility and its ratepayers could find this information without this kind of a requirement. Is that the case? And do some utilities maybe not even 

possess this information? 

Mr. DOWNEN. There is currently no specific codified process in 

place that allows utilities to find this information out. Bonneville, 

to its credit, does like to work with its customers to help its customers be as informed as possible. 

However, we do believe that this bill would be beneficial to the 

Northwest in codifying this, as well as our neighbors to the south 

and elsewhere who do not perhaps have that same opportunity to 

work with their PMAs and find out this information in a more 

transparent manner. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. OK. And then just quickly, Mr. Downen, public 

utilities face a certain amount of litigation from environmental 

groups. But I would think that most of the public at this point, 

maybe because they do not see what they are paying for, is unaware of the work that is being done by public utilities on fish 

recovery. 

51 

I don’t know if that is a fair statement in your estimation, but 

could you talk a little bit about some of that work, some of the survival rates of some of the fish species in Central Washington, and 

maybe highlight ways in which the BPA and the mid-Columbia 

PUDs are actually pretty good stewards of our natural resources? 

Mr. DOWNEN. Thank you, Congressman. The utilities in the 

Northwest make a huge investment in that federally-designed plan 

that I was talking about, and are good stewards of the river and 

the region. I cannot give you, off the top of my head, survival rates 

of passage, both for juveniles and adults at each project along the 

Columbia and Snake Rivers, but the biological opinion requires 

those to be in the high 90 percent. And to date, those are being met 

or close to being met at all of the projects. 

There are miles of stream that have been improved over the last 

several years for fish. There are spawning grounds that have been 

improved. A number of things are being done by the state and 

Federal agencies, but funded by the utilities in the Northwest. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Good. Thank you very much. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield some of my 

time to Mr. LaMalfa, if that is possible. 

Thank you, Mr. Downen. 

Mr. DOWNEN. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I will go ahead and yield the time back. Mr. 

Denham is here. I think he would like to probably weigh in pretty 

well on his bill, so I will defer back. Thank you, Mr. Newhouse. 

Dr. FLEMING. Yes, well, we are out of time for Mr. Newhouse. So 

the Chair now recognizes Mr. Denham. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of quick 

follow-up questions. 

Mr. Iseman, in your written testimony you indicated a few other 

changes to the CVPIA that would be necessary to accomplish my 

bill’s intent to remove the striped bass doubling goal. Can you 

please explain? 

Mr. ISEMAN. Yes. We believe there are other references to anadromous fish throughout the bill that we would want to correct. We 

think these are minor technical corrections, and we would be happy 

to work with you and your staff to help provide those proposed 

changes. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Is it your understanding that the 

Administration would support the bill if we made the additional 

suggested changes that you have offered in your written testimony? 

Mr. ISEMAN. Yes, that is correct. We would support the bill if we 

made those additional changes. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. 

Again, we thank the panel for your participation, your valuable 

testimony, and for answering questions. There could be follow-up 

questions in writing. We would ask that you respond within 10 

days. 

If there is no further business before this subcommittee, we are 

hereby adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

52 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID GUY, PRESIDENT, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER

ASSOCIATION ON H.R. 4582 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the subcommittee, my name is David Guy. I am the president of the Northern California 

Water Association (NCWA), representing the water suppliers, rural communities 

and landowners that beneficially use both surface and groundwater water resources 

in the Sacramento Valley. The precious water resources in this region are managed 

for multiple beneficial uses, including domestic deliveries to cities and rural communities and supplying water for farms and habitat for the magnificent fish and birds 

that grace the region. Nowhere are the natural and human resources more closely 

integrated and cared for than the Sacramento Valley. 

For the past several decades, water resources managers, conservation organizations and Federal and state agencies have been collaborating and working hard to 

advance both environmental and economic stewardship across this special region. 

This includes an aggressive implementation program to recover endangered and 

threatened salmon and steelhead, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) Recovery Plan and the Sacramento Valley Salmon Recovery 

Program. 

We appreciate the opportunity today to submit this testimony in support of the 

Save Our Salmon Act (H.R. 4582) as an important incremental step forward for the 

recovery of salmon and steelhead. From our perspective, removing striped bass from 

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act’s (CVPIA) doubling goal is important 

for several reasons. The Save Our Salmon Act will: 

1. Acknowledge that predation is a serious problem affecting endangered salmon 

and steelhead. It is well known and documented that striped bass, which are 

not native to California, prey on native salmon and steelhead and thus pose 

a serious threat to their existence and survival. Both the NOAA Fisheries and 

independent research has shown that predation from non-native species, such 

as the striped bass, is a significant stressor on salmon and steelhead populations and threatens the existence of these species. It is therefore important 

that Federal policy reflect this dynamic and not encourage the proliferation 

of these introduced predators. 

2. Make the Federal fish doubling objective more consistent with the state of 

California’s salmon doubling objective in Water Code § 6902. 

3. Help protect the significant investments that will continue to be made to 

recover endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead in the Sacramento 

Valley. 

To be sure, predation is not the only stressor on salmon and steelhead and this 

bill will not recover salmon as a stand-alone measure. The Save Our Salmon Act, 

however, is an important incremental step forward to address one of the obvious 

stressors on salmon and steelhead during various life-stages. Until significant 

progress is made to address predation issues, we will not realize the full benefit of 

upstream actions that have and will continue to be taken in the Sacramento Valley 

as part of the Sacramento Valley Salmon Recovery Program. 

The CVIPA’s requirement to protect both introduced predatory striped bass and 

federally-protected native salmonids is a contradiction of statute and science. 

Recovery efforts for endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead will continue 

to be undermined by contradictory and counterproductive striped bass recovery 

objectives as long as the Federal agencies are required to support a top-level nonnative predator that is devastating the species the Federal Government is obligated 

by law to protect. 

We respectfully urge the subcommittee’s favorable consideration of this important 

bill to end the contradictory doubling goal for striped bass. Thank you for the 

opportunity to provide our perspective through this testimony. 

53 

LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR H.R. 4582 

ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES

April 6, 2016 

Hon. Jeff Denham 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: ACWA Support for H.R. 4582, ‘‘Save Our Salmon Act’’ 

Dear Representative Denham: 

The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) is pleased to support your 

legislation, H.R. 4582, the ‘‘Save Our Salmon Act.’’ ACWA appreciates your leadership on this issue. As you know, ACWA’s 430 public water agency members supply 

over 90 percent of the water delivered in California for residential, agricultural, and 

municipal uses. 

H.R. 4582 eliminates the doubling requirement established by the Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA) for striped bass, a known predator fish 

of threatened and endangered salmon and steelhead. By eliminating the doubling 

requirement for striped bass, federal policy will no longer spend money on both fish 

that need to be saved and fish that want to eat them. 

Again, ACWA is pleased to provide support for H.R. 4582 and we look forward 

to working with you to secure its passage. 

Sincerely, 

DAVID L. REYNOLDS, 

Director of Federal Relations. 

THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

April 5, 2016 

Hon. Jeff Denham 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Representative Denham: 

Metropolitan is pleased to support H.R. 4582, the Save our Salmon Act of 2016 

which would exclude striped bass from the anadromous fish doubling requirement 

in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA). This legislation 

helps advance California’s co-equal goals of improving water supply reliability and 

ecosystem restoration and is consistent with our Board’s previous policy directive to 

reduce stressors impacting listed species in the Delta in accordance with 

Metropolitan’s Delta Action Plan. 

Metropolitan has long advocated for legislative policies to reduce predation among 

the many stressors harming California’s native and endangered species, including 

helping to advance state legislation, AB 2336, in 2010 by then Assembly Member 

Jean Fuller. 

The striped bass in the Bay-Delta region is a non-native species and a major predator of several listed species in the Delta and Delta watershed, including salmon 

and Delta smelt. Predator control and effective reduction will help protect these species and achieve significant conservation objectives within the scope of California 

WaterFix and California EcoRestore objectives. 

Removing striped bass from the anadromous fish doubling goal in the Central 

Valley Improvement Act of 1992 would also remove from Federal law a goal that 

is inconsistent with the Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered 

Species Act, which aim to take all conservation measures to recover listed species 

to the point they can be de-listed. 

54 

Metropolitan, along with other Delta water stakeholders, believes the current requirement for doubling this predator could lead to the extinction or extirpation of 

listed prey species. If striped bass populations were doubled in the Delta, it could 

lead to additional pumping restrictions for the State Water Project and Central 

Valley Project as listed prey species further decline, further reducing water supply 

reliability for urban and agricultural water providers. 

It is our hope that H.R. 4582 will move expeditiously through the 114th Congress 

and be enacted into law this year. 

Sincerely, 

JEFFREY KIGHTLINGER, 

General Manager. 

MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT

& TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT

March 9, 2016 

Hon. Jeff Denham 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: Support for H.R. 4582, the Save Our Salmon Act of 2016 

Dear Representative Denham: 

The Modesto Irrigation District (MID) and Turlock Irrigation District (TID) support your newly introduced H.R. 4582, the Save Our Salmon Act of 2016. Predation 

by striped bass and other non-native fish is causing a significant decline in the 

number of native salmon migrating from the Tuolumne River, and we appreciate 

your continued efforts to identify common-sense solutions to this problem. 

Though MID and TID are not involved in the Central Valley Project, we support 

your efforts to remove the doubling requirement for striped bass from the Central 

Valley Project Improvement Act. H.R. 4582 will bring greater awareness of the impact of predation on native salmon evident throughout California. This is critical to 

addressing—and hopefully reversing—the ongoing salmon decline in the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as well as the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. 

MID and TID are currently in the process of relicensing the Don Pedro Project 

with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Through the relicensing 

process, we have conducted 33 studies to provide an accurate representation of the 

current condition of the reservoir and the lower Tuolumne River. One study to note 

is our 2012 predation study, which FERC required us to perform in order to evaluate the impact that predation by non-native fish is having on the migration of 

salmon from the lower Tuolumne River. This study determined that more than 90% 

of the out-migrating smolts were consumed by non-native largemouth, smallmouth 

and striped bass prior to reaching the San Joaquin River. MID and TID continue 

to advocate for solutions that rationally address the proven threat of predation. 

Again, we strongly support H.R. 4582, and appreciate your ongoing efforts to curb 

the effects of predation on the salmon population. We look forward to working with 

you and your staff on this legislation. 

Cordially, 

GREG SALYER, INT. GENERAL

MANAGER, 

CASEY HASHIMOTO, GENERAL

MANAGER, 

Modesto Irrigation District. Turlock Irrigation District. 

55 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION

March 31, 2016 

Hon. Jeff Denham 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: Support for the Save Our Salmon Act (H.R. 4582) 

Dear Representative Denham: 

The Northern California Water Association (NCWA) would like to express its support for the Save Our Salmon Act (H.R. 4582). Water suppliers, conservation organizations, and federal, state and local governments have invested millions of dollars 

into the recovery of endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead in the 

Sacramento River basin and we will continue to advance the Sacramento Valley 

Salmon Recovery Program. By removing the Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act’s (CVPIA) doubling goal for striped bass, the Save Our Salmon Act will help ensure that investments made to recover endangered and threatened salmon and 

steelhead in the Sacramento River basin are not undermined by contradictory and 

counterproductive striped bass recovery objectives. 

Striped bass, which are not native to California, prey on native salmon and 

steelhead and pose a serious threat to their survival. Both the National Marine 

Fisheries Service and independent research has shown that predation from nonnative species such as the striped bass is not only a significant stressor on salmon 

and steelhead populations but also a threat to the existence of the species. Until 

significant progress is made to address predation issues, many benefits of upstream 

actions, such as those taken by NCWA, Sacramento Valley water suppliers and conservation organizations. 

Removing striped bass from the CVPIA’s doubling goal will also make the federal 

fish doubling objective more consistent with the State of California’s salmonid 

doubling objective in Water Code section 6902. 

The CVIPA’s requirement to protect both introduced predatory striped bass and 

federally-protected native salmonids is a contradiction of statute and science. 

Recovery efforts for endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead will continue 

to be hindered so long as the federal government is required to support a top-level 

non-native predator that is devastating the very species the federal government is 

obligated by law to protect. 

Predation is not the only stressor on salmon, but the Save Our Salmon Act is an 

important step toward addressing the serious predation problem affecting important 

native anadromous fish populations in the Sacramento River basin. We appreciate 

your efforts to end the arbitrary doubling goal for striped bass and will continue to 

express our support for this important legislation. 

Sincerely yours, 

DAVID J. GUY, 

President. 

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

& SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT

February 29, 2016 

Hon. Jeff Denham 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: Save Our Salmon Act 

Dear Representative Denham: 

Our agencies commend you for the introduction of the Save Our Salmon Act of 

2016, which provides necessary and responsible relief from illogical goals for striped 

bass populations in California. You have our full support in your effort to remove 

the doubling requirement for striped bass contained in the Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act of 1992. 

56 

As H.R. 4582 states, the CVPIA mandated doubling the population of all anadromous fish as part of an effort to protect fish. That may have made sense in 1992, 

but certainly does not today. The CVPIA is not supported by the science that has 

been conducted that clearly shows striped bass to be a voracious predator and a 

prime contributor to the decline of endangered salmon and steelhead populations in 

California. In fact, a study on the Tuolumne River indicated that striped bass eat 

more than 90% of young salmon and steelhead before they can make their way to 

the Pacific Ocean. 

We also agree with you that the CVPIA has required millions of acre-feet of water 

to be wastefully sent down Central Valley rivers to the ocean. By itself, more water 

is not the solution to helping endangered fish populations. Efforts to reduce 

predation and restore spawning habitat are equally vital. 

Finally, during a time of serious drought in California, we join with other agencies 

in support of sensible water management policies that balance the needs of 

agriculture, families and environmental needs. 

We applaud your consistent efforts to combat predation that devastates salmon 

and steelhead populations as well as your ideas to responsibly manage California’s 

water system. 

Please let us know what else we can do to assist you. 

Respectfully, 

STEVE KNELL, PETER RIETKERK, 

Oakdale Irrigation District. South San Joaquin Irrigation 

District. 

April 11, 2016 

Hon. Jeff Denham 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Representative Denham: 

We are writing to inform you of our collective support for your bill, H.R. 4582, 

the Save Our Salmon Act. We believe your bill represents much-needed common 

sense reform to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). 

As you know, the enactment of CVPIA in 1992 set a goal of doubling the number 

of striped bass, a non-native species that, ironically, feeds on endangered listed species. This predation is one of the primary stressors that negatively affects the effort 

to recover endangered Chinook salmon and Delta Smelt. Additionally, regulatory actions associated with this doubling mandate and the desire to ‘‘save’’ other Delta 

species has resulted in the startling and absurd mismanagement of California’s 

water supply at a time when project operators should be maximizing water deliveries to enable the state to recover from the past three years of drought. Therefore, 

as you rightfully stated in your press release, ‘‘We must stop the crazy cycle of 

spending money on both the fish we want to save and the fish that kill them.’’ 

We appreciate your bipartisan efforts to bring this issue to light and look forward 

to working with you to move the legislation through the Congress. 

Sincerely, 

THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, GEN. 

MANAGER, 

STEVE CHEDESTER, GENERAL

MANAGER, 

Westlands Water District. SJR Exchange Contractors. 

CURTIS CREEL, GENERAL MANAGER, DAVE ORTH, GENERAL MANAGER, 

Kern County Water Agency. Friant North Authority. 

57 

JASON PELTIER, EXEC. DIRECTOR, JASON PHILLIPS, CEO, 

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water 

Authority. 

Friant Water Authority. 

DAN VINK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

South Valley Water Association. 

TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL AUTHORITY

March 8, 2016 

Hon. Jeff Denham 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: Tehama Colusa Canal Authority for H.R. 4582—The Save Our Salmon Act 

Dear Representative Denham: 

On behalf of the Tehama Colusa Canal Authority (TCCA), I wish to report the 

unanimous vote of my Board of Directors in support of your recent legislation, 

H.R. 4582—The Save Our Salmon Act. We applaud your efforts to pursue this simple, straightforward, but desperately needed, common sense reform to the Central 

Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). 

The continued statutory mandate in the CVPIA to set a goal of doubling the number of striped bass, a non-native, predator fish species, that feeds on listed fish 

species, and is one of the primary stressors that is negatively impacting California’s 

effort to recover endangered populations of Chinook salmon and Delta smelt, is an 

exercise in the absurd. Regulatory actions associated with recovering these endangered species have crippled the effective management of our water supplies in 

California. Yet, unbelievably, we continue to retain a legal requirement to increase 

their numbers. This irrational policy is the equivalent of ‘‘trying to fix a leaky roof 

by punching more holes in it.’’ 

The TCCA greatly appreciates your efforts to reform this outdated and misguided 

policy. Also, we greatly applaud your bipartisan approach to effectuate this reform, 

and likewise thank your cosponsors: Congressman Costa, Congressman Garamendi, 

and Congressman McClintock. In conclusion, TCCA again reiterates its unwavering 

support of H.R. 4582—The Save Our Salmon Act. 

Sincerely, 

JEFFREY P. SUTTON, 

General Manager. 

Æ