U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80-968 PS 2003

H.R. 4910 and H.R. 5123

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

July 25, 2002

Serial No. 107-146

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Tim Holden, Pennsylvania

Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff

Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman

ADAM SMITH, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member

Richard W. Pombo, California

George Radanovich, California

Greg Walden, Oregon,

Vice Chairman

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

George Miller, California

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on July 25, 2002 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Bono, Hon. Mary, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 17

Prepared statement on H.R. 5123 ........................................................... 19

Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 10

Prepared statement on H.R. 4910 and H.R. 5123 ................................. 11

Hunter, Hon. Duncan L., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 12

Prepared statement on H.R. 5123 ........................................................... 15

Stenholm, Hon. Charles W., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Texas, ......................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement on H.R. 4910 ........................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses:

Carter, John P., General Counsel, Imperial Irrigation District ................... 37

Prepared statement on H.R. 5123 ........................................................... 39

Joint statement on H.R. 5123 .................................................................. 52

Friend, Clayton, District Manager, Tom Green County Water Control

and Improvement District #1 ....................................................................... 4

Prepared statement on H.R. 4910 ........................................................... 5

Johnson, Robert, Regional Director, Lower Colorado Region, Bureau of

Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior ........................................... 20

Prepared statement on H.R. 5123 ........................................................... 21

Kirk, Tom, Executive Director, Salton Sea Authority ................................... 44

Prepared statement on H.R. 5123 ........................................................... 46

Levy, Thomas, General Manager-Chief Engineer, Coachella Valley Water

District ........................................................................................................... 51

Joint statement on H.R. 5123 .................................................................. 52

Limbaugh, Mark A., Director, External and Intergovernmental Affairs,

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior ......................... 8

Prepared statement on H.R. 4910 ........................................................... 9

Snape, William J. III, Vice President and Chief Counsel, Defenders of

Wildlife ........................................................................................................... 56

Prepared statement on H.R. 5123 ........................................................... 58

Underwood, Dennis, Vice President for Colorado River Matters,

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California .................................. 51

Joint statement on H.R. 5123 .................................................................. 52

Additional materials supplied:

Crites, Buford, Chair, Energy and Environment Committee, Coachella

Valley Association of Governments, Letter submitted for the record

by The Honorable Mary Bono and Tom Kirk ............................................. 34

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 4910, TO

AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE

INTERIOR TO REVISE A REPAYMENT CONTRACT WITH THE TOM GREEN COUNTY

WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO.1, SAN ANGELO PROJECT, TEXAS,

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 5123,

TO ADDRESS CERTAIN MATTERS RELATED

TO COLORADO RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT AND THE SALTON SEA BY PROVIDING

FUNDING FOR HABITAT ENHANCEMENT

PROJECTS AT THE SALTON SEA, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES.

Thursday, July 25, 2002

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room

1334 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. CALVERT. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will come

to order.

The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on two bills,

H.R. 4910, to authorize the Secretary of Interior to revise a repayment contract with Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1, San Angelo project, Texas, and for other purposes.

We are also meeting on H.R. 5123, to address certain matters related to the Colorado River management and the Salton Sea, by

providing funding for habitat enhancement projects at the Salton

Sea and for other purposes.

Under Rule 4(b) of the Committee rules, any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking

Member. If other members have statements they can be included

in the hearing record under unanimous consent.

2

Today we will hear testimony in two unrelated bills, first,

H.R. 4910 to authorize the Secretary of Interior to revise a repayment contract with an irrigation district in Texas.

With that, I am pleased to recognize our colleague and good

friend, Mr. Stenholm from Texas.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. STENHOLM, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. STENHOLM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to extend my

appreciation to you and members of this Committee for scheduling

this hearing and considering H.R. 4910.

Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement District,

Number 1, has an outstanding loan with the Department of Interior for the construction of an irrigation canal. The remaining balance is approximately $2.4 million.

The farmers in the district have made diligent efforts to make

timely payments on the contract. They have paid 38 percent, about

one and a half million of the original debt owed to the Department

of Interior, despite the fact that they have yet to receive a fair return on their investment.

In West Texas, there is virtually nothing of a higher daily concern that the availability of water. In recent years Texas has been

devastated by drought. As a result, the farmers have received a full

year’s allocation of irrigation water only 50 percent of the time.

Moreover, for the other 50 percent of the time they received either less than the annual allocation or no irrigation water at all.

Payment on the debt has never been forgiven, even in years when

the district received no water.

Deferments have been granted seven times, however, those payments still have to be made. They are added to the remaining balance and the payments continue to get higher annually because the

original contract end date does not change.

To make matters worse, the concrete lining replaced in the canal

in 1960 has started to deteriorate after 42 years and repairs are

necessary. These repairs are very expensive. Farmers simply cannot sustain paying the cost of the annual operation and maintenance costs to the irrigation district, the Bureau of Reclamation annual payment and extensive repair costs when little or no water is

available.

The Bureau of Reclamation has stated that the increased payments as a result of continued deferments due to the drought conditions are making it increasingly difficult on the farmers’ ability

to pay the annual payments.

The increased annual payments place additional financial burdens on the district and increasing these payments further will

only lead to future difficult that the Bureau of Reclamation cannot

remedy.

Only Congress can remedy the long-term problem, which is why

I have introduced H.R. 4910 to get this loan restructured. This legislation would allow the Secretary of Interior to revise the repayment contract, number 14-06-500-369, by extending the period authorized for repayment of reimbursable construction costs of the

canal from 40 to 50 years.

3

I think it is important to note that this bill will have no longterm impacts to the Federal budget other than some, perhaps, additional interest costs. The Federal Government will receive payment on this loan, but with this much-needed extension, it will be

10 years later than anticipated.

On behalf of my farmers in my district, I appreciate your time

and attention to this legislation. I understand the Subcommittee

will be marking up H.R. 4910 following this legislative hearing.

I welcome any and all suggestions to improve the bill in order

to better assist the irrigation district. With that, I would then to

my friend and complainant, Clayton Friend, who is Tom Green

County Commissioner Precinct One and District Manager of the

Water District for his additional comments regarding the proposal

to us today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stenholm follows:]

Statement of the Hon. Charles W. Stenholm, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Texas

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I thank the members of the committee for allowing

me to come and be here today.

The Tom Green County Water Control & Improvement District No. 1 has an outstanding loan with the Department of Interior for the construction of an irrigation

canal. The remaining balance is approximately $2.4 million. The farmers in the District have made diligent efforts to make timely payments on the contract. They have

paid 38 percent (about $1.5 million) of the original dept owed to the Department

of Interior despite the fact that they have yet to receive a fair return on their investment.

In West Texas, there is virtually nothing of a higher daily concern than the availability of water. In recent years, Texas has been devastated by drought. As a result,

the farmers have received a full year’s allocation of irrigation water only 50 percent

of the time. Moreover, for the other 50 percent of the time, they received either less

than the annual allocation or no irrigation water at all.

Payment on the debt has never been forgiven, even in years when the District

received no water. Deferments have been granted seven times; however, those payments still have to be made. They are added to the remaining balance and the payments continue to get higher annually because the original contract end date does

not change.

To make matters worse, the concrete lining placed in the canal in 1960 has started to deteriorate after forty-two years and repairs are necessary. These repairs are

very expensive. Farmers simply cannot sustain paying the costs of the annual operation and maintenance costs due to the irrigation district, the Bureau of Reclamation annual payment, and extensive repair costs when little or no water is available.

The Bureau of Reclamation has stated that the increased payments, as a result

of continued deferments due to the drought conditions, are making it increasingly

difficult on the farmers’’ ability to repay the annual payments. The increased annual

payments place additional financial burdens on the District and increasing these

payments further will only lead to future difficulty that the Bureau of Reclamation

cannot remedy. Only Congress can remedy the long-term problem, which is why I

have introduced H.R. 4910 to get this loan restructured.

This legislation would allow the Secretary of Interior to revise the repayment contract (No. 14–06–500–369) by extending the period authorized for repayment of reimbursable construction costs of the canal from 40 to 50 years.

{I think it is important to note that this bill will have no long-term impacts to

the federal budget. The federal government will receive payment on this loan, but

with this much needed extension, it will be ten years later than anticipated.}

On behalf of my farmers in my district, I appreciate your time and attention to

this legislation. I understand that the Subcommittee will be marking-up H.R. 4910

following this legislative hearing, and I welcome any and all suggestions to improve

the bill in order to better assist the irrigation district.

Thank you.

4

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. The gentleman is recognized.

STATEMENT OF CLAYTON FRIEND, DISTRICT MANAGER, TOM

GREEN COUNTY WATER CONTROL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

No. 1

Mr. FRIEND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Committee members for allowing us, as Congress Stenholm has said, allowing us to be here today to speak with you.

As has been stated, we do have a contract with the Bureau of

Reclamation, a repayment plan and it was set out for 40 years. We

have made diligent efforts to make those payments and due to living in West Texas where rain is scarce and crop production is low,

we have made 38 percent of our payment, but because of low water

inflow and many times no water, we have been placed into the situation of asking the Bureau for a deferment seven times.

The Bureau is an excellent working partner in this with us and

we have had excellent success in receiving suggestions and working

with our personnel. Those deferments have been granted. The only

problem with that is the end date does not change and therefore,

each year the deferment is granted, as Congress Stenholm has

said, the payment gets larger each year. It increases the burden on

our farmers.

Our district, because we have had no water from the project,

Twin Buttes Reservoir, we made a contract with the city of San

Angelo, Texas and we are currently taking their reclaimed waste

water to try to help them out and to help our district out. They installed a pipeline to our canal, so we are farming our land using

the city’s reclaimed wastewater. It was a good situation for them

and it was a good situation for us because it gives us approximately eight inches of water per acre in our irrigation district.

Typically, when we have a full allocation of water under our contract, we can irrigation with 24 inches, as you see in the report.

In the years that we have had 24 inches, that is a full annual allocation.

So we have eight inches, and the problem with that is the city

generates water every day, so we must take the water on a continual basis. We have to take it during the winter months and

thereby it reduces their storage capabilities but it reduces the

amount available to the farmer during the growing season, which

is typically the spring and summer months. So, we have a little

water and we try to use it as best we can.

We have tried to maintain our canal. As Congressman Stenholm

said, we have deteriorating problems with the canal because it was

installed in 1960 or ’62 and after 40 years it is starting to deteriorate. So, we have had to use some of our local money to do repairs

on the canal. So, it seems like our problems are mounting.

We appreciate your help. We also appreciate your amending the

bill here today by eliminating Section 2. That was inadvertently

placed in there. The current lake level at Twin Buttes Reservoir,

when I submitted to you my written statement, was 9100 acre feet

the day before yesterday. It has reduced to 8400, so it is going

down daily and under our water crediting system, we don’t get any

water to irrigation until it gets above 50,000 acre feet. As you well

know, inflows of 40,000 acre-feet into a reservoir are pretty signifiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Jun 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\80968.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
5

cant. So we would have to have that and anything above that before we would be granted any inflows.

Again, we ask for your support on this. If you have any questions

with regard to any problems or any situations within the district,

I will be glad to answer them.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Friend follows:]

Statement of Clayton Friend, Tom Green County Commissioner Precinct 1,

and District Manager, Tom Green County Water Control & Improvement

District 1

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I thank the members of the committee for allowing

me to come and be here today and present to you the problems facing the Tom

Green County Water Control & Improvement District 1 which I will refer to in the

remainder of my statement as the ‘‘District’’.

History:

The San Angelo Project was constructed with oversight by the Bureau of Reclamation and completed around 1962. The project included the Twin Buttes Reservoir

which was to provide municipal, industrial and recreational water for the City of

San Angelo, Texas with storage capacity of approximately 180,000 acre feet of

water. In addition, the San Angelo Project was to provide irrigation water to the

District by using a 65-mile concrete lined irrigation canal system that was constructed with Bureau of Reclamation oversight during the same period. This canal

system was to provide access to the water stored in the Twin Buttes Reservoir to

irrigate 10,000 acres of farmland. Ten years passed before there was enough water

in the Reservoir to release any water into the canal system. In 1972 the first irrigation releases were made to the District through the canal system. Both the City of

San Angelo and the District have repayment contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior for their portion of the costs of the San Angelo

Project.

The District’s outstanding loan with the Department of Interior for the construction of the irrigation canal is Contract No. 14–06–500–369, San Angelo Project. The

original amount of the District’s loan was $4,000,000. The District has paid

$1,506,132, and the remaining balance is $2,487,707.

Problems:

The farmers in the District have made diligent efforts to make timely payments

on the contract. They have, in fact, paid 38% of the original debt owed to the Department of the Interior. One of the problems is that the farmers haven’t received

a fair return on their investment. The farmers have received a full year’s allocation

of irrigation water, 24 inches per acre, only 50% of the time since 1962 when the

canal was completed. However, for the other 50% of the time the farmers received

either less than the annual 24 inches per acre of irrigation water or no irrigation

water at all. Payment on the debt has never been forgiven, even in years when the

District received no water. Deferments have been granted 7 times due to drought

conditions. Those payments, however still have to be made. They are added to the

remaining balance and the payments continue to get higher annually because the

original contract end date does not change.

The last time the farmers have had any water available from Twin Buttes Reservoir was in 1998 when they received 1 ° inches of water per acre. The last time

they had the full allocation of 24 inches per acre was in 1997. Farmers cannot exist

paying the operation and maintenance costs of the District and the repayment to

the Bureau of Reclamation when there is little or no water available.

The following chart represents the amounts of irrigation water available from

Twin Buttes reservoir since completion of the canal system:

6

As indicated in the chart above, the District has received little or no water in 21

of 40 years.

Current lake level and water credit procedures:

At the present time, Twin Buttes Reservoir only has 5% of water in storage. This

amounts to approximately 9100 acre feet. There is a water accounting system that

credits water to the District and to the City of San Angelo. The District gets credit

for all of the water above 50,000 acre feet of stored water. With the current lake

level at 9100 acre feet, the lake would have to have inflow of over 40,000 acre feet

before the District gets even one drop of water in storage credits. To irrigate 10,000

acres, it takes about 867 acre feet to equal one inch of water per acre of farmland.

Evaporation also must be considered which sometimes can amount to 15% to 20%,

so additional water must be available to allow for evaporation. As has been stated

previously in this report, a normal irrigating season with a full allocation of irrigation water (24 inches per acre) there must be approximately 22,000 acre feet available for 10,000 acres of farmland.

Additional Problems:

There has been an additional problem facing the farmers in the District. The concrete lining that was placed in the canal system in the early 60’s has started to deteriorate after 40 years and now repairs are necessary. The canal lining was designed without any reinforcement steel of any kind and has progressively become

worse over time. To repair the canal lining places additional burdens on the farmers

because the repairs are very expensive. The farmers in the District have to pay the

annual payment for the construction of the canal plus the operation and maintenance costs for the operation of the District. If you have to add the expensive repair

costs that need to be done, it makes it virtually impossible for the farmers to make

a profit when there is no water available from Twin Buttes Reservoir. The District

is, however, trying to repair parts of the canal system that need the most attention.

With Bureau of Reclamation approval, the District is using up to $30,000 of its reserve funds to pay for some of the necessary repairs. The amount of reserve funds

available is very limited and will only cover a small amount.

The slides following my testimony show the deteriorating canal lining and small

places where repairs have been made at the District’s own expense.

Looking for an alternate water supply:

Because there was no water available in Twin Buttes Reservoir, the District has

contracted with the City of San Angelo for the use of it’s reclaimed wastewater from

its wastewater treatment plant. This provides for 8 inches of wastewater per acre

of land annually. This water has to be used on a continual basis because the City

of San Angelo produces wastewater daily and has limited storage capacities. This

reduces the amount of water that can be provided to farm crops during the growing

season, which is typically during the spring, and summer months. There was additional stress placed on the District because a return flow pumping system had to

be installed to keep the wastewater from entering into the Concho River. A loan

from the Texas Water Development Board in the amount of $150,000 was made

available to the District to help finance the cost of the pumping system, which cost

around $190,000. Annual payments to the TWDB are made by assessing fees to the

farmers in the District. These fees are in addition to the fees already mentioned.

The amount of water available from the wastewater treatment plant is only 8 inches

per acre per year. The farmers have to pay full irrigation prices yet they only reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Jun 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\80968.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
7

ceive 8 inches of wastewater per acre per year and nothing from Twin Buttes Reservoir.

Effects of drought and depressed commodity prices on farmers in the District:

The local Texas Agricultural Extension Agents assisted the District personnel in

preparing the following data. The data compares the average income during the

years from 1988–1992 when 24 inches of irrigation water per acre was available and

the year 2000 when there was no water available for irrigation from Twin Buttes

Reservoir.

The results for the year 2000 would be very similar to the years 2001 and 2002

as well as other years that there was no irrigation water available from Twin Buttes

Reservoir. The Extension Agent was only asked to provide the most recent year’s

data available which, at the time, was the year 2000.

Possible solutions:

Included below are several suggestions that would help solve the current problem.

• Extend the repayment period of the loan from 40 to 50 years. This would allow

the annual payments to be reduced because they would be extended for an additional 10 years. This same option was granted to the City of San Angelo in 1971.

• Reduce the amount owed to the Bureau of Reclamation on the repayment contract to allow the District to have funds available for the repairs on the canal

system. The canal system is going to continue to deteriorate and must be repaired.

• Restructuring the loan would also help. If the end date of the repayment contract could be extended for each year that a deferment was granted this would

keep the payments the same each year and not get bigger each time a

deferment was granted.

• Have payments to be made only when water in Twin Buttes Reservoir is available for irrigation use. If a full 24 inches per acre were available, then the full

payment would be due. If 12 inches, for example, per acre were only available,

then 1/2 the payment would be due. This would give some relief to the farmers

when the full allocation is not available.

If we continue as we are, the payments will only get bigger and the ability of the

farmers to pay the debt will only get more difficult. In August 29, 2000, then Regional Director Maryanne Bach states ‘‘Reclamation is aware of the drought conditions in the State of Texas which continue to impact the availability of water within

the San Angelo project. Although the deferments received by the District to date

have not increased the District’s remaining obligation to the United States, the

deferments have increased the amount of the annual payments for the remaining

repayment period because Reclamation does not have the authority to extend the

repayment period without congressional approval. The increased annual payments

place additional burden on the District. This financial burden has been exacerbated

by current drought conditions and Reclamation believes any additional increase will

only lead to future financial difficulty that cannot be offset by Reclamation under

its limited authority.’’

8

Conclusions:

The Tom Green County Water Control & Improvement District 1 does not ask for

a handout. Instead, the District is asking for a helping hand. Any consideration in

the form of relief will be greatly appreciated. The District has tried to be a good

partner in this effort. The District also has an excellent working relationship with

the Bureau of Reclamation and has welcomed any and all support or suggestions

made by its personnel.

Honorable members of the Subcommittee, we have a deteriorating canal system

and we still owe over 19 years on the debt. It’s like owning an old worn out car

but still making payments. Repairs can be devastating.

Thank you

[Pictures attached to Mr. Friend’s statement have been retained in the Committee’s official files.]

Mr. CALVERT. I would now ask Mr. Limbaugh, the Director of External and Intergovernmental Affairs for the Bureau of Reclamation to come forward and give his testimony.

Then we will ask questions of you both.

Mr. Limbaugh, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MARK A. LIMBAUGH, DIRECTOR, EXTERNAL

AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Mr. LIMBAUGH. My name is Mark Limbaugh. I am the Director

of External and Intergovernmental Affairs for the Bureau of Reclamation here in Washington. I am pleased to be here to give the

department’s views on H.R. 4910, authorizing the Secretary to revise the repayment contract with the Tom Green County Water

Control and Improvement District Number One, a reclamation San

Angelo project in Texas.

I would ask Mr. Chairman, that you enter my written comments

in the record.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LIMBAUGH. The San Angelo project was authorized by Congress in 1957 to provide flood control, municipal and industrial

water for the city of San Angelo and supplemental irrigation supplies to the district.

The project also provides recreational and fish and wildlife benefits for the general public. The project has endured chronic drought

conditions since it was constructed in ’63. These arid conditions

have resulted in Reclamation granting seven deferments to the annual installments due on the district’s 40-year repayment contract.

During the past 6 years alone, four deferments for the district’s

annual payment to the United States have been granted because

of unavailability of irrigation water.

The department does support H.R. 4910. Section 1 of H.R. 4910

provides some immediate financial relief to the district by extending its contract by 10 years and reducing its annual repayment to

the United States.

Extending the repayment terms of the contract will not likely be

a permanent solution to the water scarce conditions plaguing the

project, but will give Reclamation time to assess the project’s longterm challenges and will aid the district in meeting an annual repayment obligation under the contract.

9

Finally, Section 2 of the bill was previously enacted into law and

appears to be inadvertently included in the drafting of the bill and

should be deleted from H.R. 4910.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony on H.R. 4910. I

would stand for questions.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Limbaugh follows:]

Statement of Mark Limbaugh, Director, External and Intergovernmental

Affairs, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior

My name is Mark Limbaugh and I am the Director of External and Intergovernmental Affairs of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to present

the Department’s views on H.R. 4910 which authorizes the Secretary to revise a repayment contract with the Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1 (District) at Reclamation’s San Angelo Project, Texas.

The San Angelo Project (Project) was authorized by the Congress in 1957 to provide flood control, municipal and industrial water for the City of San Angelo, recreation, fish and wildlife, and supplemental irrigation supplies to the District. The

Project has been beset by chronic drought conditions since it was constructed in

1963. These arid conditions have resulted in Reclamation granting a total of seven

deferments of the annual installments due on the District’s forty-year repayment

contract. During the past six year’s alone, four deferments for the District’s annual

payment to the United States have been granted because of the unavailability of

irrigation water. Section one of H.R. 4910 provides some immediate financial relief

to the District by extending its contract with Reclamation by ten years and thereby

reducing its annual payment to the United States. Extension of the repayment period will not likely be a permanent solution to the water scarcity facing this project.

However, taking this action will give Reclamation some time to access the project’s

long-term challenges and will aid the District by providing needed repayment relief.

Therefore, the Department supports H.R. 4910. I would also add that Section two

of the bill does not apply to the District, and should be deleted. This language was

taken from legislation previously passed to address a repayment situation with the

City of San Angelo. However, the particulars of the two situations are different, and

section two should therefore be struck from the bill.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to present the Department’s

views on H.R. 4910.

Mr. CALVERT. Well, I have reviewed your testimony and the legislation. I will make this real simple. I support it. We intend to

mark it up here shortly after our next hearing and we will move

this legislation to the Full Committee where I am sure we will be

able to move it very rapidly.

I want to thank all of you for coming today and for your testimony.

Mr. STENHOLM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would like the entire statement of Mr. Friend’s to be made part of the record as submitted. Some of the pictures show some of the deterioration that

they are working on now with their own money, and that is part

of the record also.

Thank you for your courtesy.

Mr. CALVERT. Certainly, without objection.

Mr. Osborne does have a question.

Mr. OSBORNE. Yes. I don’t want to take a lot of time here, but

just one quick question, probably for either Mr. Friend or Mr. Stenholm.

I share some of your concerns, you know in Nebraska we are

running into the same situation. If you are only getting eight

inches of water, sometimes it seems to me that everybody dies a

slow death.

10

Is there any possibility to cut back on irrigated acres? I know

that is very contentious, but I have an area in Nebraska where we

have about 40,000 acres being irrigated out of one aquifer and

there is only enough water for about 20,000. So, everybody is getting just a little bit and they are all losing money. Anyway, I wondered if that applies to your situation or not?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Osborne, it does apply. I am glad you mentioned that. Several of our farmers have eliminated irrigating some

particular fields altogether and placing the additional amount of

water that might be allocated to that field to a different field, just

to have an adequate amount of water.

So, we have several farm tracts that are eligible farm tracts to

receive water in the district that are receiving no water because of

that particular fact.

Thank you for asking.

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. The issue of fallowing is probably something we

will be talking about later, Mr. Osborne. Thank you.

I thank this panel. We will move this legislation as soon as possible and have it to the full floor to execute this as soon as we can.

Mr. STENHOLM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CALVERT. The next item we will discuss is of great importance to California and certainly to the region I represent and to

my colleagues who are going to go down to the dais as I give my

opening statement, Mr. Hunter and Mrs. Bono.

The next item, of course, is H.R. 5123 relating to the use of Colorado River and the Salton Sea. The water transferred between the

Imperial Irrigation District and the other southern California

water agencies is a critical component of the plan for California to

reduce its annual diversion of the Colorado River from the current

5.2 million acre-feet to its annual apportionment or 4.4 million

acre-feet.

However, some argue that the transfer should be linked to the

continued existence of the Salton Sea. This Subcommittee has conducted six hearings in the last year and a half, with three being

held out west, regarding the California 4.4 Plan. We have been told

numerous times that the quantification settlement agreement,

QSA, would be completed by this December.

In addition, Congress is still waiting for the Salton Sea restoration plan report. The completed report has been promised to Congress by the previous administration and the current administration.

Last December at a hearing in Las Vegas we were told that the

report would be available no later than January of this year, yet

it still has not come. The Salton Sea Reclamation Act of 1998 provided a report deadline of January 1, 2000. The Congress has been

very patient in waiting for the completion of the report, but our patience is running out.

The Salton Sea Reclamation Act of 1998 clearly indicates that it

was never the intent of Congress for the California water agencies

11

involved in the water transfers to be responsible for the restoration

of the Salton Sea.

The situation we have with the Salton Sea is a great paradox.

Regardless of the actions associated with the transfer, the Salton

Sea as we know it today will change significantly in the next 20

to 40 years. The only difference with the transfer involved is the

amount of time before the Salton Sea reaches a salinity level that

will not sustain the ecosystem as we know it today.

It is time to start thinking outside of the box on this issue. The

water transfer should not be stopped or be required to mitigate all

impacts on the evolving sea. The sea is going to change regardless

of the transfers.

H.R. 5123 proposes a goodwill contribution by the agencies involved in the transfer to provide $50 million in assistance for the

regional environment. This will allow the agencies to move forward

with the California plan while all of us continue to address the

challenges of the Salton Sea.

Mr. Hunter has provided a solution. I expect the witnesses today

to discuss and critique this bill and offer viable solutions, if needed,

to improve it.

In addition, I expect by no later than mid-September a viable

plan to be submitted to this Subcommittee on the implementation

of the QSA.

It is unacceptable that the previous administration failed to provide Congress and the current administration a preferred alternative on the Salton Sea restoration. I expect a plan from the administration identifying a preferred alternative by October first of

this year.

I certainly look forward to our two witnesses that will be discussing the sea.

First, I will recognize Mr. Hunter who put this bill forward, for

5 minutes. Then, our colleague, Mrs. Bono.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

Statement of the Hon. Ken Calvert, a Representative in Congress from the

State of California

Today we will hear testimony on two unrelated bills.

First, H.R. 4910, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to revise a repayment

contract with an irrigation district in Texas.

The next item we will discuss is one of great importance to the water security

and economic well being of southern California and the Country. H.R. 5123 relates

to California’s use of Colorado River water and the Salton Sea.

The water transfer between the Imperial Irrigation District and other southern

California water agencies is a critical component of the plan for California to reduce

its annual diversion of Colorado River water from the current 5.2 million acre feet

to its annual apportionment of 4.4 million acre feet. However, some argue that the

transfer should be linked to the continued existence of the Salton Sea.

This Subcommittee has conducted six hearings in the last year and a half with

three being held out west regarding the California 4.4 Plan. We have been told numerous times that the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) would be completed by this December.

In addition, Congress is still waiting for the Salton Sea Restoration Plan Report.

The completed Report has been promised to the Congress by the previous administration and the current administration. Last December at a hearing in Las Vegas,

we were told that the Report would be available no later than January of this year,

then later in the spring, yet it still has not come. The Salton Sea Reclamation Act

of 1998 provided a report deadline of January 1, 2000. The Congress has been very

patient in waiting for the completion of the report, but our patience is running out.

12

The Salton Sea Reclamation Act of 1998 clearly indicates that it was never the

intent of Congress for the California water agencies involved in the water transfer

to be responsible for restoration of the Salton Sea. Section (3) of the Act states:

In evaluating options, the Secretary shall apply assumptions regarding

water inflows into the Salton Sea Basin that encourage water conservation,

account for transfers of water out of the Salton Sea Basin, and are based

on a maximum likely reduction in inflows into the Salton Sea Basin which

could be 800,000 acre-feet or less per year.

The situation we have with the Salton Sea is a great paradox. Regardless of the

actions associated with the transfer, the Salton Sea as we know it today will change

significantly in the next 20 to 40 years. The only difference with the transfer involved is the amount of time before the Sea reaches a salinity level that will not

sustain the ecosystem, as we know it today.

It is time to start thinking outside of the box on this issue. The water transfer

should not be stopped or be required to mitigate all the impacts of an evolving Sea.

The Sea is going to change regardless of the transfers.

H.R. 5123 proposes a good will contribution by the agencies involved in the transfer to provide 50 million dollars in assistance for the regional environment. This will

allow the agencies to move forward with the California Plan while all of us continue

to address the challenges of the Salton Sea.

It is time to not just critique solutions but provide viable recommendations. Duncan Hunter has provided us a solution and I expect the witnesses today to discuss

and critique this bill and offer viable solutions if needed, to improve it.

In addition I expect, by no later than mid–September, a viable plan to be submitted to this subcommittee on the implementation of the QSA.

It is unacceptable that the previous administration failed to provide Congress and

the current administration, a preferred alternative on the Salton Sea Restoration.

I expect a plan from the administration identifying a preferred alternative by October 1, 2002.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

STATEMENT OF DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a written statement for the record. I would ask that it be submitted and I would

simply talk to the issue.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you. It is good to be here with you and the

Subcommittee and my good friend, Mary Bono, who has worked on

this issue tirelessly. In fact, we have all probably put more hours

in on the Greater Salton Sea problem than any other southern

California issue over the last several years.

Mr. Chairman, you laid out the backdrop against which this legislation is offered very effectively. We have the 4.4 Plan that we

in California must comply with. We must be in compliance by the

end of the year or we stand to lose 800,000 acre-feet of water.

Now, a number of years ago we started the Salton Sea Restoration Project. We initiated legislation and Mrs. Bono was very key

to this and you were and the other members of the task force for

the Salton Sea initiated legislation that set in play the program

under which the administration would come up with a plan to save

the Salton Sea and presumably then we and the Federal Government and the State government would divide that fiscal responsible, or fiscal burden. We would pay, we would begin to move forward on the plan and we would save the sea.

It was never contemplated that the water transfer that now is

a cornerstone to compliance with the 4.4 Plan would precede the

saving of the Salton Sea. It was always contemplated, because this

was back in the 1990’s that we would have this plan in place and

13

moving to save the Salton Sea, that in fact there wouldn’t be any

burden on the water transfer because the initiative workups that

we did on saving the sea were all done with charts and figures and

information and analyses that contemplated the water transfer and

said, ‘‘Here is what we are going to have to do to meet the salinity

problems and the other problems associated with the sea in the

context of the water transfer.’’

Now, what happened? Things don’t always come about in neat

packages in government operations. Now we have the transfer preceding the sea.

I think it is appropriate to talk just a little bit about the people

of the Imperial Valley and the role of the IID, which is the farming

area in southern California which is immediately to the east of the

San Diego urban community. This is an area which is the most

productive agricultural area, arguably, in the world, with massive

production, the very finest of America farming techniques, sharing

that big basin with the Coachella Valley Irrigation District.

For practical purposes, the IID, the Imperial Irrigation District,

is the people of Imperial County. The irrigation district is not

owned by a few people. The voters are not a limited class or pool

of people. It is all the voters in Imperial County.

Now, the voters of Imperial County and the people of Imperial

County who have invested their lives there have always worried

that at some point the cities would force them to put their land

back to desert, to take these fields that their forebears put in and

the frontier that was the Imperial Valley in the early 1900’s, that

that would revert back to desert in order to send water to the cities

in the same way that Owens Valley was permanently rendered a

desert for the benefit of Los Angeles.

And so when the people of Imperial Valley were asked to put together some conservation measures and take the fruits of those

conservation measures and transfer those to thirsty people in the

cities, they were very concerned.

They, through their representatives said, this cannot be done by

sending part of our farmland back to desert. It can’t be done by

fallowing. The answer was always ‘‘no, we are going to ask you to

do what we have always asked you to do which is put in more conservation measures such as water pump back systems, lining of canals and what is known as on-farm conservation practices.’’

The people of Imperial Valley were so concerned that they were

being tricked into fallowing or would be forced into fallowing that

they even put into the contract which they ultimately signed, which

is today signed and executed with the other water districts, that

this would not take place through fallowing; that they would be allowed to do on farm conservation.

Indeed, for years they were threatened with lawsuits if they

didn’t conserve water and didn’t put in more conservation measures.

Now, time marches on and we now have this emergency before

us in that we have to comply with the 4.4 Plan by the end of December or be penalized. The lynchpin of that compliance is the

water transfer. The people of Imperial Valley stand ready to do onfarm conservation, to do what they promised they would do and

14

signed their name to. They are people that sign their names and

live up to their agreement.

But they have now been told that there has been a change. The

reason there has been a change is because our Fish and Wildlife

people can’t figure out a way to mitigate the effects on the endangered species that inhabit the Salton Sea, there is not a way to

mitigate the effects of the water transfer.

Well, the first thing that Imperial Valley said was, ‘‘Wait a

minute, the Salton Sea Program was supposed to fix the Salton

Sea.’’ And the Federal Government said essentially, ‘‘We are not

quite there yet; we are going to wait on you this time.’’

So, the real problem we have here is that it is going to cost a

lot of money to restore the Salton Sea, maybe $1 billion. We have

a transfer that must go forward. The question is: Where does the

financial burden need to be placed to mitigate the Salton Sea and

restore the Salton Sea? Should it be on the transfer and if so, how

much of it? Or should it be on the Federal and State governments

as we always contemplated.

Essentially, in the end this is a vision of dollars, who pays for

what. Now, the problem here is this: When you have endangered

species and you have the Fish and Wildlife work for a year, IID

worked for a year, the State Fish and Game worked for a year.

They thought they were close at one time, at least according to the

Imperial Irrigation District, at solving the endangered species problem with a $100 million-plus plan that now would be carried by the

water transfers, by the agencies.

In the end, the Fish and Wildlife said, ‘‘No, you can’t feed pelicans out of ponds, this won’t work.’’

Now, if you accept them at their words and State Fish and Game

said, ‘‘We can’t find a way to mitigate for this,’’ what you have is

a business deal that must go forward and yet it is hampered by the

one thing that keeps any business deal from going forward and

that is total uncertainty.

Is the exposure for the water transfer in the agencies, Coachella

and Met and San Diego and IID and the people that they represent, is that going to be exposed to billion dollar judgments in the

future because of the water transfer and the lowering of the Salton

Sea? Are we going to maybe get through the night by making an

agreement for the first couple of years and then find a new endangered species in 2010 that brings about a $500 million or billion

dollar judgment in mandate for increased expenses?

So, you have the one thing that keeps a business deal from going

forward and that is total uncertainty. My bill, Mr. Chairman and

my colleagues, we don’t know how to save the Salton Sea yet. That

is admitted by all parties. Mr. Kirk behind me doesn’t know how

to save the sea. They have not come to a solution. The Interior Department just wrote us and said, ‘‘We don’t have the solution yet.

We are working, but we don’t have it.’’

So, here is what we have to do. In the midst of this uncertainty,

we have to move forward with some certainty. The way to do it is

in a very practical, common sense way, and that is to say this:

Let’s come up with a number that the water transfer itself the

agencies have to carry, that they will put into the pot, is it $10 milVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Jun 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\80968.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
15

lion, $20 million, 30 million? And when they do that, they have satisfied their requirement under the Endangered Species Act.

Now, the Endangered Species Act, for people who are concerned

about the environment and fish and game, is not halted, is not

bared, is not limited at that point, but any additional expenses that

go to saving the sea have to be paid by the entities that were supposed to pay them in the first place, which is the Federal Government and the State government in California.

So, I have put in my bill $50 million. The agencies, when they

pay in $50 million into the pot, when they deliver that to Fish and

Wildlife and State Fish and Game to develop their practices, they

are done and the transfer can then go forward and it can go forward on a permanent basis.

Now, my good colleague, Mary Bono, has a real concern about

the dust situation because as the Salton Sea recedes, you have that

shoreline exposed. With the wind conditions that exist in that basin

that we share, she is concern, and rightfully, about her constituents and about the dust problem that might cause.

So, I have put into this bill a total section on mitigation of wind

erosion and dust storms. We have required that there be a plan put

in place for ground cover on this exposed shoreline and that that

ground cover be worked into a fish and wildlife habitat with

marshes and upland game birds, plants and that that be done in

coordination with State Fish and game and that that habitat that

is created by putting vegetation on that exposed shoreline can be

turned into a plus in terms of giving an environment for anglers,

for hunters, for bird watchers and other recreationists.

So, we have tried to address the dust problem in this legislation.

So, Mr. Chairman, very simply, against this backdrop of total uncertainty, at a time when we need certainty so that we can move

forward, that is what this bill provides.

I would hope that we could move it through the process and put

it in place and then move forward over the next five or 10 years

to save the Salton Sea, using that $50 million. It is the first substantial upfront money that will have been put into this pot by any

group.

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hunter follows:]

Statement of Duncan L. Hunter, a Representative in Congress from the

State of California

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this

hearing on HR 5123, the Colorado River Quantification Settlement Facilitation Act.

This legislation is absolutely critical to California’s water security and to ensure

that the State reduces its excess use of the Colorado River.

As you know, for years, Colorado River Basin states have been increasing pressure on California to live within its basic apportionment of 4.4 million acre feet

(MAF) annually from the River. California currently uses an average of 5.2 million

acre feet. The nearly 800,000 acre feet (AF) of water over the 4.4 MAF apportionment has been used by the growing urban populations of Los Angeles and San

Diego.

Initially, California was able to exceed its annual share because Nevada and Arizona had not fully developed their apportionments, and under the Law of the River,

California could temporarily claim their unused shares. However, since 1997, both

Nevada and Arizona have made full use of their apportionments. The excess water

to meet Southern California’s urban needs now comes mainly from Colorado River

flows that the Interior Secretary has declared a surplus. The Secretary can declare

16

a surplus when there is enough water in Colorado River reservoirs to meet needs

in excess of the 7.5 MAF apportioned to the Lower Basin.

Pressure from the Basin states and the Department of Interior eventually brought

the State of California and its water agencies together to develop the Quantification

Settlement Agreement (QSA). In 1999, the State of California, the Imperial Irrigation District, the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), the San Diego County

Water Authority (SDCWA) and the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) agreed to

the ‘‘Key Terms’’ of the QSA. The QSA has became the core of the California Colorado River Water Use Plan, the blueprint for bringing the state within its 4.4 MAF

apportionment.

The execution of the QSA requires a number of objectives to be met, including the

completion of all the state and federal environmental documentation and permitting

for required water transfers. Those include an annual 200,000 AF IID to San Diego

transfer, an existing IID–MWD 110,000 AF transfer and an additional 126,000 AF

to Coachella Valley. An additional 94,000 AF will be made available by lining the

All American and Coachella canals. The transfers, made possible largely through increased on-farm efficiency and other conservation measures, will generate a total of

539,000 AF of badly needed water within California.

The Key terms mandate that the QSA must be finalized by December 31, 2002.

Completion by that date allows California a 15 year grace period to gradually ramp

down to 4.4 MAF of annual use. Should the deadline not be met, the Secretary of

Interior would be forced to immediately cut California’s surplus use of the River on

January 1, 2003. Such an event would mean an immediate 800,000 AF cut of flows

to California, causing an immediate State water crisis affecting the economy of the

entire Southwest.

For my constituents in the Imperial Valley, the concept was simple: Help California reduce its excess use of Colorado River water through the sale of conserved

water to rapidly growing urban neighbors. To carry out both of these goals, farmers

in the Imperial Valley, among the most productive in the world, agreed to irrigate

the same amount of land with less water by implementing conservation measures,

such as pump back systems and lining irrigation canals. These measures would be

expensive, but could be paid for by proceeds from the water sales.

Normally, agricultural communities tend to look with suspicion on efforts by

urban interests to acquire more water. However, to gain the trust and assistance

of Imperial Valley residents, already suffering the highest unemployment levels in

California, they were promised that under no circumstances would fallowing be

forced upon them as a means of providing water to San Diego and Los Angeles. To

this end, the IID–San Diego transfer agreement specifically prohibited fallowing as

an option.

The water agencies proceeded as originally planned toward completion of the

QSA, but they ran into unanticipated regulatory and environmental problems that

placed the QSA at risk of failure. The key problem lies in the water conservation

measures required of Imperial Valley farmers to provide water for the transfers.

The Salton Sea’s sole inflow is agriculture run-off. To implement the required onfarm conservation measures would mean a reduction of run-off from farms, hence

a reduction of inflows to the Salton Sea. To compound the problem, the Sea is a

terminal lake - meaning it has no out flow - and salinity levels are steadily rising

at a rate that will cause this prolific fishery to go hyper-saline unless a restoration

plan is implemented. The water transfers will likely hasten the coming date at

which species will not survive at the Sea.

These complications were not anticipated since the Salton Sea Reclamation Act

of 1998 (P.L. 105–372) established the rehabilitation of the Sea as a federal responsibility and required the Department of Interior to develop a final restoration plan,

allowing for reduction of inflows of up to 800,000 AF to the Sea, by January 1, 2000.

The water agencies had depended on Interior complying with the law and having

a complete plan for the Sea in place. However, Interior has failed to finalize a plan

for the Sea, and is now more than 2 ° years over due. Given these complications

resulting from an absence of a Salton Sea plan, it appeared federal legislation would

be needed to ensure that water agencies would not be held responsible for rehabilitation of the Sea and to ensure successful completion of the QSA.

As a result, nearly two years ago at the request of Southern California water

agencies, I agreed to introduce legislation to assist in the implementation of the

QSA. I worked with my friends and colleagues, Representatives Jerry Lewis, Ken

Calvert and Mary Bono, as well as water agencies and the Salton Sea Authority to

develop legislation to provide water security to the Colorado River Basin and to

minimize impacts to the Salton Sea. The result of our work was the Colorado River

Quantification Settlement Facilitation Act, which I recently made revisions to and

reintroduced to gain additional support. Key provisions of H.R. 5123 are:

17

• $60 million for mitigation for possible airborne dust from exposed shorelines resulting from water transfers, and for habitat enhancement projects benefitting

wildlife at the Salton Sea.

• $57 million for construction of off-stream reservoirs near the All–American

Canal to maximize use of the Colorado River. • A division of responsibility for mitigation of impacts to the Salton Sea, providing

for a $50 million contribution by water agencies and ensuring Federal and State

responsibility for additional needs.

Absent certainty of passage of this legislation, the Imperial Irrigation district has

stepped up its efforts over the past year to pro-actively negotiate a successful completion of the QSA with the Department of Interior and the State of California.

However, federal and state regulatory agencies have recently expressed a reluctance

to allow for proposed mitigation for impacts the water transfers may have on the

Salton Sea. As a result, Interior, the State and others have been pushing Imperial

Valley to fallow great portions of their agriculture acreage in order to provide the

needed water to send to the cities - or face seizure of the water with no obligation

of payment. Such action would cause incredible damage to a community already

beset with widespread economic woes. To force them to fallow land without just

compensation would eliminate hundreds of jobs and cost the County millions of dollars they do not have.

Opponents of this legislation are quick to find fault with my desire to protect

farmers in my district from excessive lawsuits and from bearing the entire burden

of Endangered Species Act impacts resulting from the water transfers. To those, I

would ask what action they would take if their communities were faced with the

hardship that my constituents have endured? For years, Imperial Valley farmers

have been threatened with lawsuits for ‘‘wasting’’ too much water. Now that they

have acted in good faith to implement water efficiency practices so that their urban

neighbors will gain additional water for their growing needs, my farmers are faced

with billion dollar lawsuits for conserving water. My constituents are unfairly

trapped in this cruel cross fire and they must be protected. A poor community of

less than 200,000 people cannot afford to carry the entire liability for the transfer

they are now required to implement.

Again, I thank my friend Chairman Calvert for holding this hearing on this critical piece of legislation, and I invite those interested in assisting California to meet

this December 31 deadline to work with me to see it through without needlessly

punishing an undeserving community. I encourage your ‘‘aye’’ vote on H.R. 5123.

Mr. CALVERT. We thank the gentleman.

Mrs. Bono, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF MARY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mrs. BONO. I want to thank you, Chairman Calvert, for allowing

me to testify today on H.R. 5123. I especially want to thank you

and my colleague, Duncan Hunter, for all of your continued efforts

and focus on the Salton Sea and the issue of the QSA.

I would also like to thank Congressman Miller for his leadership

and his help with this complex issue as well.

All of us agree that California must take meaningful steps toward reducing its usage on Colorado River water. The QSA is the

key component to do just this. Therefore, I understand the need for

several of the provisions within the legislation before us today.

H.R. 5123, the Colorado River Quantification Settlement Facilitation Act, brings to the forefront several important issues we must

contend with. While I appreciate Mr. Hunter’s attempts to address

my concerns related to air quality, I still cannot support this bill

in its current form.

My concerns surrounding the issue of these water transfers in

the bill have always been the possible denigration of air quality in

the Coachella and Imperial Valleys and the lack of a plan to address this probability. Many community groups, like the American

18

Lung Association, have voiced their concerns about possible air

quality impacts.

Tragically, Imperial County’s childhood asthma hospitalization

rate is already more than twice as high as the State average.

Therefore, while the Salton Sea serves a great purpose in benefiting many species and plant life inhabiting it, the key factor for

me is the impact barren parts of the sea will have on our air quality.

Some individuals believe that the sea will die anyway, with or

without these water transfers and therefore should not be consideration. But there are serious consequences of a dead sea. Owens

Valley, according to the EPA, is the dustiest place in the United

States, having about 75 square miles of exposed land. The Salton

Sea, if all of the water transfers continue without mitigation, faces

over 105 square miles of exposed sea surface.

Therefore, while there is a legitimate question of how we can restore the sea, a dead sea could eclipse Owens Valley as the dustiest

place in the United States.

If we don’t fact this concern head on while facilitating these

water transfers, our community will potentially have high financial

and health costs to pay later on.

Mr. Hunter’s bill mandates marshes and ground cover to address

the effects of wind erosion. However, I do not believe we have a

complete understanding of how to best address and reduce shoreline as it relates to air quality, nor do we have any facts as to what

kind of an impact these transfers will have on our sea or on our

air.

Therefore, H.R. 5123 prescribes a solution when we don’t fully

understand the type of degree of the problem. In addition,

H.R. 5123 releases the water districts from liability with concerns

to the impacts of these water transfers.

While IID should not bear the lion’s share of this burden, the district should be assessed a justifiable measure of responsibility for

mitigation costs and environmental liabilities.

However, in addition to IID, the end users, as well as the State

and Federal Government also have an obligation to provide financial assistance in any mitigation effort. Recently, MWD, San Diego

Water and the Coachella Valley Water District, as well as Senator

Feinstein, recommended an alternative form of fallowing as an option to achieve this goal.

I understand the concerns of farmers and businesses in the Imperial Valley. You have an obligation to evaluate the negative impacts of fallowing as well. However, I also believe all options should

be placed upon the table so we can formulate an effective response

which, perhaps, contains within it a variety of concepts.

I am encouraged by the talks that four water districts have engaged in. As is usually the case, the best solution to these problems

comes from the local and not the Federal level. It is my firm belief

that we can move ahead with water transfers and maintain the air

quality in the region.

My concern with this legislation primarily is that we are jumping

the gun and not following through with good public policy.

So, again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for allowing me

to testify and for working so hard on this issues.

19

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bono follows:]

Statement of Hon. Mary Bono, a Representative in Congress from the State

of California

I would like to thank Chairman Calvert for allowing me to testify today on H.R.

5123. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the time and work you have devoted to this

issue.

All of us agree that California must take meaningful steps towards reducing its

usage on Colorado River water. The Quantification Settlement Agreement is the key

component to do just this. Therefore, I understand the needs for several of the provisions within the legislation before us today.

H.R. 5123, the ‘‘Colorado River Quantification Settlement Facilitation Act’’ brings

to the forefront several important issues we must contend with. And while I appreciate Mr. Hunter’s attempts to address my concerns related to air quality, I still

cannot support this bill in its current form.

My concerns surrounding the issue of these water transfers and this bill has always been the possible denigration of air quality in the Coachella and Imperial Valleys, and the lack of a plan to address this probability. Many community groups,

like the American Lung Association, have voiced their concerns about possible air

quality impacts. Tragically, Imperial County’s childhood asthma hospitalization rate

is already more than twice as high as the state average.

Therefore, while the Salton Sea serves a great purpose in benefitting many species and plant life inhabiting it, the key factor for me is the impact barren parts

of Sea will have on our air quality.

Some individuals believe the Sea will die anyway, with or without these water

transfers, and therefore should not be a consideration. But there are serious consequences of a ‘‘dead Sea’’.

Owen’s Valley, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, is the dustiest

place in the United States, having about 75 square miles of exposed land. The

Salton Sea, if all the water transfers continue without mitigation, faces over 105

square miles of exposed Sea surface. Therefore, while there is a legitimate question

of how we can restore the Sea, a ‘‘dead Sea’’ could eclipse Owens Valley as the

dustiest place in the U.S. If we don’t face this concern head on while facilitating

these water transfers, our community will potentially have high financial and health

costs to pay later on.

Mr. Hunter’s bill mandates marshes and ground cover to address the effects of

wind erosion. However, I do not believe we have a complete understanding of how

to best address a reduced shoreline as it relates to air quality nor do we have any

facts as to what kind of an impact these transfers will have on the Sea or on our

air. Therefore, H.R. 5123 prescribes a solution when we don’t fully understand the

type or degree of the problem.

In addition, H.R. 5123 releases the water districts from liability with concern to

the impacts of these water transfers. While IID should not bear the lion’s share of

this burden, the district should be assessed a justifiable measure of responsibility

for mitigation costs and environmental liabilities. However, in addition to IID, the

end users, as well as the state and federal government, also have an obligation to

provide financial assistance in any mitigation effort.

Recently, MWD, San Diego Water and the Coachella Valley Water District, as

well as Senator Feinstein, recommended an alternative form of fallowing as an option to achieve this goal. I understand the concerns of farmers and businesses in

the Imperial Valley. We have an obligation to evaluate the negative impacts of

fallowing as well. However, I also believe all options should be placed upon the table

so we can formulate an effective response which, perhaps, contains within it a variety of concepts.

I am encouraged by the talks the four water districts have engaged in. As is usually the case, the best solution for these problems comes from the local, not federal,

level. It is my firm belief we can move ahead with water transfers and maintain

the air quality in the region.

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify and for working so

hard on this issue.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentle lady.

Without objection, both of you, if you would like to come to the

dais and join us with the other witnesses after any questions from

the Members.

20

Are there any questions at this time for the two Members?

[No response]

Mr. CALVERT. Please join us. Come on up. While you are coming

up, we will have Mr. Bob Johnson, the Regional Director of the

Lower Colorado Region, Bureau of Reclamation come forward.

Welcome, Mr. Johnson. You may begin your testimony at any

time.

STATEMENT OF BOB JOHNSON, REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR

LOWER COLORADO REGION, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to be here and

represent the Department of Interior on these important matters.

I would like to ask that my written testimony be submitted for the

record and I would provide a summary of that.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. JOHNSON. We are very appreciative of the Committee and

Congressman Hunter’s efforts to address this difficult issue. The

department continues to keep all options open as it relates to getting to the end date of putting the quantification settlement agreement in place, including legislative action.

We are not in a position to offer specific comments on this legislation today. We are committed to provide specific comments as

soon as possible.

The complex nature of the issues that are included in the legislation requires more thorough review by a variety of government

agencies. We need a little more time to be able to response specifically.

What I would like to do is spend a little bit of time reviewing

where we are on the implementation of the QSA and the ESA compliance and also the status of our activities related to Salton Sea

restoration studies.

To date the ESA compliance has been pursued under Section 10,

Compliance, by the Imperial Irrigation District. They have been

working to obtain permits for 96 species that are located in the

area of the Imperial Valley and the Salton Sea.

This approach has been difficult and unsuccessful to date. The

IID and the Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Game and

Fish have been unable to come up with solutions for mitigating the

impacts of species, especially those located on the Salton Sea, when

on-farm conservation measures are implemented within Imperial.

There is, of course, as we mentioned earlier, an approach that

could be followed that would help resolve that issue. That would

be for Imperial to use fallowing of farmland as a means to obtain

the water for the transfers. That is a complicated issue.Imperial

farmers and the Imperial community obviously have some concerns

about the local economic impacts. That is still an option that is out

there.

I know some interim fallowing programs are being proposed and

we are open to considering and working on those alternatives.

We have initiated recently a Section 7 consultation process. We

submitted a biological assessment to the Fish and Wildlife Service

just this week. We are partnering with the California entities to try

to pursue Section 7 compliance.

21

Section 7 is a Federal process, not a local process. We are able

to reduce the number of species that we are trying to address from

96 to 4 and we think the identification of conservation measures

to mitigate for a smaller number of species will be much easier. We

are hopeful that that process can conclude in achieving ESA compliance for both us as well as obtaining permits for the agencies to

be able to execute the QSA.

It does not provide the assurances that the Section 10 process

does, but it is a vehicle to get to the signing of the QSA by the end

of the year. The Salton Sea is a important resource and I would

like to just quickly reiterate our perspective as it relates to the

Salton Sea and the transfers.

It has been said earlier, and we agree with the statement that

the transfers are not responsible for the impacts to the Salton Sea.

The Salton Sea is deteriorating with or without the transfers. The

Salton Sea restoration effort is the vehicle to address that broader

restoration effort.

We do think that the transfers have to address the impacts of endangered species and obtain compliance with both the State ESA

law as well as the Federal ESA law.

Impacts on the Salton Sea do impact species, and from that

standpoint the Salton Sea is linked to the transfers. We are hoping

that, as I said earlier, our Section 7 process can get to a solution

that will allow Imperial to implement on-farm conservation measures and at the same time achieve compliance with the ESA.

Mr. Chairman, I see that I am about out of time. I think I will

conclude my remarks with that and be glad to try to respond to

questions.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

Statement of Robert Johnson, Regional Director, Lower Colorado Region,

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior.

My name is Robert Johnson and I am Regional Director of Bureau of Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Region. I am pleased to provide the Administration’s views

on H.R. 5123. The Lower Colorado Region office is integrally involved with the administration of the Colorado River and has worked closely with representatives of

California regarding their implementation of the California Colorado River 4.4 Plan

and associated issues related to the Salton Sea. The Department testified in earlier

field hearings regarding these matters and I will endeavor to not repeat the information provided and submitted for the record in those proceedings. I refer the Subcommittee to that testimony if you desire a more complete background and understanding of the issues being addressed by the California 4.4 Plan.

The Department is very appreciative of Congressman Hunter’s and this Subcommittee’s efforts to assist in resolving these very difficult issues affecting southern California as well as six other Colorado River Basin States. H.R. 5123 offers

some interesting approaches to addressing some of those outstanding issues. However, because of the complexity and limited time for a comprehensive review of the

bill, the Administration is not prepared to offer specific comments or positions on

the bill’s provisions. We would be pleased to provide a more detailed analysis in the

near future.

I can report, however, that the Department remains committed to working toward

resolution of the issues addressed by the proposed legislation. We continue to keep

all options open regarding resolution of the issues, including legislative approaches.

However, because it is unlikely that legislation will be enacted before the end of the

year, we cannot rely on legislative remedies. We are focusing our energies on finding

solutions within the existing legal framework and our existing authorities under

federal law.

22

I would like to provide the Committee with a summary and update on our ongoing

activities as it relates to both federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) issues along

with and ongoing efforts to define a plan for Salton Sea restoration.

Endangered Species Act Activities

Significant work regarding the potential impacts of California 4.4 Plan water

transfers on the Salton Sea have been conducted thus far between IID and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 10 of the ESA. Under this section10 process,

IID has sought to receive ESA permits that cover up to 96 species and obtain assurances that future changes in conditions affecting any of the species will not require

further commitments from IID.

As you know, this process has encountered significant difficulty. The underlying

water transfer agreements call for farmers in IID to implement on-farm water conservation activities through improved efficiency in order to make water available for

transfer. However, reductions in drainage and tail water caused by on-farm water

conservation also reduces water inflow to the Salton Sea. Experts predict that such

reduced inflow will cause hyper-saline conditions to be reached in the Salton Sea

sooner than otherwise would have occurred. This ‘‘temporal’’ impact would affect

fish and wildlife using the Sea for habitat, some of which are listed as threatened

or endangered.

After extensive ESA discussions between IID and both the California Department

of Game and Fish and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, no acceptable mitigation

measures for these temporal impacts on the species have yet been identified.

IID’s efforts to secure ESA permits under section 10 of the ESA would become

much easier to achieve if the water transfers relied on an alternative approach involving land fallowing within IID as the basis for obtaining the water for the proposed transfer. Analysis has shown that impacts to the Salton Sea and associated

fish and wildlife from a land fallowing approach are significantly reduced or eliminated. In response, IID argues that land fallowing can trigger a number of negative

outcomes and would have an adverse impact on the local economy from reduced agricultural production. To date, land fallowing has generally been found unacceptable

by IID as the basis for the transfer. IID has indicated some willingness to implement a short-term fallowing program (up to 5 years) but opposes long-term programs. Short-term commitments do little to reduce the temporal impacts on the

Salton Sea and its fish and wildlife resources.

In an effort to find a solution to this problem, the Bureau of Reclamation has offered to undertake a voluntary initiative that could provide IID and the other California water agencies with an alternative to the section 10 process that has proved

so difficult to complete. Under this voluntary approach, Reclamation, in cooperation

with some—or all—of the four California water agencies involved with the water

transfers would propose a number of conservation measures under section 7(a)(1) of

the ESA. In this context, and within the section 7 consultation process, it is hoped

that a conservation plan to address all currently listed species in and around the

Salton Sea could be developed. This conservation plan could potentially provide the

basis for appropriate ESA permits for the non-federal actions of the California water

agencies associated with implementing the transfer. Under this approach the conservation plan would address the impacts of the non-federal actions on the four species listed as endangered under the Federal ESA (southwestern willow flycatcher,

desert pupfish, razorback sucker and the California brown pelican). By narrowing

the scope of this approach to the four currently listed species it is hoped that an

appropriate and acceptable conservation plan can be developed. Formal consultation

for this voluntary approach under Section 7 was initiated on July 23, 2002. If appropriate agreements to undertake components of the conservation plan can be developed with the California agencies, it is anticipated that the consultation can be completed in the time provided under ESA regulations (i.e., within 135 days).

While we believe that this section 7-based voluntary approach will provide a basis

for the California agencies to proceed with execution of the water transfer agreements and the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) under the Federal Endangered Species Act, additional compliance activities are likely to be required by

the California agencies to achieve compliance with applicable provisions of California state law, particularly the California ESA. Discussions are ongoing with the

California Department of Fish and Game to see if a more limited species list might

also facilitate State ESA compliance.

The Section 7 process will not provide the assurances that the Section 10 process

does. However, it will hopefully allow the deadlines for execution of the California

Plan agreements to be met, and it will offer options for the California parties to consider in moving ahead with the transfer. IID will have the flexibility to implement

on-farm conservation or utilize fallowing programs, short- or long-term.

23

Relationship with Salton Sea Restoration

Finally, there is some confusion regarding the responsibility of the California 4.4

Plan water transfers for impacts to the Salton Sea. The transfers are not responsible for the decline of the Salton Sea. Any impacts to the Sea, as discussed above,

are anticipated to be temporal in nature. The Sea is deteriorating with or without

the transfers and its restoration is being addressed separately as authorized by Congress in the Salton Sea Restoration Act of 1998.

Congress recognized the impact of reduced inflow and directed that those effects

be considered in developing alternatives for its consideration. Congress’’ recognition

of the reduced inflows validates the importance of the transfers and the need for

implementation with or without a restoration plan at this time.

The California Plan water transfers may, however, have impacts on endangered

species and will need to be mitigated for. Mitigation measures may involve activities

in and around the Salton Sea to enhance and protect the species, but that does not

necessarily translate to an overall restoration of the Sea or responsibility for restoration. Mitigation for impacts to species may also occur off-site and could result

in minimal involvement of the transfers in and around the Sea. We are hopeful that

the Section 7 process will allow completion of the QSA by year’s end with or without

the legislative options included in H.R. 5123.

Salton Sea Restoration Activities

Salton Sea Restoration studies are currently under way and will identify a variety

of alternatives for stabilizing salinity at the sea. As directed in the Salton Sea Restoration Act of 1998, each alternative will consider declining inflows over time. The

Congress anticipated that a variety of activities, including water conservation and

transfer, might affect inflows to the Sea and asked that such changing conditions

be considered in developing options.

In January of 2000, pursuant to the requirements of the Salton Sea Reclamation

Act of 1998, the Department released a combined Draft Environmental Impact

Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report and an Alternatives Appraisal Report. These documents described various short- and long-term restoration features

which included such options as on-land and in-sea Enhanced Evaporation Systems,

large in-sea evaporation ponds, large water export options to the Pacific Ocean or

the Gulf of California, and import options using Colorado River flood flows and/or

brine waste water flows from the proposed Central Arizona Salinity Interceptor.

Subsequent to releasing these documents, over 1,500 comments were received

from concerned governmental agencies, environmental organizations, and individuals. Although the Department believes that requirements of the Salton Sea Reclamation Act have been met, it agreed to reevaluate additional restoration concepts

and continue efforts to prepare a revised alternatives report.

Since the decision to reevaluate was made, numerous scientific and engineering

technical workshops have been conducted. In addition, numerous physical and/or

chemical engineering and scientific research study initiatives have been implemented. Examples of these research efforts include a 12-acre solar evaporation pond

project, a physical and chemical salt research facility, a 700-hour Enhanced Evaporation System test effort, a North shore wetland research projectCa cooperative effort with the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian Tribe, and a Vertical Tube

Evaporation, or VTE, pilot study using geothermal energy, in cooperation with California Energy (who owns the geothermal facilities). Furthermore, recently proposed

efforts through the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory may result in additional information being collected concerning air quality, underground water resources, and desalination techniques.

Information obtained from these ongoing and proposed efforts has been, and will

continue to be, important in providing an accurate description of viable restoration

concepts, with realistic cost estimates.

As you are very aware, proposed solutions to restoring the Sea are often complex

and potentially controversial, given other related actions involving water transfers

and potential reduced inflows. These issues increase our need to be accurate with

concept descriptions, performance efficiencies, and cost estimates. Significant

progress has been made in developing restoration concepts, but further analysis is

needed before finalizing a draft Alternatives Report and releasing it for review.

Prior to the release of the draft Alternatives Report we want to assure you that Reclamation will continue to work with the Authority and the public as we move forward on this effort.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we are determined to work with the State of California and the

California water agencies to facilitate completion of the proposed California Plan acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Jun 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\80968.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
24

tivities within the required time frames. Three years of record drought on the Colorado River dictate the need to find solutions. Other states will have little tolerance

for failure to meet the deadlines which were proposed and agreed to by all seven

Colorado River Basin states. We are keeping all options open for completing the

process, including additional legislation. We must however, reiterate our concern

that the issues are too complex, the consequences for California are too significant

and time is too short to rely exclusively on a strategy that depends on passage of

additional federal legislation. We look forward to continuing to work with this Subcommittee and Congress as we move forward with our work on these critical Colorado River issues.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Johnson, you and I have been in many hearings over the years, many meetings over the years, regarding the

Salton Sea and the Colorado River and the Upper and Lower Basin

States. It is somewhat frustrating at times, though, happily a QSA

was entered into, but we are running out of time.

We are just about to start the month of August and we have this

issue out there that has to be determined by the end of this year.

When we started down the path of finding a preferred solution to

the Salton Sea a number of years ago, and a lot of money ago —

this Congress has appropriated a substantial amount of money —

to com up with a preferred solution, because I think everyone on

this panel and everyone that has been involved in this issue would

agree, in my memory it was ever contemplated that Imperial County, one of the poorest counties in the State of California and the

Coachella Valley and others would take on the load of unlimited

third-party impacts regarding the Salton Sea.

In saying that, we had thought that we would come up with a

preferred solution a lot sooner than that and we could be moving

toward that at the same time moving to execute the Quantification

Settlement Agreement and move this water transfer forward,

which is extremely important, as you know, not just the future of

the State of California, but to the future of the entire West, because of the lack of water and the utility of the Colorado River, as

you well know.

When do you think we are going to be able to get this preferred

solution?

Mr. JOHNSON. As you know, we have been working long and hard

on trying to find solutions to the Salton Sea. In fact, we submitted

a report to Congress in January of 2000. We received over 1500

comments on that and committed to go back and try to address

those comments and reevaluate options for addressing restoration

of the sea.

We have, in conjunction with the Salton Sea Authority, continued to pursue a variety of options. The money that you have provided has been most helpful in carrying out a lot of research, doing

some very important demonstration programs, helping us understand the alternatives, some of the alternatives and the technical

aspects of some of those alternatives.

We have done demonstration solar ponds. We have done some

wetlands development. We have done research and are doing research in using geothermal energy to do some desalinization at the

sea.

We have been working hard on an alternatives report that would

in fact display a number of alternatives as the Congress directed

in the 1998 legislation.

25

Mr. CALVERT. Well, as you can understand, Mr. Johnson, the

problem that we have today and the reason we are having this

hearing today and the reason Mr. Hunter is attempting to find a

solution to this problem is because we are running out of time.

Whatever that preferred solution may be, whatever the cost may

be, it may be something we can do, something we can’t do, but it

is difficult for this Congress to analyze any potential solution to the

Sea if in fact we don’t have something to analyze.

You mentioned a number of scenarios. Granted, they were put

forward to us, but we would like the Department of Interior to be

more forthcoming, to come up with a solution that we can look at

seriously because here we are today, Mr. Hunter has a bill up. It

is like everything we do around here. Some people like it and some

people don’t. But at least he has something on the table.

What we are trying to do is come up with a viable solution that

will move this QSA forward because as you know, you were in the

negotiations with the Upper and Lower Basin States. I don’t know

if they are very sympathetic to the problems of the Salton Sea or

the problems of the State of California when December comes

around, that if in fact we don’t have a solution to this problem and

if we don’t move this forward, I suspect Humpty Dumpty is going

to fall off the wall and I don’t know if we can put him back together again, quite frankly.

So, again, we are running out of time. I would hope that you

could do a more detailed analysis of this bill very quickly. I was

hoping before this hearing today and hopefully very soon that you

could come back to us and help us come up with a solution to this

problem.

I am going to come back to you with some other questions in a

moment, but my time has run out.

So, I will move to Ms. Solis and others questions on the panel.

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to ask questions. I was interested in hearing the

statements made by Congresswoman Bono that lead me to believe

that she is not in agreement with this proposed legislation.

I have some concerns as well. You mentioned earlier, Mr. Johnson, that you haven’t had the time to assess appropriately what

this plan will provide. I have those questions and concerns as well

and would ask that your Agency submit any information it currently has to this Committee. We need the recent ESA biological

assessment. Those materials haven’t been given to us and I would

hope that you can make that available to this Committee.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, we can.

Ms. SOLIS. Some of the issues I tend to be concerned about deal

also with job loss. We are going to be looking at trying to create

mechanisms to address some of the issues that were raised. Current levels of unemployment, I understand, are very high in the

Coachella Valley.

What remedies are going to provide some alleviation for the people who are going to be affected there by job loss? That is one issue.

The other is the fact that we are moving so quickly here, in a

matter of hours we are going to be voting on this. This is something that doesn’t necessarily happen quite often.

26

Mr. CALVERT. If the gentle lady would yield on that point, the

problem we have, as you know, we are leaving, hopefully, tomorrow

night and will be gone until September.

At this point we need to move something forward even if to have

it to the Full Committee when we return as we can hopefully come

up and try to move the Department of Interior and others to a solution of this problem.

If we don’t executive the Quantification Settlement Agreement by

December 31st, the agreement falls apart with all of the States

that are involved in this agreement.

I suspect there will be changes to this legislation. We will work

with Ms. Bono and others that have concerns about this legislation.

But time is of the essence. No matter what our positions may be

on this particular bill, again, I am hopeful that we can move it

from this Subcommittee forward.

Enough of us will have the summer to look at this, discuss this

is with other people, talk about changes in the legislation and so

forth. But it is important that we keep this thing on track and

move it forward.

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, just reclaiming my time, one of the

issues that I think also needs to be addressed is with respect to the

mitigation that the Federal Government will have to take on. We

are putting a cap on this here. As we all know, we are faced with

a short fall in our budgets here. How much liability can we assume

if this plan moves forward and things don’t work out?

Those are some concerns that I have. I wish that I could ask for

the same things on some of the issue areas that I am dealing with

in my own district. But at this time I just don’t see that the government can take on this kind of liability that are projected here,

up to $2 billion. So, I have some very serious questions about that.

Also, with respect to the Endangered Species Act, I do think we

have to have some balanced approach here.

Just given your comments, Mr. Johnson, I am not getting a sense

that we have enough of the answers yet from your department as

well. You can respond.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we are embarked, I believe on a process that

hopefully can result in getting the QSA signed at the end of the

year.

The Section 7 process that I talked about has a 135-day timeframe associated with it in consultation with the Fish and Wildlife

Service. By initiating consultation formally this week, that 135

days would be completed toward the end of November.

We believe if we can get to an acceptable set of conservation

measures with the Service, that that will open the door for the ESA

compliance to be achieved and the Quantification Settlement

Agreement to be implemented.

Ms. SOLIS. One last issue here is also my understanding that this

bill would essentially codify the Department of Interior’s study and

directs the government to abide by its recommendation without

even seeing the study and knowing what is in it.

Also, the bill waives the normal statute of limitations for people

to file an appeal. Instead of the usual 1 year, it is going to be 90

days. I would like to get your response on that.

27

Mr. JOHNSON. That is a very complicated and controversial issue.

As I stated earlier, the bill as a whole is still under review and I

am unable to offer any specific responses as it relates to the various provisions.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Hunter.

Mr. HUNTER. I might, in asking my question, just address my

colleague’s concerns. The issue here is the folks from Imperial Valley, the farmers and the community because there are 140,000 people who live there, have been asked to transfer some of their water

to your and my constituents because we are going to be short on

water now that we have to live within our means because the other

basin States, Nevada, Arizona, et cetera, are forcing us to take our

rightful share of water under the water settlement agreement,

which is less that what we are using.

We are using 5.2 million acre-feet. We are going to have to go

down to 4.4. So, your representatives have turned to our people

who live in Imperial Valley and saying, can we have some of that

agriculture water.

We think we know how you can get it. You can get it by doing

more effective irrigation on your fields, so instead of running all

your water across your alfalfa field and having a lot of wastewater

at the end of the field which goes into the Salton Sea, you will now

have a pump back system that pumps that water back over the

fields so you won’t use as much irrigation water. And if we help

you pay for those water conservation measures, maybe we can have

some of the water that you have saved.

That is what this deal that my constituents have signed does.

Your representatives and your water agencies have signed it and

it will now deliver drinking water to your constituents.

The problem is, as we are going down the line with this deal, the

Fish and Wildlife and State Fish and Game stepped in and said,

‘‘Wait a minute. If you don’t send this wastewater that you have

been running off these fields into the Salton Sea, the Salton Sea

will go down.’’

So now my farmers and the people in my valley are being told,

‘‘We said we would sue you if you didn’t conserve. Now we are telling you that you may be sued under wildlife statutes if you do conserve. So, whichever way you go, you are going to be liable.’’

So, this is a business deal in which our people say, ‘‘Wait a

minute. We signed this thing saying we wouldn’t have to turn our

farms back to desert because the easiest way out here is simply to

not put any water on the crops and simply not have crops and let

it go back to cactus for the people in my community.’’

They have a contract that all parties have signed that say this

water conservation will be done with on-farm conservation, like a

water pump-back system. That is how we come up with the extra

water to send to your constituents.

Now, the problem is the Salton Sea was a problem that we were

going to solve with Federal and State dollars. Mr. Johnson has

pointed out that it is going to be a complicated and expensive process.

We don’t have the answers. He doesn’t have the answers. I think

the essence of his statement is that he doesn’t have the answers.

We have a few months left to make this water transfer work so

28

that your constituents can have drinking water and we are running

out of time.

In the end, all of this resolves down, Mr. Johnson, does it not,

to somebody writing a check or some various entities writing a

check. If we have a billion dollar bill to sale the Salton Sea, the

Federal Government and State government are going to have to

write checks for $500 million a piece or whatever the split is.

What has happened is the Federal Government has said,‘‘Wait a

minute. If we can make the water transfer write the check on the

basis that it is related to the water transfer, every dime that they

write we won’t have to write.’’

Now, my intuition is that that is one reason there has been such

a slow process here in getting a response from the Federal Government. It could be that if we put $100 million into a mitigation process, maybe we make a big offsite marsh for the pelicans and the

other endangered species and it costs $100 million or $200 million

and that is paid for by the people of Imperial Valley and by your

constituents who are water users, the Federal Government won’t

have to pay then. If we come up with an analysis that says it is

going to cost $3 billion to save the Salton Sea, our $200 million

marsh or $100 million marsh may be the total mitigation project

for the sea.

So, the question is: Who pays the bill here? What I am saying

is what we do when we have a practical problem and that says, we

don’t know how to save the sea yet. We don’t know how big the bill

is going to be. My constituents who signed this contract said if this

thing comes out of fallowing, and that means turning our land back

to desert, we are not going to do it. And they have a right not to

do it and they have also said, ‘‘If we get sued for billions of dollars

for the little money we are going to make on the transfer, the contract is void. That is in the contract.’’

So, Mr. Johnson, isn’t it true that the discovery, and you have

gone through this many times with Mr. Calvert, the discovery of

a new endangered species can end up with multi-hundred million

dollar exposure for whatever agency or whatever private party is

involved in changing the habitat for that particular species. That

is a fact of life under endangered species, is it not?

Mr. JOHNSON. It depends on the process.

Mr. HUNTER. But let me say this: It can involve $100 million liabilities, can it not?

Mr. JOHNSON. I would not want to speculate on the amount.

Mr. HUNTER. It has involved $100 million-plus projects that have

had to be done to save endangered species, has it not, the utilization of the Endangered Species Act?

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not aware of specific ESA issues that have

required that kind of investment to address. It is possible, but I

have not personal.

Mr. HUNTER. What you are saying is that the amount of exposure or liability is unknown, is it not?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is true. There are always unknowns.

Mr. HUNTER. So, my question to you is, if you have the problem

that we have and that is we have to make this water transfer work

and it is a contract and you are asking one contracting party to

sign up for something which could give them unknown exposure at

29

a future date and they have a specific clause that says if this exposure goes above $20 million, the contract is over and Ms. Solis’ and

Mrs. Napolitano’s and all the rest of the California delegation’s constituents stop getting that extra water they were getting.

Yet, that exposure that is unknown has never been fixed or clarified. Does it make sense to maintain that contract and isn’t that

a dangerous thing for the State of California and for the water

users to be involved in?

Mr. JOHNSON. Under the Section 10 process, there are assurances that could be received.

Mr. HUNTER. For future endangered species?

Mr. JOHNSON. Species that are not listed as endangered can have

habitat conservation plans developed under an HCP. Now, we have

not been successful, obviously, the IID process has not been successful in coming up with anything there.

Mr. HUNTER. So, the point is, if we want certainty so that we can

make this deal go forward, you can’t offer us certainty at this time,

can you, in terms of how much is going to have to be paid?

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainty is always nice, but certainty in dealing

with these issues is never there.

Mr. HUNTER. Well, that is my point.

Mr. JOHNSON. Every activity that we undertake in water management has a certain amount of uncertainty.

Mr. HUNTER. So, let me follow that. So, the $20 million exposure

limit that is written into the contract for the people of Imperial

Valley who say if we go above $20 million, we are not going to

bankrupt ourselves to move water to the cities.

So, the point is that there is a possibility that that $20 million

level is going to be breached, is there not?

Mr. JOHNSON. There is a possibility, yes.

Mr. HUNTER. Well, for the people of California who need the certainty of a continuing water transfer, that doesn’t bode well, does

it, this uncertainty.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think we would all prefer as much certainty as we can get.

Mr. HUNTER. Well, that is what my bill does.

Mr. JOHNSON. Every activity that we carry out related to water

management has uncertainty associated with it as it relates to the

Endangered Species Act.

Mr. HUNTER. But every contract for water transfer, and this a

contract between contracting parties, doesn’t manifest uncertainty.

So, I guess my question is, what I do, as I say, in a common sense

way, we have to have a certainty. We have to have some certainty.

Once we pay this water in for the transfer, this transfer is going

to carry a certain amount of burden and that is it and then we will

figure out how to save the sea and we will use Federal and State

money. You start with that first $50 million, but you can’t come

back later for a couple of hundred million or a billion more dollars.

And so we have a certainty.

Now, in light of how crucial this is for the people of California,

don’t you think it is good to have some certainty either fixed by you

— you said you could deliver a certain degree of certainty — or

fixed by statute.

30

Mr. JOHNSON. Under Section 10, a certain degree of assurances

can be obtained from the Fish and Wildlife Service under a Habitat

Conservation Plan. I don’t think that I was saying that we can provide through an administrative process under Section 7, complete

certainty as it relates to future listings.

Mr. HUNTER. And thereby future expenses.

Mr. CALVERT. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Mrs. Napolitano.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am enjoying listening to a lot of the dialog because I learn a little bit more every

time.

There are some serious questions that I have. As the Chairman

has stated, this is a very important step for CalFed. Certainly I

want to see the 4.4 move forward, but not to the point where it is

going to leave the taxpayer liable if the $50 million write-off for the

water agencies does not cover the ESA mitigation or the ability for,

whether it is restoration or whether it is the setting up of a new

area, whatever.

Then it goes back either to the general public or the California

taxpayers or the Federal Government. To me that is one of those

important issues that, while it may sound good in the beginning,

it may not help in the end.

The other is, was there talk at La Quinta on a discovery of a

large grown water reservoir beneath Imperial County and how

would that fit into the relief of the farmers?

Mr. JOHNSON. We have engaged Lawrence Livermore. They have

suggested that there may be a significant aquifer that could be

tapped that would supply a water supply to extend the life of the

Salton Sea.

That is uncertain. There were some studies a number of years

ago that said that there is a possibility. One of the things that we

are going to have Lawrence Livermore do is develop some more

data on that.

We just don’t know if that resource is in fact there, but we are

willing to take some additional looks at that and see if there is

something there that would be helpful.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, Mr. Johnson, given the fact that we are

facing some very tight timeframes in California for the 4.4 Plan,

how quickly can you get some information or how much can we try

to expedite finding information and reporting it to this body so that

we are then able to move and have some assurances of whether or

not there is going to be adequate water available for California in

the year 2016?

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t know how long it would take to verify that

issue associated with ground water. I would feel fairly comfortable

saying that we will not have that kind of data before the end of

the year.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. In other words, it could be that there may be

this data that does verify that there is adequate water. Wouldn’t

that be a solution, so to speak, to this particular bill?

Mr. JOHNSON. It would help. It would also help as it relates to

the long-term restoration studies that we have ongoing with the

Salton Sea authority.

31

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No, that is another area. I am not sure how

much area Mr. Hunter represents versus Mrs. Bono. For many

years I knew the Salton Sea. I have been in California many years.

It used to be a very thriving tourist attraction. I am hoping that

somewhere along the line we will be able to, because the reports

that I have read indicate that within 40 years it is going to be dead

or so saline that nothing will live in it. I mean there will be very

minimal habitat. I think you alluded to that. You mentioned that

there may be four species left.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is true. The sea is deteriorating and at some

point it will become hyper-saline. The timeframe, the estimate of

the timeframe for when that will occur, is uncertain.

When it becomes hyper-saline, you lose the fishery resource and

that has impacts on the fish-eating birds that use the Salton Sea.

There would still be, even under a hyper-saline condition, there

still would be some wildlife that would exist around the sea. You

would lose the resource for the fish-eating birds.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Another question, Mr. Johnson, do you have

any idea what the estimated costs would be to both the State and

Federal Government to restore that sea?

Mr. JOHNSON. We are in the process of trying to refine our estimates and are hoping to, in our Draft Alternatives Report, be able

to display some ranges of costs.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Do you have any ballpark fig?

Mr. JOHNSON. I think that under all scenarios restoration costs

are going to be quite high. I think a $1 billion was mentioned earlier. Certainly costs under many of the scenarios will be that high.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Will that ensure full restoration or would it

still eventually be totally saline?

Mr. JOHNSON. Those costs would maintain salinity at current levels.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is there a precedent in law for the Federal

Government to bear the large share of the mitigation costs?

Mr. JOHNSON. You know, I am not familiar with all of the ESA

mitigation activities that have occurred. Certainly we have had

Federal projects where we did bear mitigation costs.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But of this magnitude?

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not aware of any of that magnitude.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. There was the Salton Sea Restoration Plan

that the Interior Department, and I know you are with the Bureau

of Reclamation, apparently had given to Congress and there was

some follow-up. Have you any idea or can you comment on whether

we might see those replied to?

Mr. JOHNSON. See what again?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It was the Salton Sea Restoration Plan. It was

by the Interior Department.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, the January 2000 report?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. That did display a number of alternatives

from moving water in and out from the ocean, in-sea evaporation,

enhanced evaporation systems that remove salinity. All of the alternatives that were considered in that report assumed the use of

some water supply to maintain the input levels.

32

In fact, we went so far as to actually consider the use of flood

flows on the Colorado River. That was a very, very controversial

proposal. We received a lot of comments and in fact decided, consistent with the requirements of the legislation, that we couldn’t

show that in our report. That is really what has taken us back to

the drawing board and developing alternatives that don’t rely on

additional water supplies.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. A couple of years back I remember visiting the

area and talking to one of the entities that wanted to provide the

Federal Government the means of being able to clean the water

that is going back into the Salton Sea from the adjacent agriculture

areas because they said that a lot of contaminants were going in

and that was making it even worse.

What has ever happened to that?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we have done some demonstration wetlands

programs in cooperation with the Imperial Irrigation District and

EPA. In fact, we have put some demonstration wetlands in place,

the Brawley Wetlands. Those wetlands were doing some monitoring to see how successful they are in removing nutrients and in

fact, we think that does offer an approach to taking nutrients out.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Johnson, if the gentle lady would yield —

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Certainly.

Mr. HUNTER. What she is talking about is something different.

You are talking about the Brawley Wetlands that Desert Wildlife

is doing where they use Bullrushes to pull back stuff out of the

water in New River.

This was U.S. Filter.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That is right.

Mr. HUNTER. It has this plan and they have a lot of technology

that you can basically filter New River water that goes into the

sea, filter the salt out of there, the bad stuff out for about $250 and

acre-foot, with their osmosis process. They are getting a little more

efficient all the time, but it is still fairly expensive.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Hunter,

yes, that is precisely what I was talking about.

Mr. CALVERT. If the gentle lady could wrap this one up, we will

move to Mr. Osborne.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will

wait for the next round.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Mr. Osborne.

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you. I don’t have great knowledge of this

issue, but my understanding is that roughly 300,000 acre-feet of

water are being diverted to San Diego primarily through increased

agriculture efficiency.

What my question is, exactly how many acre-feet of water going

into the Salton Sea do you people feel is necessary to at least maintain the status quo?

Mr. JOHNSON. There is no amount of water. I mean the sea is

a terminal body of water and even with the current inflow, even

with no reduction from the water transfers, the deterioration of the

sea will occur.

So, that alone cannot solve the deterioration problems associated

with the sea. It does make it easier when there is additional

inflows, and less expensive to develop alternatives that remove

33

salt. But that by itself will not allow the salinity levels to be maintained.

Mr. OSBORNE. It seems to me that your answers are rather

vague. I understand you need to be cautious, but when Mr. Hunter

asked earlier if there were any cases where the Endangered Species Act had had any significant impact in terms of dollars and

cents, I think everyone here knows about the Klamath Basin situation which was about $150 million in 1 year. That was the Endangered Species Act.

The problem that people have across the country is to understand what they have to do. I can understand the growing frustration here that at some point somebody has to make a decision and

they can’t just keep sitting there and studying the issue because

time moves on.

You can have farmers wiped out. You can have communities severely strapped and handicapped. You may not ever have certainty.

You may not have a perfect world. But at some point you have to

say, well, this is the best guess we can make and let’s move forward.

I don’t know if Mr. Hunter’s plan is the whole answer, but at

least it looks like he is trying to arrive at some solution. Right now

I don’t hear anybody else that even has a plan. That is my concern,

the lack of assertiveness or aggressiveness on the part of Federal

agencies to make the world work.

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not expressing opposition to Congressman

Hunter’s plan. We are just not able to offer detailed comments, but

we are open to legislation that will solve this problem. I hope I

didn’t misstate that. I need to also emphasize, we are working as

hard as we can to find solutions for the QSA as well as solutions

for the Salton Sea.

They are separate issues. We believe they have to be dealt with

separately. We do have an administrative process in place, the Section 7 consultation process, that we are hopeful can get us there

in terms of ESA compliance by the end of this year. I guess I need

to reemphasize that we are not opposing the legislation.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Mrs. Bono.

Mrs. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I just want to say

it is freezing in here. My teeth are chattering.

Mr. CALVERT. You are skinnier than most of us.

Mrs. BONO. I just know that we are not in California any more

and we can actually afford the air conditioning here.

I want to thank Mr. Johnson for being here. We have pretty

much done this thing before, time and time again. I feel like we

are chasing our tails round and round.

I was wondering if you could comment on this letter that we

have, and I believe it has been submitted for the record. If not, I

would like to ask unanimous consent to submit it for the record,

a letter from the Coachella Valley Association of governments.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

34

Mrs. BONO. Thank you. This is a group that is formed of ten municipalities, the County of Riverside and three local tribes. They

have a letter here that opposes the Hunter legislation. It was a

unanimous vote.

In their letter, they have two comments I would like you to comment on. The first is, they write: ‘‘We understand the need to meet

the California 4.4 Plan for Colorado River water use, however, we

believe that the IID water transfer may not be an inherently crucial component to meet the 4.4 million acre-feet California allotment and it could be separated from the other components of the

35

QSA, thus providing the necessary time to allow more careful analysis of its impacts.’’

Could you please comment on that?

Mr. JOHNSON. I think the water transfer is an irreplaceable piece

of the California 4.4 plan. There is no other entity with large

enough quantities of water to be able to accommodate the reductions that are required in this 300,000 acre-feet is absolutely a critical piece.

Mrs. BONO. You disagree with their statement that it could be

separated.

The second comment of theirs: ‘‘We find it odd and an example

of flagrant ’special interest legislation’ that at a time when California is being required to cut its historic Colorado River water use,

H.R. 5123 proposes to significantly facilitate allocating Class 3 Priority Rights to an agency which has no present rights to the Colorado River water.’’

Can you comment on that?

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think that is part of the program here, to

find how to move water to the urban area. Imperial Irrigation’s

water right is a third priority under the seven party agreement.

Yes, that water supply does get moved to the urban area. San

Diego certainly has used Colorado River water for a long time as

part of the metropolitan service area. They receive their water

through their agreements with MET. So, to say they have not had

rights to Colorado River water is probably not completely accurate.

Mrs. BONO. During your testimony you said the sea is deteriorating anyway. Would you agree, though, with the scientific feeling

that over the past 1200 years that the Salton Sea has move often

than not been actually filled with water?

Mr. JOHNSON. There has been over long periods of time, absolutely. It is true that the Colorado River —

Mrs. BONO. You can answer just yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, fine. Yes.

Mrs. BONO. You would agree?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I would agree.

Mrs. BONO. It has been more often than not filled with water?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mrs. BONO. Would you agree that last year we passed legislation

that would grant the local water agencies permanent flowage easement into the Salton Sea?

Mr. JOHNSON. Associated with the Torres-Martinez Settlement

Act.

Mrs. BONO. Yes, the Torres-Martinez Settlement Act. We gave

them the permanent right to continue to flood the Salton Sea. Yet,

you are saying it is deteriorating anyway. Is that a little bit of juxtaposition there? Are you contradicting yourself? I believe you are.

You can say yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I don’t think I am. I think that irregardless

of where those flows come to, certainly the districts have flowage

easements with the Torres-Martinez, whether they had that or not,

the sea is deteriorating gradually over time.

It is just a natural occurrence on a terminal body of water. Salt

flows in. Evaporation occurs. Salinity increases.

36

Mrs. BONO. But, Mr. Johnson, you yourselves, I believe the Bureau of Rec and two administrations have sent mixed messages to

the people of southern California and to my colleagues on the other

side, too. I say, this is a resource that all of southern California can

benefit from.

But you are saying in one breath the Salton Sea is going to die

anyway. But then you are saying, but we are looking for solutions.

In my view, the truth is you think it is going to die and you are

just reluctant to come out and say that. You can’t have it both

ways. Somebody has to say one or the other and you say them

both. It is very frustrating.

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me qualify when I say the Salton Sea is going

to die anyway. I say that in the context of the water transfer to

make the point that the transfer shouldn’t be held responsible for

the deterioration of the sea because it is occurring anyway.

Mrs. BONO. But would you make the point that in Owens Valley

the water transfer entirely created a dust problem?

Mr. JOHNSON. In the Owens Valley, yes.

Mrs. BONO. Would you make the point that careful public policy

would have considered that at the point and addressed that situation proactively rather than 100 years later?

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly.

Mrs. BONO. Then I would like to say that the Chairman mentioned that Duncan Hunter at least has something on the table,

but to me we are not thinking this through clearly enough. We are

slapping this out there and trying to get it through and we really

need people to come to the table.

I have to applaud Senator Feinstein for getting everybody to the

table to address all of the possible consequences of the sea.

If I might, and I hope I am not breaking protocol, I would like

to ask a question of my colleague, Duncan Hunter. I know he is not

one to shy away from the microphone.

Mr. HUNTER. I am ready.

Mrs. BONO. Wouldn’t you agree, though you talk constantly, and

I care, too, about the economic health of the Imperial Valley, but

won’t they also suffer if they have a deterioration of air quality?

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, and that is why the provision that I put in

which is one of the most extensive provisions in our bill that provides for and mandates that you are going to have groundcover

planted on that exposed shoreline.

I think we can make lemonade out of a lemon here by using that

ground cover, extending the present wildlife refugees along the sea

and making that groundcover and those marshes and that upland

planting part of those existing refugees and make it part of the

recreation area.

I very strongly support saving the sea. I think we can do it. My

only point is, and I think Mr. Johnson made this point, nobody has

an answer and yet for all of our people who need to drink water,

we have to have this thing done. In the end, this is going to be a

matter of who writes checks. Nobody is going to be down there with

a bulldozer doing a project. We are going to write checks.

Mrs. BONO. Could I reclaim my time here?

Mr. HUNTER. Only if I can put you down as undecided on my bill.

37

Mrs. BONO. Actually, I am happy to continue to work with you

if we can address the air quality concerns and how in fact we will

address them now rather than later. I am happy to continue to

work with you on it. But I think we are being very shortsighted

if we don’t do that.

Mr. HUNTER. I would be happy to let you write that section.

Ms. SOLIS. Would the gentlewoman yield for a moment?

Mrs. BONO. Yes.

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you. On Page 14 of the bill, under Section C,

‘‘Any mitigation measures the Secretary considers necessary for the

protection of fish and wildlife resources,’’ couldn’t there be an addition there where we could look at potential air quality and health

effects there which you are bringing up?

Mrs. BONO. The gentle lady brings up an excellent point. That

is my hope. I believe that specifying that we are planning marshes

is far too narrow and that we need to address in a much bigger

way than we are, so I think she brings an excellent point.

Ms. SOLIS. Absolutely. I would just agree that while we know we

have an urgency to get water down south, there is also the necessity of looking at the quality of life for individuals that still have

to live there.

Mr. CALVERT. The gentle lady’s time has expired.

Mrs. BONO. thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. We are going to have a vote shortly, so I am going

to move this is on. One last comment, then I will excuse this panel

and invite our next panel.

I would certainly compliment Senator Feinstein for the work that

she has done regarding this issue. However, I would just like to

point out to the gentle lady from Palm Springs that we have had

a number of hearings on the Colorado River and the Salton Sea

and unlike the Senate which has had none.

So, we have been working on this for some time. I thank the gentlemen. We will ask our next panel to come forward.

Mr. John Carter, General Counsel, Imperial Irrigation District;

Mr. Tom Kirk, Executive Director, Salton Sea Authority; Mr. Dennis Underwood, Vice President for Colorado River Matters, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; Mr. Tom Levy, General Manager and Chief Engineer of the Coachella Valley Water

District; and Bill Snape, Vice President for Law and Litigation, Defenders of Wildlife.

We are going to stick to the 5-minute rule for now on because

we are running out of time here. I will first recognize Mr. Carter,

the general counsel for the Imperial Irrigation District.

STATEMENT OF JOHN CARTER, GENERAL COUNSEL,

IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT;

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,

thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony at this important hearing on H.R. 5123. I have submitted written testimony

and as that it be included in the record.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection.

Mr. CARTER. The Imperial Irrigation District supports H.R. 5123

because it would ensure timely implementation of the quantification settlement agreement and provide the resources and certainty

38

necessary to address environmental concerns associated with the

Salton Sea.

IID commends Representative Hunter for his tireless efforts on

behalf of IID and the people of the Imperial Valley. We look forward to working with him and the Subcommittee to make any refinements that might be necessary to.

I would like to briefly summarize my written testimony. First, I

want to make it very clear that IID remains committed to the historic IID San Diego County Water Authority, Water Conservation

and Transfer agreement, the Quantification Settlement Agreement

and the California 4.4 plan.

As you heard earlier, very eloquently in my opinion, from Congress Hunter, 11 months of almost daily negotiations with the

State and Federal wildlife agencies over the Salton Sea endangered

species issue has not resulted in a permit able mitigation plan.

In addition to the over $10 million that IID alone has spent in

process costs dealing with these transfer issues, IID has spent an

additional $1 million just for these negotiations. This impasse seriously jeopardizes the water transfer and the special surplus water

that could be available to urban southern California for the next

15 years.

Failure to implement the transfers by the end of this year will

likely result in a water crisis in California that would pale in comparison to last year’s power crisis.

In passing the 1998 Salton Sea Reclamation Act, Congress encouraged efficiency-based water transfers and required the government to assume reduced inflows resulting from those measures.

Efficiency conservation funded by our urban partners No. 1 allows the Imperial Valley farmers to grow the same crops while

using less water. It enhances the Imperial Valley economy by providing new jobs in an area that has the highest unemployment in

the State and it increases local income.

It also complies with State and Federal goals to conserve water

whenever possible. As a result of the Salton Sea problem that has

been discussed earlier today and in past hearings, many have suggested that IID farmers merely fallow their productive farmland to

make water available for transfer and to provide for additional

water to the Salton Sea.

If that was done, as much as 75,000 acres of productive farmland

would be taken out of production, covering over 110 square miles

in Imperial Valley. IID would lose the benefit of increased jobs and

increased economic stimulus. In fact, a fallowing program would result in a loss of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of lost income.

H.R. 5123 promotes efficiency-based conservation thereby respecting the terms of the water transfer agreements. It is consistent with Federal goals encouraging water conservation. It recognizes that the 1998 Act intended that the water transfer should

not bear the cost of restoring the Salton Sea.

Finally, it ensures timely implementation of the water transfers

and the other benefits included in the QSA.

In conclusion, IID stands ready to honor its agreements and to

go forward with the conservation and transfer programs and its

39

1 Efficiency water conservation within IID, either on-farm or delivery system, will result in

less runoff to the Salton Sea. The Sea is maintained by agricultural and municipal return flow

from the Imperial, Coachella, and Mexicali valleys. By far, IID’s agricultural return flow is the

Continued

agreement to cap its entitlement as soon as the Salton Sea issue

can be resolved.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carter follows:]

Statement of John P. Carter, General Counsel, Imperial Irrigation District

IID S SUPPORT OF HR 5123

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to provide testimony at this important hearing on HR 5123. The Imperial Irrigation

District (IID) supports HR 5123 because it would ensure timely implementation of

the Quantification Settlement Agreement and provide the resources and certainty

necessary to address environmental concerns associated with the Salton Sea. IID

commends Representative Hunter for his tireless efforts on behalf of the people of

the Imperial Valley, and we look forward to working with him and the Subcommittee to refine HR 5123.

As you are aware, HR 5123 is an important part of the effort to implement the

California Colorado River Water Use Plan. In attempting to implement the California Plan the state is facing some very serious water management questions. IID

has been working closely with the Department of the Interior and the State of California so as to bring success to that effort. But, as will be explained below, a number

of factors have made this an exceedingly difficult challenge. The points we wish to

make in this testimony are summarized as follows: • IID committed to the QSA water transfers on the basis of carrying out efficiency

conservation within the district. IID remains committed to that efficiency conservation approach.

• Efficiency conservation is good for the Imperial Valley economy and complies

with state and federal goals to conserve water whenever possible.

• A Salton Sea reclamation plan was to have been proposed and implemented

prior to the implementation of the QSA water transfers. Failure to follow that

approach now places the burden of Salton Sea endangered species problems on

the back of the QSA water transfers.

• In passing the 1998 Salton Sea Reclamation Act Congress encouraged efficiencybased water transfers and required the government to assume reduced inflows

in developing reclamation alternatives.

• Forcing IID to adopt a long-term fallowing program so as to transfer water to

the urban area and maintain baseline inflows to the Salton Sea places an inappropriate burden on the people of the Imperial Valley and is therefore unacceptable.

• All interested parties must now explore all viable alternatives for securing timely implementation of the QSA, including enactment of HR 5123.

Let me first make reference to testimony provided by IID before the California

State Water Resources Control Board on November 14, 2001. That testimony (copy

attached) provides helpful background information as to IID’s water entitlement and

IID’s history of involvement in attempting to help its urban neighbors with their

long-term water supply needs. In order to save time I will not restate that background information here.

IID S COMMITMENTS

Instead, and with that background in mind, it is important to begin with an understanding that IID has committed to a set of water transfer agreements and that

IID remains committed to those agreements. In 1998 IID entered into an agreement

with the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) for the conservation and

transfer of up to 200,000 acre-feet (af) of conserved water, with an option for another 100,000 af at IID’s discretion. The IID–San Diego agreement was expressly

based on the concept of efficiency conservation within IID. In other words, the basis

of the agreement was that IID would use less water to farm the same amount of

land—thus providing the urban area with a critical water supply while preserving

and enhancing the agricultural economy of the Imperial Valley. The water conserved

on-farm and within IID’s delivery system would be transferred to the SDCWA, and

the SDCWA would pay IID for the use of that water for a period of years. 1 Also,

40

most significant component of inflow into the Salton Sea. Any efficiency conservation within IID

will result in a one-for-one impact on inflows to the Sea. In other words, each acre foot of water

conserved within IID means one acre foot less flowing to the Salton Sea. 2 In regard to price IID provided to the SDCWA pro-forma projections of the costs of the water

conservation measures likely to be employed by IID and the Imperial Valley farmers. The

SDCWA verified those cost projections and the cost per acre foot for the conserved water was

thereafter agreed to. That cost is around $250 per acre foot in the early years of the transfer

agreement.

within the terms of the IID–San Diego agreement IID made the commitment to devote $32.4 million (2002 dollars) to mitigated present and future transfer-related environmental impacts at the Salton Sea and in the Imperial Valley.

Importantly, the IID–San Diego agreement was based on the notion that land

fallowing would not be employed as a conservation method. In fact, the agreement

expressly provided that in IID’s water conservation agreements with the farmers

land fallowing would be prohibited. In addition to avoiding fallowing there were numerous other benefits of the IID–San Diego agreement. For example, the infusion

of money into the Imperial Valley economy would stimulate business activity and

create jobs in the county with the highest unemployment in the State of California.

Also, the implementation of water conservation measures, both on-farm and delivery

system, would increase IID’s water use efficiency ratings. Although IID’s water use

efficiencies are very high, especially in comparison to other districts in this southwest region, others have claimed that IID does not use all of its water entitlement

reasonably. Implementation of on-farm and delivery system improvements would resolve that issue.

The IID–San Diego agreement was truly a ‘‘win-win’’ arrangement. The southern

California urban area was to obtain a much needed senior priority water supply for

a period of up to 75 years, and IID and its farmers were to obtain the money necessary to implement more expensive water conservation measures, while at the

same time enhancing the Imperial Valley economy. IID was committed to this arrangement in 1998 and it remains committed to this arrangement today. 2

DEVELOPMENT OF QSA

What happened after 1998 is all part of the exceedingly complex history of events

that has been on the one hand interesting but on the other hand very frustrating

from IID’s perspective. Because of the long history of tension between IID, the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), and the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD),

it became clear that the IID–San Diego agreement could not be brought to fruition

absent litigation or a broader settlement of differences among the four water-using

agencies. As a result, and with the help of Secretary Babbitt, Deputy Secretary

David Hayes, and California Department of Water Resources Director Tom

Hannigan, the four agencies worked out an historic settlement agreement entitled

the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA).

In October of 1999, IID, MWD, and CVWD agreed to Key Terms that would be

the foundation for the QSA. The QSA obviously could not be executed in the absence

of both state and federal environmental compliance, but the parties expressed their

commitment to implement the QSA as a foundation of the development of the California Colorado Water Use Plan that envisioned the reduction of California’s Colorado River use down to 4.4 maf per year.

A cornerstone of the QSA is the agreement of the parties to quantify, for a period

of years, the entitlements of IID and CVWD. That quantification goes hand-in-glove

with the proposed water transfers by allowing authorities and interested parties to

more easily verify and account for the water savings to be carried out as a part of

the QSA. Another cornerstone of the QSA was resolution of some long-standing disputes between IID and CVWD. The QSA provides for the transfer from IID to

CVWD, during the period of the QSA, a total of 100,000 af of conserved water. That

agreement resulted in a decrease in the potential amount to be transferred to the

SDCWA (down to a maximum of 200,000 af). Along with the lining of the All American Canal and other miscellaneous transactions, the QSA provides for a total of

about 500,000 af of conserved water to be transferred from the agricultural sector

(IID) to the MWD and CVWD service areas.

INTERIM SURPLUS GUIDELINES

One important consequence of the QSA Key Terms was the public demonstration

that California was serious about addressing its overuse of Colorado River water.

As a result, and with the cooperation and approval of all seven of the basin states,

Secretary Babbitt adopted special operating guidelines for the operation of Lake

Mead (January 2001 Interim Surplus Guidelines—ISG). The ISG provide for the release, over a fifteen year ‘‘California water diet’’ period, of special surplus water

41

3The ISG expressly do not guarantee the delivery of this water during the 15 year transition

period. Instead, the guidelines are tied to reservoir elevations and the overall hydrology of the

system. In other words, if Lake Mead stays relatively full, the special surplus water will be provided to MWD. However, if the reservoir goes below certain elevation levels the special surplus

water is reduced in a step-down fashion. Because of the prolonged drought in the Colorado River

basin it is possible that the self-executing provisions of the ISG will cut off most of the special

surplus water deliveries to MWD regardless as to whether the QSA is executed and implemented. 4 Although California does not contribute any water to the Colorado River it has more of an

entitlement to the river than any other state. For example, the State of Colorado, where about

70% of the river water originates, has a smaller entitlement than California. These facts tend

to support a psychological perspective that is not always in California’s favor. Thus, the terms

of the ISG represent a huge victory for the California urban area—but that victory is tied to

successful implementation of the QSA.

from Lake Mead primarily for the benefit of the southern California and southern

Nevada urban areas. In other words, the availability of this special surplus water

is what will allow California the time within which to implement the QSA, transfer

conserved water from the agricultural area to the urban area, and move toward an

overall water use of 4.4 maf, which is California’s basic Colorado River water entitlement. 3

In the context of this broader picture of the QSA and the California Plan it is

critical to appreciate the value of the ISG special surplus water that is currently

being provided through MWD to the 17 million people within the MWD service area.

The ISG do not impose any cost on MWD for the special surplus water. As a result,

if carried out over the 15 year ISG period the present value of the special surplus

water to MWD is approximately $1.8 billion. This significant benefit is largely a reflection of the largess of the Secretary and the other six basin states. 4

In crafting the terms of the ISG the Secretary and the other six basin states nevertheless expressed distrust of California’s commitment to reduce its use to 4.4 maf

per year. As a consequence, the ISG provide that if certain transfer benchmarks are

not met, and if the QSA is not executed by December 31, 2002, the special surplus

water provisions in the ISG will be suspended and a more conservative method of

operating Lake Mead will be imposed. Stated differently, if the California parties

cannot bring about the execution of the QSA by the end of this year, the benefits

of the ISG will be suspended and California will be facing some very serious water

supply challenges.

CONSTRAINTS ON THE TRANSFERS—THE SALTON SEA

With all of this background in mind, maybe one would be inclined to say: ‘‘ok, so

let’s move water from the agricultural sector to the urban sector—what’s so difficult

about that?’’ The answer is the Salton Sea. Although IID is very familiar with the

Salton Sea, others in California and around the nation are much less familiar. As

a result, it simply was not appreciated by many interested parties, at the time of

the IID–San Diego agreement or at the time of the development of the QSA Key

Terms, that the Salton Sea would present such a huge point of difficulty for these

water transfers. This has become particularly clear during the proceedings before

the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) where the QSA transfers have been submitted for approval.

As you are aware, in 1998 Congress addressed the possible reclamation of the

Salton Sea by directing the completion of certain studies and reports as a function

of the Salton Sea Reclamation Act of 1998 (P.L. 105–372). Although there are many

points of motivation behind the 1998 Act, one key point is that the Salton Sea has

become an important component of the Pacific Flyway. As explained in the SWRCB

proceedings, because urban southern California has eliminated most of its original

wetlands and waterways the Salton Sea has become important substitute habitat.

During much of the year many species of birds depend on the habitat of the Sea

as they carry out annual migrations or as they move from nesting places to feeding

places.

The magnifying glass of attention focused on the Sea has brought to light that

it is less polluted than most people feared, that it is an exceedingly productive fishery, and that it has many characteristics that were misunderstood over the years

on the basis of misinformation. However, the SWRCB proceeding also verified that

the Sea is in a state of natural decline that is consistent with how the Sea has been

filled by flooding events and then depleted by evaporation over eons of time. Since

the Sea has no outlet, and no source of fresh water other than agricultural and municipal return flows, the salinity of the Sea will increase over time until the fishery

is lost and the birds move on to other habitats. As noted before the SWRCB, some

42

fish species will likely be eliminated within 13 years, and the tilapia (the most salttolerant) will likely be eliminated by 2023.

It is in the face of this declining habitat, and the lack of a long-term Salton Sea

reclamation program, that the QSA water transfers intersected with the Salton Sea.

Facing the need for endangered species permits from both the federal and state governments, and facing the allegation that the QSA transfers would accelerate the decline of the Salton Sea, the QSA parties and the state and federal agencies set about

the process of trying to obtain Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA) compliance to allow the QSA transfers to proceed. That

effort has essentially been a failure, and has therefore caused many parties to suggest a radically different approach to the QSA water transfers that would result in

enormous socio-economic impacts on the people of the Imperial Valley.

SALTON SEA RECLAMATION ACT OF 1998

As you are aware, in 1998 Congress addressed the possible reclamation of the

Salton Sea by directing the completion of certain studies and reports as a function

of the Salton Sea Reclamation Act of 1998 (P.L. 105–372). Although there are many

points of motivation behind the 1998 Act, one key point is that the Salton Sea has

become an important component of the Pacific Flyway. As explained in the SWRCB

proceedings, because urban southern California has eliminated most of its original

wetlands and waterways the Salton Sea has become, in effect, southern California’s

mitigation bank.

It is important to emphasize that the 1998 Salton Sea Reclamation Act was intended to produce the foundation for a reclamation project that would precede the

implementation of the QSA water transfers. In fact, in passing the 1998 Act Congress expressly recognized the importance of the water transfers and expressly recognized that the QSA transfers would impact the Salton Sea by reducing inflows.

Section 101 (b) (3) of the 1998 Act provides as follows:

ASSUMPTIONS.—In evaluating options, the Secretary shall apply assumptions regarding water inflows into the Salton Sea Basin that encourage

water conservation, account for transfers of water out of the Salton Sea

Basin, and are based on a maximum likely reduction in inflows into the

Salton Sea Basin which could be 800,000 acre-feet or less per year.

It is therefore clear that the Salton Sea reclamation program was to have unfolded in the context of reduced inflows to the Sea. Congress recognized, as did IID

and the other QSA parties, that the water transfers were of paramount importance

and that any Salton Sea reclamation program would simply have to be developed

on the basis of assumed reduced inflows. Indeed, it bears repeating that such an

assumption is now a part of the federal law.

EFFICIENCY–BASED CONSERVATION vs. FALLOWING

Nevertheless, as the state and federal wildlife agencies failed to approve mitigation plans for endangered species law compliance, and as we approached the ISG

deadline of December 31, 2002, some interested parties began to ignore the terms

of the 1998 Act and simply concluded that there was only one way to carry out the

QSA transfers while maintaining inflows to the Sea—massive land fallowing within

IID. This idea has now taken root within the environmental community, some members of the Salton Sea Authority, local water agencies in line to receive water from

the transfers and ISG, and in some parts of the federal and state governments.

It is not necessary to devote a great deal of time to the conclusion that a large

long-term land fallowing program is not in the best interest of IID or the Imperial

Valley community. But it is important to emphasize that a program to create

300,000 af of water for transfer, and the additional water needed to provide mitigation inflows to the Salton Sea, would require the fallowing of about 75,000 acres of

productive farmland. This amounts to about 110 square miles of land. Instead of

providing for an infusion of jobs and economic stimulus into the local economy (as

with efficiency conservation), land fallowing would result in a significant loss of jobs

and significant third party impacts. The economic impact on the Imperial Valley

would be the loss of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of lost

local income.

IID also asserts that the main impact of the California Plan, and the need to reduce usage to 4.4 maf per year, is on junior water right holders within California

as opposed to IID. Accordingly, one option is for the junior right holders to reduce

their water uses in order to match their reliable water rights. IID suggests that if

such agencies instead turn for help to a senior water right holder, like IID, it should

not be on the basis of forcing reduced use (such as with fallowing) but should be

on the basis of the creation of a new supply without a reduction in farming.

43

Nevertheless, for a period of time IID attempted to understand this shift in thinking toward fallowing and even went so far as to suggest that if certain protective

actions were taken a land fallowing program might be given serious consideration.

However, several factors have now demonstrated that this is not a viable path. For

example, it has become clear that mitigation for impacts to people is exceedingly difficult to understand and accomplish, and in fact the national track record for such

efforts is very poor. Also, it became abundantly clear that the urban water agencies

and the State of California were unwilling to recognize the need to develop and fund

a meaningful socio-economic impacts program for the Imperial Valley. Along with

other factors, these influences have convinced IID and the Imperial Valley community that a long-term fallowing program is not a viable option. IID is unwilling to

put the Imperial Valley at risk to benefit others.

HR 5123 PROMOTES EFFICIENCY–BASED CONSERVATION

This background brings us to the consideration of HR 5123. There are several

components of HR 5123 that are consistent with IID’s perspective regarding this

whole water transfer matter. For example, HR 5123 reflects the notion that the

Salton Sea reclamation program was to have been developed ahead of the QSA

water transfers. Had that been done, the intersection of the transfers with the

Salton Sea would have resulted in a much different analysis and much less of an

endangered species compliance burden. Following this perspective, HR 5123 quantifies the contribution of the four water agencies and then provides environmental

clearance for the water transfers (Section 4 (a) (2)). We see this as a positive recognition of the interplay between the 1998 Salton Sea Reclamation Act and the QSA

water transfers.

Another example is that portion of HR 5123 (Section 4 (b)) that provides longterm assurances to the QSA parties. IID has long been on record that it will not

accept long-term future risks under either the federal ESA or the state CESA. IID

is attempting to be a good neighbor in facilitating the transfer of about 500,000 a/

f to the MWD and CVWD service areas, but IID will not put itself in a position of

risk in regard to future endangered species-related problems that might arise in the

context of the QSA water transfers. HR 5123 attempts to address these important

concerns. While we will have some amendments to propose at the appropriate time these

examples demonstrate that HR 5123 is oriented in the right direction and attempts

to address some of IID’s fundamental concerns. Most importantly, however, HR

5123 is aimed at supporting the foundational concept behind all of the QSA water

transfers—efficiency conservation within IID. Unlike legislation currently under

consideration in the California legislature, HR 5123 does not attempt to force IID

and the Imperial Valley community to accept a long-term fallowing program. Rather, HR 5123 respects the terms of the IID–San Diego agreement, the provisions of

the QSA Key Terms, and the requirements of the 1998 Salton Sea Reclamation Act.

DOI’S SECTION 7 EFFORTS

In the face of the impasse over the solutions to the Salton Sea, the Department

of the Interior (DOI) has announced that it will attempt to comply with the Endangered Species Act for the QSA water transfers through the use of the Section 7 consultation provisions of the ESA. Under this approach, DOI and the Bureau of Reclamation, along with the four water agencies, will be exploring the feasibility of obtaining ESA and CESA compliance with a focus on a much smaller number of species. IID appreciates the efforts of Secretary Norton and Assistant Secretaries Raley

and Manson in attempting to find innovative ways to bring about implementation

of the QSA water transfers on the basis of our original contract commitment—efficiency conservation. At the same time, IID is not willing to assume the risk that

additional mitigation costs might be imposed on IID as a result of future unforeseen

circumstances (such as the listing of new species or the need for reconsultations).

Either the federal government and/or the urban water agencies need to take responsibility for such risks.

Even though the Section 7 approach may be consistent with the orientation of HR

5123, we are also concerned that a Section 7 approach may only be a partial solution. The California Endangered Species Act imposes independent, and more stringent, regulatory requirements on the QSA water transfers. Thus, it will need to be

determined if the State of California is willing to cooperate in facilitating the Section 7 approach by providing parallel clearance under California law.

CONCLUSION

In summary, let me explain that this has been a long and frustrating road for

IID. On many occasions IID has been singled out as the entity that has not been

cooperative enough or has otherwise made the process difficult. We strongly disVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Jun 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\80968.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
44

5 It would be ludicrous to suggest that Imperial Valley farmers should fallow land so that their

farming neighbors at CVWD can continue to farm or build more golf courses. That proposition

is simply unacceptable. If water is to move from IID to CVWD, under the QSA or any other

arrangement, such water will need to be developed via efficiency conservation within IID.

agree with these characterizations and assert that such characterizations merely reflect the attitude that IID has not been willing to compromise its principles solely

for the benefit of others. As noted at the outset, IID remains committed to the IID–

San Diego agreement, remains committed to the Key Terms for the QSA, and remains committed to the California Plan. IID has devoted countless hours to this

process and has spent millions of dollars to ensure success without one dime in

transfer revenue income. What IID will not do is sacrifice the Imperial Valley economy for the benefit of others.

IID also appreciates the difficult situation presented by the Salton Sea. But the

issue here is really relatively simple: which is more important to California—the

QSA water transfers and the success of the California Plan, or maintaining baseline

inflows to the Salton Sea? What is clear is this—IID and the Imperial Valley community will not carry the burden for California to have both. IID will not approve

a long-term land fallowing program to provide water to SDCWA, MWD and CVWD

and at the same time maintain baseline inflows to the Salton Sea. 5 That is not what

Congress envisioned in 1998 and that would be contrary to what was enacted into

federal law. If California desires to maintain inflows to the Salton Sea then it

should work with the urban water agencies to figure out how to conserve water in

the urban areas and/or develop new supplies that do not rely upon IID, thereby

maintaining the status quo as to Salton Sea inflows.

In the end all IID can do is maintain its commitment to the win-win agreements

it developed with its water agency partners. If the interested parties are also committed to those agreements then they will need to find a way to allow the efficiency

conservation foundation of the QSA water transfers to be maintained. This may require significant political will on the part of the federal government and the State

of California. In any event, IID stands ready to cooperate to implement the QSA

water transfers as originally envisioned while continuing with the business of farming some of the most productive farmland in the world.

[An attachment, ‘‘Statement of the Imperial Irrigation District before the State

Water Resources Control Board - November 14, 2001,’’ has been retained in the

Committee’s official files.]

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Kirk, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF TOM KIRK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SALTON

SEA AUTHORITY

Mr. KIRK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members. I am again, Tom

Kirk, Executive Director of the Salton Sea Authority. I do want to

note that in our written testimony that we ask you make a part

of the record, we do have the CVAG letter as an attachment.

Both the Salton Sea Authority and CVAG are opposed to

H.R. 5123 as written.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection.

Mr. KIRK. H.R. 5123 does encourage, unfortunately, one of the

most environmental damaging form of water transfer. One of the

challenges we have is talking about conservation. Here when we

talk about making farmers more efficient, unfortunately, we are

talking about reducing inflows to the Salton Sea, as opposed to

fallowing which would certainly reduce impacts on the Salton Sea

and reduce environmental impacts, but certainly it has economic

impacts.

This one to one type of water conservation for every acre-foot

going to San Diego or outside of the Basin has an acre-foot impact

on the Salton Sea. What that does is, of course, shrinks the Salton

Sea and some of the problems that we have been talking about.

45

It would lower the elevation of the sea by 15 feet or more and

increase salinity of the Salton Sea. So that ever-increasing march

of salinity at the Salton Sea goes up dramatically under a water

transfer.

The bill does provide some discussion about air quality impacts

and we are thankful for that. However, we don’t believe it goes far

enough. It doesn’t provide any funding and the type of mitigation

proposed may not address all of the air quality impacts.

Additionally, the bill would cap environmental costs. We believe

it is doing so arbitrarily. We would prefer to see the Endangered

Species Act left the way it is and let the transaction address its environmental impacts just like developers do in southern California

and just like other projects do across this country.

One positive is that it does indicate that any funding provided

by the Act or in fact by the water districts could be applied to restoration, if restoration was authorized in the next 7 years.

Our concern is that with reduced inflows it probably makes restoration next to impossible or infeasible. One of the questions that

was asked was, well how much does restoration cost?

Bob Johnson’s folks and our folks and technical experts are working on that, but just to give you a sense, if you were to reduce

inflows by several hundred thousand acre-feet, the cost of restoration would go up by over $2 billion. So, there is a major impact on

our ability to restore this vital resource if inflows drop significantly.

I don’t want to take a lot of time to remind you of the importance

of the Salton Sea. It sounds like most of you are somewhat familiar

with the Salton Sea and some of you are painfully familiar with the

Salton Sea.

I do want to note that the University of Redlands has done an

excellent job of compiling a lot of good information. You have probably seen an atlas at your table. I want to note that Dr. Tim

Krantz is here. You may have questions for him as well. He has

put together that atlas that does describe the importance of the

Salton Sea and the resources of the Salton Sea. I encourage you to

take a look at it.

The other thing I will make available to you are the good things

that we are doing at the Salton Sea thanks in many ways to your

support.

As Bob Johnson indicated, we have good projects underway at

the Salton Sea. The Salton Sea can be restored and saved and it

contribute done in a very practical way, taking salt out of the

Salton Sea through the use of solar evaporation ponds and there

may be even some possibility for desalinization at the Salton Sea.

Like Bob Johnson, I am very interested in Lawrence Livermore’s

work on groundwater as well.

So, the water transfer could have major environmental impacts,

could have health impacts, could have major impacts on our ability

to restore the Salton Sea as it is currently constructed and planned

to be implemented.

The strategy of providing fish ponds as offsite mitigation has

been rejected by the wildlife agencies and as we heard at the State

Water Resource Control Board hearings, there is significant concerns from the scientific community on that front as well.

46

I think when we think about the Salton Sea as it relates to this

water transfer, the 300,000 acre-foot reduction of inflow, think of

a smaller sea that is much saltier and probably not savable, you

can’t restore it.

I think about a couple of your late colleagues, Congressman

Brown and Congressman Bono. I think about the vision they had

for the Salton Sea. They not only wanted to protect the environment at the Salton Sea, they wanted to provide economic development opportunities and protect economic development opportunities.

I believe had they seen this vision for the Salton Sea, a smaller

sea, major exposed salt flats and an inability to restore the Salton

Sea, they would be horrified by it. I believe what they wanted to

see was a full Salton Sea restored and protected providing environmental and economic values.

I look forward to working with this Subcommittee and others to

improve H.R. 5123 and improve the water transfer in a way that

protects the Salton Sea and provides us with an ability to fully

save it.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirk follows:]

Statement of Tom Kirk, Executive Director, Salton Sea Authority

Introduction

Thank you for the invitation to participate in this important hearing. The Salton

Sea Authority is pleased to offer our views on the legislation recently introduced by

the Honorable Duncan Hunter, ‘‘Colorado River Quantification Settlement Facilitation Act’’, HR 5123.

I would like to thank Congressman Hunter, and all members of the Salton Sea

Congressional Task Force for their continuing support of our efforts, and those of

many federal agencies that are engaged in the effort to protect and restore the

Salton Sea.

I am the Executive Director of the Salton Sea Authority. The Salton Sea Authority is an agency that was established in 1993 under the State of California’s joint

powers agency statutes. The Salton Sea Authority was formed to direct and coordinate actions related to improvement of water quality, stabilization of water elevation, and enhancement of recreational and economic potential of the Salton Sea.

Notably, the Authority was formed by the four agencies with direct and significant

stakes in the region and the health of the Salton Sea: Imperial Irrigation District,

Imperial County, Coachella Valley Water District, and Riverside County. State legislation passed last year will allow the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Tribe to be

a full member of the Authority in the near future.

I was hired as the Authority’s first and only Executive Director in late 1997. Since

that time, I have managed and co-managed the Salton Sea Authority’s environmental compliance, engineering, design, public outreach, governmental affairs, and

scientific efforts.

In 1998, Congress enacted the Salton Sea Reclamation Act of 1998 (Public Law

105–372). The Act directed the Secretary of Interior to complete environmental and

engineering studies to: (1) permit the continued use of the Salton Sea as a reservoir

for irrigation drainage; (2) reduce and stabilize the overall salinity of the Sea; (3)

stabilize the surface elevation of the Sea; (4) reclaim in the long term healthy fish

and wildlife resources and their habitat; and (5) enhance the potential for recreational uses and economic development of the Salton Sea. Additionally, Congress

has appropriated approximately twenty million dollars for restoration efforts. The

State of California has contributed an additional five million dollars.

Over the last 4 years, the Salton Sea Authority, in conjunction with the United

States Bureau of Reclamation, has engaged in extensive environmental studies and

engineering designs with respect to potential restoration projects. As discussed more

fully below, the conclusions reached in those studies is that the Sea is a rich, vital

ecosystem of regional, national and international significance that can be restored

and maintained indefinitely at a reasonable cost, if actions are not taken that significantly reduce water inflows to the Sea.

47

1 An ex-officio member of the Salton Sea Authority.

2This work is memorialized in various newsletters published by the Authority and by the University of Redlands in a pamphlet called ‘‘Salton Sea, California’s Everglades’’ that was handed

out to participants at the Subcommittee’s field hearing on June 14. The pamphlet provides fullcolor details regarding the Salton Sea, its bio-diversity, and restoration that support and augment the brief summary provided in this statement. For copies of the pamphlet, you may contact

the University of Redlands at (909) 335–5268.

The Salton Sea Authority is not opposed to the quantification settlement agreement, nor necessarily, to the transfer of water from the Imperial Irrigation District

(‘‘IID’’) to the San Diego County Water Authority (‘‘SDCWA’’) and the Coachella Valley Water District (‘‘CVWD’’) and/or the Metropolitan Water District of Southern

California (‘‘MWD’’). The Salton Sea Authority understands the need and generally

supports the implementation of the California 4.4 Plan that is designed to reduce

California’s use of Colorado River Water.

However, the Salton Sea Authority is deeply concerned about the manner in

which transfers are implemented, as some transfer options will have a devastating

effect on the Salton Sea. Consequently, the Salton Sea Authority cannot support the

Colorado River Quantification Settlement Facilitation Act in its current form, for

the following reasons: • The Act facilitates water transfers implemented in a manner (on-farm conservation) that would substantially reduce inflows into the Salton Sea and render

maintenance and restoration of the Sea infeasible. The Sea would be lost.

• The $110 million committed by the Legislation to fund mitigation projects would

be insufficient to fund even minimally effective habitat conservation programs.

• The Act commits the Secretary of Interior to remediate the severe air quality

impacts threatened by a receding Salton Sea, but provides no funding for those

remediation efforts that could cost tens, or even hundreds, of millions of dollars.

In addition to the concerns raised by the Salton Sea Authority, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments 1 (CVAG) Energy and Environment Committee also

voted to oppose H.R. 5123. In their attached letter, they express concerns about

weakening the Endangered Species Act, insufficient funding for environmental mitigation, and shortening time lines for legal challenge. They also acknowledge the importance of furthering the California 4.4 plan, but they believe that the SDCWA/

IID water transfer may not be a crucial component of that plan and that the transfer could be separated from the plan. The CVAG letter sums its opposition by stating that:

‘‘the legislation proposes to facilitate this four to five billion dollar water

sale by sidestepping the environmental process; making the Federal government responsible for environmental impacts, and mandating a price tag for

project mitigation which we deem arguably low, and the majority of which

is being paid by the Federal tax payer.’’

Restoration of the Salton Sea

In order to understand the impact of the Facilitation Act on the Salton Sea, it

is necessary to understand the basics of the Sea and its hydrology. Thanks in large

part to the Salton Sea Restoration Act of 1998; the Authority has been able to undertake significant scientific study of the Sea. What has emerged is a Sea of much

greater diversity and vitality than was initially appreciated 2. The Salton Sea is California’s largest inland lake. It has been described as the

crown jewel of Californian avian biodiversity. The Sea offers greater species diversity than the Florida everglades. More than two-thirds of all species of birds (400

species) in the Continental United States have been recorded at the Sea. The Sea

supports 45% of the entire U.S. population of the threatened Yuma clapper rail, 80%

of the western American white pelicans, and 90% of the continental population of

eared grebes. Given the loss of 95% of California’s historic wetlands, the Sea has

become a critical link in the Pacific flyway.

The birds at the Salton Sea depend on the Sea’s fishery, which has been described

as one of the world’s most productive. It has been estimated that 200 million fish

inhabit the Sea.

The Sea is also an important recreational resource. An estimated 2 million people

visit the Sea annually. Many consider it to have the best fishing in California. It

is also considered one of the most popular bird watching spots on the Continent.

The lynch pin of the Sea’s bio-diversity, its fishery, is threatened. The Sea is a

terminal inland water body; the salinity of the Sea is slowly rising.

Inflows to the Sea, which are largely dependent on agricultural run-off, have remained essentially constant for 30 years at 1.34 million acre-feet per year. If inflows

remain at that level, the Sea will likely continue to support its fishery, and the rich

bio-diversity that depend on that fishery, for another 60 years. At that time, the saVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Jun 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\80968.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
48

3 Cost estimates continue to be refined and could increase some. However, these present value

costs not only include the cost of construction, they also include the costs of operations and management over time and the costs of other ancillary programs (wildlife disease program, etc.).

linity will reach 60 parts per thousand, at which point it is generally assumed that

critical fish populations will be unable to reproduce.

The goal of the restoration planning effort has been to restore and maintain the

Sea’s vital ecosystem indefinitely. The restoration project has shown that methodologies exist to withdraw salt from the Sea at a sufficient rate to maintain a viable

fishery if inflows close to historic averages are maintained.

Solar evaporation ponds have been used for millennia to extract salt from water.

The Salton Sea Authority, in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation, has constructed a solar evaporation pond pilot project at the Sea and is testing salt disposal

techniques at another pilot project at the Sea. Additionally, we recently initiated a

joint project with CalEnergy to use some of their waste heat from their geothermal

plants at the Sea to test a desalinization process.

Under continuation of historic average inflows, restoration is clearly possible. It

is estimated that a salinity control project, assuming current inflows and using solar

ponds, would cost $250 million 3, present value.

The Impact of Water Transfers

The effect of water transfers on the Salton Sea depends largely on the manner

in which water is conserved for transfer. The project proposed by IID, and facilitated

by this legislation, would rely on ‘‘on-farm conservation’’: reduction or elimination

of ‘‘tail water’’ and improvement of delivery systems in Imperial Valley. Virtually

all of the water conserved in this manner (300,000 acre-feet per year) would be

water that would otherwise flow to the Sea.

The reduction of inflows of 300,000 acre-feet per year would cause the level of the

Sea to drop around 15 feet and the Sea to significantly shrink. Salinity in the Sea

would rise rapidly, reaching the benchmark of 60 parts per threshold in 2013. Sometime around that point, it is expected that the fishery would collapse.

A restoration project designed to accommodate reductions of inflow of that magnitude would be so large that it would be infeasible to build and would cost well

over $2 billion. The $110 million committed by the Facilitation Act falls far short

of the additional amount needed for restoration due to reduced inflows. Consequently, under on-farm conservation, restoration of the Sea becomes infeasible.

As an alternative to restoring the Sea, IID initially proposed a Habitat Conservation Plan that relies on the construction of large (5,000 acre) fish ponds (likely the

‘‘Habitat Enhancement Projects’’ envisioned by the Act). It was hoped that the ponds

would provide replacement food for the fish-eating birds and mitigate the impacts

of the dying Sea.

During hearings before the California State Water Resources Control Board regarding the transfer project, the fish pond project was uniformly criticized by scientists who had reviewed the proposal. The California Department of Fish and

Game and United States Fish & Wildlife Service concluded that the plan would not

be effective in mitigating impacts to endangered species. IID ultimately withdrew

that proposal.

Even if the Habitat Conservation Plan had been effective, the cost would likely

have been prohibitive. IID’s own estimates of the cost of the habitat conservation

project ranged from the low hundred million dollars to the low billion dollars.

It is our understanding that the rejection of the Habitat Conservation Plan by the

Fish & Wildlife Service is the motivating factor behind the Facilitation Act. In exchange for a $50 million dollar payment by the Water Districts benefited by the

transfer (IID, CVWD, MWD and SDCWA), the Act provides that the requirements

of the Endangered Species Act are deemed to be fully satisfied and the Water Districts are absolved of any further liability under federal law for transfer-related

projects. Consequently, under the Facilitation Act, transfers could be accomplished

without mitigating impacts to endangered species, or other species that rely on the

Salton Sea’s ecosystem.

The $60 million authorized by the Facilitation Act, even when added to the $50

million required of the Water Districts, is hopelessly inadequate to mount either a

minimally effective salinity control project or an alternative habitat conservation

plan. Unless significant funding was forthcoming from other sources, the Sea would

shrink and die and America would lose one of its biodiversity gems.

Air Quality Impacts

Equally troubling, implementation of the transfers as contemplated by the Facilitation Act pose a serious air quality risk to the residents of the Coachella and ImpeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Jun 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\80968.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
49

rial Valleys that abut the Salton Sea. The receding Sea would expose over 70 square

miles of bottom sediment. Very fine bottom sediments, once exposed, may become

wind-borne dust (PM10), one of the major causes of air pollution.

In an analogous situation, the Owens Lake bottom was exposed by water transfers to Los Angeles in the early part of the 20th Century. The area exposed at

Owens Lake was roughly one-third to one-half of the area that may be exposed at

the Salton Sea. Nevertheless, dust storms at Owens Lake have caused severe air

quality and health problems.

Los Angeles has been forced to implement a dust stabilization program to remediate the air quality problems at Owens Lake. It is anticipated that that program

will cost $400 million to implement, and another $10 million annually to maintain.

Imperial and Coachella Valleys already fail to meet federal air quality standards

for PM10. Imperial Valley currently has the highest incidence of childhood asthma

in the State, a fact attributable to the poor air quality. It is feared that a receding

Salton Sea could cause significant degradation of air quality in the area, imperiling

residents’’ health, and necessitating costly dust mitigation measures that would significantly hamper local economies.

To address air quality hazards posed by water transfers, the Facilitation Act requires the Secretary of Interior to ‘‘carry out projects under this section [Section 3]

that are necessary to prevent threats to health or safety caused by wind erosion of

portions of the Salton Sea bed that become exposed as a direct result of the receding

of the Salton Sea...’’ due to water transfer- related conservation measures. No

projects are currently proposed for mitigating the potential air quality impacts of

a receding Sea, but it is estimated that the cost of remediation could be significant.

Notwithstanding the requirement of the Act that the Secretary carry out such

projects, the Act does not authorize any federal funding for that effort.

There Is An Alterative

The Final Environmental Impact Report certified by IID on June 28, 2002, proposed an alternative: fallowing. Farmland could be fallowed on a rotating basis to

provide water to meet transfer obligations and/or to provide replacement water to

the Salton Sea. Such an alternative could keep salinity increases on the same trajectory that they have been on for the past couple of decades. This would provide an

opportunity to implement a cost-effective restoration program.

However, the water transfer agreement between IID and SDCWA rejects

fallowing as a method of conservation. In policy statements, IID has consistently rejected the fallowing alternative as causing unacceptably large damage to the local

economy.

Effect of the Proposed Facilitation Act on the Salton Sea

Reclamation Act of 1998

Section 4(a)(1) of the Facilitation Act states that the Salton Sea Reclamation Act

of 1998 recognized that: ‘‘the Federal Government will bear the responsibility for the

rehabilitation of the Salton Sea...’’.

The Salton Sea Authority would welcome that level of commitment from the Federal Government. Nevertheless, while Congress is the ultimate arbiter of what the

Salton Sea Reclamation Act intended, the Authority has never understood the Act

to constitute the Federal Government’s full assumption of responsibility for rehabilitation of the Sea.

With respect to restoration planning, the Restoration Act does provide that the

Secretary of Interior:

‘‘shall apply assumptions regarding water inflows into the Salton Sea basin

that encourage water conservation, account for transfers of water out of the

Salton Sea basin, and are based on a maximum likely reduction of inflows

into the Salton Sea which could be 800,000 acre-feet or less per year’’.

The Secretary was to develop a report with the Salton Sea Authority that evaluated restoration options under reduced inflow conditions. Such a report is still forthcoming. In a recent letter to the Secretary of Interior, even the Sea’s greatest legislative supporters acknowledge that the report should evaluate multiple inflow conditions. (See Exhibit 9 in the Authority’s testimony before the Subcommittee on June

14, letter to Secretary Norton from Congressional Salton Sea Task Force).

Evaluation of restoration alternatives under various inflow assumptions is an

order of magnitude less committal than paying for restoration under those conditions. As noted above, restoration under significant inflow reduction becomes prohibitively expensive.

50

Salton Sea Authority’s Position on the Colorado River - Quantification Settlement

Facilitation Act

On July 18, 2002, the Salton Sea Authority unanimously voted not to support the

Facilitation Act. The Authority found the Facilitation Act to be inconsistent with the

Authority’s previously adopted position with respect to restoration of the Salton Sea.

The Authority’s position is stated in its Resolution 02–02 (attached as Exhibit 3 in

the Authority’s testimony before the Subcommittee on June 14, 2002), which provides, in part:

• ‘‘NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the

Salton Sea Authority to oppose projects that will significantly lower the

level of the Salton Sea’’.

As discussed above, the proposed Facilitation Act would facilitate transfer projects

that rely on conservation techniques that significantly reduce inflows to the Sea.

Restoration of the Salton Sea would be rendered infeasible.

• ‘‘BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to support efforts by Congressman Mary

Bono to ensure that the impacts of water transfers on the Salton Sea and

the Imperial and Coachella Valleys are complying with environmental

laws.’’

The proposed Facilitation Act in essence grants the Water Districts a federal

waiver from compliance with federal environmental laws with respect to transferrelated projects. Impacts on endangered species would not be mitigated. Impacts on

Valley residents from the threat of significantly degraded air quality are not adequately addressed.

• ‘‘BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to urge the IID Board of Directors to pursue water transfer solutions which meet the terms of the QSA which

properly mitigate impacts on the Salton Sea, and which address economic

and social impacts in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys.

The $110 million proposed by the Act for mitigating transfer-related impacts will

be inadequate to address the impacts on restoration and to mitigate potential environmental impacts at the Sea. The Bill provides no mechanism for addressing economic and social costs of a dying Salton Sea.

• ‘‘BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any mitigation identified and implemented for the transfer be done in a manner consistent with the goals

and objectives for the full restoration of the Salton Sea.’’

The Act facilitates water transfers that would significantly reduce flows to the Sea

and make restoration very expensive, very large and/or very complicated. It would

likely make full restoration impractical or impossible.

• ‘‘BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to support stringent reviews of any State

and/or Federal legislation that relax environmental laws at the detriment

of economic or environmental values of the Salton Sea, and Imperial and

Coachella Valleys.

The legislation appears to be designed to facilitate water transfers by relaxing environmental laws. Public health and environmental values of the Salton Sea, Imperial and Coachella Valleys, are not protected.

Conclusion

The Salton Sea is a critical environmental resource and important asset to the

economies of the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. The Colorado River Quantification

Settlement Facilitation Act would enable water transfers in a manner that would

make restoration of the Sea extremely costly and, very likely, impractical.

If compliance with environmental laws is waived as contemplated by the Facilitation Act, the water transfers can be implemented in a manner that will have severe

public health, economic and environmental consequences to the region surrounding

the Salton Sea. Those impacts can and should be avoided by pursuing conservation

alternatives that do not reduce inflows to the Sea, do not threaten the rich biodiversity of the Sea’s ecosystem, and do not threaten the health of residents of the Imperial and Coachella Valleys.

The Salton Sea Authority has been diligently testing and demonstrating projects

and programs to maintain and restore the Salton Sea. With your continued support,

the Authority believes that those efforts can be brought to fruition, and Americans

can continue to enjoy the outstanding ecological and recreational resources of the

Salton Sea.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Underwood, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

51

STATEMENT OF DENNIS UNDERWOOD, VICE PRESIDENT FOR

COLORADO RIVER MATTERS, METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to avoid repetition,

we have a joint statement and I am going to defer to Mr. Levy to

summarize that statement.

I just would like to compliment the Chairman. Like you have indicated, you have held numerous hearings, field hearings, and

hearings here in Washington. Your leadership has helped advance

this. The same is true with Congressman Hunter and Congresswoman Bono. Your active involvement in his has been helpful to

us and we need to have you stay engaged, not only on the Federal

side, but on the State side, because if we are only successful on the

State or only successful on the Federal side, we don’t get there.We

need to do it as a united front.

Really, the Metropolitan Water District appreciates all of your efforts in this regard.

I will defer to Mr. Levy.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Levy.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF

ENGINEER, COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

Mr. LEVY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that the statement of the four agencies be included in the record.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection.

Mr. LEVY. I would like to echo Mr. Underwood’s appreciation of

the Committee and especially Congressman Hunter’s activities to

try to bring resolution to this very difficult issue.

When we started the transfers, we were assured by Secretary

Babbitt and Assistant Secretary Hayes that the agencies would not

bear the responsibility for the Salton Sea, that the 1998 Salton Sea

Restoration Act would be the vehicle to deal with the sea.

So, we are now faced with a very difficult issue. I would like to

assure you that all four agencies are committed to resolve the California-Colorado River issues and to implement the quantification

supplement agreement by the end of the year.

I think everyone is aware, if we are not successful, California

will lose between 700,000 and 800,000 acre-feet of water next year

from the Colorado River. That will have major impacts on urban

California because we are currently using that water through the

Interim Surplus Guidelines. Those guidelines will result in the suspension of it.

At a workshop yesterday, we heard from the other Basin States,

that they are not interested in renegotiating at this time. So, there

will be a direct impact. That impact will flow through California

and have significant economic impacts. So, it is critical that we resolve this.

The four agencies are working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,

trying to resolve the issues. In the statement you will see the list

of the accomplishments that we have done so far.

Just to give you an idea of some of the things we have done in

the last week or 10 days, we have met with California’s Secretary

of Resource, Mary Nichols and her department heads and key staff

trying to work on resolution of it.

52

We met with Secretary Norton and her assistants to work on a

resolution of this.

We held a workshop yesterday in Los Angeles to go over the impacts of the drought that is occurring on the Colorado River today

and the impacts of not having the QSA signed in there.

We have had, it seems like 1,000 conference calls trying to address the various issues in there. So, we are working on it. We believe that we need additional time in order to come up with some

of the ideas that were put forth at the meeting that Senator Feinstein held last month and to come up with activities or a program

that may be workable.

We would ask that we could work with the Committee over the

recess to reach agreement.

Thank you.

Mr. CARTER. Well, the gentleman has that commitment.

[The joint statement of Mr. Levy and Mr. Underwood follows:]

Joint Statement of Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water District, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and San

Diego County Water Authority

This joint statement is presented by the representatives of the four Southern California water agencies that together use the large majority of Colorado River water

delivered to California—the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

(MWD), the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), Imperial Irrigation District

(IID), and the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), which we will collectively refer to as the ‘‘Agencies’’. We are the water agencies that are directly participating in the water transfers and other vital actions that make up the Quantification Settlement Agreement, which is the subject of this bill, H. R. 5123. The Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) is the vehicle through which we will implement essential provisions of California’s Colorado River Water Use Plan (California

Plan). We cannot overstate the importance of the California Plan to California, its

economy and environment. Unless this effort succeeds, a major statewide water

shortage will occur, depriving Southern California of 700,000 acre feet per year of

crucial water supplies beginning on January 1, 2003, only five months from now.

We have achieved remarkable progress during the years that have been devoted to

avert this impending crisis, and we are within sight of our goal. This effort has not

been just that of our four agencies; it has involved the work of the legislative and

executive branches of the federal government and the State of California, particularly Members of the House of Representatives.

The Impending Water Shortage

The Colorado River is a vital resource for Southern California, supporting a tremendous agricultural industry and more than 17 million residents in one of the

most economically productive regions of the world, including the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego. The state has a Colorado River basic annual apportionment of

4.4 million acre-feet, but for many years California has used up to 5.2 million acrefeet per year, relying on system surpluses and the apportioned but unused Colorado

River water of Arizona and Nevada. Before 1997, because the unused apportionments of Arizona and Nevada were available to California, the availability of additional water over and above the state’s basic annual apportionment of 4.4 million

acre-feet was highly predictable. But since Arizona and Nevada have begun using

their full entitlements, California has had to rely on year-to-year declarations of surplus by the Secretary of the Interior to provide the additional 800,000 acre feet per

year to meet California’s needs. Those surplus declarations depend on the vagaries

of the weather and are unpredictable.

If the Guidelines do not remain in effect, California stands to lose approximately

700,000 acre feet that are needed to fill MWD’s Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA),

which annually delivers about 1.25 million acre feet of water to the urban coast. The

practical effect of the loss of 700,000 acre feet per year to the urban coast would

be a severe water crisis with devastating economic impacts for all of California, and

a ripple effect through the economy of our entire nation.

The magnitude of our joint effort to prevent this impending crisis is extraordinary. We must reduce California’s use of Colorado River water by 800,000 acreVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Jun 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\80968.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
53

feet per year and still continue to meet the region’s water needs. This reduction is

equivalent to the amount of water used annually by more than five million people

in Southern California. Such a dramatic shift in resources is made possible through

California Plan and QSA programs to conserve agricultural water and transfer it

for urban uses, as well as groundwater storage and conjunctive use projects, and

other water management programs. One of the most important components of the

California Plan is the transfer of up to 200,000 acre-feet per year of water from the

IID to SDCWA. This transfer, along with others, will maintain the reliability of the

region’s water supply and help eliminate the dependence on surplus water to fill the

CRA.

Progress to Date

California is at a critical juncture in terms of its use of Colorado River resources.

The urgent need to reduce river use is well understood by the Agencies. Along with

the Colorado River Board of the State of California, we have responded with the

California Plan, which was developed in consultation with and is supported by the

other six Colorado River Basin states and the Department of the Interior. To date,

the Agencies have successfully fast-tracked a wide range of complex legal agreements and environment documents needed to implement the Plan. The October

1999 Key Terms for Quantification Settlement Among the State of California, IID,

CVWD, and MWD identified 12 specific areas of conditions that need to be satisfied

or waived prior to execution of the QSA and related documents. This includes completion of environmental reviews, implementing interim surplus guidelines, implementing an inadvertent overrun and payback program relative to Colorado River

water consumptive use, completing the California State Water Resources Control

Board (SWRCB) water transfer petition review process, and obtaining conserved

water and a means to deliver the water for the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights

Settlement Act. The critical path for satisfaction of the conditions includes completion of the environmental reviews and SWRCB transfer petition process, and securing of federal and state Endangered Species Act clearance for the water transfers.

The remaining conditions have been or are achievable within the required time

frame for executing the QSA and related documents.

The following is a list of the major accomplishments (including program and

project implementation) to date that either relate to the California Plan or aid in

their effectiveness and implementation:

• December 1988—IID/MWD Water Conservation and Use of Conserved Water

Agreement and the associated 1989 Approval Agreement

• April 1998—Water Conservation and Transfer Agreement between IID and

SDCWA

• August 1998—Water Exchange Agreement between SDCWA and MWD

• September 1998—State funding of $235 million for canal lining and conjunctive

use elements of the California Plan

• October 1999—Key Terms for Quantification Settlement Agreement Among the

State of California, IID, CVWD, and MWD

• November 1999—Secretary of the Interior Final Rule on Offstream Storage of

Colorado River Water (Interstate Banking)

• May 2000—California Colorado River Water Use Plan (a prerequisite for Secretarial Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines)

• December 2000—Public release of draft QSA by QSA parties

• January 2001—U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion for Interim

Surplus Guidelines and river impacts of the QSA

• January 2001—Record of Decision for Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines

• May 2001—Interim Surplus Guidelines Agreement between Arizona and MWD

• May 2001—Certify Environmental Impact Report for Coachella Canal Lining

• June 2001—State Funding Agreement for Coachella Canal Lining

• October 2001—State Funding Agreement for All–American Canal Lining

• January 2002—Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact

Statement for IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project and Draft Habitat

Conservation Plan

• January 2002—Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for Implementation of the Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement

• January 2002—Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Implementation

Agreement, Inadvertent Overrun and Payback Policy, and Related Federal Actions

• March 2002—Record of Decision for Coachella Canal Lining

• May 2002—Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Palo Verde Irrigation District Land Management, Crop Rotation and Water Supply Program

54

• May 2002—Interim Surplus Guidelines Agreement between Southern Nevada

Water Authority and MWD

• May—July 2002—Completion of California SWRCB hearing on QSA water

transfer petition

• June 2002—Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for Coachella Valley

Water Management Plan and State Water Project Entitlement Transfer

• June 2002—Committee passage of California Senate Bill 482 regarding California ‘‘fully protected’’ species and facilitation of the QSA

• June 2002—Certification of Environmental Impact Report for IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project

• June 2002—Certification of Program Environmental Impact Report for Implementation of the Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement

• July 2002—Notice to Proceed for Design of Coachella Canal Lining Project

• Drafts of the Quantification Settlement Agreement and all related legal documents

• All American Canal and Coachella Canal lining projects construction agreements

• MWD, in conjunction with others, has initiated development of potential Colorado River water storage and conjunctive use programs in:

• Hayfield Valley

• Chuckwalla Valley

• Cadiz Valley

• Lower Coachella Valley

• Arizona

The California water agencies have already spent millions of dollars toward formulating and securing approval of vital components of the California Plan, and will

commit billions of dollars upon their implementation. In addition, the State of California has appropriated $235 million for canal lining and groundwater projects in

furtherance of the California Plan. The Plan will be complemented by efforts to aggressively promote additional water conservation, water reuse, and local water supply development within the service area boundaries of each agency.

California Plan—Implementation Timeline

California was given time to implement the water conservation and transfers

when the Secretary of the Interior adopted the Interim Surplus Guidelines (Guidelines) in January 2001. The Guidelines are essentially special rules for operating

Lake Mead that allow California to receive additional surplus water for 15 years,

or through 2016. Without these special rules, California would now receive no surplus water and would presently be experiencing an 800,000 acre-foot shortage of

water for this year. During the period that the Guidelines are in effect, California

is expected to implement necessary water transfers and other programs. The Guidelines are contingent, however, upon California’s successful completion of certain

deadlines and milestones.

One critical deadline that must be met is the execution of the Quantification Settlement Agreement, the most important element of the California Plan, by December 31, 2002. The ability to execute the QSA by this deadline is the single most important issue facing us today. If the QSA is not executed by this deadline, the California Plan is at grave risk of unraveling.

The QSA is designed to settle longstanding differences between the Agencies and

implement core water transfers, including the IID/SDCWA transfer. The QSA must

be implemented to continue the Guidelines and allow the California Plan to go forward. The Guidelines specifically provide that unless the QSA is executed by December 31, 2002, the surplus provisions that benefit Southern California will be suspended until such time as California completes all required actions and complies

with reductions in water use reflected in the Guidelines. This means that we are

facing the loss of the additional surplus water provided under the Guidelines if the

QSA is not executed by the end of the year, resulting in the loss of 700,000 acrefeet per year of water to Southern California, beginning on January 1, 2003.

Environmental Compliance Issues

The Agencies have worked diligently with the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service and the Bureau of Reclamation to reach agreement on an on-river habitat

and backwater mitigation plan to address impacts of shifting water from agricultural to urban points of use. Additionally, agreements will be in place for in-valley

measures to mitigate impacts of the programs in the area where water conservation

will occur. Likewise, project-specific environmental reviews address individual

project impacts. This includes canal lining projects and water storage and conjunctive use programs.

55

The Agencies have also pursued a similar course of action with the State of California executive branch and legislature to address compliance with the California

Endangered Species Act and a special provision of California law dealing with ‘‘fully

protected’’ species. The State of California places a high priority on implementing

the California Plan and QSA, and the Secretary of the California Resources Agency,

Mary Nichols, is chairing a broad-based group working to solve the state issues. In

the California legislature, Senate Bill 482, sponsored by Senator Sheila Kuehl, has

passed its committee and will now be considered by the full State Assembly and

Senate. That bill resolves state ‘‘fully protected’’ species issues, which must occur

to implement the QSA, and takes other actions to facilitate the QSA.

The remaining major federal issue regarding execution of the QSA is how to address potential environmental impacts of water conservation and transfers on the

Salton Sea. The transfer of conserved water from the agricultural sector to the

urban sector is essential to allow California to live within its 4.4 million acre-foot

basic annual apportionment. However, water conservation in agricultural areas

using Colorado River water, specifically in the IID service area, may cause reduced

agricultural drainage to the Salton Sea.

The present Salton Sea was created in 1905 when floodwaters of the Colorado

River broke through diversion facilities along the river near the international

boundary and carried the entire flow of the river through the Alamo Canal into the

below sea level Salton Sink until the breach was finally closed in 1907. Since that

time, as the Sea’s water has evaporated, it has been maintained by inflows, the vast

majority of which consists of agricultural drainage water. As provided for by Presidential executive orders in the 1920’s, the principal purpose of federal Salton Sink

lands below elevation minus 220 feet since that time has been to serve as a reservoir for the irrigation drainage waters from the Imperial, Coachella, and Mexicali

valleys. Without these drainage inflows, the Sea would evaporate and disappear.

Freshwater fish species that were carried into the Sea by the floodwaters died off

as the salinity level of the Sea rose. Beginning in 1929, the California Department

of Fish and Game created a salt water fishery by introducing various species of

sport fish from the Gulf of California. Other exotic fish have been accidentally introduced to the Sea and have established populations.

Today the Salton Sea is used by many species of migratory birds, including certain endangered species. Many of these species rely on the fish in the Sea for their

food source. Because of evaporation, the Sea’s salinity has increased steadily over

the years, and will continue to increase absent intervention. Now at a salinity of

44,000 parts per million, which is 25 percent saltier than the Pacific Ocean, the

Salton Sea is approaching a ‘‘hypersaline’’ condition, in which the reproduction and

survival of fish is jeopardized. It has been estimated that under current conditions,

the Sea will reach a critical salinity level that is unable to support a fishery in 7

to 25 years.

The causes of increasing salinity and environmental decline of the Salton Sea extend far beyond any effect of the transfers. Congress recognized this fact in the 1998

Salton Sea Reclamation Act (Public Law 105–372) and directed that the transfers

be included in the baseline condition of the proposed Salton Sea reclamation options.

The legislation acknowledged the importance of the water transfers to California,

the other Colorado River Basin states, and Mexico.

The 1998 reclamation law required a feasibility study, providing reclamation options, be submitted to Congress by January 1, 2000. We had expected that Congress

would by now have been able to consider the feasibility study and make a decision

on reclamation of the Sea. However, the feasibility study has yet to be completed.

The QSA, and its impending deadline for execution, is therefore ahead of the federal

Salton Sea reclamation effort. Because of this, the Agencies must separately address

environmental compliance related to the water transfers at the Salton Sea. This is

difficult because the environmental impacts related to endangered species are temporal in nature and not easily quantified. The best scientific analysis available estimates that the Salton Sea will reach the critical hypersaline environment 2 to 11

years earlier if the QSA water transfers are implemented. Absent a comprehensive

solution, the Salton Sea will soon reach a hypersaline level with or without the QSA

water transfers.

These matters are beyond the Agencies’’ direct control to resolve. Accordingly, the

Agencies have met extensively with Department of the Interior officials, including

the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Reclamation, to determine how the

QSA may be executed within the time frame required. We are very appreciative of

the assistance we have received and their recognition that this is an urgent matter.

We are also grateful for the concern and assistance of Members of Congress in

identifying legislative proposals to move the QSA past the remaining obstacles. In

August 2001, Congressman Hunter introduced a bill specifically designed to faciliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Jun 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\80968.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
56

tate implementation of the QSA, and in October 2001, Congressman Calvert’s H.R.

3208, the Western Water Security Enhancement Act, added authorization for an appropriation for activities to address environmental impacts on the Salton Sea. However, we are now only five months from the deadline for execution of the QSA, and

we must resolve the Salton Sea issues this year in order meet the deadline. Recognizing the urgency and gravity of the situation, Congressman Hunter has introduced H.R. 5123 to address remaining issues.

H.R. 5123—The Colorado River Quantification Settlement Facilitation Act

The basic tenet underlying H.R. 5123 is that the water agencies are not responsible for restoring the Salton Sea. This follows the principles of the 1998 Salton Sea

Reclamation Act, which recognizes that Congress must make a decision on reclamation of the Sea, and that the Sea’s problems cannot disrupt the water transfers that

are so crucial to the future of California.

H.R. 5123 would also provide $53 million for small off-stream water management

reservoirs and associated facilities to improve water conservation and river management, which could also provide improved water supply management options for

Mexico. The Bureau of Reclamation estimated that in 2000 about 300,000 acre-feet

was lost from Colorado River reservoir storage because of the inability to re-regulate

lower Colorado River flows.

The Agencies look forward to working with Congressman Hunter, other Members

of Congress and staff, and interested parties during the upcoming recess to agree

on modifications to the bill language that will resolve all legitimate concerns and

enable the QSA to move forward in a timely manner.

Conclusion

Failure to meet the deadlines will mean suspension of the Interim Surplus Guidelines and an immediate loss of over 700,000 acre-feet of water to Southern California on January 1, 2003. Such a massive water shortage would have severe economic consequences for the State of California, and those consequences would be felt

across the nation.

Finally, we want to restate our Agencies’’ commitment to implement the California Plan and maintain our lifeline to the Colorado River. We urgently need the

assistance of the Congress to provide a means for us to proceed within our time constraints, while recognizing and meeting legitimate concerns for the future of the

Salton Sea.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to address

these very important issues.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Snape.

STATEMENT OF BILL SNAPE, VICE PRESIDENT FOR LAW AND

LITIGATION, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE.

Mr. SNAPE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my

full written statement be submitted for the record.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SNAPE. I will cut to the chase, Mr. Chair. The Endangered

Species Coalition, of which Defenders of Wildlife is a part and the

Salton Sea Coalition in California, made up of a number of environmental and conservation groups in that State, each oppose

H.R. 5123 as written.

But I think focusing on some of the specific legislative provisional language that this bill has misses, I think, some key points,

and I want to touch upon some of those key points right now.

The first, and I have heard this repeatedly and it is not often I

get to quote the Rolling Stones at a Congressional testimony, but

I am going to do it. I think time is on our side, at least to a greater

extent than has been portrayed this morning. The reason I say that

is that under the Interim Surplus Guidelines final rule, which is

the document that everyone is referring to when they say that we

are going to lose, California is going to lose this extra water if we

57

don’t consummate the QSA by the end of the year, that isn’t exactly what it says. What it says is that the State of California

needs to meet a benchmark.

It is my opinion that the State of California is already at that

benchmark or is extremely close to it. That does not mean that we

have years to figure this out. I think that we ought to start, as we

have today and tomorrow, and get this done this year if possible.

But I do not subscribe, it is my legal opinion that the world will

not come to an end on December 31, per se.

But we might face another crunch on December 31, 2003 because

you will have to reach another benchmark at that point. But I just

think we have a little bit more time than has been assumed

throughout all of the testimony this morning. That is Section 5, for

those interested, in the Interim Surplus Guideline final rule published in January 2001.

The other point I wish to make is a broad based environmental

point, as you might expect from me. It is the only thing I really

disagreed with Bob Johnson on, who I respect a great deal. But in

his testimony and it has been echoed by others that somehow the

Salton Sea and the QSA and the transfer are not linked. I think

they are linked. Even if we wanted them to not be linked, the ecology of the Lower Colorado River Basin and the events as we now

know them have linked them beyond our control.

I think from an environmental point of view what that has led

to are a series of environmental analyses that for the narrow question that they are asking, are good analyses, perhaps, perhaps.

But they certainly have not looked at the whole picture. I think

Congresswoman Bono was getting at this. We still, I don’t think,

have wrapped our arms around not only the full issues of the

Salton Sea and restoration of it, but how this is going to relate to

the larger QSA effort.

My own take on the Salton Sea for what it is worth, and it may

not be worth very much because there have been much brighter

scientific mines than I that have looked at this, but our take on the

Salton Sea is that it is a question of what full restoration actually

means.

I do think our goals for the Salton Sea need to be reasonable. I

admit that that is a subjective term, but I do think that is part of

the problem here. I think we have all alluded to that in some fashion or another.

The last point I will make is that perhaps the worst or best criticism I can make of this particular bill, and it may not be a matter

of intent; it just may be the way it is crafted, is I do think that

of the $163 million contemplated to be spent by this bill, I am just

not sure we know yet how to best spend that money. I am not convinced with the $113 million of Federal funds, the $50 million of

private funds, although there is some confusion as to how those

pots of money are related — I am not sure what we would be

throwing money at at this point.

In fact, just to finish by quoting the Salton Sea Act of 1998, because I agree with Mr. Hunter and Mrs. Bono on this point, I think

all of us are saying this in different ways. But I just want to read

from that Act Section 3, assumptions.

58

1See Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1964)(Supreme Court Decree regarding Boulder

Canyon Project Act and other law). 2See, e.g., Legal Memorandum of Defenders of Wildlife and Planning & Conservation League,

In re Imperial Irrigation District and San Diego County Water Authority, State of California

Water Resources Control Board (July 11, 2002). 3See, e.g., Letter from E.P.A. to Bureau of Reclamation, 26 April, 2002 (noting ‘‘adverse effects

to surface and groundwater quality and lack of mitigation,’’ ‘‘insufficient information’’ on public

health and endangered species issues, and the clearly illegal segmentation of many related actions). The state of California has echoed these concerns.

‘‘In evaluating options, the Secretary of Interior shall apply assumptions regarding water inflows into the Salton Sea Basin that

encourage water conservation and accounts for transfers of water

out of the Salton Sea Basin and are based on a maximum likely

reduction in inflows into the Salton Sea Basin which could be

800,000 acre-feet or less per year.’’

In the next section on consideration of costs, it says that ‘‘Federal, tribal, State, local governmental sources and private sources

shall fund capital construction costs.’’

I think we knew in 1998 we were going to have to hold hands

and do this. I think where we are today is that we still don’t know

how to get there. Now we have this QSA that is hovering over us,

not maybe as immediately as this December, but certainly by next

December.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Snape follows:]

Statement of William J. Snape, III, Vice President and Chief Counsel,

Defenders of Wildlife

Defenders of Wildlife (‘‘Defenders’’) and our allies—other conservation groups, Indian tribes, and various business interests—have been actively working to protect

and restore the Colorado River for almost a decade. Defenders itself is a non-profit

biodiversity organization with approximately one million members and supporters.

Our offices are headquartered in Washington, D.C. with field offices, inter alia, in

Albuquerque, Tucson, Sacramento and Mexico City. Starting with Secretary of the

Interior Bruce Babbitt’s efforts in the mid–90s, and continuing with the Bush Administration, Defenders has commented on numerous proposals, draft environmental impact statements, administrative decisions, legislative initiatives and the

like relating to H.R. 5123. We are intimately involved in almost every facet of this

intertwining set of serious water policy issues.

This Committee must decide what, if anything, Congress should do regarding

management of the Colorado River. At present, Defenders does not see the need for

federal legislation. And while I reserve the opportunity to submit additional information for the record at the hearing, including our serious concerns with the extremely problematic legislative language in H.R. 5123, our message today is threefold:

Point One: A 4.4 Plan is a Good Thing

Defenders unequivocally supports the state of California’s efforts to get its annual

consumptive use to 4.4 million acre-feet (af), the amount allotted under the ‘‘Law

of the River.’’ 1 Defenders also supports, in broad principle, the proposal to sell

water from the Imperial Irrigation District to San Diego County 2, as well as the

proposal to establish instream flow rights for the entire river as part of the United

States’’ trust responsibilities to the American public.

Point Two: Use, Don’t Abuse, NEPA

The environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)—a statute that possesses no express substantive restrictions—for the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and all other related actions has been pitiful. 3 Instead of looking for ways out of NEPA, Congress and the applicable federal

agencies should be seeking to utilize NEPA as the useful federal planning device

that it is. No one should be surprised that federal agencies such as the Bureau of

Reclamation now face serious legal questions under the Endangered Species Act

59

4 Not only have the major California water users already tentatively agreed to an initial fiveyear fallowing period on lands contained in the Imperial Irrigation District, which would alleviate many of the short-term problems facing the Salton Sea, but the December 31, 2002 ‘‘deadline’’ for QSA execution in the Interim Surplus Guidelines also provides more flexibility for California than is commonly asserted. We have time to do the California 4.4 Plan correctly. 5See, e.g., www.stopextinction.org. Defenders has identified at least a dozen serious drafting

flaws and/or environmental rollbacks in the bill at issue. 6See generally Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. Norton, pending before Judge Robertson in the

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This case, fully briefed and argued, will determine whether federal agencies must ‘‘consult’’ under the ESA for impacts from U.S. federal actions upon U.S.-listed species that occur in the Mexican Delta of the binational Colorado River.

No injunctive relief or demand for water has been requested in this litigation. See also Minute

306 to 1944 United States–Mexico Water Treaty. 7This bill authorizes an additional $113 million of federal funds (roughly similar amounts for habitat enhancement and water storage respectively), plus potentially another $50 million in

private/public funds, to essentially maintain a murky status quo. It would be far better to spend

this money on ecologically-sound restoration projects and economically-sustainable jobs in the

Imperial Valley once an agreed blueprint for overall action is agreed upon. Such a present lack

of clarity perhaps explains why the financial numbers in H.R. 5123 are different than both what

the Imperial Irrigation District’s general counsel states and what a consulting firm estimates.

Compare John Penn Carter, Water Transfers and the Salton Sea at 4, CLE International (May

3, 2002)(‘‘The cost of mitigating for adverse socioeconomic impacts resulting from a fallowing

program may very well be equal to, or greater than, the hundreds of millions of dollars required

for environmental mitigation.’’) with Tetra Tech, Inc., Draft Assessment of Salinity and Elevation for Varied Inflow (April 2002)(numerous estimates under different plausible scenarios). 8See generally Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission, Water in the West: Challenge for Next Century (June 1998); William DeBuys and Joan Myers, Salt Dreams: Land and

Water in Low–Down California (1999).

(ESA) because these agencies have little idea how their various band-aid proposals—none of which have been looked at synergistically—would impact listed species such as the brown pelican, snowy plover, Yuma clapper rail, and the desert

pupfish. The legislative environmental waivers contained in the present bill are

completely unnecessary 4, an admission of failure, and will be vigorously opposed by

the general public. 5

Point Three: Look at the Salton Sea in Context

Restoration of the Salton Sea is an important objective for migratory birds, recreation, and related economic reasons. Our goals should be realistic, with concrete responsibilities (both short and long-term) assigned to various parties. In addition,

restoration of the Salton Sea must be viewed in the context of Mexican Delta conservation because the two water complexes are in the same ecosystem and water

basin. 6 Federal aid to individuals and projects in the Imperial Valley must be closely scrutinized so as to be consistent with overall Congressional objectives in the region. 7 It is startling to see the language in H.R. 5123 when such little tangible

progress has been made in implementing the terms and objectives of the 1998

Salton Sea Reclamation Act by Congress (P.L. 105–372).

Conclusion

Congress is perhaps at the most important juncture in the management of the

lower Colorado River—a federalized river—since 1928 when it passed the Boulder

Canyon Project Act. 8 43 U.S.C. § 617 et seq. Major issues pertaining to California

development, human health, the Salton Sea, federal expenditures, and the entire efficacy of the lower Colorado River basin, including Mexico, are all at stake. Although

these issues are not easy, they can be solved if a truly representative and legal process is utilized. The temptation for quick fixes, with inadequate information supplied

for and by the privileged few, should be rejected.

Thus, we respectfully urge this Committee:

* to continue its important oversight role over the subject matter contained in

H.R. 5123; and

* to reject H.R. 5123 until a demonstrable need for federal legislation, which must

be significantly altered from it present unacceptable form, is offered.

Mr. CALVERT. A point well taken. Mr. Levy, very quickly.

Mr. LEVY. I hate to interrupt. I would just ask that you have the

Committee counsel look at the Interim Surplus Guidelines. You

will find, I believe, in there that it requires suspension of the transVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:36 Jun 06, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\80968.SF HRESOUR2 PsN: HRESOUR2
60

fers and going to a 70-R criteria which, given the conditions on the

Colorado today, means 4.4.

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Levy. That is just the point I was

going to bring up. In this job I found a lot of water attorneys and

Mr. Hayes has indicated to me, who was the primary gentleman

who was negotiating this agreement along with Mr. Babbitt, have

both indicated that if in fact this QSA is not executed by the end

of this year that the Department of Interior is within its rights to

have sudden death on the Colorado River as far as California is

concerned. The soft landing goes away.

That is the way I have read the agreement. I appreciate your

analyses, Mr. Snape, but as you know, probably half the people in

this room are water attorneys and they probably have different

opinions, each one of them.

One thing, let us get to the point, Mr. Carter, you are a very important guy around here because you know, there was a famous

guy back in the ’20’s or ’30’s. They asked him why he robbed banks

and he said, ‘‘That is where the money is.’’

So, we made this comment before about Imperial County. Why

is everybody looking to you? Because that is where the water is.

The 4.4 million acre-feet of water that we get in California, Imperial County has perfected water rights up to 3.3 million acre-feet.

So, everybody is looking to you all. As Mr. Hunter pointed out

earlier, they were talking about that 100 years ago. They knew

that that was going to happen some day. You guys have spent a

lot of money perfecting that water right.

We have heard some very colorful and interesting language coming from various people in Imperial County, which I think, by the

way, is unfortunate. I don’t think that helped the process. We are

trying to find a solution to this problem. I don’t think there is a

person on this panel that doesn’t agree that we must, for California’s sake, come up to a solution to his problem.

We are running out of time. Mr. Levy indicated what is going to

happen this summer. You have my commitment. I will spend as

much time as necessary to find, or hopefully to find a solution to

this problem.

Mrs. Bono obviously has some significant issues regarding air

quality. We need to work on that. We have many issues that we

have to deal with. Mr. Snape had indicated, others have indicated

this legislation, like all bills, isn’t going to come out exactly as written.

I am sure Mr. Miller is here to point out some of the issues that

he has with it. But nonetheless, we have to do something. I again

want to compliment Mr. Hunter for putting something on the table

because I have to believe that nobody, nobody it envisioned in Imperial County, one of the poorest counties in the State of California,

with the highest unemployment rate of any county in the State of

California to take on unlimited liability, third party liability.

We have to resolve these issues and we have to do it very quickly

before we can move this legislation forward.

Getting back to the issue, the big question, Mr. Carter, of

fallowing, obviously we have heard from Imperial County in many

different ways on this. In your opinion, is fallowing off the table?

61

Mr. CARTER. Yes, sir. Any long-term fallowing program is not acceptable to the Imperial Valley.

Mr. CALVERT. In your opinion, is there one board member on IID

who would agree to the concept of fallowing?

Mr. CARTER. No.

Mr. CALVERT. In your opinion, the Board of Supervisors in the

County of Imperial, have any of them or the county itself have indicated any movement toward fallowing?

Mr. CARTER. Not that I am aware of.

Mr. CALVERT. And in your opinion the water rights that you

hold, which I mentioned earlier, have been perfected over 100

years, you have a pretty good standing in court?

Mr. CARTER. Yes.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Levy, would you agree with that analysis?

Mr. LEVY. No.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I like him.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Underwood, what is your feeling about that?

What is Metropolitan’s feeling? You have a little experience in this

issue.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I agree. We are not looking at long-term

fallowing because of the impact. But fallowing can, on an interim

basis or an upfront basis maybe help us get there along with some

other concepts.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. CALVERT. Yes.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The question is, what do you consider longterm fallowing?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. No.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. What is long term? Two years? Ten years?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. In the context of the discussions, the agreements can last as long, if not longer, than 75 years. That for sure

would be long-term.

Mr. CARTER. Reclaiming my time, because we are short of time,

I just wanted to get that on the table. Obviously, that is the problem, I mean the problem that has to be solved here in the next couple of months.

Again, I will work with everybody on both sides of the aisle and

with all the water agencies and the rest and the State of California

because in spite of the quote from the Rolling Stones, I am not sure

that time is on our side, especially in this hearing because we have

7 minutes before the next vote.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one question before we

go?

Mr. CALVERT. As Mr. Miller said, you can’t always get what you

want. We have one vote.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to handle the

next motion on the floor, so if you would indulge me, I think it

would help everybody if I could ask one quick question that I think

kind of sets the stage for this particular bill.

Mr. CALVERT. Very quickly.

Mr. HUNTER. OK, just very quickly. Do you gentlemen agree with

the idea that understanding that the Salton Sea problem is not resolved at this time, that is the essence of the testimony we have

heard, and there is going to have to be a sharing of the burden of

62

solving this big problem called the Salton Sea, that there should

be a finite burden, a clear and concise and terminable, finite burden that the water transfer itself should carry with a limitation

that it will not go beyond that?

Mr. CARTER. IID’s answer would be yes.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. In terms of contributions, I would just like to

make a point that it is not just the transfers that we are doing.

If you look at the San Diego transfer and the transfer to Coachella,

if you look at the QSA, it also includes the metropolitan IID transfer.

I just want for the record to indicate that we have spent and con- tributed over $20 million already.

Mr. HUNTER. Understanding that, is your answer yes, that there

should be a finite limitation to that burden?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes.

Mr. CALVERT. Well, we thank the gentleman. We have about 4

minutes for the vote. We will vote and come back immediately and

wrap up this hearing and then we will go right into the markup

of the two bills.

[Recess]

Mr. CALVERT. The Committee will come to order.

Mr. Miller, you are recognized.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say at the outset

and I guess to pay tribute to you, Mr. Chairman, on the time that

you have spent on this issue, but not just this issue, also on a

whole series of related California water — I guess we call them

problems — California water problems.

I know personally from conversations with you and meetings and

the rest how much time you have spent and the time that you have

tentatively set aside over the break to try and bring people together.

I really don’t have any questions because I have the feeling that

I am in a conversation that I had before.

I have some concerns. I have some concerns with what I believe

at this time to be a piecemeal approach here. I am not terribly

comfortable with the idea that we can separate the transfer from

the Salton Sea and I am not comfortable with before we know what

the real parameters are of trying to deal with the Salton Sea and

I think I am open to the full range, some of which are hard to contemplate, but I am open to those.

I am not comfortable, either, with all of a sudden limiting liability of one party to what may be a solution. I don’t think, as troublesome as the Salton Sea is, I don’t think that this legislation really

deals with that issue and those interests.

So, I am not going to be supporting this at this time. I just think

we are moving further away from where we were in Senator Feinstein’s office with this idea. I just don’t think it passes the muster

at this time.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Mrs. Bono.

Mrs. BONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like Mr. Underwood to briefly explain the differences in fallowing — and I don’t

want to again say that I support fallowing, necessarily, but I think

63

short term fallowing should be on the table. But why is it successful in the Palo Verde Valley and Blythe and why are we so hesitant

in the Imperial Valley.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Let me talk about the different types of

fallowing first, and then maybe I will talk about the PDID. I will

try to be brief. We have all used different terms for these. But I

think first of all you have to recognize that like Mr. Carter was indicating, that long-term fallowing is a very difficult issue for Imperial.

The idea of doing something short term or interim or up front for

limited period of time does have some merit in the sense of what

I think Congressman Miller was getting to, is that it may buy you

some time relative to decisions. You don’t forego opportunities relative to the Salton Sea.

So, if you take any kind of fallowing, it will have less of an impact than on-farm relative to the sea. If you take what we call direct fallowing, and let’s assume that there is six feet per acre, if

you take all of that water, that would be referred to as direct

fallowing. That would have a third of an impact on the sea that it

would have had from an on-farm.

If you take what we referred to as an evapotranspiration

fallowing, the crops would be taking four feet, you still have six

feet. You have two acre feet then that would return flows that

would go to the sea.

You would transfer only those that would be the crop

evapotranspiration waters. The other two then you would put for

land management and maintenance, which in effect would help relative to either maintaining soil salinity, et cetera, but you would

get back to the sea and essentially have no impact on the sea.

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Underwood, I just want to steer you in a little

bit different direction. It is more of the economic impacts of

fallowing that I would like you to address.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I was going to get to that. I wanted to at least

explain what they were.

Mrs. BONO. Yes. I just hate that little red light that is going to

come on real quickly.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. The part between the two, obviously in terms

of socio-economic impacts, if you are doing on-farm efficiencies,

there is no socio-economic impact. If you do the direct fallowing it

has socio-economic impacts. If you do the evapotranspiration, because it requires more acreage, there is greater socio-economic impact.

Mrs. BONO. But would you say it has been successful so far in

Blythe and the people of Blythe?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Let me propose what is going on in the Blythe

area. You can’t do system improvements in the Blythe area because

it is waters that come through the system and go back to the river.

So, there are very little efficiency improvements that you can gain.

So, really a fallowing program is the only way to potentially provide for water supply. Why would the Blythe area be interested?

I think everybody recognizes that some of the agricultural economies have not been the greatest and because of international markets it is harder to predict.

Mrs. BONO. Doesn’t that hold true in Imperial Valley as well?

64

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Correct. But let me finish up. If you look at the

farmers and the Board of Trustees are the farmers in the Palo

Verde and they recognize the value of having some stability to

their farm economy.

Personally, I think such a type of a program, and in Imperial it

could potentially work, too, whether it was a dry year program or

whether it was just something up front to potentially buy us some

time for the decisionmaking relative to the sea. I think it still had

some opportunities in Imperial.

Mrs. BONO. Thank you.

Mr. Kirk, part of my, I think, frustration with the Salton Sea Authority has been when it was created it was far too narrow of a

charge. You have been changed entirely with saving the sea, but

not with saving the region.

Has your approach, because I believe it has been, but hasn’t your

approach been solely focused on saving the sea and not more regional policies? I think you are dealing with two sets of county supervisors, a handful of Members of Congress, a whole host of different municipalities. So, you have so many divided interests.

But wouldn’t it be helpful if we actually now expanded our scope

into looking at other examples, for example, bringing the dairies

down to the Imperial Valley, these sorts of things that your group

has not really been charged with doing?

Mr. KIRK. We would be happy to change our charter to be in control of all things in southern California. I agree with you, though,

our boundaries include the Salton Sea. However, we have been trying to look at economic development issues.

At the same time, we have been very deferential to our colleagues in the Imperial Valley and particularly the IID and Imperial County Board of Supervisors. They do sit on our Board and to

the degree that we along with the partnership with the Congressional Task Force could look at the Salton Sea, look at the water

transfer and look at economic development and try to marry all

those pieces together, I think our Board of Directors would be interested in doing so.

Mrs. BONO. Thank you. I see my time is up.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentle lady.

In the interest of time, we have a number of questions I would

love to ask, but we must end this hearing and we are going to go

to the markup. So, we thank this panel. We appreciate your being

here.

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee proceeded to other

business.]

Æ