S. HRG. 114–376 

THE STATUS OF DROUGHT CONDITIONS 

THROUGHOUT THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 

AND ACTIONS STATES AND OTHERS ARE TAKING TO ADDRESS THEM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 2, 2015 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

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

THE STATUS OF DROUGHT CONDITIONS THROUGHOUT THE WESTERN UNITED STATES AND ACTIONS 

STATES AND OTHERS ARE TAKING TO ADDRESS THEM 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

95–280 2017

S. HRG. 114–376 

THE STATUS OF DROUGHT CONDITIONS 

THROUGHOUT THE WESTERN UNITED STATES 

AND ACTIONS STATES AND OTHERS ARE TAKING TO ADDRESS THEM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 2, 2015 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

CHRIS KEARNEY, Budget Analyst and Senior Professional Staff Member 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

MELANIE STANSBURY, Democratic Professional Staff Member 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator from Alaska .................. 1 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member, and a U.S. Senator from Washington .................................................................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Connor, Hon. Michael, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior ...... 5 

Buschatzke, Thomas, Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources .......... 16 

Loranger, Tom, Water Resources Program Manager, Washington State Department of Ecology ............................................................................................. 23 

Ogsbury, James, Executive Director, Western Governors’ Association ............... 31 

Michael, Cannon, President, Bowles Farm, on behalf of the Family Farm 

Alliance ................................................................................................................. 39 

Cody, Betsy, Natural Resources Policy Specialist, Congressional Research 

Service ................................................................................................................... 89 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

(The) 21st Century Pipe Coalition: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 218 

Buschatzke, Thomas: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 16 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 18 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 158 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 3 

City of Sacramento (California): 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 220 

Cody, Betsy: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 89 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 91 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 204 

Colorado River Board of California: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 222 

Colorado River Indian Tribes: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 225 

Connor, Hon. Michael: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 5 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 8 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 141 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 228 

Garamendi, Hon. John: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 267 

Loranger, Tom: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 23 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 25 

Michael, Cannon: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 39 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 41 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 181 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Page

IV 

National Water Resources Association: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 279 

(The) Nature Conservancy: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 286 

North Bay Water Reuse Authority: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 294 

Ogsbury, James: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 31 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 33 

Response to Question from Senator Gardner ................................................. 124 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 162 

Property and Environment Research Center: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 320 

WateReuse: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 327 

Western Growers: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 333 

Western Recycled Water Coalition: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 349 

(1) 

THE STATUS OF DROUGHT CONDITIONS 

THROUGHOUT THE WESTERN UNITED 

STATES AND ACTIONS STATES AND OTHERS 

ARE TAKING TO ADDRESS THEM 

TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. We are calling to order the Full 

Committee on Energy. Welcome to everyone this morning. 

We are meeting today to discuss drought conditions. I do not 

know about the rest of you, but I was completely dumped on yesterday. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I had never seen it rain so hard. I was thinking 

about drought as we were battling the wet weather here, but truly 

the drought conditions that are facing the Western United States 

have garnered the attention of so many of us. 

Much of the West has been in varying degrees of drought for the 

past 15 years now. According to a survey released last week by the 

U.S. Drought Monitor, approximately 57 percent of the West is now 

experiencing moderate to exceptional drought. All or parts of nine 

states in the worst shape range from severe to exceptional drought, 

and the impacts are significant. 

California, in the midst of its fourth year of severe drought, has 

for the first time imposed mandatory 25 percent reductions on 

water use by residents and businesses. 

Many farmers in California continue to face unprecedented reductions in water delivery by the Bureau of Reclamation and the 

states which are often their primary sources of water. These farmers have contracts with Reclamation and the state, but today, in 

the absence of water their livelihoods are being dramatically impacted. Drought is leaving behind hard decisions for these folks. 

Decisions where they are saying, you know, which fields do they 

lay fallow? Do they change certain crops that they plant? Do they 

plow under crops such as fruit trees? 

I was out in Fresno several months ago and saw whole fields of 

beautiful citrus trees, healthy citrus trees, that were literally bullVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:36 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 095280 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95280\95280.TXT TARSHA
2 

dozed over because there was no water. In certain cases the 

drought has led farmers to go out of business entirely. Of course 

the impacts are not just on our farmers but with some communities 

no longer having running water and individuals in farming communities losing jobs. 

There is much discussion regarding what drives water release 

decisions in the state. 

During the course of California state’s four year drought, for example, many have said that the large amounts of water that had 

been released at various times and in various forms or held back 

from release had been done to ensure protection of fish at the expense of cities, towns and farmers. 

Indeed we have heard repeatedly that farmers in the state use 

80 percent of the state’s water. So the question needs to be asked 

is that accurate? My understanding is that the California Department of Water Resources has reported that state-wide water use 

looks more like this. Ten percent urban use, forty-one percent agricultural use, and a majority of 49 percent use for environmental 

management, wetlands, delta outflow, wild and scenic designation 

and in-stream flow requirements. 

One of the very real questions that we should discuss regarding 

California’s circumstances and potentially elsewhere is to what extent is the very important balance between water for fish under 

State and Federal law being given equal, legal support for that of 

water delivery to meet the needs of people in cities, towns and 

farms? And if the balance is not equal, then why not? Are there 

regulatory imbalances? Can the Federal Government be helpful in 

addressing imbalances? 

Elsewhere in the West the situation, while perhaps not quite as 

dire, is trending that way. In Washington State the Governor declared a statewide drought emergency on May 15th. In Oregon the 

Governor has declared a state of drought emergency in seven counties with another eight requesting designation. 

Across the Colorado River Basin, where 40 million residents in 

seven states rely on water from Lake Powell and Lake Mead on the 

Colorado River for residential, industrial and agricultural needs, 

the drought in varying degrees has been a fact of life for now some 

15 years. The strains are starting to show, most notably at Lake 

Mead where lake levels have fallen 130 feet in the last 15 years. 

At the current rate in the next few years, users in Arizona and 

elsewhere could see reductions in their state allocations under the 

Colorado River Compact. Hydropower operations at Lake Mead and 

Lake Powell could also be curtailed in coming years. 

As a brief aside, I have mentioned in this Committee and in others that potential hydropower impacts remind us of the very strong 

nexus between energy and water. The strain that drought puts on 

that nexus is something that I am watching and am very concerned 

about. 

In the face of the challenges stemming from drought water users, 

Federal and State officials and others are working to ensure delivery of water where it is needed. These actions include State and 

Federal officials working together to facilitate water transfers and 

farmers agreeing to delay the date of deliveries of water to benefit 

3 

species. Of course, many farmers have turned to groundwater consumption to meet their needs. 

So there are some hard questions, I think, that need to be asked 

here. Are current actions sustainable in the face of multiyear 

droughts? Are all affected parties giving sufficient attention to long 

term planning and related actions? What is the Federal Government’s most appropriate role in addressing longer term solutions 

given tight budgets and that much of what happens with water in 

the West is actually managed by the states? Are there innovative 

efforts on the ground that should be replicated? Also what new 

ideas for water storage, conservation and use might we consider? 

We have an impressive panel of witnesses here today. In particular I look forward to hearing from those who are on the ground 

on how they are meeting the challenges. I look forward to everyone’s thoughts on how we can be helpful here. 

I will turn to my colleague, Senator Cantwell and note to the 

Committee that we have a vote scheduled at 10:30 so we will keep 

the hearing going and just ask members to go vote and then come 

back. 

Senator Cantwell. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you. 

I would like to thank Chairwoman Murkowski for scheduling this 

important hearing. As you mentioned, in my state the Governor 

has declared a drought emergency, as has been done in 11 other 

states. I hope that we can use this hearing to better understand 

the magnitude of the impact of these droughts across many of our 

Western states. 

I want to emphasize too, that we hope to have a robust discussion today about solutions. Things that we can do and things that 

we can plan for in the future. What is working, what is not working? What are the Federal Government actions that need to be addressed to face drought issues over the long term? And if drought 

conditions are likely to become the new normal, what do we need 

to do to usher in a new era of solutions? 

This year many states are experiencing the warmest winter on 

record. In my state mountain snowpacks, which keeps our rivers 

flowing in the spring and summer, are now at nine percent of normal levels, and 11 snow sites monitored by the Department of Agriculture were snow free this year for the first time ever. 

For example, Hurricane Ridge, which is one of the most visited 

parts of our state in Olympic National Park, is normally covered 

in feet of snow at this time of year but is completely snow free this 

year. It is actually a pretty startling sight to many Washingtonians. As a result of such low snow pack, 78 percent of the state’s 

streams are running below normal and runoff is projected to be the 

lowest it has been in 64 years. 

On May 15th the Governor declared a statewide drought emergency and has been working with communities to mitigate the impacts, particularly in rural communities which have been hard hit. 

For example, in the Yakima Basin which is the state’s most productive agricultural region, irrigation districts are rationing water 

4 

and farmers are facing significant cuts. The Washington Department of Agriculture predicts the crop loss could be as much as $1.2 

billion this year across the state. 

So I want to make sure that our Federal agencies are working 

hand-in-hand with the states to provide relief and assistance and 

to try to address this issue moving forward. 

Meanwhile our communities are bracing for a severe fire season 

which also will provide many challenges. 

So it is very important to me that we look at responding to the 

long term changes that are before us, and the ways that we do 

business in managing water in the midst of this major crisis and 

that we think about the paradigm shift that is in front of us as we 

face these warmer seasons. 

We need to develop 21st century strategies for water management that not only respond to the drought conditions of today but 

prepare us for an uncertain future. This requires new ways of 

thinking and collaboration which means exploring all options, not 

just incremental change at this point in time. 

I think the Yakima Basin project in my state is an example of 

long term water basin planning which has not been done in the 

past in which interest groups from farmers to fishermen to tribes 

to environmentalists are working together to try to implement the 

best plan over the long term. I think that there are four areas that 

we should consider moving forward. 

One, we need more collaborative water sharing agreements. Just 

like with the Yakima Basin this empowers communities to take action at a local level and be part of crafting solutions. 

Second, we need to be more flexible in drought operations. This 

includes the way we build, manage and finance storage and other 

infrastructure and how we support those efforts at the local level. 

I know a lot of people do not even want to talk about storage because they start thinking about how long it takes to get it permitted and authorized. I am not talking about rolling back environmental laws, but I think we have to think creatively about how we 

build storage now. We need to, even if it is small scale storage like 

what is being done with the Yakima Basin project. 

We need to do a better job of leveraging science and technology. 

I am amazed at what Israel has done as a country with such little 

water resources and yet continue to be such agricultural producers. 

So we need to make sure that we are deploying new technologies 

that help improve efficiencies in everything from our hydroelectric 

dams to agriculture to our homes. 

Finally, we need to do a better job of planning for the future instead of just simply reacting. 

I hope, Madam Chair, that we can, in the future, get some of our 

climate scientists from Oak Ridge here. Senator Alexander is a 

member of our Committee and they have an incredible science on 

what will be impacting us as a nation. They have the modeling. I 

think we should look at what these new normal conditions mean 

to us as a nation because, I think, we can see what the economic 

impact is going to be from an agricultural perspective. I think it 

is going to be great. So we need to do a better job planning for the 

future. We need to do all that we can now at the Federal level to 

be flexible in our response; to make sure we are making the right 

5 

kind of investments to help ensure that our states can deal with 

these droughts and that our communities will be better protected 

in the future. 

Once again, thank you for your leadership in having this hearing. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses including Tom 

Loranger, who is the Water Resources Manager from the Department of Ecology in Washington State. I look forward to hearing 

from all of the witnesses today on this important topic. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

With this we will begin hearing from our witnesses this morning. 

Again, a very distinguished panel, thank you, all of you, for being 

here. 

We will begin with the Honorable Michael Connor, who is the 

Deputy Secretary for the Department of the Interior. 

He will be followed by Mr. Thomas Buschatzke, who is the Director of the Water Planning Division for the Arizona Department of 

Water Resources. Thank you for coming from the West to be here. 

Also from the West, from Washington, we have Mr. Tom 

Loranger, who is the Water Resources Program Manager for Washington State Department of Ecology. 

He will be followed by Mr. James Ogsbury, who is the Executive 

Director for the Western Governors’ Association. He will be giving 

us the perspective from the Western states. 

Mr. Cannon Michael is the President of Bowles Farm and he is 

testifying on behalf of the Family Farm Alliance, welcome to the 

Committee. 

Wrapping up the panel is Ms. Betsy Cody, who is a Natural Resources Policy Specialist at CRS. 

So we welcome all of you. 

With that, Mr. Connor, we will lead off with you. When the vote 

is called, you will see various members of the Committee leaving, 

but I would ask that we just move through the testimony this 

morning. I know that you have a hard stop at noon, so we want 

to try to accommodate that. Please limit your oral testimony to five 

minutes, and your full written statement will be incorporated as 

part of the record. 

Mr. Connor, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL CONNOR, DEPUTY 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, members of the Committee. For the record I am Mike 

Connor, Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Interior. I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on the subject of 

drought and the actions the Department and its Bureaus are taking to address the serious water resource issues affecting much of 

the West. 

I will briefly summarize my very lengthy written testimony. 

The Department is acutely aware of the drought-related challenges and worries confronting families, farmers, tribes, businesses, 

cities and the environment throughout the West. We are committed 

to doing all we can to address the situation. We understand the implications for Western communities and the need for continuous action to build long-term water supply reliability and resiliency. 

6 

Given the current and future impacts associated with climate 

change and other stressors we have no choice but to adjust and 

adapt. 

To that end, the Department is taking a multifaceted approach 

and marshalling every resource at its disposal to assist Western 

communities impacted by drought. The Department has instituted 

a multipronged strategy that encompasses short-, medium- and 

long-term dimensions. Given the significant infrastructure owned 

and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, an urgent response to 

drought requires a focus on immediate day-to-day operations. 

Reclamation and its partners are taking any and all actions to 

more effectively manage water and maximize supplies for human 

use while maintaining environmental conditions necessary to protect fish and wildlife, as well as protect the interests of other water 

users. 

This year, the fourth year of a historic drought in California, litigation has been minimal while Federal agencies, State agencies, 

water users and non-governmental interests have worked together 

on drought strategies and other agreements to share limited water 

supplies. The collaboration and cooperation has been as historic as 

the drought itself. 

Beyond addressing the current crisis we are also making a strategic investment to stretch limited supplies and minimize conflicts 

over the next several years. As an illustration, just two weeks ago 

Secretary Jewell traveled to Los Angeles where she announced the 

total of $49.5 million in grant assistance to co-fund a host of locally 

driven, water conservation projects under the Water Smart program. These grants join hundreds of millions of dollars to date invested by this Administration and supported by Congress to help 

families across the West confronted by the historic drought. 

Finally, we continue to assess and plan for long-term actions required to improve our understanding of water resources as well as 

to secure agreements and infrastructure and technology investments needed to address unsustainable water uses that are the 

source of significant conflict today and likely to get worse in the future. 

The Department views this as an all hands effort with actions occurring across the Department. The National Park Service, Bureau 

of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs and Geological Survey are all working aggressively with our 

partners. 

Our work is dovetailing with that of other agencies like the Department of Agriculture, as part of the Administration-wide, National Drought Resilience Partnership, a forum to align Federal 

drought policies across the government and help communities manage the impact of drought. 

These efforts rely, in no small measure, on the cooperation of a 

broad array of stakeholders, Governors, tribal leaders, state and 

local water authorities, conservationists, farmers, ranchers and so 

many others. From California Central Valley to the Yakima River 

Basin, from grazing lands and timber lands to park lands and Indian country, collaboration is enabling flexibility to reduce water 

consumption, prevent water loss, preserve endangered species, protect recreational assets and provide irrigation to water starved 

7 

farm lands. Our experience has taught us, however, that to be successful ultimately, we must be dedicated beyond near-term results 

and commit for the long-term. 

Take the Colorado River Basin as an example. That Basin has 

been the beneficiary of collaborative efficiency measures for the last 

15 years. Most recently though the intentionally created surplus 

program developed in 2007 with the seven basin states as well as 

agreements forged in 2010 and 2012 with the Mexican Government, through those efforts approximately one million acre feet of 

water has been conserved, effectively delaying the time at which it 

will reach critical levels in Lake Mead. 

Unfortunately the drought continues to outpace our conservation 

efforts and potential shortages in the lower basin are now possible 

in 2016 and 2017, underscoring the need for continued collaboration and extraordinary operational measures into the future. 

Successfully confronting the challenges of drought will take considerable investment and ongoing commitment. The Department 

and this Administration will not lose focus on our duty to help 

Western communities dealing with drought. We know that neither 

the Federal Government nor the communities that we serve can 

simply build, conserve, recycle or regulate our way out of these 

challenges or rely on only one option to meet the challenges that 

we face. Rather, we understand the need to take a multifaceted, 

long-term approach to diversifying our Western water portfolio in 

working to achieve lasting results. 

Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:] 

8 


Insert offset folio 001 here 95280.001
9 


Insert offset folio 2 here 95280.002
10 


Insert offset folio 3 here 95280.003
11 


Insert offset folio 4 here 95280.004
12 


Insert offset folio 5 here 95280.005
13 


Insert offset folio 6 here 95280.006
14 


Insert offset folio 7 here 95280.007
15 


Insert offset folio 8 here 95280.008
16 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Deputy Secretary. 

Mr. Buschatzke? 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS BUSCHATZKE, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 

Mr. BUSCHATZKE. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking 

Member Cantwell and members of the Committee. I’m Tom 

Buschatzke, the Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to present Arizona’s testimony regarding drought in the West, its impact on my 

state, our formula for offsetting and mitigating drought impacts 

and the role of the United States. 

The arid nature of Arizona constantly reminds us of the value of 

every drop of water we have. Arizona has a diverse water supply 

portfolio. We use about seven million acre feet of water per year 

and the sources are 40 percent from the Colorado River, 40 percent 

from groundwater, 17 percent from instate surface water sources 

and three percent from reuse of reclaimed water. 

Arizona has created institutions that provide certainty for our 

water users. It took political capital, compromise and hard choices 

over many decades to create the water delivery projects, laws, regulations and in trust state and interstate agreements that effectively 

manage our water. The result was worth the effort. Arizonans 

enjoy a high quality of life and a vibrant economy and will continue 

to do so even in the face of this drought. 

Despite Arizona’s successes water supply uncertainty and vulnerability remains. Managing that uncertainty and eliminating vulnerability is a part of Arizona’s history and continues to be a key 

strategic goal for our state. 

Drought on the Colorado River is at the top of our list of challenges. Arizona will lose 320,000 of its 2.8 million acre feet Colorado River allocation when a Tier One shortage is triggered. We 

will know in August 2015 if shortage will occur in 2016. The probability of a Tier One shortage in 2016 is 33 percent and increases 

to 75 percent for 2017. 

Arizona shoulders the brunt of the shortage, about 84 percent of 

the total taken by Arizona, Nevada and Mexico. If Lake Mead continues to decline, Arizona will take larger reductions while California will continue to take no shortage. 

Another challenge for Arizona and the Lower Basin is an issue 

referred to as the structural deficit. It is caused by the volume of 

water released from Lake Mead for beneficial use, evaporation and 

delivery losses exceeding the volume of water entering Lake Mead 

from Lake Powell even in a normal year. As a result, Lake Mead’s 

elevation drops about 12 feet per year. 

Greater than normal Colorado River flows into Lake Mead help 

offset structural deficit impacts, but drought has reduced that likelihood from happening. 

Despite the impacts, uncertainties and vulnerabilities I have described, Arizona is not in a water crisis and is well-situated to deal 

with the drought, an outcome of good planning, good management 

at the 1980 Groundwater Management Act and its progeny. The 

Groundwater Act contains carrots and sticks. It mandates water 

17 

conservation, agricultural acreage is capped and new housing must 

have a 100-year, renewable water supply. 

Municipal providers are required to have conservation and 

drought management plans. The act incentivizes saving water. Underground storage programs allow water to be stored underground 

and recovered later resulting so far in the storage of 5.6 million 

acre feet and another 3.4 million acre feet by the Arizona Water 

Banking Authority which is dedicated to backfilling Colorado River 

shortages. 

The value of underground storage programs was quickly recognized by other states. Arizona stored 80,000 acre feet for California 

in the 1990’s and another 600,000 acre feet for Nevada in the 

2000’s. 

Maintaining the resiliency Arizona enjoys today will be a challenge. As I conclude my remarks I wanted to address the potential 

role of the Federal Government. 

First, the Secretary of the Interior, water master in the Lower 

Basin of the Colorado River, should continue to be an effective 

partner in creating and implementing collaborative actions with 

the seven Basin states to create a sustainable Colorado River. However, it is imperative that any actions of the Secretary or the 

United States to aid drought stricken California not reduce Arizona’s flexibility to manage its own water supplies. Arizona already 

takes the lion’s share of Colorado River shortage. Federal actions 

that might further impact Arizona are not warranted and would 

not be equitable. 

Second, the reliability and sustainability of the river is critical to 

Arizona Indian tribes and to the United States as trustee for those 

tribes. Essential Arizona project water is key to existing and future 

tribal water right settlements in Arizona. 

Third, there is a need for augmenting the Colorado River which 

has been recognized in Federal legislation and Reclamation’s 2012 

Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study and in Arizona’s Strategic Vision for Water Supply Sustainability. 

Last, Arizona would like to see additional opportunities for Federal support of programs that conserve water that will benefit the 

entire system rather than one particular user, especially considering how much some users, like Arizona, have already done. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide you with a snapshot of the Arizona experience. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Buschatzke follows:] 

18 


Insert offset folio 9 here 95280.009
19 


Insert offset folio 10 here 95280.010
20 


Insert offset folio 11 here 95280.011
21 


Insert offset folio 12 here 95280.012
22 


Insert offset folio 13 here 95280.013
23 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate your comments. 

Let’s go to Mr. Loranger. 

STATEMENT OF TOM LORANGER, WATER RESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGER, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF 

ECOLOGY 

Mr. LORANGER. Madam Chair Murkowski and members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My 

name is Tom Loranger. I’m the Water Resources Manager with the 

Washington State Department of Ecology. 

As Senator Cantwell mentioned current snow pack levels in 

Washington are nine percent of normal. This is the lowest we have 

on record. Because of the low snow pack, rivers with diminishing 

flows in irrigation districts already cutting off supplies to junior 

users, Governor Jay Inslee declared a drought in Washington in 

May. With the state’s drought declaration relief can be provided for 

those experiencing hardship and to improve flows for fish. 

Regarding agriculture in the state, currently difficult decisions 

are being made about what crops get priority water and how best 

to save fish. As Chairman Murkowski mentioned, the Washington 

State Department of Agriculture anticipates $1.2 billion in crop 

loss this year in the state. In the Yakima Basin, where the Bureau 

of Reclamation has built multiple storage projects, the drought 

means less water is available for junior water users. In the last two 

weeks we’ve already issued 30 emergency drought well permits to 

junior users in the Roza Irrigation District in the Yakima Basin. 

In the Wenatchee Basin, Little Spokane Basin and other basins 

in the state, we’ve sent out curtailment orders already to junior 

users. 

In the Walla Walla, we are actively working with irrigators, 

tribes and other water managers to develop leases and provide 

pulse flows for struggling salmon. 

Regarding communities in the state, the largest municipalities, 

Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, have all indicated they will not experience water shortages this year. These utilities have taken proactive 

steps to store rainwater that fell in the winter time. 

However, other utilities, particularly the smaller community systems, may experience problems. The drought response funding 

from the legislature will allow communities to rehabilitate or deepen wells as needed or construct interties with adjacent systems like 

we did in the 2005 drought. 

Regarding flows for fish, in the Dungeness River on the Olympic 

Peninsula of Washington we have committed to 13 leases already 

where farmers will let 1,000 acres of farmland lie fallow. In return 

flows will get approved, particularly in that critical late summer 

period. 

We are also in the process of leasing water from the Kittitas Reclamation District in the Upper Yakima, very sensitive tribes, very 

important to salmon in that basin. 

Right now in the Walla Walla, water supplies and flows are extremely low which is impacting both irrigator’s use and fish passage. And so currently partners are shifting flow from creek to 

creek to aid struggling salmon right now, Chinook and Bull Trout 

as well. 

24 

A challenging time for fish and farms in Washington. Key to the 

successful implementation of emergency drought response in Washington is the work we have done actively developing collaborative 

partnerships in these key watersheds like the Yakima, like the 

Dungeness, like the Walla Walla, around the state. 

Ownerships include tribes, local governments, state governments, 

other water managers, Federal Government, so it’s a new way of 

doing business where we have irrigators supporting flow enhancement projects for fish. We have fisheries’ interests and tribes supporting water supply projects for out-of-stream use of water. 

From these partnerships we’ve developed minimum flow requirements, flexible mitigation strategies and lease arrangements that 

make it easy to shift water around when we have to rapidly during 

drought. 

A few examples. In the Yakima we have developed leasing arrangements to share water among irrigation districts and provide 

water for stream flow while land lays fallow. In addition all parties, including the Yakima Tribe, have agreed to a flexible mitigation approach for these big, large drought wells that when used 

where we can have mitigation water, not up front, but later on in 

the season. 

The Yakima Integrated Strategy was developed working with all 

of these partners. When funded it will expand the reservoir capacity in the Yakima Basin, improve facility operations and improve 

fish passage and fish habitat, providing more water for these critical drought periods. 

In the Dungeness watershed the Dungeness Irrigator’s Association has agreed to voluntarily reduce their water diversions during 

these drought periods and periods of low flow. This is remarkable 

given that their water rights allow them to take more water. These 

irrigators are also entering into lease agreements so that water can 

be left in the stream during these critical drought periods. 

In the Walla Walla, irrigators, tribes, and all levels of government are actively moving water around to protect the fishery and 

ensure use for irrigation. The Umatilla Tribe is trapping and hauling fish to cooler waters. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Loranger follows:] 

25 


Insert offset folio 14 here 95280.014
26 


Insert offset folio 15 here 95280.015
27 


Insert offset folio 16 here 95280.016
28 


Insert offset folio 17 here 95280.017
29 


Insert offset folio 18 here 95280.018
30 


Insert offset folio 19 here 95280.019
31 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Loranger. 

Mr. Ogsbury, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES OGSBURY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION 

Mr. OGSBURY. Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking 

Member Cantwell and members of the Committee. My name is Jim 

Ogsbury, and I am the Executive Director of the Western Governors’ Association (WGA), an independent, non-partisan organization representing the Governors of 19 western states and three 

U.S. territories. It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss 

the critical issue of drought. 

Well over a year ago Nevada Governor and current Chairman of 

WGA, Brian Sandoval, announced his intention to devote his energies as Chairman of the WGA on the critical issue of drought. This 

announcement was applauded by the Western Governors because 

as an issue it speaks to the strengths of WGA. 

It is timely, it’s actionable, it is bipartisan, it’s a top priority of 

our Governors, and unfortunately, it’s a perennial concern in the 

West. It’s designed by Governor Sandoval. The Western Governors’ 

Drought Forum is an effort that speaks to the pragmatic nature of 

Governors, who as Chief Executives are focused on practical, common sense solutions to state and regional challenges. 

I will not belabor the severity of the present drought or its impacts. You and other witnesses have established that case, and 

there has been extensive coverage of the drought’s impacts on California where snow levels are now zero percent of normal and the 

snow pack of the Sierra Nevadas has officially disappeared. 

These severe conditions, however, are not limited to the Golden 

State. Washington Governor Jay Inslee, as you have heard, declared a state-wide drought emergency on May 15th, citing the fact 

that on the Olympic Peninsula where there should have been 80 

inches of snow there were instead glacier lilies in bloom. Governor 

Kate Brown of Oregon, I believe, has declared drought emergencies 

now in 15 counties. Early May snow pack levels in the Boise River 

Basin of Idaho were the fourth lowest on record since measurements began in the 1940. 

Western Governors’ have individually taken decisive actions to 

prepare for drought and manage its impacts. California Governor 

Jerry Brown issued an Executive Order on April 1st mandating a 

25 percent reduction in municipal water use. Governor Inslee has 

spearheaded Washington State’s participation in the Yakima Basin 

Integrated Water Resource Management Plan which will empower 

water users in a rich, agricultural area to collaboratively address 

the risk of drought to agriculture, communities and the environment. 

The Governors have also addressed drought collectively through 

the Western Governors’ Drought Forum. The forum is a multifaceted enterprise that has organized drought workshops, hosted 

webinars, produced reports and engineered an online resource library for officials and water managers to share drought management best practices, case studies and innovations. WGA hosted a 

series of workshops throughout the West, each of which focused on 

32 

drought’s impact on a particular economic sector including energy, 

agriculture, mining, manufacturing and tourism. 

The lessons learned from these and other activities of the 

Drought Forum have been memorialized in an online resource library and will be summarized in a report that will be issued by the 

Governors later this month at their annual meeting in Lake Tahoe. 

In wrestling with drought Western Governors have enjoyed productive partnerships with the Federal Government. Western Governors provided critical leadership for the original enactment and 

recent reauthorization of the National Integrated Drought Information System, NIDIS. This has led to continuing work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on improved coordination and dissemination of drought and extreme weather data 

and analysis to support the resource management decisions of 

states. 

Likewise, WGA supports the Cooperative Water Program and 

National Stream Flow Information Program of the U.S. Geological 

Survey as well as the snow survey activities of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. These programs provide valuable 

data and information to inform state water resource decisions. 

WGA recognizes the value of State/Federal partnerships. The collaboration of Federal and State agencies to craft a unified operation plan in California, for example, led to an expedited water 

transfer process among other benefits. 

Furthermore, WGA recognizes the importance of infrastructure 

investments, the value of streamlined permitting for infrastructure 

and the significance of Federal support for state and local watershed groups. 

The Governors deeply appreciate the attention that this Committee is investing in the issue of drought and look forward to 

working with you to craft solutions that both apply the substantial 

resources of the Federal Government and respect the authority and 

expertise of states to manage water within their boundaries. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ogsbury follows:] 

33 


Insert offset folio 020 here 95280.020
34 


Insert offset folio 21 here 95280.021
35 


Insert offset folio 22 here 95280.022
36 


Insert offset folio 23 here 95280.023
37 


Insert offset folio 24 here 95280.024
38 


Insert offset folio 25 here 95280.025
39 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ogsbury. 

Mr. Michael, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CANNON MICHAEL, PRESIDENT, BOWLES 

FARM, ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE 

Mr. MICHAEL. Well, good morning. I’d like to first of all thank 

the Committee for this opportunity to be able to present on this important issue of the Westwide drought and thank the Committee 

for taking the time for the attention on this matter. 

I’d like to especially thank Chairwoman Murkowski for the leadership role she’s taken in this effort and also for her recent visit 

to California to see the conditions for herself firsthand and greatly 

appreciate your comments that you started with. It means a great 

deal that you’ve taken it to heart and learned so much. 

I would offer anyone in this room the opportunity to come to our 

farm for a visit to see conditions for yourself, firsthand. 

I’m here today representing the Family Farm Alliance. We are 

a grass roots organization comprised of family farmers, ranchers, 

irrigation districts and allied industry groups that have representation through the 16 Western states. The main mission of the Alliance is to provide and ensure the availability of reliable, affordable 

irrigation water supplies for farmers and ranchers. 

My name is Cannon Michael. I’m the sixth generation in my family to farm in the Central Valley. My great, great, great grandfather came over from Germany in the 1850’s and through a lot of 

hard work became a successful cattle rancher. And we are still fortunate to farm some of the land that he originally settled on. I live 

on the farm with my wife and my three children. 

As I sit here before you I’ve already fallowed 25 percent of my 

ground. I am now awaiting a decision which has just come up in 

the last few days which may take that number to 80 percent or 

higher. 

We mentioned regulations for fish a little bit earlier. The sole decision that may change my allocation and the trajectory of my farm 

this year is based on temperature modeling for fish only. It’s been 

discovered there’s not enough cold water available in storage for 

fish, and that may completely eliminate all the collaborative work 

that’s been done to provide some water supply for different water 

users this year. So obviously a very disturbing time for me and my 

family. 

Throughout the last 15 months there’s no denying, in the last 

four years there’s no denying that hydrologic issues have been 

plaguing California. But in the last 15 month period there’s also 

been significant rainfall events, very precious at the time of this 

critical drought. What we’ve seen over and over again is the 

uncaptured part of those rain events has flowed out, the majority 

of it has flowed out to the ocean and not been able to be captured 

by our water system. 

California relies on an engineered water system that moves 

water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta where two-thirds 

of the water falls in the north of the state to where two-thirds of 

the population is in the south part of the state. It’s been a system 

that’s worked for many years. Now with this layering of regulations 

40 

that we’ve seen since the 1990’s, we’ve seen all flexibility be taken 

out of the system. 

I would ask today, as the Federal Government you have the opportunity to ensure that regulations, when they are in place, are 

implemented with some balance and some accountability. It would 

be one thing to me if these last years of regulation and limitations, 

if we had seen some improvement in the fish species. But we’re not 

seeing that. So, there needs to be a clear look at those regulations, 

and they need to have accountability. And they need to have balance. 

Quickly on the impact of fallowing. I want to just make the point 

very quickly. One fallowed acre has an extreme impact over a very 

large area. It’s not just the income to a farmer. It represents loss 

of work to my people on the ground. If I don’t run a tractor on that 

ground it means I don’t buy tires. I don’t buy parts. I don’t buy 

fuel. All those associated industries that bring me those products, 

they also suffer. 

It then means that I don’t produce an actual product off that 

ground. That product then doesn’t go to a processing plant. It 

doesn’t go to a supermarket. It doesn’t stock those shelves. It 

doesn’t come out to something else that may be transported across 

the nation or across the world. 

I then may not take any financing. It affects the banks. It’s a 

large ripple effect from one acre fallowed. We have over 800,000 

acres being fallowed this year. The economic impact is huge. 

We’ve also seen food prices rise. We’re taking away sources of 

healthy fresh fruits and vegetables from people that we have been 

telling that they need to eat more of those types of products. Ten 

to 15 percent may not mean a lot if you have a disposable income, 

but it sure means a heck of a lot if you’re on a low wage or you 

have a difficulty providing for your own family. We cannot take 

these products away from people. 

California farmers produce food and fiber in the most environmentally and ethically-friendly ways in the entire world. We have 

enforceable penalties if we do not follow the regulations that we 

are underneath. 

The LA Times recently did an excellent expose on Mexico where 

we’re getting more and more food and relying on them to provide 

us this food. They do not pay living wages, they do not have environmental standards, and they do not have enforceable penalties. 

I would just, I know I’m out of time, but everybody uses a lot of 

water every day. We all rely on water. So we need to decide where 

we want those products to come from. Every time you eat, you’re 

consuming water. Every time you put on your clothes, you’re consuming water. 

We are ultimate water consumers, every single day. Do we want 

water to come from places like California, water products to come 

from there or do you want them to come from other countries? 

We have to start figuring out solutions. We have to have some 

accountability for environmental regulations. We need leadership 

from the Federal Government. We need your help, and I’m asking 

for that today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Michael follows:] 

41 


Insert offset folio 26 here 95280.026
42 


Insert offset folio 27 here 95280.027
43 


Insert offset folio 28 here 95280.028
44 


Insert offset folio 29 here 95280.029
45 


Insert offset folio 30 here 95280.030
46 


Insert offset folio 31 here 95280.031
47 


Insert offset folio 32 here 95280.032
48 


Insert offset folio 33 here 95280.033
49 


Insert offset folio 34 here 95280.034
50 


Insert offset folio 35 here 95280.035
51 


Insert offset folio 36 here 95280.036
52 


Insert offset folio 37 here 95280.037
53 


Insert offset folio 38 here 95280.038
54 


Insert offset folio 39 here 95280.039
55 


Insert offset folio 40 here 95280.040
56 


Insert offset folio 41 here 95280.041
57 


Insert offset folio 42 here 95280.042
58 


Insert offset folio 43 here 95280.043
59 


Insert offset folio 44 here 95280.044
60 


Insert offset folio 45 here 95280.045
61 


Insert offset folio 46 here 95280.046
62 


Insert offset folio 47 here 95280.047
63 


Insert offset folio 48 here 95280.048
64 


Insert offset folio 49 here 95280.049
65 


Insert offset folio 294 here 95280.294
66 


Insert offset folio 295 here 95280.295
67 


Insert offset folio 296 here 95280.296
68 


Insert offset folio 297 here 95280.297
69 


Insert offset folio 298 here 95280.298
70 


Insert offset folio 299 here 95280.299
71 


Insert offset folio 300 here 95280.300
72 


Insert offset folio 301 here 95280.301
73 


Insert offset folio 302 here 95280.302
74 


Insert offset folio 303 here 95280.303
75 


Insert offset folio 304 here 95280.304
76 


Insert offset folio 305 here 95280.305
77 


Insert offset folio 306 here 95280.306
78 


Insert offset folio 307 here 95280.307
79 


Insert offset folio 308 here 95280.308
80 


Insert offset folio 309 here 95280.309
81 


Insert offset folio 310 here 95280.310
82 


Insert offset folio 311 here 95280.311
83 


Insert offset folio 312 here 95280.312
84 


Insert offset folio 313 here 95280.313
85 


Insert offset folio 314 here 95280.314
86 


Insert offset folio 315 here 95280.315
87 


Insert offset folio 316 here 95280.316
88 


Insert offset folio 316 here 95280.317
89 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Michael. I appreciate the personal touch that you have clearly given to the issue here this morning. 

Finally let’s go to Ms. Betsy Cody, welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF BETSY CODY, NATURAL RESOURCES POLICY 

SPECIALIST, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

Ms. CODY. Thank you. 

Chairman Murkowski, members of the Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity for CRS to testify today on Western drought conditions and challenges facing Western water managers. 

While my testimony includes a discussion of potential options to 

address drought challenges, CRS does not take positions on legislative proposals or make recommendations to the Congress. 

As you’ve heard from others today here, while more than 20 percent of the United States is experiencing moderate to the exceptional drought. Much of the drought is concentrated in the West. 

Although there have been slight improvements in some areas, 

higher than average temperatures and lower than average precipitation have resulted in low record snow pack and early runoff in 

other areas. The short-term seasonal outlook is for these trends to 

continue in the far Western states, especially. 

Long-term predictions, those more than three months, are more 

difficult to make, especially on a regional basis. 

Chief among the challenges for Western states is managing 

scarce water supplies and ensuring public health and safety and industry and other effects, as you’ve heard from many of our panelists. States and local water entities typically lead efforts to prepare 

for a drought, and I think you’ve heard some very excellent examples of that today, due to their primary rule and water allocation. 

Even without drought, though, 80 percent of state water managers surveyed by the GAO expect water shortages within the next 

decade. Key concerns range from population growth and lack of information on water availability and use to potential impacts of climate change and effects of extreme weather events such as floods 

and droughts. 

The Bureau of Reclamation, as we’ve heard from Mr. Connor, 

faces similar challenges, especially for its large, multiple purpose 

projects that involve balancing multiple objectives across large 

areas. Challenges in the Colorado River Basin and for the Central 

Valley of California and to some degree the Columbia River Basin 

are prime examples. In these areas challenges include how to accommodate existing and new demands including growing populations and competing uses while also complying with Federal and 

state environmental and other laws. 

As you have heard again from Chairman Murkowski and Mr. 

Connor, Reclamation has estimated that supply shortages for the 

Colorado could be in effect as early as 2016 and 2017. 

Meanwhile Central Valley project water deliveries, we’ve also 

heard, have been significantly cut back affecting junior and senior 

water users, fish and wildlife resources, recreation and other industries. 

Smaller Reclamation projects are also challenged by drought and 

are experiencing water delivery cutbacks. Again we’ve heard more 

90 

of that today. The Yakima Basin is an example and projects in 

New Mexico. 

Although there are a wide range of options for addressing 

drought, the Federal rule in implementing options is not always 

clear cut. Options often discussed can be categorized as follows: 

they’re supply-driven options, they can be demand-driven, those 

that involve new governance or institutional structures, and those 

that fund research, planning and monitoring activities that supports state and local efforts. 

All of these options have their pros and cons and involve tradeoffs. For example, developing or augmenting supplies through construction of surface and groundwater storage projects may provide 

more water but opportunities for supply and conveyance systems 

are fewer than they once were and their costs are often significant. 

Likewise, developing water reuse and desalinization projects can 

also be costly. Project evaluations have also become more complex 

and lengthy. 

Hence, some observers suggest streamlining or removing Federal 

regulations to facilitate project development and operations while 

others are more protective of the status quo. To address authorization and funding issues, some have called for an authorization 

process for Reclamation similar to that enacted for the Corps of Engineers in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 

2014. They also call for public/private partnerships, authorization 

of non-Federal funding of some projects or coordinated funding and 

creation or reactivation of Federal loan programs. 

Some have also proposed new governance or institutional structures such as drought commissions, drought councils or water 

transfer mechanisms such as water banks or water markets. A difficulty in expanding water markets is this relationship between 

state water rights and the Federal Government’s rule and having 

deferred primarily to states’ primacy in water allocation. 

Last, some commonly pursued options to support drought resilience and response at the local level include providing technical 

and financial assistance for drought planning, monitoring and mitigation, providing incentives for improved water efficiency or conservation and supporting technological research and development. 

In summary, addressing drought in the West is a challenge for 

decisionmakers, as we’ve seen today, at all levels of government 

whether the Federal Government should continue or expand its existing policies supporting these efforts or pursue other legislative 

options is likely to be a matter of ongoing debate. 

That concludes my testimony. I’m happy to answer questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cody follows:] 

91 


Insert offset folio 050 here 95280.050
92 


Insert offset folio 51 here 95280.051
93 


Insert offset folio 52 here 95280.052
94 


Insert offset folio 53 here 95280.053
95 


Insert offset folio 54 here 95280.054
96 


Insert offset folio 55 here 95280.055
97 


Insert offset folio 56 here 95280.056
98 


Insert offset folio 57 here 95280.057
99 


Insert offset folio 58 here 95280.058
100 


Insert offset folio 59 here 95280.059
101 


Insert offset folio 60 here 95280.060
102 


Insert offset folio 61 here 95280.061
103 


Insert offset folio 62 here 95280.062
104 


Insert offset folio 63 here 95280.063
105 


Insert offset folio 64 here 95280.064
106 


Insert offset folio 65 here 95280.065
107 


Insert offset folio 66 here 95280.066
108 


Insert offset folio 67 here 95280.067
109 


Insert offset folio 68 here 95280.068
110 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Cody. I was hoping that you 

were going to have the silver bullet for us. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We can wrap this up, and say we have done this 

analysis. 

Ms. CODY. I wish I did. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, we all wish that you did. 

Each and every one of you has mentioned collaboration, cooperation, and flexibility, but it seems that collaboration amongst our 

agencies whether on state side, Federal side, working with our 

tribes, this is all key. 

We clearly hear that, yet we are still faced with a situation 

where the drought is extreme in places, the forecast is not looking 

very good and the uncertainty makes it even more difficult, more 

complicated. 

I would be interested in hearing your perspective, Mr. 

Buschatzke, in what Arizona is doing. Are there ways we can provide for greater collaboration with our Federal agencies? What are 

the barriers we have right now that are limiting our opportunities 

to do more, clearly, with less? 

I am going to throw this out to all of you, and then I am going 

to have to go vote but I will be back for a followup with this. 

Mr. Buschatzke, if you want to lead off? I would really ask all 

of you to weigh in on this. 

Mr. BUSCHATZKE. So Chairman Murkowski, first I’ll say that the 

collaboration with the Federal Government, with the Department 

of the Interior has, kind of, been exemplary so far. 

I think the biggest road block for further collaboration in dealing 

with drought contingency and sustainability planning on the Colorado River in the Lower Basin is really number one, the drought 

in California has reduced their flexibility to participate in potential 

ways to save water in Lake Mead. 

I think, second, the environmental issues revolving around the 

Salton Sea. Drain water goes into the Salton Sea from the Imperial 

Irrigation District. We could save a lot of that water by creating 

efficiencies in that irrigation district and save that water in Lake 

Mead, but for the environmental issues related to the Salton Sea. 

And last, honestly the fact that California under the 1968 Basin 

Project Act does not take shortages, only Nevada and Arizona do, 

has created a bit of an unlevel playing field. And so I think we can 

use the help of the Department of the Interior, specifically on that 

issue, finding a way to create some more equity at that negotiating 

table. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Connor, would you like to comment? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, I do agree that the issues that Tom has 

raised are the next wave of areas of collaboration that we have to 

deal with, and some of those issues are fairly tough which is why 

they haven’t been resolved up to this point. And the Salton Sea is 

certainly one of those areas. 

Nonetheless I can point to the Colorado River Basin where, over 

the last 15 years, we’ve had six or seven major agreements that 

have reduced water use, that have increased storage in Lake Mead, 

created institutional mechanisms to incentivize the saving of water. 

And yet, here we are facing significant percentage possibilities that 

111 

we’re going to face a shortage in the Lower Basin in 2016 and 

2017. 

Yet the states are still at the table. We’ve got a system pilot conservation agreement that we’ve all put together, Upper Basin and 

Lower Basin and the Federal Government, to create more water, 

to look for new ways to conserve and place more water in Lake 

Mead. There’s an MOU that’s just been agreed to where I think the 

states are looking at mechanisms to create another million acre 

feet by 2018. And these are the mechanisms that we are going to 

have to finalize through our agreements. 

But the idea, also, is that we’ve got to create new relationships 

between the parties. And that’s what we’ve been doing. 

I would just note real quickly that the success of the Arizona 

Water Bank, which has been tremendously successful and as I 

found out, even more so, this morning, was facilitated in great part 

by the 2004 Arizona Water Settlement Act that the Congress 

passed. It facilitated Arizona taking its full Colorado River entitlement every year, a good portion of that which has been stored to 

alleviate any drought situations. And oh, by the way, it also resolved two major Indian water right settlements and provided opportunities for them to create increased water supply reliability. 

It’s a combination of the investments that we make for conservation, for looking at new storage opportunities. One of the more recent storage facilities we do have is in the Colorado River Basin, 

a regulating reservoir that’s saving 60,000 to 70,000 acre feet per 

year, once again, keeping that water in Lake Mead. 

Investments, new agreements, new relationships and certainly, I 

think for the Salton Sea, we’re going to have to look at new authorities, probably. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Cantwell? 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Connor, I think I’ll continue with you on this issue. 

First of all, thanks for visiting the Northwest. I think you were 

out at a Yakima Basin meeting years ago with myself, then Secretary Salazar, and Congressman Hastings, along with others. So 

I know you have great familiarity there. 

As we’ve seen these drought conditions persist in the West over 

years, and we’ve tried to make plans for changes. You mentioned 

increasing storage capacity. 

What are the major barriers for the Department if we continue 

to do authorization project-by-project, and it takes years of planning and studying? Again, I’m not talking about changing environmental laws, but what do we need to do to have more flexibility? 

What are the major barriers that exist to a more rapid response 

to some of these conditions? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well I think, you know, obviously the larger the 

project, the more complicated, the more likely to impact other 

water users as well as the environment. And I think there’s a fundamental question related to the economic feasibility of some of 

those larger projects. So I think, sometimes, we have been focused 

on larger is better, but it bogs down our ability to move through 

permitting processes, etcetera. 

112 

And I will give, you know, the Yakima Basin is the perfect example with the Black Rock Reservoir proposal which took a lot of 

time, which proved to be probably one of the more expensive ways 

to yield water supply. And when the numbers came out, I think it 

called into question whether it could be afforded and caused the 

parties to go back to the table to a much more robust and comprehensive approach to dealing with water supply issues from the 

environment, to new water supply, to facilitating conservation efforts. 

I think, at the end of the day, those smaller projects, those—and 

we’ve been doing this in the Yakima Basin consistently for ten to 

15 years, the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project. I 

think through from about a 10-year period to 2003 to 2013 we created somewhere about 30,000 to 35,000 acre feet of reduced diversion demand. That water has been allocated to in stream flows to 

improve the conditions of the fishery while also being retained by 

the irrigation community to help weather times of drought. 

So I think we’re making great advances through a series of 

smaller projects that I think are less controversial, that are more 

affordable and prove to be yielding, adding to the bottom line and 

bringing in more broad support. 

So it’s not always smaller is better, but I do think at times we 

get bogged down with the very larger projects. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, you are reminding me that a process 

does solve most problems because of that step of going through that 

larger exercise. I think it is a catalyst to bring all the parties together at the table. 

At a hearing that I once chaired for this Committee on the San 

Joaquin, there was a similar process: after 18 years of legal battles 

people decided to come to the table. 

So what about this issue of what do we need to do to provide 

more flexibility to the agency to support those kinds of collaborative efforts? 

Mr. CONNOR. I think we have good authorities right now that 

allow us to participate as a cost share partner in a number of these 

projects. 

And so what’s happening in a lot of cases and I think we should 

look at more opportunities to facilitate this is the Federal Government is a participant in a lot of projects. I would concede that when 

the Federal Government leads a project development activity 

there’s a lot of hoops to leap through, with respect to the regulatory 

permitting process. Certainly even there’s some of that when we 

participate. But in a lot of cases the states and local entities have 

developed project concepts. They are looking for Federal permits as 

well as some Federal assistance with respect to cost share, and 

that’s appropriate in a lot of cases because there are Federal interests at stake in the Yakima Basin. We have our trust responsibility 

to the Yakima Nation. We have the environmental laws. We have 

the goals with, we all have, with respect to the fisheries. And we 

have a Federal project that we want to maintain its viability to 

serve agricultural interests for the long term. 

So in a lot of cases I think facilitating the Federal Government 

to continue to be a partner in these efforts whether they’re conservation projects, small storage projects, environmental restoraVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:36 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 095280 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95280\95280.TXT TARSHA
113 

tion projects, as a partner providing flexibility from a financing 

standpoint for non-Federal entities will help facilitate results. 

Senator Cantwell [presiding]: Thank you. 

Senator Flake? 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for 

being here. It is great to see Tom here, and the first question is 

for you. 

You talk about Lake Mead looks like we are going to, you know, 

we are in our 16th year of below average runoff of the Colorado 

River. Lake Mead is likely going to hit or fall below the 1,075 feet 

mark over the next two years and will trigger the shortage declaration. 

You talk about structural deficits. You touched on it in your comments. Can you explain that further? Evaporation, delivery, losses 

and how that affects allocation? 

Mr. BUSCHATZKE. Yes, Senator Flake. 

So the structural deficit is a function of the fact that those losses 

in evaporation, losses, the reservoir evaporation. Those volumes of 

water in the Lower Basin, Nevada, Arizona, California and what 

goes to Mexico, are not accounted for. So in the decree in Arizona 

verses California each state’s allocation which was certified in that 

decree, was for the total consumptive use, 2.8 million for Arizona, 

4.4 for California, 300,000 for Nevada and under the Mexican Treaty 1.5 million acre feet. 

So more water has to really be in the system to get those volumes of water to those entities for actual use. And so that impacts 

the Lower Basin by driving Lake Mead toward shortage, even in 

normal years. The brunt of, again, those impacts fall on those who 

take shortage. Basically, California does not take shortage. Arizona, Nevada and Mexico do. 

But there are also impacts to the Upper Basin states, Colorado, 

Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah, potentially. And so, their system, 

under prior appropriation and under their Upper Colorado River 

Compact, they do incorporate the losses into the actual use by their 

farms, customers, cities, etcetera. 

So what happens there is because Lake Powell and Lake Mead 

are conjunctively managed and the contents are balanced. Lake 

Mead falling more rapidly from the losses not being accounted for 

forces more water from Lake Powell to go to Lake Mead. The potential impacts there are on loss of power revenues that come out 

of Lake Powell, Glen Canyon Dam. Those power revenues are used 

to fund environmental programs and other things in the Upper 

Basin. 

And also if Lake Mead and Powell continue to drop, potentially, 

those Upper Basin states are subject to curtailment under the 1922 

Compact if they can’t deliver 75 million acre feet over a 10-year period to the Lower Basin. So the impacts fall on both the Upper and 

Lower Basin because of the structural deficit. 

Senator FLAKE. Alright. During times of water storage in the 

West we often see these conflicts portrayed as irrigated agriculture 

pitted against the cities. Will you explain how these tensions will 

be dealt with in Arizona? Are we trying to allow growing urban 

economy but still maintain healthy agricultural economy? 

Mr. BUSCHATZKE. Yes, Senator Flake. 

114 

So there are some tensions in Arizona between our senior priority users for Colorado River in the Yuma, Arizona area and the 

cities in Central Arizona, who take Central Arizona Project water. 

We’ve been working with the Central Arizona Project and the 

Yuma area agricultural interests in trying to help come up with a 

way to do things like intentionally create surplus that Deputy Secretary Connor referred to, to try to prop up the levels of Lake 

Mead. I think those things have been going fairly well. We don’t 

have a deal on the table yet. 

In Central Arizona our agricultural users who take Central Arizona Project water will suffer the brunt of the shortage if there’s 

a Tier One shortage in 2016 or 2017. They’ll lose about half of their 

renewable Colorado River supplies. They have options to pump 

groundwater under state law. But under our Underground Storage 

and Recovery Program they also have options to partner with Arizona tribes and Arizona municipal users who have higher priority 

Central Arizona Project water. Those folks, the agricultural users, 

can partner with those entities, take their Colorado River water. 

And in return those entities will get a future credit to pump 

groundwater from under the agricultural land. 

The Department of Water Resources has looked at the permitting 

that goes along with that program, and we’ve tried to create as 

much flexibility as possible to make those partnerships most probable as we approach this shortage is 2016 or 2017. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Just very quickly in my remaining time. You talk about augmentation to our areas. What are the most promising areas to augment the resources that we have? 

Mr. BUSCHATZKE. I think the Lower Basin states, including Arizona, help funding weather modification, cloud seeding in the 

Upper Basin to try to increase the flows there. 

We also are looking at potential desalination of brackish groundwater within our state. Of course are participating through the 

auspices of the Minute 3–19 process, Minute 3–19 Treaty implementation with Mexico to look at potential bi-national desalination 

with Mexico and also potentially partnering with California for desalination with California and Arizona. 

Senator FLAKE. Okay. 

Mr. BUSCHATZKE. Those are probably the main sources. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator CANTWELL. Senator Heinrich? 

Senator HEINRICH. Deputy Secretary Connor, in its Colorado 

River Basin Study the Bureau of Reclamation identified efficiency 

in conservation projects as some of the most cost effective approaches to increasing available water supplies for users, in other 

words, actual wet, delivered water. In New Mexico the state has 

elected to pursue a new diversion project on the Helit River under 

the Arizona Water Settlements Act instead of focusing on efficiency 

projects that would help stretch existing water supplies further. 

As Reclamation begins its review process with a value planning 

study this summer, I am wondering how will the lessons learned 

from the Basin Study factor into consideration into the costs and 

115 

benefits of the various projects that could be pursued under the 

Settlement Act? 

Mr. CONNOR. Senator, I think in looking at, you know, obviously 

when we do our studies one of the areas that we look at are alternatives, approaches. And as you’ve pointed out I think that will be 

something that does get scrutiny as to what are the water supply 

demands that are trying to be met by this project, first of all. And 

then what are the options available to meet that demand. 

I think overall, through our history and in my prior capacity I 

had the opportunity to spend a lot of time up here testifying on 

water resources issues. One of the things I went back and looked 

at was what are the relative, you know, back of the envelope calculations for the relative different types of projects that we have? 

There were a couple of large scale storage projects that I mentioned—one was the Black Rock Reservoir proposal, another one in 

California, the Auburn Dam. The cost per acre foot, just overall 

project costs versus yield were somewhere in the neighborhood of, 

you know, $17,000 to $46,000 per acre foot. 

You look at the Water Smart conservation proposals that we’ve 

gotten, and water conservation is not going to create a new supply 

for a new demand. But it certainly can lead to saving water, be 

able to putting that in storage, maintaining flexibility in the situation. Those are down from $500 to $800 per acre foot. 

The Title 16 Water Reuse Projects that we have which have 

great drought resistance aspects to them, they provide water in 

times of plenty as well as times of shortage. They’re about $8,400, 

$8,500 per acre foot. So it gives you the kind of range. 

And we’ve made investments. I think the water conservation 

projects in the Yakima River Basin are something around $2,500 

per acre foot. And we did a major infrastructure improvement 

project in California, an intertie between two canals which resulted 

in about 40,000 acre foot per year on average. And that was $850 

per acre foot, cheapest water in the West. 

So we’re making improvements that, I think, are adding to the 

bottom line of water availability. Every project needs to be evaluated on its own merits, but it shows you the range and the differences. 

And quite frankly, what we found, is we’ve got a lot of demand 

for these conservation and reuse programs because, I think, water 

managers, this is not a Federal driven program. We’ve got the 

availability where we can participate. But we’re getting applications on a yearly basis that greatly exceed the available resources 

because water managers view that as the best investment opportunity to yield water supply, in a lot of cases much better than 

large storage. 

Senator HEINRICH. Great, thank you. I appreciate your focus on 

looking quite transparently at the cost per acre foot and the yield 

of these individual projects. I think that is incredibly important 

given the stress we are at West wide now. 

Ms. Cody, I want to move to you real quickly. 

For a number of years now the Bureau of Reclamation has actually leased water from the local water utility in Bernalillo County 

to maintain flows in the Rio Grande necessary to support local 

116 

wildlife populations, and many have suggested expanding that program to lease water from local irrigators on a voluntary basis. 

Can you tell us a little bit about how water leasing has been 

used in other states around the West to meet water needs and 

what New Mexico should keep in mind as we consider expanding 

the tool box in the middle Rio Grande Valley? 

Ms. CODY. Thank you for the question. 

The other areas that this has been done, I think we heard from 

testimony here today in Washington State where the Department 

of Ecology has worked with having water left in streams by having 

people voluntarily agree to use that water. I don’t know, honestly, 

if the state is paying for that. That would be a question for my colleague over here. 

California is another place where people with senior water rights 

have entered into long-term contracts with municipal areas to 

move water on a voluntary basis. Usually those are structured as 

a contract. Reclamation has done some work on providing guidelines for long-term transfer of water and short-term transfer of 

water in those situations. 

So those options are out there. Others have proposed to do similar things in other areas of the West and that could include New 

Mexico. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you. 

The Chairman [presiding]: Senator Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Connor, it is nice to see you again. Thank you so much for 

being here. You are aware of my efforts to pass legislation, S. 593, 

which would compile the Bureau’s maintenance backlog into a report that would be available to the public and updated every two 

years. Your staff has been very helpful, and I just want to say that. 

You have been very helpful in working with my office to move 

this legislation. It unanimously passed the Senate the last Congress. Will you commit once again to continue to work with me to 

move this legislation so we can understand what the total backlog 

is and eventually the way to address it? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, Senator. Full commitment. That’s a very valuable bill, and my staff says the same thing, that your staff has 

been wonderful to work with. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, good. Thank you. 

You know, folks across the West, we are in serious need of more 

water. Ranchers in my state, like Big Horn Basin, they need water 

to grow alfalfa, to raise cattle. Many have junior water rights, and 

they worry about getting the water they need to keep their livelihood. 

So the sentiment in the West and certainly in Wyoming has always been summed up by the old saying, ‘‘Whiskey is for drinking, 

water is for fighting over.’’ The best solution, I think, to solve the 

water crisis is to increase water storage in the West. 

The State of Wyoming, through our Governor’s office, has developed a strategy to increase water storage, and I support them on 

this. So I have introduced legislation, S. 1305, to expand the storage capacity of Fontenelle Reservoir, to provide more water for 

Southwest Wyoming. Together we are looking at other options to 

expand our reservoirs. 

117 

So my question is, will you continue to work with me, with Governor Mead, to help move water storage projects forward such as 

Fontenelle and others and what steps are you taking to address 

this need across the West for more water storage? 

Mr. CONNOR. To the Wyoming specific examples that you referenced, Senator, of course, we will be happy to keep working, particularly I know we’ve had some activity on the Fontenelle Reservoir issue, I think. We want to work through the technical aspects, in particular. But it’s, I think it’s demonstrating where we 

see there is value and economic viability, in particular, is looking 

at existing storage facilities and seeing how we might increase. So 

yes, we are absolutely committed to continue to working with your 

office. 

Overall, we have a number of storage proposals that we are continuing to do work on, particularly in California. 2004 legislation, 

CALFED, required us to look at four major new storage opportunities in California. One of those, the Las Calaveras Dam, raises a 

facility that’s in the Bay delta itself. Did go through a phase one 

dam raise, increased water storage by 60,000 acre feet, now they’re 

looking at a second raise, potentially another 100,000 acre feet. 

So but we’ve completed some. We’re in the process of completing 

others. We are looking at increasing storage in the St. Louis Reservoir which is south of the delta in California. I think that might 

have a great opportunity to provide additional water supply. 

And as I mentioned earlier, we’ve looked at some smaller regulating reservoirs. One of the most successful aspects of that is 

Brock Reservoir on the Lower Colorado River. You know, obviously 

we’ve got 60 million acre feet of storage on the Colorado River, 

quite frankly. And we’re trying to get more water into those existing facilities. 

But there’s great value in a regulating reservoir, 8,000 acre feet 

that’s yielding about 60,000 to 70,000 acre feet of yield. $172 million, the major municipalities in Arizona, California and 

Nevada paid for that. We provided technical system assistance. 

And once again, that proved to be great value as to the dollars per 

acre foot added. 

So it’s not a comprehensive look across the West. It’s more where 

there have been projects identified that we think that there are 

sponsors for that want to look at storage. And we are certainly believe that that’s one of the tools that we need to address our water 

resource challenges. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, I appreciate it. 

You know, with increasing water storage in terms of Wyoming, 

I know the Wyoming Water Development Commission is working 

on producing a viable feasibility study on enlarging the Bull Lake 

Reservoir. I know you are familiar with that. 

If we look at Congress enacting language broadening authorities 

under the Safety of Dams Act, will your Bureau then have the authority, you think, to integrate a dam safety fix at Bull Lake with 

the Wyoming Water Development Commission with their proposal 

to enlarge the facility? 

Mr. CONNOR. I think we need to look at that authority issue, 

quite frankly, under our existing Safety of Dams legislation. But I 

do think it warrants what we need to be looking, as we’re doing 

118 

major corrective actions to existing dams, that we should look at 

the opportunities to increase storage. I do think there’s an authority issue there, and we’ll need to work through cost share issues 

on that point. 

Senator BARRASSO. Finally, Mr. Ogsbury, in your written testimony you mentioned and other witnesses today have testified the 

drought is not just in California, but in many Western states as 

well. I believe any drought relief bill should not just address California’s drought crisis. There should be a west wide drought relief. 

I am just wondering what you are hearing from Western Governors’ that you represent. 

Mr. OGSBURY. Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, Senator Barrasso, members of the Committee, the Governors 

have been phenomenally engaged in the Western Governors’ 

Drought Forum, the invention of our current chairman, Brian 

Sandoval of Nevada. 

As we’ve gone across the West, Senator, Governor Martinez of 

New Mexico hosted a workshop on drought’s impacts on tourism 

and recreation. Governor Brown of California hosted a workshop on 

drought’s impacts on agriculture. Mr. Connor participated with us 

in Las Vegas when we did a workshop that Governor Sandoval 

hosted on drought’s impacts on water supply. They fully recognize 

that this is a regional issue and it demands regional collaborative 

solutions. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam CHAIRMAN. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator Franken? 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this 

hearing. 

We have been hearing from the testimony of the Western United 

States experiencing record low snow pack, unusually dry weather, 

the warmest temperatures on record and these drought conditions 

are having tremendous impacts on our communities and our economy. We have also heard the cooperation between states and Western states and Federal Government and different entities to address these impacts. 

To make matters worse many climate models are projecting that 

portions of the West are just likely to get drier and hotter. So now 

more than ever I believe that the Federal Government should take 

the lead in supporting research on how climate change will exacerbate drought conditions like the ones we have been talking about 

today. 

Mr. Connor, what is the Department of the Interior doing to better understand the impacts of these climate-related events and how 

is that informing our understanding of what we are going to do 

going forward? 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

We have a number of different areas by which we are participating, particularly in the area of better understanding the impact 

of climate change on water resources and then systematically trying to assess what are the right strategies to deal with those implications. And we participate, our US Geological Survey premier 

science organization participates, with the Global Change Program 

that helped put together the National Climate Assessment. 

119 

Certainly within the Department itself we have had a focus on 

putting together more transparent use of our water-related data 

because not only can we use that, but there’s a lot of smart people 

outside the Department. And we have an open water data initiative 

to try and standardize data enough so that we can put it out and 

make it accessible because we think others, particularly in academia, can help us use that data to better understand the changes 

that have occurred to date and how to move forward. 

From a more practical standpoint we have a Basin Studies program within the Bureau of Reclamation, and we are looking at opportunities to assess on a basin-wide scale supply/demand imbalances over a 50-year period using the best climate data and 

downscaled models to assess how supply is changing in individual 

basins. 

Senator FRANKEN. Since we are projecting drier, hotter weather 

going forward because of climate change, is that going to make certain technologies suddenly economic where they were not before? 

Anyone is free to comment on this. I heard about desalinization 

of brackish waters in Arizona. I think San Diego has a billion dollar desalinization project that will deliver seven percent of the 

county’s needs. 

Going forward, things like, I know you mentioned the US Geological Survey. I know that the aqueducts in California, for example, go through some very arid areas and there is a lot of evaporation. And I know the U.S. Geological Survey study covering certain, in very low precipitation areas, covering the aqueducts so you 

don’t lose the evaporation. Going forward are we going to see certain approaches become economical, start to make sense, like desalinization or like that, like covering the aqueducts? Are we going 

to start seeing those things become economical? Anybody can weigh 

in. 

Mr. LORANGER. I will, thank you. 

We are, for example, leasing water, one season leases. Ten years ago in Yakima Basin we paid $137 an acre foot. This year it’s about 

$275, and this is just a reverse auction where we solicit bids from 

water rights holders. So costs have doubled. 

And with more frequent droughts what does that mean for the 

cost of water? What does that mean for the cost of leasing? 

For example, the Yakima Integrated Strategy, there’s some controversy around the benefit cost analysis. One of the proposals is 

to have a pumping system set up on Lake Kachese because there’s 

200,000 acre feet of dead storage. Well, if you could pump that 

water down the Yakima, then 200,000 acre feet is an enormous 

amount of water for both fish and agriculture. So I think it could 

be that as water is more scarce projects like that make more economic sense. 

Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN. Any other comment? 

Mr. BUSCHATZKE. Yes, Senator Franken. 

So looking at some statistics for desalinization of water, for example, in Texas to desalinate brackish groundwater, the cost is 

about $1,000 per acre foot. For Pacific Ocean desalinization it’s 

about $1,500 to $2,100 an acre foot. You compare that with Central 

Arizona project cities who treat new and reportable water at a cost 

120 

of about $1,200 to $1,600 per acre foot. So it’s becoming more economical, coming more into range of what we’re seeing now for the 

costs of water. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I know that someone mentioned Israel before. They are a very 

arid area and a great agricultural sector, and they are exploring 

desalinization. 

So as we go in the future I think there are certain technologies 

that are going to become economic. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gardner? 

Senator GARDNER. I am happy to allow Senator King to go and 

just flip flop if we could. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you will go after him, fine. Thank you. 

Senator King? 

Senator KING. I appreciate it. 

Just really one major question, and I am not sure who wants to 

tackle this. This might be something that we take for the record. 

I am interested in the historic data of water in the West. In other 

words are we facing a new crisis or are we seeing a return to a normal situation over the 1,000 years or 10,000 years? I think that is 

an important question because that will inform our response. 

Does anybody have any response to that question now or is this 

something that we have to look at? 

Mr. Connor, do you have any background on that? 

Mr. CONNOR. I do have a quick thought. But yes, I think it deserves a little bit more elaboration for the written record. 

Mr. CONNOR. But as an example, we’ve got about 100 years of 

stream flow data in most of the river basins. So that’s the history—— 

Senator KING. That’s a blink of the eye. 

Mr. CONNOR. That’s a blink of the eye, but the example I wanted 

to give is in the last 15 year drought in the Colorado River Basin, 

the in steam flows, the runoff within that system, is the lowest on 

record over that period of drought. 

But through tree ring data there’s been some research that is 

highlighted that it’s in the lowest first percentile of the last 1,200 

years. So there are new mechanisms to look at the estimates of 

what the runoff within that basin has been, and we are at the very 

lowest levels through that tree ring data. 

And we may have similar reconstructions of data in other basins 

that we can now start to compare to, to really find out where we’re 

at and how significant is this drought because drought, of course, 

is cyclic. 

Senator KING. Good, I appreciate that. 

Any further information, I think that is important to have to inform how we respond to this. 

I was in California in April, and I was up in the mountains and 

was shocked to see that the reservoirs at what looked like August 

levels in April when they should have been full. I was told that the 

snow pack in the Sierras was at six percent of normal, and I 

thought they said 60 percent. It was 94 percent down which is just 

stunning. 

121 

It seems to me that we are going to—one of the things and you 

all have mentioned this at various points in your testimony. We 

really need to talk about conservation and efficiency measures, not 

necessarily conservation of don’t use, but use more efficiently, low 

flow toilets, drip irrigation. All of those kinds of techniques which 

are probably the lowest cost, I think you testified to this, Mr. Connor, that of all the alternatives those tend to be the lowest cost per 

acre foot as opposed to reservoirs, desalinization and other technologies. Is that accurate? 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. It is one of the most efficient ways. It’s 

the low hanging fruit, particularly for any municipalities, the appliances, the plumbing that they use. 

One area and our Water Smart program that we’ve been invest- ing in since 2009, we’ve invested something like $460 million of 

Federal money, and we’ve yielded about 860,000 acre feet of water 

that we view as conserved or contributed as new supply that we’ve 

help facilitate through that program. 

One of the ongoing—I just looked at the 50 plus projects that we 

just announced a couple weeks ago, turf removal programs for a lot 

of municipalities are very highly leveraged in their water savings 

amongst municipalities across the West. And so we’re still giving 

out some grants along those lines. 

Senator KING. I have one question on energy efficiency. I am 

thinking energy, but it is a similar issue of water efficiency is price 

signals. 

What would be the incentive for the efficiency if somebody is 

going to put in a low flow toilet, is there a price signal on the water 

that will make that a justifiable expense? In other words, are they 

doing it just to be good citizens or are they saving themselves 

money? 

I think this can be something we can discuss further, but that 

is important. Are we talking about incremental price increases if 

you use above a certain amount or a regulatory requirements that 

new installations have to be more water efficient? It seems to me 

that is an important discussion because if water is the same price 

whether we are in a terrible drought or in a surplus situation then 

there is no incentive for people to do that kind of efficiency. 

Mr. Michael, talk to me about your farm and the incentives for 

water efficiency. 

Mr. MICHAEL. Well California, because of the regulatory climate, 

we use every resource as carefully as we absolutely can. So we 

have an incentive just based on our cost of production to always 

use things as carefully as possible. 

We’ve installed drip irrigation on over 60 percent of our farm. We 

have very successful collaborative partnerships with the Bureau on 

modernization of the entire water district which benefits all the 

water users. So we’ve had a long history working with the Bureau. 

I think it’s important, as you mentioned, not only to look at the 

very large projects, but also find ways to incentivize local efforts 

and work in collaboration with the Bureau and the Federal agencies to help that along. 

So and then streamlining some of the environmental requirements if you were going to have some participation by the private 

sector in some storage projects and things like that, I think, you 

122 

know, there’s ways to encourage other participation. But we are 

very proactive in terms of using our water resources. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator King. 

As we talk about infrastructure and updating things around this 

country, I think one of those areas that we forget, we want to talk 

about efficiency or conservation, is old water systems that just 

leak, how much water we lose just because of aging infrastructure. 

Senator Gardner? 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 

holding this hearing today. I think it is very timely. 

While we in the West are talking about drought issues that may 

have of spurred this hearing, all of us in the West could talk about 

water all day, every day of the year, regardless of a drought or not. 

In fact parts of Colorado today are flooding. We see flooding today, 

and two years ago in 2013, we saw massive and catastrophic flooding in Colorado intersparced with drought in parts of the state as 

well. 

If you just look at the needs of Colorado over the next several 

years, by 2050 according to the state’s Department of Natural Resources, the statewide Water Supply Initiative, it is estimated that 

just on municipal and industry, industrial needs alone for water by 

the year 2050, Colorado will have to have an additional 600,000 to 

1,000,000 acre feet of water. That is not even taking into account 

drought. That is just talking about future projected needs of MNI 

on our water supplies. If you look at what happens in Colorado 

without that water over the next several decades we lose between 

500,000 and 700,000 acres of farmland through urbanization, 

urban water transfers, if we do not have the water that we need. 

We have done a good job of conservation in Colorado. Can we do 

better? Obviously we all can, and we should look at ways to develop the critical conservation approaches in Colorado. 

We have basically resulted, through the hard work of many people, in 18 percent water savings per capita in Colorado since the 

year 2000. And per capita energy—water efficiency has resulted in 

an 18 percent per capita water conservation rate. 

If we hit the median level, though, of every water storage project 

that we need to get to that 600,000 to 1,000,000 acre feet of water, 

we are looking at a $15 billion infrastructure cost in Colorado alone 

simply to develop 800,000 acre feet of water, additional water that 

we need by 2050. That is a significant cost. 

If we build every water project in Colorado that is under construction, I guess the acronym is IPP, if we build all the plans that 

we have, we still are somewhere between 180,000 and 500,000 acre 

feet short of the water that we need by 2050. So regardless of the 

issue of drought, which is severe and catastrophic in parts of this 

nation and indeed parts of Colorado, the conversation that we have 

to have on water in this country is real. Without drought, we need 

$15 billion in Colorado alone to meet our needs by 2050. 

So I have a couple of questions for both of you, Reclamation and 

to Mr. Ogsbury. 

One of the concerns that we hear is giving more flexibility or 

power to the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation 

to manage water projects. I am concerned about that and believe 

123 

perhaps we need more flexibility and management ability at the 

local and state levels. 

Mr. Ogsbury, do you think additional flexibility at the local level, 

water management levels, would be preferable to more control at 

the Federal level over water projects? 

Mr. OGSBURY. Chairwoman Murkowski, Senator Gardner, members of the Committee, the Western Governors have adopted a policy resolution 2014–03 Water Resource Management in the West. 

With the Chairman’s permission I’d like to submit that for the 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

124 


Insert offset folio 69 here 95280.069
125 


Insert offset folio 70 here 95280.070
126 


Insert offset folio 71 here 95280.071
127 


Insert offset folio 72 here 95280.072
128 


Insert offset folio 73 here 95280.073
129 


Insert offset folio 74 here 95280.074
130 

Mr. OGSBURY. And it is very emphatic about the Governor’s, 

about the state primacy over water management authority. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. 

I think one of the challenges we also see is it has taken almost 

a dozen years for the Chatfield Reservoir in Colorado, which was 

an Army Corps of Engineers’ project, to receive the approvals it 

needed to move forward in Colorado. 

In Northern Colorado where the flooding is occurring, we have 

another water storage project that started in 2004, the NIST 

project, which could store tens of thousands of acre feet of water. 

Yet we still do not have the necessary permits for that project. 

Is there something that we can do from a permit point of view 

to increase our ability to store more water as we work on the needed conservation efforts? 

Mr. OGSBURY. Chairwoman Murkowski, members of the Committee, Senator Gardner, quoting from that still same policy resolution 2014–03: ‘‘Infrastructure planning and permitting guidelines, 

rules and regulations should be coordinated, streamlined and sufficiently flexible to allow for timely decisionmaking in the design, financing and construction of needed infrastructure, account for regional differences, balance economic and environmental considerations and minimize the cost of compliance.’’ 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. 

I think there are three legs of a stool to a sound water policy. 

Number one is increased water storage as we see that we need. 

Number two is critical conservation, what we can do to conserve 

more water, become more water efficient. Number three is indeed 

what you just said, that Federal, State, and local partnership. 

Whether that is funding or planning to make sure that we are taking advantage of every opportunity we can to conserve, to store additional water. And I mentioned those other projects. 

There is one other project, Mr. Conner, that I wanted to ask you 

about. I had a great conversation with Jennifer Gimble who spent, 

obviously, a significant time at the Colorado Water Conservation 

Board and is now with the Department of the Interior. We spoke 

about the Arkansas Valley Conduit. It is something that was authorized under President Kennedy and has received some funding 

over the past several years which we are grateful for. But now we 

have hit the point where we need to move forward or figure out a 

different way to move forward, but I think the funding issues need 

to be resolved. We need to figure out a way to ramp up this project 

so we can build this desperately needed, 100-mile plus long pipeline to provide clean, abundant water to the people of the Arkansas 

Valley. 

What specific actions would the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior like to see at the local level or state level in 

order for the Arkansas Valley Conduit to move forward? 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Senator, for that question. 

I think overall it is a time of transition with respect to Arkansas 

Valley Conduit, and I do think we need to look at a different and 

better funding model. 

Our goal, up until this point, at the Bureau of Reclamation has 

been to look at the permitting actions that needed to be done. Figure out the best alternatives in moving forward in laying out that 

131 

project and then get it to a full design phase. And that’s what we’ve 

been working over the last couple years is to invest the money necessary to get to the design phase. Fully understand the cost. 

Now we’re close to that transition point. And what we’ve talked 

about over the last year is there a way to use state money. And 

I know they’ve got a significant low interest loan from the state. 

Is that enough to get the project started, to start phasing in construction, serving some of that demand? I agree with you, absolutely, it’s a critical, important project. 

And give us some time to look at other Federal programs that 

might be used to contribute to the cost of the construction. And I 

say that just because in as much as I think the Administration has 

supported a robust budget for Bureau of Reclamation, and Congress has added to it knowing the importance of water resource 

issues. 

We’re just in a bind overall, particularly with respect to these rural water supply projects. We are $1.5 billion behind with our 

rural water program, and I think we’re looking at $300 to $400 

million more for the Arkansas Valley Conduit. We need to look at 

cobbling together a bunch of sources. 

Senator GARDNER. If there are particular actions you would like 

to see at the local or state level when it comes to the Arkansas Valley Conduit, I hope that you will contact my office with those so 

that we can share them with the local operators and water managers. 

Mr. CONNOR. We will do that, absolutely, Senator. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Daines? 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

We have heard a lot from Western Senators today as well how 

critical water is. 

I know last night when I was chatting with my wife, my wife and 

kids live back in Montana, I checked on how the four kids were 

doing. Then it was how are the three dogs doing? Then it was what 

does the rain gauge say? [Laughter.] 

Because we just had a bunch of storms come through Montana 

and May has been a pretty good month. We made up for some lost 

time, but the West is having drought. It is a serious issue. 

Though the drought conditions that we are seeing in Montana 

are not as severe as those in California, we still face below average 

snow packs. We have seen some welcome rain storms over the last 

few weeks, but they are not going to replace the summer snow 

pack runoff which normally occurs. 

I want to note that the headwaters, literally the three forks of 

the Missouri that form it, are 30 miles away from where I grew up. 

In fact, recent news reports, including ones about the Flathead 

River Basin, show that we are at 55 percent of normal snow levels. 

The Kootenai River Basin, again these are up in Northwest Montana, is reporting 16 percent of normal levels. 

So the concern now is that we are looking at June 2nd is what 

does this mean for fire season coming up around the corner? 

Montana has over 7,000,000 Federal acres that are at high or 

very high risk of wildfire, most of which are managed by the Forest 

132 

Service. That is approximately one in four Federally-controlled 

acres in my home state of Montana, and nearly 2,000,000 of these 

forested acres are most in need of some kind of treatment because 

they are near populated communities or critical watersheds. 

Unfortunately I was just informed by the Forest Service that the 

hazardous fuels treatments were only conducted on about 52,000 

acres in the last fiscal year, so this current pace of treatment is unacceptable. Now we are staring at a significant fire season coming 

just around the corner. Our communities, our watersheds, our 

habitat, our access to recreation, all of these critical Montana treasures are at real risk because of wildfire. 

Mr. Buschatzke, your testimony mentions how a number of national forests in Arizona were created primarily for the purpose of 

watershed protection. In fact, I understand the city of Phoenix set 

aside $200,000 for active forest management, the National Forest 

Foundation Project on Arizona National Forests and the purpose, 

as I understand it, is to protect the watersheds supplying water to 

our communities. Could you expand on the risk to watersheds that 

unhealthy forests pose? 

Mr. BUSCHATZKE. Senator Daines, certainly. 

So in Arizona we’ve looked at the condition of the forests in presettlement times, and they were less than 50 trees per acre. Today 

there are over 1,000 trees per acre in our forests. So they are 

choked. Fire risk gets high. 

In the 1980’s we burned about 85,000 acres in those forests. In 

the 1990’s, about 230,000 acres. And in the 2000’s, over 2,000,000 

acres have burned in the forest. 

So we are seeking ways to thin the forest, and honestly it’s going 

more slowly than we would like it to go. Some of that is some of 

the environmental restrictions under NEPA and the Endangered 

Species Act. And we will look, maybe, again as we’ve talked potentially about streamlining some of those issues for California for 

transferring that same streamlining to Arizona to help with our 

forest issues and our forest health. 

Senator DAINES. So connecting the dots there, what impact on 

the watershed does a wildfire pose? 

Mr. BUSCHATZKE. So after the wildfire, the erosion and runoff 

you get from soil going into the streams creates huge water quality 

problems. It greatly increases the turbidity in the streams and 

raises the treatment costs for those cities who take that water out 

of those streams further downstream. That’s one of the issues. 

It also chokes our reservoirs with silt, and those reservoirs will 

rapidly fill up and lose more of their capacity over the long term. 

So we’ll lose storage long term as well. So that’s one of the other 

big issues that the forest fires create. 

Senator DAINES. Mr. Ogsbury, in your testimony you mentioned 

a resolution which the Western Governors’ Association had adopted 

in a wildland fire management. This resolution draws attention to 

the use of active forest and rangeland management as a means to 

prevent wildfire and promote healthy landscapes. 

How are healthy forests linked to helping to maintain clean, reliable water for our communities? 

Mr. OGSBURY. Chairwoman Murkowski, Senator Daines, Western 

Governors understand the interrelatedness of these various reVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:36 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 095280 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95280\95280.TXT TARSHA
133 

sources issues on which we work, and they certainly recognize that 

wildfires and water supply and forest management all impact one 

another. I think we would certainly subscribe to the comments of 

the previous witness and beyond that I would ask for the ability 

to, or permission to answer more fully for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. We would welcome additional comments. 

Mr. OGSBURY. Thank you. 

Senator DAINES. Alright, thank you. 

Last for Deputy Connor. Your testimony talks about how increased wildland fire risk threatens public health and a variety of 

resources including habitat for threatened and endangered species. 

What is the Department of the Interior doing to mitigate that risk? 

Mr. CONNOR. A couple of areas. 

To get to the point that you were talking about, you know, there 

is not sufficient funding that we would like to see across all the 

agencies with respect to hazardous fuels reduction. So what we’ve 

tried to do is expand the interest and the partnerships available to 

deal with that. And the Bureau of Reclamation, a couple of years 

ago, we started the Western Watershed Enhancement Partnership 

for the very reason that you identified here. 

We had a couple of situations in Colorado where Denver Water 

and Colorado Springs Utility have faced massive maintenance costs 

in cleaning up post fire because of siltation and other impacts on 

the reservoirs. And so we’ve formed partnerships. 

One in Montana above Hungry Horse with local entities to try 

and the Forest Service would add money and we would do fuels reduction right above critical water infrastructure. 

So it’s starting to take off. We’re getting good. The city of Payson, 

I was out for an event last year in Arizona. We’re starting to get 

a lot of traction with interested entities. So we’re expanding upon 

the resources to bring to this issue. 

Also we have a fire funding proposal in the President’s budget. 

For the last two years we’ve gotten great support, very much appreciated. We need to get over the finish line where we can increase the cap and make available emergency funds for fire suppression so we don’t have to take it out of other accounts like our 

hazardous fuels reduction. 

Through that we would like to have more stable budgeting or 

fuels reduction resilient landscape activities where we can marry 

up fuels reduction with landscape improvements that address species issues, the health of the overall forest. And that’s our goal with 

that budget proposal. 

Senator DAINES. Well, I appreciate that, and that point that we 

want to be filling our reservoirs full of good, clean water and not 

silt as we look at one way here to mitigate the impacts of drought. 

Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Daines. 

I want to continue with Mr. Connor, the relationship between 

water and some of our endangered species. 

When Reclamation makes decisions on supply and delivery, is 

the legal contract between the Bureau and water users equal to the 

Federal Government’s statutory responsibility to protect threatened 

or endangered species? Is this viewed equally? And whatever your 

answer is, I am curious to know why? If you can just speak to that? 

134 

Mr. CONNOR. It’s not necessarily viewed equally, Chairman Murkowski. It depends on the contractual language. 

The vast majority of Reclamation’s contracts contain what is 

called a shortage clause. And that clause, depending on its language, but the majority have been interpreted to say shortages to 

contracted amounts due to drought and even regulatory requirements result in Reclamation not delivering, not having to deliver, 

that quantity of water. 

There are some contracts, though, where it’s been found the language is different. And that has not been held to be the case. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let’s just use a specific example. 

As I mentioned, I was in the Central Valley in California and all 

the discussion there is about release to provide for the Delta Smelt. 

So in that situation is that one where the statutory requirement to 

protect the smelt overrides the legal contract, again with the Bureau, for water for users? 

Mr. CONNOR. It is the statutory, regulatory requirements as 

manifested in biological opinions are legal requirements. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Mr. CONNOR. That the Bureau of Reclamation has to comply with 

as part of making its water allocation decisions. 

The CHAIRMAN. How then, as we are trying to gather the data 

to better understand whether or not we are making any head way, 

whether it is with the Delta Smelt or with others, with these environmental releases? How are we doing with our data collection? 

I mentioned in my initial questioning the collaboration that is, 

obviously, key throughout all of our agencies. Are we also collaborating when it comes then to the data collection that is necessary 

for making these decisions as we are talking about these environmental releases? 

Mr. CONNOR. Chairman Murkowski, I recognize that there are 

differing views, having read all the testimony presented today, but 

I think we are doing a much better job of collaborating and applying the biological opinions and I can give you several examples. 

These biological opinions from NOAA fisheries and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, having to do with Delta Smelt and several 

surmounted species, are very significant in how they affect water 

supply over time. But they’ve received a great amount of independent, scientific review which isn’t always the case in all biological opinions. 

The two biological opinions, I think between them, they were 

subject to four independent reviews prior and two reviews subsequent. The National Academy upheld them as being fundamentally 

and conceptually sound in their application. Having said that, they 

also raised issues about several of the reasonable, prudent alternatives saying that they weren’t as well grounded in science and 

needed to be looked at closer. 

We have engaged in a collaborative science program with water 

users, and we have gradually made incremental changes in how we 

apply those biological opinions. We’ve done a better job with resources, particularly provided by the Congress, to install monitoring stations, monitoring turbidity, where the fish are. It’s given 

us more flexibility to operate the pumps at higher levels. We have 

just recently, this past year, made a change to the incidental stateVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:36 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 095280 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\TARSHA\HEARINGS\95280\95280.TXT TARSHA
135 

ment that applies for the Delta Smelt which was critical because 

we were taking smelt at the pumps in a manner that would get 

close to that incidental take limitation which would have caused us 

to re-consult. 

What we did is we took new data presented by the water users. 

We were convinced of the scientific soundness of that data to increase the incidental take statement. 

Overall I would just say we’re getting better. We’re making 

changes. You could certainly argue those changes should have been 

made several years ago, but we are moving in the right direction 

with respect to flexibility. And I do think there is data out there 

that does demonstrate the benefit to the fishery from the application of these biological opinions. I don’t believe that there’s—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask Mr. Ogsbury then, from the Western 

Governors’ perspective, are we getting better? Are we doing 

enough? Do we have this collaboration? Are we gaining the data 

that is going to be helpful? 

Mr. OGSBURY. Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, as it turns out data needs emerges as one of the key themes 

of the Drought Forum Workshop discussions over our initiative’s 

first year. And as we move into years two and three of the Western 

Governors’ Drought Forum I think that focus on data and data 

gaps will sharpen. 

One of the things we heard is yes, there’s a lot of data out there, 

but it’s poorly coordinated, disseminated, synthesized, analyzed 

and interpreted. So as we look forward to the coming years of the 

Drought Forum, we’re going to explore ways to ensure that the collection and sharing of crucial drought, flooding and extreme weather related data impacts statistics and information are improved 

and sustained. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to ask one more question and then 

turn to my colleague, and we will wrap up here. 

A lot of headway, I think, with the technologies that allow us to 

conserve more water whether it is, as was mentioned by my colleague, Senator King, low flow toilets or what we are seeing with 

low drip irrigation. It is incredibly impressive. It is also very expensive, but it just goes to the point that these investments will be 

made for the long term recognizing that we are going to be dealing 

with these water and drought issues for some time, but considerable technologies that are there. 

I mentioned the Energy Water Nexus in my comments. It is my 

understanding that in the energy producer’s world there has been 

some pretty considerable technology that allows our energy producers, particularly in Oklahoma, to be managing water more efficiently in ways that, I think, catch a lot of people by surprise that 

they are actually putting more water back into the system than 

they are using. 

Is this something that your group, the Drought Forum, Mr. 

Ogsbury, has been looking to in terms of best practices that are out 

there? 

Mr. OGSBURY. Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member 

Cantwell, absolutely. In fact, our Drought Forum Workshop series 

began in Norman, Oklahoma where Governor Fallin hosted our 

136 

first workshop that focus went very deep on drought’s impacts on 

energy production. 

We’ve learned a great deal about opportunities that energy producers have to source marginal quality water near energy operations to return cooling water to reservoirs for reuse and to adjust 

cooling water consumption to advance computer controls. 

We’ve learned a great deal about the opportunities that utilities 

have to use reused brackish water and effluent so by all means. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Cantwell? 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I generally think this hearing is about the new normal that we 

are seeing in drought conditions; we need new solutions. I thank 

Mr. Connor and Mr. Loranger for talking about some of those solutions. 

My colleague asked you to be specific on some legislation. I wanted to get more specific on the next parts of the Yakima Basin 

project—things like the Kachess Reservoir and building fish ladders and things of that nature—do you see those as the logical next 

step? 

Mr. CONNOR. I do, Senator Cantwell. I do see those as logical 

next steps for moving forward the comprehensive plan that exists 

as it addresses water supply and environmental issues and trust 

issues. I think it represents a very good strategy that seems to 

have been moving forward with broad, you know, I wouldn’t say 

consensus because you can’t get consensus on anything in the 

water world, but as broad a support as you can get from a number 

of different constituencies. 

I think, you know, to be blunt there’s always going to be a question of what’s the appropriate Federal role in this strategy verses 

state and local entities. And I know the state has really stepped 

up to fund significant amounts of the program as soon as it got the 

plan was finalized. 

And we are making incremental investments as strategic—— 

Senator CANTWELL. I know you are not an expert on agricultural 

issues, but isn’t the Federal Government going to see this one way 

or another? 

I mean, when you have drought, emergency drought issues related to agriculture, then people are going to come here and talk 

about crop loss and cost damage and they are going to ask the Federal Government to help. 

So isn’t this about measuring the level of investment we can 

make now that, I can’t remember if it’s you or Mr. Loranger that 

talked about the improvements that saved 35,000 acre feet of water 

that could then be used for something else? That was just like the 

beginning of this process, right? So isn’t this about investing now 

so that we don’t come back to the Federal Government later with 

all these disasters and ask for help? 

Mr. CONNOR. Senator Cantwell, I think that’s a very good point. 

I think we have made that point in other basins. And we’ve advocated for significant resources for funding conflict-ridden basins 

like the Klamath Basin. There are assistance programs, drought 

relief programs that have continually gone and expanded resources 

to address those issues. And there’s an argument to be made that 

137 

these up front investments do help to head off those kind of shortages, conflicts and the relief measures that are needed. 

Senator CANTWELL. So I think the thing I like best about cooperation is that farmers and ranchers and tribes and everybody 

come together, including fishermen, and agree on what they think 

is the best way to increase capacity at this point in time or the best 

way to relieve some of the key issues in drought. I think then their 

coming to the Federal Government asking for us to move faster and 

to support these efforts will give us more capabilities. 

It is not the Department of the Interior’s job to look over your 

shoulder and say this other agency is going to be coming and asking for billions of dollars of relief, but I guarantee you that is what 

is going to happen in our agricultural communities. So a little bit 

of prevention up front to help with this, I think, would go a long 

way. 

Mr. Loranger, you talked about Seattle and Everett not having 

as serious a problem because of storage of rain water. Could you 

elaborate on that? 

Mr. LORANGER. Yes, it was pretty clear early on that snow pack 

was not accumulating, and typically their reservoir management 

curves, they would let a lot of the winter rain go because they need 

capacity for the winter snow pack as it’s released. And they also 

have responsibilities for maintaining minimal stream flows for fish 

downstream from the projects. 

So the nature of their management is such that the rain water 

was adequate to get them through this season. I’m not sure about 

their reservoir rule curves for this next year. It seems like in the 

State of Washington, even on the agricultural side, there’s concern 

and it’s a very tough situation. But what they really talk about is 

next year because we’re looking at California. And we don’t have 

the year to year series of droughts yet and what that means for 

carryover in the reservoirs. 

Thank you. 

Senator CANTWELL. But we are likely to see that. 

Ms. Cody, did you have something you wanted to add about how 

we look at the cost investment issues now as it relates to helping 

the situation? 

Ms. CODY. I think you raise an interesting point, and as some 

people have proposed in the past, such storage would be a way to 

offset some of the costs in, say, crop insurance loss. I’m not either 

an agriculture expert on that, but we do have people at CRS that 

are experts in that that could help with that question and followup. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay. 

Senator CANTWELL. What about some of these other innovative 

ideas that have been proposed through cooperation with local communities? Do you think we should support more of those at the 

Federal level? 

Ms. CODY. I do know CRS cannot make recommendations or propose solutions. We can outline the options. 

I’d say there are a lot of innovative options out there and that 

we’ve heard several of them today. I think it was John Keys who 

sat at this table many years ago and said water reuse is the last 

untapped river in the West. 

138 

I think Mike points out that a lot of these questions on what’s 

the best option comes down to the fundamental question of what 

is the Federal role in these, in the water supply. Does Congress 

want to take that on? Is it a Federal taxpayer responsibility for 

these projects or is it the collaboration approaches we see with 

local governments? That’s a policy question for Congress. 

Senator CANTWELL. But why wouldn’t we follow that? I mean, we 

are not saying that the Department of the Interior isn’t involved 

either way? 

Ms. CODY. Right, No, certainly they are. 

Senator CANTWELL. I guess in this world of information and 

change where everything is becoming flatter, this is just one more 

example of where collaboration on the ground by people who do not 

usually agree about water. 

Ms. CODY. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. Agreeing about what the best next steps are. 

Ms. CODY. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. Then the Department aiding those projects 

to move forward whether it is in moving, their authority or in finance. This is a better way to go than saying, okay, we are going 

to come back to the Department of the Interior and look for a lot 

of top down solutions that might take another 10 years. I think 

this is the new normal that we are going to have for at least several years. 

Ms. CODY. I see the point you’re making and—— 

Senator CANTWELL. And so—— 

Ms. CODY. There is a lot of collaboration going on, yes. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, if those are the results that we can get, 

like the 35,000 acre square—— 

Ms. CODY. Right. 

Senator CANTWELL. Feet saving just by doing some small things, 

let’s figure out what we need to help the Department of the Interior to move more quickly on those kinds of projects so that they 

can help these communities who are making decisions together, 

which, again, I would think probably alleviate some of the legal 

battles that we have had in the past when people do not agree. 

Mr. Connor? 

Mr. CONNOR. Senator Cantwell, if I could just add. 

As I mentioned before there are specific Federal interests, particularly in the Yakima Basin, that we are involved in and the reason for ongoing investments. But I think the President’s Climate 

Action Plan makes it clear there is an ongoing Federal role that 

needs to be played with respect to these challenges that are upcoming. And so the question is recognizing the limitation of resources. 

We just need to be as creative as possible and figure out how we’re 

going to address that role because it is critical, and this is the new 

norm. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I definitely think, so when you talk 

about that, the resources. I am saying we are going to see this one 

way or another. 

This is going to come back on to if it is in the form of, again, the 

agricultural losses which have a huge economic impact in Washington State. I am sure California is seeing the same thing. 

139 

I thank the witnesses. I think this has been a good discussion, 

Madam Chair. I do think that we should continue to get some information from our national laboratories on what they are doing 

work on what is the long-term impact or at least the next 10 year 

projection. I think that might give us some indication of what we 

ought to be looking at as far as helping to alleviate some of the 

problems, at least in the next time period. 

But again, thank you for this hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell, and thank you to 

each of our witnesses here today. I think that this has been a good 

discussion. I think that this clearly highlights why it is important 

that we do a broader water bill. 

Initially the focus has been on California and the very dire situation there, but I think it is clear that the focus with legislation 

moving forward needs to be western-wide. So some of the discussion that we have heard today, I think, will help us as we formulate that. 

We have had a good discussion about the collaboration, the need 

for flexibility, the need for some streamlining. We have got some 

permitting issues. Obviously storage is a key consideration. The 

technologies that will allow us to have greater efficiencies, greater 

conservation, these are all going to be critical. But I clearly agree 

with you, Senator Cantwell, that as we are dealing with the here 

and the now when it comes to water and water access, we need to 

be looking long-term. 

Senator King was trying to give some historical context here— 

is this cyclical? Is this a thousand year event? 

Whether or not we have defined that, I think going forward we 

need to be trying to be as long-term in our view and our vision on 

this as possible because if this is the new normal going forward, 

then we have got a lot of work to be doing. We are willing to take 

up that work here in the Committee, again, working with many of 

you. 

We appreciate the perspectives that you have lent. Thank you, 

again, for your time this morning. 

With that, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(140) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

141 


Insert offset folio 76 here 95280.076
142 


Insert offset folio 77 here 95280.077
143 


Insert offset folio 78 here 95280.078
144 


Insert offset folio 79 here 95280.079
145 


Insert offset folio 80 here 95280.080
146 


Insert offset folio 81 here 95280.081
147 


Insert offset folio 82 here 95280.082
148 


Insert offset folio 83 here 95280.083
149 


Insert offset folio 84 here 95280.084
150 


Insert offset folio 85 here 95280.085
151 


Insert offset folio 86 here 95280.086
152 


Insert offset folio 87 here 95280.087
153 


Insert offset folio 88 here 95280.088
154 


Insert offset folio 89 here 95280.089
155 


Insert offset folio 90 here 95280.090
156 


Insert offset folio 91 here 95280.091
157 


Insert offset folio 92 here 95280.092
158 


Insert offset folio 93 here 95280.093
159 


Insert offset folio 94 here 95280.094
160 


Insert offset folio 95 here 95280.095
161 


Insert offset folio 96 here 95280.096
162 


Insert offset folio 134 here 95280.134
163 


Insert offset folio 135 here 95280.135
164 


Insert offset folio 136 here 95280.136
165 


Insert offset folio 137 here 95280.137
166 


Insert offset folio 138 here 95280.138
167 


Insert offset folio 139 here 95280.139
168 


Insert offset folio 140 here 95280.140
169 


Insert offset folio 141 here 95280.141
170 


Insert offset folio 142 here 95280.142
171 


Insert offset folio 143 here 95280.143
172 


Insert offset folio 144 here 95280.144
173 


Insert offset folio 145 here 95280.145
174 


Insert offset folio 146 here 95280.146
175 


Insert offset folio 147 here 95280.147
176 


Insert offset folio 148 here 95280.148
177 


Insert offset folio 149 here 95280.149
178 


Insert offset folio 150 here 95280.150
179 


Insert offset folio 151 here 95280.151
180 


Insert offset folio 152 here 95280.152
181 


Insert offset folio 111 here 95280.111
182 


Insert offset folio 112 here 95280.112
183 


Insert offset folio 113 here 95280.113
184 


Insert offset folio 114 here 95280.114
185 


Insert offset folio 115 here 95280.115
186 


Insert offset folio 116 here 95280.116
187 


Insert offset folio 117 here 95280.117
188 


Insert offset folio 118 here 95280.118
189 


Insert offset folio 119 here 95280.119
190 


Insert offset folio 120 here 95280.120
191 


Insert offset folio 121 here 95280.121
192 


Insert offset folio 122 here 95280.122
193 


Insert offset folio 123 here 95280.123
194 


Insert offset folio 124 here 95280.124
195 


Insert offset folio 125 here 95280.125
196 


Insert offset folio 126 here 95280.126
197 


Insert offset folio 127 here 95280.127
198 


Insert offset folio 128 here 95280.128
199 


Insert offset folio 129 here 95280.129
200 


Insert offset folio 130 here 95280.130
201 


Insert offset folio 131 here 95280.131
202 


Insert offset folio 132 here 95280.132
203 


Insert offset folio 133 here 95280.133
204 


Insert offset folio 97 here 95280.097
205 


Insert offset folio 98 here 95280.098
206 


Insert offset folio 99 here 95280.099
207 


Insert offset folio 100 here 95280.100
208 


Insert offset folio 101 here 95280.101
209 


Insert offset folio 102 here 95280.102
210 


Insert offset folio 103 here 95280.103
211 


Insert offset folio 104 here 95280.104
212 


Insert offset folio 105 here 95280.105
213 


Insert offset folio 106 here 95280.106
214 


Insert offset folio 107 here 95280.107
215 


Insert offset folio 108 here 95280.108
216 


Insert offset folio 109 here 95280.109
217 


Insert offset folio 110 here 95280.110
218 


Insert offset folio 153 here 95280.153
219 


Insert offset folio 154 here 95280.154
220 


Insert offset folio 155 here 95280.155
221 


Insert offset folio 156 here 95280.156
222 


Insert offset folio 157 here 95280.157
223 


Insert offset folio 158 here 95280.158
224 


Insert offset folio 159 here 95280.159
225 


Insert offset folio 160 here 95280.160
226 


Insert offset folio 161 here 95280.161
227 


Insert offset folio 162 here 95280.162
228 


Insert offset folio 173 here 95280.173
229 


Insert offset folio 174 here 95280.174
230 


Insert offset folio 175 here 95280.175
231 


Insert offset folio 176 here 95280.176
232 


Insert offset folio 177 here 95280.177
233 


Insert offset folio 178 here 95280.178
234 


Insert offset folio 179 here 95280.179
235 


Insert offset folio 180 here 95280.180
236 


Insert offset folio 181 here 95280.181
237 


Insert offset folio 182 here 95280.182
238 


Insert offset folio 183 here 95280.183
239 


Insert offset folio 184 here 95280.184
240 


Insert offset folio 185 here 95280.185
241 


Insert offset folio 186 here 95280.186
242 


Insert offset folio 187 here 95280.187
243 


Insert offset folio 188 here 95280.188
244 


Insert offset folio 189 here 95280.189
245 


Insert offset folio 190 here 95280.190
246 


Insert offset folio 191 here 95280.191
247 


Insert offset folio 192 here 95280.192
248 


Insert offset folio 193 here 95280.193
249 


Insert offset folio 194 here 95280.194
250 


Insert offset folio 195 here 95280.195
251 


Insert offset folio 196 here 95280.196
252 


Insert offset folio 197 here 95280.197
253 


Insert offset folio 198 here 95280.198
254 


Insert offset folio 199 here 95280.199
255 


Insert offset folio 200 here 95280.200
256 


Insert offset folio 201 here 95280.201
257 


Insert offset folio 202 here 95280.202
258 


Insert offset folio 203 here 95280.203
259 


Insert offset folio 204 here 95280.204
260 


Insert offset folio 205 here 95280.205
261 


Insert offset folio 206 here 95280.206
262 


Insert offset folio 207 here 95280.207
263 


Insert offset folio 208 here 95280.208
264 


Insert offset folio 209 here 95280.209
265 


Insert offset folio 210 here 95280.210
266 


Insert offset folio 211 here 95280.211
267 


Insert offset folio 212 here 95280.212
268 


Insert offset folio 213 here 95280.213
269 


Insert offset folio 214 here 95280.214
270 


Insert offset folio 215 here 95280.215
271 


Insert offset folio 216 here 95280.216
272 


Insert offset folio 217 here 95280.217
273 


Insert offset folio 218 here 95280.218
274 


Insert offset folio 219 here 95280.219
275 


Insert offset folio 220 here 95280.220
276 


Insert offset folio 221 here 95280.221
277 


Insert offset folio 222 here 95280.222
278 


Insert offset folio 223 here 95280.223
279 


Insert offset folio 224 here 95280.224
280 


Insert offset folio 225 here 95280.225
281 


Insert offset folio 226 here 95280.226
282 


Insert offset folio 227 here 95280.227
283 


Insert offset folio 228 here 95280.228
284 


Insert offset folio 229 here 95280.229
285 


Insert offset folio 230 here 95280.230
286 


Insert offset folio 231 here 95280.231
287 


Insert offset folio 232 here 95280.232
288 


Insert offset folio 233 here 95280.233
289 


Insert offset folio 234 here 95280.234
290 


Insert offset folio 235 here 95280.235
291 


Insert offset folio 236 here 95280.236
292 


Insert offset folio 237 here 95280.237
293 


Insert offset folio 238 here 95280.238
294 


Insert offset folio 239 here 95280.239
295 


Insert offset folio 240 here 95280.240
296 


Insert offset folio 241 here 95280.241
297 


Insert offset folio 242 here 95280.242
298 


Insert offset folio 243 here 95280.243
299 


Insert offset folio 244 here 95280.244
300 


Insert offset folio 245 here 95280.245
301 


Insert offset folio 246 here 95280.246
302 


Insert offset folio 247 here 95280.247
303 


Insert offset folio 248 here 95280.248
304 


Insert offset folio 249 here 95280.249
305 


Insert offset folio 250 here 95280.250
306 


Insert offset folio 251 here 95280.251
307 


Insert offset folio 252 here 95280.252
308 


Insert offset folio 253 here 95280.253
309 


Insert offset folio 254 here 95280.254
310 


Insert offset folio 255 here 95280.255
311 


Insert offset folio 256 here 95280.256
312 


Insert offset folio 257 here 95280.257
313 


Insert offset folio 258 here 95280.258
314 


Insert offset folio 259 here 95280.259
315 


Insert offset folio 260 here 95280.260
316 


Insert offset folio 261 here 95280.261
317 


Insert offset folio 262 here 95280.262
318 


Insert offset folio 263 here 95280.263
319 


Insert offset folio 264 here 95280.264
320 


Insert offset folio 265 here 95280.265
321 


Insert offset folio 266 here 95280.266
322 


Insert offset folio 267 here 95280.267
323 


Insert offset folio 268 here 95280.268
324 


Insert offset folio 269 here 95280.269
325 


Insert offset folio 270 here 95280.270
326 


Insert offset folio 271 here 95280.271
327 


Insert offset folio 272 here 95280.272
328 


Insert offset folio 273 here 95280.273
329 


Insert offset folio 274 here 95280.274
330 


Insert offset folio 275 here 95280.275
331 


Insert offset folio 276 here 95280.276
332 


Insert offset folio 277 here 95280.277
333 


Insert offset folio 278 here 95280.278
334 


Insert offset folio 279 here 95280.279
335 


Insert offset folio 280 here 95280.280
336 


Insert offset folio 281 here 95280.281
337 


Insert offset folio 282 here 95280.282
338 


Insert offset folio 283 here 95280.283
339 


Insert offset folio 284 here 95280.284
340 


Insert offset folio 285 here 95280.285
341 


Insert offset folio 286 here 95280.286
342 


Insert offset folio 287 here 95280.287
343 


Insert offset folio 288 here 95280.288
344 


Insert offset folio 289 here 95280.289
345 


Insert offset folio 290 here 95280.290
346 


Insert offset folio 291 here 95280.291
347 


Insert offset folio 292 here 95280.292
348 


Insert offset folio 293 here 95280.293
349 


Insert offset folio 163 here 95280.163
350 


Insert offset folio 164 here 95280.164
351 


Insert offset folio 165 here 95280.165
352 


Insert offset folio 166 here 95280.166
353 


Insert offset folio 167 here 95280.167
354 


Insert offset folio 168 here 95280.168
355 


Insert offset folio 169 here 95280.169
356 


Insert offset folio 170 here 95280.170
357 


Insert offset folio 171 here 95280.171
358 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 172 here 95280.172