U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

71-352 PS 2001

STATUS OF FEDERAL WESTERN

WATER RESOURCES

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

March 27, 2001

Serial No. 107-9

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

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

or

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

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

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman

ADAM SMITH, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member

Richard W. Pombo, California

George Radanovich, California,

Vice Chairman

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

George Miller, California

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Grace F. Napolitano, California

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 27, 2001 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Members:

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

California ....................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Statement of Witnesses:

Brophy, Michael J., Chairman, Western States Water Council ................... 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13

Burgess, Dr. Philip M., Senior Fellow for Technology and Society,

Center for the New West ............................................................................. 48

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 50

Hirsch, Dr. Robert M., Associate Director for Water, U.S. Geological

Survey, Department of the Interior ............................................................. 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

Malloch, Steven, Counsel, Trout Unlimited ................................................... 40

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 42

McDonald, J. William, Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.

Department of the Interior ........................................................................... 3

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

Salisbury, Jennifer, Secretary, New Mexico State Department of Energy,

Minerals, and Natural Resources, on behalf of the Western Governors’

Association ..................................................................................................... 35

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 38

Young, Ronald E., President, The WateReuse Research Foundation

Board .............................................................................................................. 52

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 54

Additional materials supplied:

Purkey, Andrew, Executive Director, Oregon Water Trust, Statement

submitted for the record ............................................................................... 69

Walcher, Greg, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Natural

Resources, Statement submitted for the record ......................................... 71

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE STATUS OF

FEDERAL WESTERN WATER RESOURCES

Tuesday, March 27, 2001

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in Room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEN CALVERT, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. CALVERT. The oversight hearing by the Subcommittee on

Water and Power will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting

today to hear testimony on the status of Federal Western Water

Resources.

Under Committee Rule 4(g), the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member can make an opening statement. If any members have

statements, they can be included in the hearing record under unanimous consent.

Mr. CALVERT. Our Subcommittee is in a unique position this

Congress to take action on two issues that have dominated media

headlines this year—energy and water. As we have seen in

California and other Western States, healthy economies and

healthy communities depend on reliable supplies of each.

Water and power are intimately tied to the history of the western

United States. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, Federal

water projects made irrigated agriculture viable and the creation of

cities possible.

Federal hydropower electrified the West and then fueled the rise

of manufacturing and industry during World War II. Today, Federal water and power supports one of the world’s most productive

agricultural regions while providing the electricity needed to run

our information-based economy.

We have come here today to do two things—first, to evaluate the

status of our Federal western water resources; and second, to explore how they may be better managed to meet our changing needs.

The western U.S. is the fastest-growing region in the country. By

2025, the 17 Western States will add another 33 million people. In

2

addition, seven of the ten fastest-growing U.S. cities are located in

the West. With this growth comes new economic prosperity and

new opportunities in balancing water supply and demand.

The Western States must plan for their future as a region. Water

and power resources are not created and used in a vacuum. As we

have seen with our current energy crisis and potential drought,

resource supply challenges affect us as a region. They will not and

do not remain isolated.

As we listen to the testimony presented here today, our focus

should be on the future direction of water resource planning. What

are our priorities, and where will they take us in the West in the

next 20 years?

I would like to thank our witnesses for coming here today and

look forward to hearing from them on this important issue.

If the Ranking Member arrives shortly, we will certainly recognize him for any opening statement he may have, and if not, any

opening statement may be placed in the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Our Subcommittee is in a unique position this Congress to take action on two

issues that have dominated media headlines this year... energy and water. As we

have seen in California and other western states, healthy economies ... and healthy

communities ... depend on reliable supplies of each.

Water and power are intimately tied to the history of the Western United States.

During the 19th and early 20th centuries, Federal water projects made irrigated agriculture viable ... and the creation of cities possible. Federal hydropower electrified

the West and then fueled the rise of manufacturing and industry during World

War II. Today, Federal water and power supports one of the world’s most productive agricultural regions, while providing the electricity needed to run our information-based economy.

We have come here today to do two things. First ... to evaluate the status of our

Federal western water resources. And second ... to explore how they may be better

managed to meet our changing needs.

The western U.S. is the fastest growing region in the country. By 2025, the 17

western states will add another 33 million people. In addition, 7 of the 10 fastest

growing U.S. cities are located in the West. With this growth comes new economic

prosperity ... and new opportunities in balancing water supply and demand.

The western states must plan for their future as a region. Water and power

resources are not created and used in a vacuum. As we have seen with our current

energy crisis and potential drought, resource supply challenges affect us as a region.

They will not, and do not, remain isolated.

As we listen to the testimony presented here today, our focus should be on the

future direction of water resource planning. What are our priorities? And where will

the West be in 20 years?

I would like to thank our witnesses for coming out here today, and look forward

to hearing from them on this important issue.

Mr. CALVERT. I would certainly like to thank the panels of witnesses who are here with us today and would like to call the first

panel forward for their testimony: Mr. J. William McDonald, Acting

Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation; Dr. Robert Hirsch, Associate Director of Water, United States Geological Survey; and Mr.

Michael Brophy, Chairman of the Western States Water Council.

I would like to now recognize Mr. McDonald to testify for five

minutes. The timing lights are on the table and will indicate when

your time has concluded when the red light comes on. All witness

3

statements will be submitted for the record, if they are longer, after

the hearing.

With that, Mr. McDonald, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF J. WILLIAM McDONALD, ACTING COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR

Mr. MCDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Bill McDonald, and I am Regional Director of the

Bureau of Reclamation’s Pacific Northwest Region, and I am also

serving as the Acting Commissioner of Reclamation.

I have here a map that shows how we are distributed geographically and organizationally, and I will take this opportunity, Mr.

Chairman, to briefly describe that we have five regions in reclamation, and I am privileged to have with me in the audience some of

my colleagues, if I could just acknowledge them, and we look forward to working with you and the Subcommittee.

Rick Gold is Acting Regional Director of the Upper Colorado

Region; Bob Johnson is Regional Director of the Lower Colorado

Region; and finally, Lowell Plass is the Deputy Regional Director

for the Mid-Pacific Region, and I believe you met Lowell a couple

of weeks ago when you toured the project.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to summarize my prepared remarks and simply have the written text

entered in the record.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection.

Mr. MCDONALD. Thank you.

You have asked that we address the capacity of reclamation to

meet the water needs of the Western States in both the long and

the short term. Let me begin by giving you just a very brief background on reclamation.

We are the largest water resource management agency in the

West, operating 348 reservoirs and 58 hydroelectric power plants.

We provide one out of five Western farmers with irrigation water.

We deliver water to more than 31 million people throughout the 17

Western States. We are the second-largest producer of hydroelectric

power in the United States, with our plants on an average annual

basis generating enough electricity to serve 14 million people; and

that electricity, of course, is marketed by the Bonneville and

Western Power Administrations.

Finally, our reservoirs accommodate 90 million visitors each

year at over 300 recreation sites as the American public enjoys the

flatwater recreation and associated opportunities that are presented by our facilities.

Our ability to assist in meeting the West’s future water needs

both in the short and the long term must begin, in our view, with

the continued operation of our projects in accordance with all applicable Federal laws, State water rights and interstate compacts and

judicial decrees, our contractual commitments to our irrigators and

other project water users. And when applicable, of course, the operation of our projects must also fulfill the Secretary of the Interior’s

Tribal Trust responsibilities and the United States international

treaty obligations to Mexico and Canada on certain of our river

systems.

4

In this day and age, needless to say, balancing water supply and

hydro power demands with environmental and other obligations is

an increasingly complicated and difficult task which at times

requires some reductions either in the supplies available to our

contractors or in the power which we are able to generate. More

often than not, however, we believe that we are able to find a middle ground which enables us to fulfill all needs.

Having dependable supplies of water power in the future also

requires, besides the continued operation of our projects, that they,

of course, be properly maintained. To put that maintenance responsibility in context, approximately 50 percent of Reclamation’s dams

were built prior to 1950, and about 90 percent were constructed

before state-of-the-art design and construction practices for dam

construction were in place. Given the age of that infrastructure,

sustaining an appropriate level of annual maintenance and making

safety of dams modifications as required and on a timely basis are

critical to protect public safety and property and to ensure that the

benefits of our projects can continue to be realized.

Let me take this opportunity in the context of the operation and

maintenance of our projects, Mr. Chairman, to assure you and the

panel that Reclamation is doing everything it can to generate electricity at this particular time in light of the West Coast electrical

power marketing problems. While we presently have some generating units down for planned maintenance at certain of our power

facilities, that in no way has affected our ability to generate, the

reason being that there is only so much fuel—that is to say,

water—in our reservoir systems, and we are able to fully run all

of the available water through existing generators even though

some are out for planned maintenance.

On a different subject, my colleague, Bob Hirsch, from USGS will

discuss general water supply conditions in the West, so I will not

repeat those here; but not unexpectedly, we are experiencing

drought, as we do from time to time, in sections of the West. It is

particularly severe, as Bob will point out, in the Pacific Northwest

this year.

Pursuant to the authorities of the Reclamation States’ Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991, I would point out to the Committee that Reclamation does have some authority to construct

temporary facilities, but only temporary facilities, and to implement management plans in the case where a drought occurs.

The third area that I would emphasize as important to the future

is voluntary transfers of water from existing to new users. Keeping

in mind that approximately 85 to 90 percent of the water consumed

in the West is devoted to agriculture, it is Reclamation’s view that

in the face of rapid urbanization, the changing economics of farming, and the need to strike a balance with appropriate protection

of environmental values, voluntary transfers of water from willing

sellers to willing buyers is very much a part of the future management of the Western water supply. In that context, Reclamation

also supports the use of excess capacity in our physical facilities to

store and convey non-project water supplies when, again, there are

voluntary transactions between willing sellers and buyers who

would like to make such a change in the use of water.

5

Finally, we would observe that dams and reservoirs will be developed in the West in the future probably on a limited basis. Only,

accordingly, the increased efficiency of use of the water supplies

which have already developed is in our view a vital part of the

West’s water future.

Reclamation has two major programs in that regard, and we

believe we are a leader in these fields. First, through our Water

Conservation Field Services Program and other activities, we provide water districts with technical and financial assistance to develop effective water conservation plans to stretch the use of those

already existing developed supplies; and secondly, recycling and

reuse of wastewater along with desalinization for agricultural and

landscape irrigation, groundwater recharge, and industrial cooling

holds very great potential for the future. Reclamation’s Water Use

Program assists Western cities in enhancing their supplies by providing funds for 25 projects that have been authorized by Congress

at what is estimated to be a total ultimate cost of $600 million. To

date, approximately $205 million has been made available to Reclamation for this Federal assistance, and upon completion of these

projects, we would expect a yield of an additional 500,000 acre-feet

for beneficial use for the cities that are moving forward in that

way.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, finding ways to meet water needs

presents a great challenge for Reclamation, to the States, to the

Western communities and to other stakeholders. We look forward

to working with the Subcommittee and with all water users and

the interested public to find ways to meet competing demands in

the future.

Thank you very much. I would be glad to respond to questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McDonald follows:]

Statement of J. William McDonald, Acting Commissioner, Bureau of

Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior

My name is Bill McDonald. I am the Regional Director of the Pacific Northwest

Region and also am serving as Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation

(Reclamation). I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the state of

western water resources.

The Subcommittee has asked for an assessment of the capacity of Bureau of Reclamation facilities to meet the water needs of the Western States in the short and

long term. Let me begin with a short overview of the facilities which Reclamation

has developed and the benefits which they yield.

Background

As the largest water resources management agency in the west, Reclamation administers or operates 348 reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 245 million

acre-feet, 58 hydroelectric powerplants with an installed capacity of 14,744

megawatts, and more than 300 recreation sites in the 17 western states. These facilities enable Reclamation to meet important needs and provide numerous benefits:

• We provide one out of five western farmers with irrigation water for 10 million

acres of farmland that produce 60 percent of the nation’s vegetables and 25 percent of its fruit and nuts.

• We deliver water to more than 31 million people in the west, the most rapidly

urbanizing region of the country.

• Our powerplants generate an average of more than 42 billion kilowatt hours of

energy each year, making Reclamation the nation’s second largest producer of

hydroelectric power and the 11th largest generating utility in the United States.

Reclamation produces enough electricity to serve 14 million people. Reclamation’s Central Valley Project in California generated more than 6.5 billion kilowatt hours of energy in 1999 and serves approximately 2 million Californians.

6

All power generated by Reclamation facilities is marketed by the Bonneville

Power Administration and the Western Area Power Marketing Administration.

• Our projects support habitat with water for wildlife refuges, migratory waterfowl, anadromous and resident fish, and endangered and threatened species.

• Our reservoirs accommodate 90 million visits a year at more than 300 recreation sites.

All indications are that this year is shaping up to be a very dry year in many

regions of the west, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. A below normal water inflow to Reclamation facilities means that water deliveries, power production and environmental requirements will have to be carefully balanced to satisfy to the greatest extent possible multiple project purposes.

Project Operations

In addressing future water needs Reclamation must continue to operate and

maintain our projects, in accordance with all applicable Federal laws and regulations, state water rights and interstate compacts and judicial decrees, and our contractual commitments to irrigators and other project water users. At the same time

the Secretary of the Interior must fulfill tribal trust responsibilities and the United

States international treaty obligations with Mexico and Canada,.

Balancing water supply and hydro power demands with environmental and other

obligations is an increasingly complicated and difficult task which at times requires

some reductions either in the water supplies available to our contractors or in the

power which we are able to generate. More often than not, however, we are able

to find middle ground which enables us to fulfill all of our obligations.

Enhancing the Efficiency of Use of Already Developed Water Supplies

New dams and reservoirs will probably be developed in the West in the years

ahead only on a limited basis. Accordingly, increasing the efficiency of use of the

water supplies which have already been developed will be a vital part of the West’s future. I would like to highlight a few of the ways in which Reclamation is contributing in this regard.

Water Conservation. Water conservation is a key tool in expanding existing water

supplies. As the 1998 Report of the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission said, Water conservation, or improved efficiency of use, can have many benefits

and should be the first approach considered for extending or augmenting available

supplies.

The Reclamation Reform Act directs Reclamation to encourage water conservation

and directs water districts receiving irrigation water to develop conservation plans.

Some districts have employed state of the art conservation technology, including

drip irrigation. Drip systems deliver water directly to individual plant roots, thereby

eliminating evaporation and saving water and energy.

Through our Water Conservation Field Services Program, we provide water districts with technical and financial assistance to develop effective water conservation

plans. While Reclamation has a role to play in water conservation, there also are

opportunities for state and local entities to offer incentives through rate restructuring, low interest loans for farmers to install more efficient irrigation facilities,

and rebates for installation of efficient appliances, landscaping retrofits, and toilets.

Water Reuse. Recycled water is used for a variety of purposes, including agricultural and landscape irrigation, ground water recharge, and industrial cooling. Reclamation’s water reuse program assists western cites in enhancing their water supplies by providing funds for the 25 projects authorized under Title XVI of Public

Law 102–575, as amended. Since 1992, the Congress has authorized water reuse

projects in the states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, and

Oregon. Non-Federal cost sharing partners pay at least 50 percent of the feasibility

study costs and 75 percent of the construction costs. Total Federal costs for the 25

authorized projects is estimated at $600 million. To date, approximately

$205 million has been made available in Federal assistance.

These projects are in various stages of planning, design and construction but all

are estimated to be completed by 2012. Upon completion, they are expected to yield

an additional 494,000 acre feet water for beneficial use.

Addressing an Aging Infrastructure

Having dependable supplies of water and power also requires that the infrastructure which Reclamation has developed over the past century be properly maintained. Approximately 50 percent of Reclamation’s dams were built prior to 1950

and about 90 percent were constructed before current state-of-the-art design and

construction practices were in place. Given our aging infrastructure, sustaining an

appropriate level of annual maintenance of existing facilities, and making safety of

dams modifications as required and on a timely basis, are critical to protect public

7

safety and property and to ensure that the benefits of Reclamation’s projects can

continue to be realized.

As with our dams and water delivery systems, Reclamation’s powerplants must

also be maintained in a constant state of readiness. Again, sustained maintenance,

and replacement and modernization of equipment and machinery over time, are critical to the readiness of our hydro power system.

In the face of the energy problems being experienced on the West coast, I would

like to assure the Subcommittee that Reclamation is generating all of the electricity

which it possibly can at this time. While we presently have some units down for

planned maintenance, this is not affecting our ability to generate. This is because

we have only enough water in our various reservoir systems to run the generators

which are on line.

Facilitating Voluntary Water Transfers

Approximately 85 to 90 percent of the water consumed in the West is devoted to

irrigated agriculture. In the face of rapid urbanization, the changing economics of

farming, and the need to strike a balance with the appropriate protection of environmental values, voluntary transfers of water from willing agricultural sellers to willing buyers is one means by which the future water needs of the West will be addressed.

The Assistant Secretary for Water and Science approved Principles Governing

Voluntary Water Transactions That Involve or Affect Facilities Owned or Operated

by the Department of the Interior (the 1988 Principles) on December 16, 1988. Within the framework provided by the 1988 Principles, Reclamation has been, and continues to be, supportive of voluntary transfers and conversions of project water in

accordance with State and Federal law from existing to new uses. In this regard,

Reclamation has issued polices which supplement and expand upon the 1988 Principles insofar as those principles pertain to transfers of project water.

The 1988 Principles also pertain to the use of excess capacity in Reclamation

projects for the storage and conveyance of non-project water. Within the framework

provided by the 1988 Principles, Reclamation has issued policies which address

making excess capacity available under appropriate circumstances to assist in improving the management of the West’s water resources.

Conclusion

Finding ways to meet water needs presents a great challenge for Reclamation and

western communities. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee and with

all water users and the interested public to develop ways to meet competing demands. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing.

Mr. CALVERT. Our next witness is Dr. Robert Hirsch, the Associate Director for Water for the U.S. Geological Survey.

Dr. Hirsch, you may begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. HIRSCH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR

FOR WATER, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR

Mr. HIRSCH. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Subcommittee.

Thank you for the opportunity to report on the status of water

conditions in the Western United States as monitored by the

USGS.

I would like to summarize my written testimony at this time.

The USGS Water Resources Program provides reliable, impartial, and timely information about the Nation’s water resources. We

work closely with local, State, tribal, and Federal agencies and the

private sector to provide them with the information they need to

make informed decisions. In particular through our Cooperative

Water Program, we partner with over 1,300 non-Federal agencies

to carry out our data collection and hydrologic studies missions.

For over a century, the USGS has played the key role in monitoring the flow of our Nation’s rivers. Currently, we operate about

8

7,000 streamgages, and we freely provide the data to a wide range

of users. This information is used for a multitude of purposes, including water supply planning and operations, flood risk assessment and warning, water quality management, and recreational

safety. We are in the process of modernizing this network, and at

this time, about 5,000 of the streamgages have satellite telemetry

that enables us to provide near-real-time data to all users via the

Internet.

Using these data, I will describe the current Western surface

water situation and changes that have occurred in recent weeks

and also place this in a national context. The illustration I have

here gives an indication of that.

I will rely on this illustration, which is one that we create daily

and place on the USGS web site. It is based on conditions for the

preceding week at all USGS streamgaging stations that have 30 or

more years of record and have telemetry systems—about 2,300 stations nationwide. Each dot on the map represents an individual

streamgage. They are color-coded, with red indicating where the

flows for the week were the lowest ever recorded for that time of

year, brown indicating flow that was below the 10th percentile,

orange between the 10th and 25th percentile, green indicating normal, light blue the 75th to 90th percentile, dark blue above the

90th percentile, and black representing record high flows for that

time of year.

The map that you see in front of you is current as of Sunday

night of this past weekend.

Hydrologically, conditions in the West are quite varied at the

present time. The Southwest is having relatively normal conditions, a pattern that we have been observing since last November.

Most of the Great Plains from the Dakotas to Texas are experiencing normal to above normal streamflows; in fact, in Eastern

Texas, a number of rivers and streams have recorded new daily

high flows during the past month.

In contrast, the Pacific Northwest is experiencing below normal

streamflows in response to winter season precipitation that has

averaged only 25 to 75 percent of normal.

The most serious low-flow conditions are occurring in

Washington and Oregon. Notably, below normal streamflows were

recorded at 90 percent of our real-time streamgages in Oregon last

week, and at 75 percent of the streamgages in Washington. Conditions have moderated slightly in the last week but not enough to

be anything close to an end to this drought situation.

The snowpacks in river basins in these States is generally less

than 60 percent of average this year. The low seasonal precipitation and the currently low reservoir storage have resulted in spring

and summer stream flow forecasts of less than 70 percent of average for most areas in Washington and Oregon. The outlook for

Idaho is even worse, with forecasted spring and summer flows of

less than 70 percent of average.

Nearby States, such as Montana and Wyoming, are also experiencing low streamflows, snowpack and soil moisture, although the

dryness is less severe than in the Pacific Northwest. Northern

California, particularly the Northern Sierra Nevada, had relatively

dry conditions and low streamflow earlier in the winter but has

9

recovered considerably during the past month. Currently, reservoir

contents are about normal across California, as are daily and weekly average streamflows.

It is worth noting that unlike the current situation in the East,

in Florida and particularly Western North Carolina, where drought

has persisted for more than two years and enormous moisture deficits have accrued, the dryness in the Northwest is only about four

months old. Admittedly, it came at the worst possible time of year

since the region depends on winter season precipitation and

snowpack to meet the spring and summer water demand. Even so,

the current situation would have been much worse had there not

been normal to above normal precipitation during the preceding 18

months.

The streamgaging network measures the pulse of the Nation’s

rivers and enables us to produce a snapshot of conditions such as

I have used here. We have worked closely with the Congress over

the last three years on issues relating to the modernization and

stability of the network, and with the support of Congress, we have

been able to reverse the decline in the network. We are in the process of adding 37 new stations and reactivating 73 others this year.

Modernization of our ground water level monitoring has not progressed to the point where we can provide the same kind of synoptic view of ground water conditions as we presented here today

for surface water. However, we believe that the science of ground

water hydrology is crucial to water management in the West and

nationwide. Conjunctive use of surface and ground water has great

potential for making water supplies more drought-resistant.

Ground water is crucial to sustaining streamflow and temperature

conditions for habitat and for water supply. We believe that ground

water technologies such as artificial recharge, aquifer storage and

recovery, and recharge of reclaimed wastewater, are pivotal parts

of the water management equation.

The science to support the use of these new technologies is a part

of our strategic plan for the future of USGS ground water science.

I thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify and look

forward to answering your questions today and working with you

over the coming months and years.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hirsch follows:]

Statement of Robert M. Hirsch, Associate Director for Water,

U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for

the opportunity to report on the status of water conditions in the Western United

States as monitored by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Because this is the first

appearance of the USGS before this Subcommittee in the new Congress and before

you as Chairman, allow me to start with a few preliminary thoughts about the role

of the USGS.

The USGS is a science agency within the Department of the Interior with a history of 122 years of providing scientific information needed for the wise management of our Nation’s natural resources. The study of water goes back to our very

early years and the work of our second Director John Wesley Powell who focused

much attention on the availability of water resources for the economic development

of the West. The USGS of today consists of four major program areas: Geology, Mapping, Biology, and Water. The USGS strives to combine these four disciplinary areas

to provide a more complete data and analysis of the resource and environmental

issues that our Nation faces today.

10

The USGS water resources program provides reliable, impartial, timely information that is needed to understand the Nation’s water resources.

It is crucial to note that the USGS provides unbiased science to resource and regulatory decision makers. We work closely with local, State, tribal, and Federal agencies, and the private sector to provide them with the information they need to make

informed decisions. Of particular interest to the Committee may be our Cooperative

Water Program, through which we partner with over 1300 non–Federal agencies to

carry out data collection and hydrologic studies.

For over a century the USGS has played the key role in monitoring the flow of

our Nation’s rivers. We operate about 7000 streamgages, which monitor the flow of

water in our Nation’s rivers and streams, and we freely provide the current and historical data to a wide range of users. This information is used for purposes that include: water supply planning, flood risk assessment, water quality management (including calculation of Total Maximum Daily Loads), water supply operations,

streamflow forecasting (done primarily by the National Weather Service and the

Natural Resources Conservation Service), habitat assessments, and personal planning of river-based recreational activities. Currently, we are in a process of modernizing this network. At the present time, about 5000 of these stations have satellite

telemetry that enables us to provide near-real-time data to all users via the Internet.

Using these data, and information from other agencies, I will describe the current

Western surface-water situation, variations and changes that have occurred in recent weeks and also place this in a national context. To do this I will rely on an

illustration that we create daily and place on the USGS website. It is based on conditions for the preceding week at all USGS streamgaging stations that have 30 or

more years of record and have telemetry systems. Each dot on the map represents

an individual gage. They are color coded with red indicating that flows for the week

were the lowest ever recorded for that time of year, brown indicating that flow was

below the 10th percentile, orange was between the 10th and 25th percentile, green

indicates normal (25th to 75th percentile), light blue is 75th to 90th percentile, dark

blue is above the 90th percentile, and black represents record high flows for this

time of year.

Hydrologically, conditions in the West are quite varied at the present time. The

Southwest is having relatively normal conditions, a pattern that we have been observing since last November. Most of the Great Plains, from the Dakotas to Texas

are experiencing normal to above-normal streamflows; also a persistent pattern during recent months. In eastern Texas, a number of rivers and streams have recorded

new daily high flows during the past month, while flood flows have been observed

at many others.

In contrast, the Pacific Northwest is experiencing below-normal streamflows in response to winter season precipitation that has averaged only 25 to 75 percent of normal. Currently, 75 percent of USGS real-time streamgages in this region are reporting below-normal flows.

The most serious low flow conditions are occurring in Washington and Oregon.

Notably, below normal streamflows were recorded at 90 percent of our real-time stations in Oregon last week and at 75 percent of the gages in Washington. The

snowpack in river basins in these States is generally less than 60 percent of averVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:51 Dec 11, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 71352.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
11

age. There are also significant deficiencies in reservoir storage. Statewide, the useable contents of reservoirs in Washington are about 50 percent of average, while

those in Oregon are only slightly better at 75 percent of average. The low seasonal

precipitation and the currently low reservoir storage have resulted in spring and

summer streamflow forecasts of less than 70 percent of average for most areas in

Washington and Oregon. The outlook for Idaho is even worse, with nearly the entire

State forecast to have spring and summer flows of less than 70 percent of average.

Nearby States, such as Montana and Wyoming are also experiencing reduced

streamflows, snowpack, and soil moisture, although the dryness is less severe than

in the Pacific Northwest. Indeed, although the useable contents of reservoirs in

Montana are about 60 percent of average, those in Wyoming are actually above average. Still, more than 60 percent of the real-time streamgages in both States are

reporting below-normal flows. Northern California, particularly the Northern Sierra

Nevada, had relatively dry conditions and low streamflows earlier in the winter, but

has recovered considerably during the past month. Currently, reservoir contents are

about normal statewide, as are daily and weekly average streamflows.

It is worth noting that, unlike the current situation in Florida and western North

Carolina where drought has persisted for more than two years and enormous moisture deficits of more than two feet have accrued, the dryness in the Northwest is

only four months old. Admittedly, it came at the worst possible time of year since

the region depends upon winter season precipitation and snowpack to meet the

spring and summer water demand. Even so, the current situation would have been

much worse had there not been normal to above-normal hydroclimatic conditions

during the preceding 18 months.

The streamgaging network, that measures the pulse of the Nation’s rivers (and

enables us to produce a snapshot of conditions such as I have used here), is a high

priority for the USGS. We have worked closely with the Congress over the last three

years to explore the issues relating to the modernization and stability of the network.

I should also briefly mention the importance of ground water as an indicator of

drought and as an important aspect of the mechanisms available to communities,

agriculture, and industry as insurance against drought. While our ground-water

level monitoring networks have not been modernized to a level where we can provide the same kind of synoptic view of ground-water conditions as we presented for

surface water, we anticipate improvements in the next few years. We believe that

the science of ground-water hydrology is crucial to water management in the West

and nationwide. Conjunctive use of surface and ground water has great potential

for making water supplies more drought resistant. Ground water is crucial to sustaining streamflow for habitat and for water supply. More and more we find that

our partners are interested in the role that ground water plays in maintaining adequate flow and temperature conditions in rivers.

We also find that emerging technologies such as artificial recharge, aquifer storage and recovery, and recharge of reclaimed wastewater are pivotal parts of the

water management equation. The science to support the use of these new technologies is a part of our strategic plan for the future of USGS ground-water science.

I thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify and I look forward to answering your questions today and working with you over the coming months and

years.

Mr. CALVERT. Our next witness is Mr. Michael Brophy, Chairman of the Western States Water Council.

Mr. Brophy, you may proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. BROPHY, CHAIRMAN,

WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL

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

My name is Mike Brophy, and I am Chairman of the Western

States Water Council. I have with me here today Mr. Tony

Willardson, who is on the Council staff.

The Council is comprised of representatives appointed by the

Governors of 18 Western States. The Council is charged with fostering interstate cooperation in water resources and protecting

12

vital State prerogatives with regard to the management of water

resources in the West.

While necessarily expressing my personal views in this testimony, I will rely heavily on positions that the Council has taken

consistent with the request by the Subcommittee, and with the

leave of the Chair, I will summarize my written testimony.

The Subcommittee has asked that I address the current situation

of water in the West, particularly from the perspective of the Council. This invitation is appropriate because States play the pivotal

role in both water quantity and quality allocation in the Western

United States.

I wish to begin by emphasizing that in the arid West, providing

adequate water supplies to meet current and future demands

continues to be the priority. This priority is underscored by the current extent of drought in many areas of the West. Streamflows in

much of the West are expected to be less than 70 percent of average, with the entire Columbia River Basin expected to prove the

second driest year in recorded history.

These drought conditions are a major factor in the current energy crisis. Western States are particularly cognizant of the water

needs of rural communities. They also remain concerned about the

claims being asserted by Indian tribes to water resources and the

potential of such claims to disrupt existing rights in non-Indian

communities, underscoring the desirability of cooperative efforts

with the tribes and their Federal trustee in addressing tribal

needs. In this regard, the Council has acted with other members

of the so-called Ad Hoc Group on Indian Water Rights in encouraging the settlement of Indian land and water rights claims, particularly with regard to identifying an alternative funding mechanism for funding such settlements. A recent letter from the Ad Hoc

Group further explaining this effort is attached to my written testimony.

The Federal Government also has claims to substantial amounts

of water in the West on its own behalf given the extent of Federal

land ownership. These claims are most often presented within the

context of State general stream adjudications, where the water

rights of all claimants in a given stream system are ascertained.

In this regard, this Congress should address the inequity that now

results from exempting the Federal Government from paying any

filing fees or costs associated with these adjudications. I have

attached the Council’s position which explains our support for a

remedy, now before Congress in the form of H.R. 705.

There is significant need for the Federal Government to work

with States and others in providing reliable water data. In particular, as Congress considers the budget, we urge you to recognize

the serious need for adequate and consistent Federal funding to

maintain and restore NWCC’s SNOTEL System and USGS’s

Cooperative Streamgaging Program, with a primary focus on coordinated data collection and dissemination. I have appended a position recently adopted by the Council explaining the Western

States’ position in support of these programs. They provide vital

data necessary for water management and the protection of human

life and property. The snow measuring program and the

13

streamgaging programs are important national infrastructure

which must be maintained.

Finally, I wish to reiterate the importance of the long-held

congressional policy of deference to States regarding water management. States are moving to address the challenges they face in

water resources. Federal preemption of State authority is not the

way to address the complex challenges associated with water management in the West. Rather, what is necessary is encouraging

partnerships between the State and Federal agencies in the development and implementation of key policies, supporting the pivotal

role the States must play in addressing these challenges, and

affording flexibility for ongoing innovation at the State level in

order to effectively carry out this role.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brophy follows:]

Statement of Michael J. Brophy, Chairman, Western States Water Council

My name is Michael Brophy. I am Chairman of the Western States Water Council. The Council is comprised of representatives appointed by the governors of eighteen western states. The Council has been charged with fostering interstate cooperation in water resources and protecting vital state prerogatives with regard to the

management of water resources in the West. While necessarily expressing personal

views in my testimony, I will rely heavily on positions of the Western States Water

Council consistent with the request by the Subcommittee. To my written testimony,

I will also append for the record positions of the Council for your reference.

The Subcommittee has asked that I address the Current Situation of Water in the

Western United States from the Perspective of the Western States Water Council.

This invitation is particularly appropriate, because states play the pivotal role in

both water quantity allocation and water quality protection in the West. Further,

a recent survey of our member states provides a basis for my remarks.

I wish to begin by emphasizing that in the arid West, providing adequate water

supplies to meet future demands continues to be a priority. This priority is underscored by the current extent of drought in many areas of the West. Streamflows in

much of the West are expected to be less than 70% of average, with the entire Columbia River Basin expected to produce the second driest year in recorded history.

These drought conditions are a major factor in the current energy crisis. Western

states are particularly cognizant of the water needs of rural communities. They also

remain concerned about the claims being asserted by Indian tribes to water

resources and the potential of such claims to disrupt existing rights in non–Indian

communities, underscoring the desirability of cooperative efforts with the tribes and

their Federal trustee in addressing tribal needs. In this regard, the Council is active

with other members of the so-called Ad Hoc Group on Indian Water Rights in encouraging the settlement of Indian land and water right claims, particularly with

regard to identifying an alternative mechanism for funding such settlements. A recent letter by the Ad Hoc Group further explaining this effort is attached to my

written testimony.

The Federal Government also has claims to substantial amounts of water in the

West on its own behalf, given the extent of Federal land ownership. These claims

are most often presented within the context of state general stream adjudications,

where the water rights of all claimants in a given stream system can be ascertained.

In this regard, this Congress should address the inequity that now results from exempting the Federal Government from paying any filing fees or costs associated

with these adjudications. I have attached the Council’s position which explains our

support for a remedy, now before the Congress in the form of H.R. 705.

While virtually every western state needs additional supplies to meet growing

consumptive use demands, western states also recognize the need for existing water

infrastructure rehabilitation. Further, they also recognize as a significant challenge,

the need to sustain instream values generally, and specifically for maintaining and

enhancing water quality, and for protecting endangered species. The West is often

subject to wide swings in water supply. Thus, states identify drought planning and

response as a priority problem, and similarly flag flood planning and response.

Overlaying many of the above challenges are legal and institutional conflicts facing

14

western states, involving Federal/state relationships, conflicts between states, and

disputes among water users, among others.

To meet these increasing demands, several states are considering additional surface reservoirs, which, for the most part, will be smaller in scale than the large

projects of the past, more innovative, environmentally sensitive, and financed primarily from state and local resources. The reallocation of water from existing uses

to other uses will likely accelerate, chiefly from agricultural uses to other uses, primarily municipal. While states will often facilitate such transfers to meet specific

water supply and environmental challenges, in some cases they may restrain market transfers, not only to protect third parties, but also the public interest in general.

While recognizing the limits of water conservation in providing new water and additional caveats relating to the site-specific impacts of water conservation measures,

states are carefully considering opportunities to stretch existing supplies of water

through more efficient use, reuse, and reservoir reoperation (prior to the development of new storage facilities). States are further exploring opportunities to costeffectively manage ground water recharge, recognizing it as a potentially significant

storage alternative, and some states are further pursuing the potential of desalinization and weather modification to augment existing supplies.

As the emphasis on the importance of water conservation increases, states are developing and adopting a number of programs to encourage such measures as low

water-use landscaping, and water rates that encourage conservation in urban areas,

and development of conservation plans and incentives and leak detection programs

in rural/agricultural settings. The reuse of wastewater effluent is also increasing.

Many communities are currently reusing effluent for landscape and agricultural irrigation. To facilitate a reallocation of existing uses to augment supplies in areas of

relative scarcity, some states have established water banks, while others have

adopted measures to streamline the transfer process.

Western states have made innovations in their laws and institutions in order to

augment and protect instream flows and to incorporate consideration of the public

interest in their water right application and transfer processes. States are also endeavoring to incorporate innovations in their water quality programs, particularly

regarding non-point source pollution. States have adopted various measures to deal

with the problem of ground water depletion. States have also strengthened their capacity to deal with floods and drought. Innovations to improve information on water

availability and use are common.

States in the West have recognized and moved to enhance the potential value of

local watershed coordination initiatives. As conflicts over water use intensify in an

era of both increasing and changing demands, states are also addressing the need

to deal more effectively with these disputes. For a variety of reasons, states are also

increasing their emphasis on maintaining and enhancing the environment. These

reasons include, but are not limited to, Federal mandates such as the Endangered

Species Act and the Clean Water Act.

Given the diminishing Federal resources available to carry out the requirements

of these and other Federal acts, and the concurrent increase in the state burden for

environmental protection, states urge that increased flexibility be given regarding

their implementation, so that states and others can tailor programs and prioritize

resources to meet real needs. Streamlining Federal permit processes is also important. The Federal Government should encourage innovations, which frequently involve market incentives and non-regulatory tools, as they have often been found to

work more effectively than top-down regulation. The Council has, for example, urged

flexibility in implementing the Total Maximum Daily Load program under the

Clean Water Act. Further, the Federal Government continues to have an important

role with regard to disaster response and other mitigation associated with droughts

and floods.

There is a significant need for the Federal Government to maintain and rehabilitate its existing water storage infrastructure, and to work with states and others

in providing reliable water data. In particular, as Congress considers the budget,

we urge it to recognize the serious need for adequate and consistent Federal funding

to maintain, restore, modernize, and provide for targeted expansion of NWCC’s

SNOTEL System and Soil and Climate Analysis Network (SCAN), and USGS’s Cooperative Streamgaging Program and National Stream Information Program, with

a primary focus on coordinated data collection and dissemination. I have appended

a position recently adopted by the Council explaining the western states position in

support of these programs.

Finally, I wish to reiterate the importance of the long-held Congressional policy

of deference to states regarding water management. States are moving to address

the challenges they face in water resources. Federal preemption of state authority

15

is not the way to address the complex challenges associated with water management

in the West. Rather, what is necessary is encouraging partnerships between the

state and Federal agencies in the development and implementation of key policies,

supporting the pivotal role states must play in addressing these challenges, and affording flexibility for ongoing innovation at the state level in order to effectively

carry out this role. Thank you.

Position No. 231 (See also No. 219) adopted November 14, 1997

RESOLUTION OF THE WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL REGARDINGFEDERAL NON–

TRIBAL FEES IN GENERAL ADJUDICATIONS

Grand Junction, Colorado

October 20, 2000 (revised and reaffirmed)

WHEREAS, states must conduct lengthy, complicated and expensive proceedings

to establish the relative rights to water in water rights adjudications; and

WHEREAS, Congress recognized the necessity and benefit of requiring the United

States claims to be adjudicated in these state adjudications by adoption of the

McCarran Amendment; and

WHEREAS, those claiming and establishing their right to water, including Federal agencies, are the primary beneficiaries of adjudication proceedings by having

the states officially quantify and record these water rights; and

WHEREAS, the courts have determined that under the McCarran Amendment

the United States need not pay fees for processing Federal claims; and

WHEREAS, the Federal claims are typically among the most complicated and

largest of claims in state adjudications; and

WHEREAS, if the United States does not pay a proportionate share of the costs

associated with adjudications, the burden of funding the proceedings unfairly shifts

to the state and other water users and often delays completion of the adjudications

by depriving the states of the resources necessary to complete them; and

WHEREAS, delays in completing adjudications result in inability to protect private and public property interests or determine how much unappropriated water

may remain to satisfy important environmental and economic development priorities.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Western States Water Council

again ask the Congress to recognize that requiring states and private users to fund

processing of Federal, non-tribal claims in water rights adjudications unfairly shifts

the burden of funding these proceedings away from the parties who derive the

greatest benefit from the proceeding and effectively establishes an unfunded mandate; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council continue urging Congress to pass

legislation narrowly tailored to establish that the United States, when a party to

a general adjudication shall be subject to fees and costs imposed by the state to conduct the proceedings to the same extent as private users.

16

17

18

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you for your testimony.

We will now begin questions, and we have a 5-minute rule. I will

begin the questioning, and we will alternate between majority and

minority. Mr. McDonald, currently, the Bureau is facing a $5 billion back- log and potentially up to $7 billion in new project needs in the next

several years. How are you proposing to move these projects forward with your limited budget?

Mr. MCDONALD. It is true, Mr. Congressman, that there is a considerable number of authorized new projects, particularly in the

last two or three years, as you noted. We certainly evaluate carefully as we put our budget request together what we think the relative priorities of funding needs are.

I can assure you that our first priority is to maintain and operate

the existing infrastructure along the lines that I testified to and

then, within the budget constraints we face, to identify the priorities for additional work that might be possible. Obviously, the particulars await the release of the President’s budget request in a

couple of weeks.

Mr. CALVERT. You mentioned in your testimony that the

Bureau’s infrastructure is aging.

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. CALVERT. In what ways will the dams, canals, and other

waterway delivery systems be affected by this and our future reliability for water?

Mr. MCDONALD. Our view, Congressman, is that as long as we

invest in the appropriate operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of these facilities, they will be reliable for decades to come.

There is no reason for them to ever arrive at a physical condition

where they are not reliable in providing sustainable supplies.

Mr. CALVERT. Are there any specific projects out there that show

any potential for problems in the immediate future?

Mr. MCDONALD. There certainly are projects that we have lined

up in our respective operation and maintenance priority systems

and in our dam safety program that we are looking 2, 3, 4 years

down the road for funding requirements in order to carry out the

appropriate level of activity.

Mr. CALVERT. Specifically, are any of these threatening the immediate water supply in the next several years?

Mr. MCDONALD. Not that I am aware of, no, sir.

Mr. CALVERT. Last year, the Bureau sent legislation to increase

funding for dam safety, which we passed, but the Senate did not

act on, which is not surprising around here. What is the status of

dam safety legislation, and will the Bureau be sending it again to

Congress?

Mr. MCDONALD. In our judgment, Mr. Chairman, we have an

adequate authorized ceiling with the amount that was included in

the appropriations bill for this year to handle our dam safety program through this fiscal year; but it is our judgment that we will

need additional authority before the end of this calendar year so

that we can continue on into Fiscal Year 2002. The four projects

that would be affected in Fiscal Year 2002 are Deadwood Dam in

Idaho, Grassy Lake, and Glendo Dams in Wyoming, and Warm

Springs in Oregon, and we will need an increased ceiling to proceed

19

in Fiscal Year 2002 with those. Until we have a new commissioner,

I do not know that the new administration will have an opportunity to entertain dam safety legislation proposals, but certainly

it is a matter that we will bring to the attention of the new commissioner at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. CALVERT. This is one of my last questions to you, and you

could probably take the rest of the day to answer it, but in what

ways is the Bureau of Reclamation planning for meeting the growing water demand in the West?

Mr. MCDONALD. I think that to conserve time, I will emphasize

three things. First, as I testified to, we think there is a place in

the future of water management in the West for voluntary transfers between willing sellers and buyers.

Secondly, we are certainly working with States, watershed organizations, local districts, Indian tribes and others in planning activities, particularly in a watershed ecosystem context, that deal

with the whole range of competing water supply needs.

Finally, I would emphasize that investing in applied science and

technology to develop products that enhance water user flexibility

to address future challenges is very much part of that planning

process.

Mr. CALVERT. How about surface water storage sites—did you

mention any of those?

Mr. MCDONALD. We certainly have an authorization from Congress for the Animas-La Plata project and would hope to move forward with that. Beyond that, I cannot think of any new authorizations that we have.

Mr. CALVERT. Are you looking at identifying future potential

storage sites in the West?

Mr. MCDONALD. I am aware of some of our planning studies that

do identify new sites, yes, sir.

Mr. CALVERT. In what areas has the Department of Reclamation

coordinated with State and Federal agencies to plan for droughts?

Mr. MCDONALD. Our authorities for drought, Mr. Chairman, are

under the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of

1991. It essentially provides us with two authorities—first of all, an

authority to provide financial and technical assistance for development of drought contingency plans. We have had agreements and

done that with Arizona, Hawaii, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and

a number of Indian tribes, and then in the face of a natural

drought, we have some limited authority to construct temporary

facilities and to deal with management practices through the duration of the drought.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. I will have another round and will be

coming back to you all.

Ms. Solis, would you like to ask some questions?

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was curious—you mentioned that there were some plants that

were down, but it was not affecting hydroelectricity in the State of

California. Which plants were you talking about, specifically?

Mr. MCDONALD. In the course of normal maintenance, Congresswoman, we have two units out of 26 in the Upper Colorado Region

system. One of those is at Glen Canyon Dam, one is at Blue Mesa

in Colorado. In the Lower Colorado Region, we have six units out

20

of 28 units down; three of those are at Hoover, a couple more upcoming at Hoover—they are not down right now, but they are

scheduled for maintenance in the next few weeks—and then, there

is a unit down at Davis and one up for testing.

We will have all of those back up on line, generally speaking, between the 5th of April and the 31st of May, and again, the fact that

those units are down has in no way affected generation and capacity, because the ones that are up and running can take more than

the water that is available to run through them at this current

time.

Ms. SOLIS. It still does not solve our problem.

Mr. MCDONALD. It does not; I understand.

Ms. SOLIS. Just a last question. In reading your testimony, I

know you did not read everything, but regarding the Reclamation

Reform Act and trying to encourage water conservation, how far

along would you say we are with actually advancing that technology? You mentioned drip irrigation, conservation technology.

How far along are we, and what do we need to do to help move

those farmers along?

Mr. MCDONALD. I think that in the last 5 or 10 years, there has

been considerable progress. Organizations like the Western States

Water Council, which is here to testify in the form of Mr. Brophy,

are working with other Federal agencies, working with individual

districts, we have had some very successful and innovative programs in the last several years, and I am personally finding a lot

of excitement in the irrigation community because a lot of these improvements make financial sense to the farmer—that is what their

interest in it is—as well as all the environmental and agricultural

benefits that it has.

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Ms. Solis.

Mr. Osborne?

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here today. I appreciate it.

I have a fairly general question. I notice that with our current

situation, it appears that perhaps additional storage is needed in

the West; yet I also know that there are certain interests that

would do away with dams altogether. I was interested in where you

feel the equilibrium is. Is there a possibility of increasing storage

at this point, or is the political climate such that it makes it difficult to do anything new?

Mr. MCDONALD. My personal view, Congressman, is that it is

certainly not out of the realm of possibility that there will be new

dams and storage reservoirs constructed in the future. I do not

think there is any doubt that that will happen. I think, however,

that it will be done on a very selective basis, and it will be done

as a suite of water management activities not to the exclusion of

improvements in efficiency of use, transfers among existing users,

and that kind of thing.

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you.

I have a question for Mr. Hirsch. There were a couple of terms

in your testimony that I was not aware of. You mentioned ‘‘artificial recharge’’ and ‘‘aquifer storage.’’ Could you amplify on those a

21

little bit, because they caught my attention, but I did not know

exactly what they were.

Mr. HIRSCH. Yes. Artificial recharge is any attempt by humans

to increase the rate at which water enters the ground water system, enters into an aquifer. This can involve spreading water on

the surface; it can be putting water into a streambed that might

otherwise be dry. This may be wastewater, it may be water collected in some manner to supplement water supply.

Aquifer storage and recovery is one very specific technology of artificial recharge where one in fact injects water into an aquifer—

at times when there is a lot of water available and a rainy season,

let us say—injects it into the aquifer and then withdraws it from

the very same well during a dry period.

These technologies are widely in use in Southern California, in

Florida, in Arizona, and in a number of other very arid parts of the

country, although I think their use is spreading. There is a whole

host of scientific questions about their efficacy, and it is an area

that we have been working on, but it is of interest to note that particularly in places like the Everglades or in CALFED, two major

ecosystem restoration programs around the country, these technologies have been proposed as a major aspect of the restoration

plan.

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you.

Mr. McDonald, I have a question regarding your statement that

85 to 90 percent of the water consumed in the West is devoted to

irrigation, and with the needs of municipalities and other needs,

there might be transfers of water. Do you see the amount of irrigated acres eventually decreasing, either voluntarily or involuntarily, or do you feel that we can maintain the present amount of

irrigation that we now have and still maintain the municipal needs

that are developing?

Mr. MCDONALD. My personal judgment would be that the economics of irrigated agriculture are such that there will be a small

decline over time. I think relatively speaking, though, that what we

need to keep in mind is that a very small reduction in the agricultural sector can support a vastly increased population, so I think

they are relatively minor marginal changes, and I think they are

going to be ones which are accommodated in the context of State

law and willing sellers who desire to go out of business.

Mr. OSBORNE. Is there any difficulty transferring water—are you

talking about from one drainage to another, or simply water within

a drainage allocated to different usages?

Mr. MCDONALD. Throughout the West, I have seen examples of

both, where the proposed retirement of agriculture would result in

a diversion from one basin to another basin. I have also seen examples that are within a basin. All, of course, are subject to State law;

that will be the principal guiding institutional mechanism under

the State’s water rights systems.

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you very much. No further questions, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Osborne.

Ms. Napolitano?

22

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly

thank you for bringing the agencies here to speak to such a great

and pertinent issue for California—water.

I have several questions. First of all, the U.S. Geological Survey

Water Resources Division has a monitoring tool which is vital in

drought prediction. I want to be sure that we get a copy of something of that nature. I am not quite sure who has it, and I would

like to see what it says, because in California, we went through a

drought 8 or 10 years ago, and it was not a nice thing. So I think

we need to be sure that we are living up to some of the things that

were recommended and that we are doing the best that we can. I

am not sure if I can get it, and I am sure other members would

be interested in seeing that—

Mr. CALVERT. We will ask for any documentation like that to be

submitted to us, and we can distribute that to the members.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. The other question of Mr. Hirsch

is on the streamgaging network. Do you feel that the Administration is going to continue to support adequate funding for the program itself to at least give the communities warning outlooks

across the Nation?

Mr. HIRSCH. I think we have to wait for the President’s budget

to come out to see what the status of that is.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. What is going to be your proposal, or what has

it been?

Mr. HIRSCH. The Administration needs to come forward; we need

to simply see what the Administration’s proposal is, which will

come out in the next two weeks.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Okay, but you are not proposing either full

funding or anything of that nature?

Mr. HIRSCH. We have been interacting with many, many stakeholders on the issue of streamgaging, which has been of great interest. We have had requests for congressional reports to the Congress by the Appropriations Committee. So we have gone on record

a number of times describing what we think is needed for the Nation from a flood warning and water management and scientific

standpoint and have had a series of stakeholder meetings, including one just recently out in the West with some of the State engineers, where we have described our long-term plans and objectives

for a national streamgaging program. We would be happy to share

that information with you.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, may I ask that that information

be submitted to the Committee?

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Mr. McDonald, what is the status of the Southern California Regional Water Recycling Study? That is of vital interest to me and others because of the great amount that has already been done in recycling with the different entities that I

serve. If we had the study—I do not know when it is coming out,

I do not know the status of it—I would like to have your answer

to let us know when we can expect it.

Mr. MCDONALD. Off the top of my head, Congresswoman, I am

sorry that I do not remember the particulars. I would be glad to

respond promptly through the record within a day or two, if I may.

23

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I would also like to have that submitted to this

Committee.

Mr. MCDONALD. That is fine; I would be glad to.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, that is a recycling study that

has been pending for a while.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection.

[Information furnished by Mr. McDonald follows:]

The Southern California Comprehensive Study is being finalized and will be

transmitted to Congress as soon as it receives approval from the Secretary of the

Interior and the Office of Management and Budget.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. And the last point that I wanted to ask about

was on the Desalinization Act of 1996, which is going to be ending,

or at least, that is my report—authorization for the program expires at the end of the fiscal year. Are we going to see any implementation of something that will take care of the desalinization, especially on Government lands? Are we expecting that it will be reestablished, refunded, reenacted—anybody?

Mr. MCDONALD. It is correct, Congresswoman, that the authorization for the program is expiring. Again, that is the kind of thing

that Reclamation will be bringing to the attention of the new commissioner and new assistant Secretary as soon as they are appointed.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. And the refunding is going to be one of the recommendations?

Mr. MCDONALD. I am not in a position to comment as to what

we will recommend or not, but it will certainly be on the list of expiring authorizations that we will bring to the attention of the new

administration.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. In other words, you do not have an answer.

Mr. MCDONALD. We do not have a position yet; that is correct.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I am not quite sure where we stand

on desalinization or on the extension of that. I certainly would like

to have the Committee take a look at it and see if it warrants our

support to be able to urge the Administration for either a new enactment or an expansion of that Act.

Mr. CALVERT. It is something that I am certainly interested in,

and I will be happy to work with the gentlelady on that.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. Otter?

Mr. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me include my voice in the choir thanking you for bringing

these issues before us today.

I would like to start my questioning with Mr. Brophy from the

Western States Water Council. Mr. Brophy, we in Idaho have been

struggling with the permitting process. After we get a permit from

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on certain adjudication of water

permits in the Upper Snake in Idaho, we turn around and have to

go through another permitting process with the National Marine

Fisheries Service, or vice versa—it depends. And then we find ourselves having to go through another process with FERC.

24

Does your organization have any enthusiasm for trying to

streamline this process, perhaps having a single agency to go to

and perhaps time period within which they have to respond?

Mr. BROPHY. Thank you, Congressman Otter.

Western States Water Council has been very interested in

streamlining the various permitting processes that States have to

go through. It is a constant complaint from State engineers and

from water rights holders and others that they are put through one

permitting program and then another. We have never taken a position on actually putting all permitting programs together, but we

have consistently supported streamlining permitting processes and

looking for innovative ways to get through the permitting process.

Mr. OTTER. As a follow-up question, in your estimation, if I were

to introduce two bills, one using the legislative oversight to repeal

the authority given to all other Federal agencies, and another giving one agency the authority to issue an across-the-board permit on

water use and adjudication, whom would that surviving agency be?

Do you have an opinion on that?

Mr. BROPHY. My personal opinion would be that it would be the

Bureau of Reclamation, but I am sure there would be many others

who would have other opinions.

Mr. OTTER. We will get to those opinions later.

Mr. Hirsch, do you think that irrigation is in fact a way to

recharge the aquifers?

Mr. HIRSCH. Indeed irrigation does recharge aquifers in most

cases. In the High Plans, for example, after a decade or two, if time

elapses between the application of the water, that water does in

fact reach the water table. Now, that does not mean there is not

a continued decline, but in fact it does reach the water table, and

we find that in many, many areas that receive surface area irrigation, those aquifers are being recharged in that process.

Mr. OTTER. And, in fact, haven’t we seen a decline in recharging

the aquifers from surface irrigation as a result of sprinkler and

high-technology irrigation, like drip systems and those sorts of

things as opposed to gravity flow?

Mr. HIRSCH. I think that that is correct. We certainly see that

as the amount of water applied gets more and more accurately tailored to the amount of evapotranspiration required to growth the

plans, there is less and less recharge to the aquifer.

Mr. OTTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Hirsch.

Mr. McDonald, have we had some major failure problems at

Arrowrock Dam?

Mr. MCDONALD. No, sir. Nothing has failed, although the five

sluiceways at the bottom of the dam have, due to cavitation problems downstream from the gates, been inoperable since 1987, and

of the 10 ensign valves that are in the middle of the dam, we have

three locked down because we are concerned about their operational safety.

Mr. OTTER. Have you had a failure?

Mr. MCDONALD. Nothing has failed as such in the sense of blowing out or being knocked out.

Mr. OTTER. In fact we have not had a loss on pressure or water,

or it has not become dangerous?

25

Mr. MCDONALD. It is a situation that is not safe, Congressman.

We are in a position where the ensign valves, were they to get

stuck either in the open position or in the closed position— Mr. OTTER. Have they been stuck?

Mr. MCDONALD. They have, yes, sir.

Mr. OTTER. How many times?

Mr. MCDONALD. I do not know for sure, but— Mr. OTTER. Yet since 1987, we have not used them?

Mr. MCDONALD. No—we have operated the ensign valves.

Mr. OTTER. Successfully?

Mr. MCDONALD. Some of them successfully, some of them not;

that is why three are locked down.

Mr. OTTER. So tell me why the Bureau of Reclamation chooses

a drought here, in a year when we already know that Arrowrock

and the south fork of the Boise River and Anderson Ranch, that we

are now going to draw down those dams in order to fix those

valves?

Mr. MCDONALD. Actually, ironically, a drought is the best time

to do the work at this dam, because we would otherwise have to

waste the water and draw the dam down so we could get at the

valves. As you may understand, Congressman, they are on the upstream face of the dam, that is to say they are underwater, and to

repair them, we would have to pull the dam down.

Mr. OTTER. So we are not going to have to pull it down?

Mr. MCDONALD. We will not have to pull it down to wastewater;

it is going to automatically get pulled down in this drought year

so that we can deliver our contract supplies.

Mr. OTTER. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Otter.

Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for assembling this panel and holding this hearing today on such an important issue.

I confess that jurisdictionally, I am still sort of sorting through

who is in charge of what when it comes to water. I know there are

lots of hands involved in terms of regulations and permitting process and all that. But since you three are here, I will ask you.

As has been discussed here, we have quite a problem with our

water supply in the Pacific Northwest this year, exacerbated by a

number of factors; and beyond that, we have the energy problem,

since we are so dependent on water to generate power. As I said,

I think it is a real shame in the Pacific Northwest that this is the

year that we do not have a surplus of energy. With California needing it so badly, we could do quite well; as it is, we are going to have

a hard time just keeping up.

What I am really interested in, though, is the Endangered Species Act and how it will affect all of this. There will be a number

of decisions that EPA is primarily going to have to make in terms

of how to use the water that may adversely affect salmon. I do not

know what your knowledge is of the law—I am sure there are some

environmental groups that will protest that—I am wondering how

you foresee that coming out in the Pacific Northwest this year

when we have a situation where, if we do not use more water, we

may have a rolling blackout situation in the BPA region, but on the

26

other hand, to use the water could potentially violate the 4(d) rule

and some of the existing regulations on salmon.

How does that come out, and how much flexibility do we really

have to use that water this year with the ESA hovering over us?

Mr. MCDONALD. I would be glad to try to respond, Mr. Smith,

since I am the Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation in

the Pacific Northwest and intimately involved in those day-to-day

decisions.

Fundamentally, of course, we are operating in the Federal

Columbia River power system, which is 12 dams of the Corps of

Engineers and two of the Bureau of Reclamation, under the current

Biological Opinions issued in December of 2000. In a drywater year

like this, we are operating under the provisions in the Biological

Opinion that provide exceptions to the requirements of the opinion

for emergencies. It is the view of the Bonneville Power Administration, Corps of Engineers and Reclamation that we face such an

emergency due to the financial uncertainty of the market and the

fact that we have less capacity available than we should for a reliable system.

Since approximately the 1st of January, we have essentially been

operating to produce power. Up until the last week or so, that

power operation has fortunately matched the requirements of salmon, driven principally by the fact that the chum is the first salmon

species to come back into the mainstem and start spawning in November and December. They do so below Bonneville Dam and in

a couple of the small tributaries below Bonneville. They lay their

eggs at high water in November, because we were generating

power at the time, and we have maintained those high levels because of power.

The problems essentially are from this time forward. Under the

Biological Opinion, we should have refilled reservoirs to certain targets by April 10th. The point of those targets for refilling is to balance flood control with water in storage so that we can have water

to release for flow augmentation in the spring. We are going to be

far, far short of being able to refill to the April 10th targets. That

will then bring the next major issue about which decisions have not

been made, and that is going to be how far short of the spring flow

targets are we, and do we spill any water over the Corps of Engineers’ facilities as opposed to running all water through the turbines for power generation.

The tradeoff fundamentally will then be between spring flow targets and summer flow targets. The closer we get to spring flow targets, the more we sacrifice storage now, which would be to the benefit of power, confidentially; but then we will have that much less

water in storage come July, and we need summer flows commencing about the 20th of August going into and through most of

September.

So that is the basic tension in the system. The other thing,

frankly, from a water operator and power generator perspective as

we balance our ESA obligations and our tribal trust obligations

that we are concerned about is that the drought is so serious this

year that we are putting a very large hole, if you will, in the reservoir system, and it will take an average year or better to recover

27

next year. So we are going to skate into the winter power season

on thin ice this year from the power generation perspective.

Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. I guess the question in that situation is who trumps whom. If the ESA and the tribal concerns do

not want the water to be released, but the BPA says we need to

do it for power, is there any clear idea of who wins that argument?

Mr. MCDONALD. We are kind of operating a week at a time, Congressman, and doing our very level best to consult with all the interested parties to find what the balance is.

Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. So no, basically, at this point; it is

kind of unknown.

Mr. MCDONALD. Yes.

Mr. SMITH OF WASHINGTON. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. I think it probably could be said that California

cannot look forward to a lot of excess power over the next year, I

suspect.

Mr. MCDONALD. We have noticed that in the last few months.

Mr. CALVERT. Okay.

Mr. Walden?

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McDonald, I want to go back to a comment that you made

about two or three projects that might need additional funding authority under Federal legislation. One of them that you mentioned

was Warm Springs Dam. I am trying to figure out which dam that

is. Is that the Wickiup Project?

Mr. MCDONALD. I confess that I am drawing a blank; I am so

new to the region that I do not quite have every dam name put

with the project. I apologize. I will have to check.

Mr. WALDEN. If you could get back to me on that, because I know

there is some restoration and dam safety work going on at Wickiup, which is in the general area.

Mr. MCDONALD. Okay—that refreshes my memory. It is not the

Wickiup project. I am still not remembering the name of the

project, so I will double-check.

Mr. WALDEN. All right. If you could get back to me on that— Mr. MCDONALD. They are on different tracks; they are different

dams.

[Information furnished by Mr. McDonald follows:]

Part of the Vale Project, Warm Springs Dam is located on the Middle Fork of the

Malheur River in east-central Malheur County, in Southeastern Oregon. The upper

portion of Warm Springs Reservoir extends into Harney County.

Mr. WALDEN. Last week, when we were both over on the Senate

side on the Klamath project issues, one of the people who testified

released a report about how to improve water quality in Klamath

Lake to help with the suckers there, and he spoke about the oxygenation proposals that he had.

I wonder if you have had a chance in the intervening time to

take a look at that report, or people in your agency—and perhaps

anybody at this table—if you are familiar with these proposals to

literally put oxygen into the bottoms of some of these lakes to improve the quality of the water?

28

Mr. MCDONALD. The Reclamation staff, Congressman, has been

looking at that report last week and literally over the weekend. It

was a subject of discussion yesterday at the meeting we organized

at your request and the Senators’ request yesterday in Klamath.

When I leave here, I will have a conference call with my staff to

be brought up to date. But I do know that it was specifically considered. I do not know that the consultant was there, but the water

users were there, and talking through the science brought forth by

that report was one of the agenda items.

Mr. WALDEN. Are either of the other of you familiar with these

projects to pump oxygen into the bottoms of these lakes to improve

the quality of the water?

Mr. HIRSCH. USGS is involved in the Klamath Lake water quality issues and has been for many years, and we certainly have

looked at various places around the country where oxygen or simply air has been pumped into water bodies to improve their condition. We would be happy to provide you with some feedback on that

once I touch base with my staff in Oregon. We would be happy to

do that.

Mr. WALDEN. Okay, that would be good. As you know, time is of

the utmost concern in the Klamath Basin this year. Today is the

27th, so in four days, basically, a report has to come out about

whether those farmers are going to get any water or not.

The concern I have dates back to legislation that we were able

to pass last year, authorizing this study for additional storage. Mr.

McDonald, as I reread some of your comments from last week over

the weekend, I found myself wanting to ask more questions, and

lo and behold, here we are with that opportunity.

The question I have—and you do not have to do it right now— but if you could get more specific about where your agency is on

a time line with these studies.

Mr. MCDONALD. Okay.

Mr. WALDEN. It seemed kind of vague in terms of what I was

reading, and I really want to know dates and times. Where are we

in assessing, and what is the time line that we need to be one to

increase water storage in that basin, because so much is at stake.

People are literally going broke.

I can tell you that my field director was at the meeting in

Klamath yesterday. From his report, it was not a very productive

meeting. People walked away feeling they had gotten no answers

and were very, very frustrated. Emotions were running high; apparently, more than 300 people were outside protesting one way or

another.

We have got to get on this, and I want to be in a position, given

the flow of legislation here, to make sure that we do not miss any

deadlines here to move forward on storage.

Mr. MCDONALD. I will be glad to respond on the record, Congressman.

[Information furnished by Mr. McDonald follows:]

Public Law 106-498 authorized Reclamation to conduct a number of feasibility

and other studies related to the Klamath Project. Reclamation estimates that the

Section 2 studies will be completed as follows:

Raising Upper Klamath Lake—Fiscal Year 2003

29

Gerber Reservoir—Fiscal Year 2003

Long-term Demand Reduction Program—Fiscal Year 2003

Long-term Water Acquisition Program—Fiscal Year 2004

Water Quality Improvement Program—Fiscal Year 2004

Ground Water Development—Fiscal Year 2005

In addition, Reclamation will enter into a partnership with the Oregon Water Resources Department to review potential studies on water supply needs of non-project

lands in the Upper Klamath Basin, as authorized in Section 3.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Walden.

Ms. Solis, do you have any additional questions?

Ms. SOLIS. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Ms. Napolitano?

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Yes, Mr. Chair.

One of the things that concerns me is that we have looked at

many of the water issues for the Western States, and of utmost

concern to me, especially in California, is storage and recycling. I

do not see storage as a local issue, other than a storage dam under

the underground rivers or the aquifers. I am looking to find out if

any of the agencies are looking at support to the local municipalities for underground or above ground storage of water that they

can purchase in winter when it is cheaper and then be able to use

for their own communities, as opposed to relying strictly on the

water in California from the aqueduct or from the Colorado or from

other sources.

Beyond that, there is the issue of being able to help reopen water

wells that have been closed for whatever reason, whether because

of maintenance or because they have perceived contamination and

are not tied into any water mains that will help meld the water

or break it down in order to make it potable.

Those are issues that have not even begun to be discussed, and

yet they can be answers for some of the issues in California as well

as other States, because we are not looking beyond; we are looking

only at the traditional things that we are used to.

On recycling, a lot of the problems are with the small municipalities that cannot afford to bring a recycling infrastructure into the

community. Are we looking at assisting them so they can then use

pure water rather than recycled water for commercial, industrial,

and municipal uses?

Mr. HIRSCH. Let me comment a little bit from the perspective of

the U.S. Geological Survey. We have a program and have had it

for over 100 years called the Federal-State Cooperative Water Program in which we cooperate with communities, and we have many,

many municipalities, counties, et cetera, as well as State agencies

that we undertake work with. They bring half the money, we bring

half the money, and we undertake particularly hydrogeologic studies of many of the basins throughout California to look at their potential as sites for long-term storage, aquifer storage and recovery,

recharge, and the reuse of reclaimed wastewater—Orange County,

Antelope Valley, just to name a couple of places where we have

been extremely active working with and assisting those

30

communities to identify long-term solutions in terms of underground water storage.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I want to just pick up on that one point, because the sanitation district is now utilizing runoff after the first

24 hours of water to be able to replenish the aquifers. Well, they

claim to have great space for storage, yet we are not looking at

being able to use the existing storage to put in the additional water

that we may need eventually; it is just running through the rivers

and into the ocean.

Another issue that has come up recently is that EPA is forcing

sanitation to do not tertiary treatment of water that is going to the

ocean, but a fourth treatment which is going to cost billions of dollars to the taxpayers to set up a new facility to do the fourth treatment.

I am not sure what they are basing that on—that is another

story—but to me, if we were able to use that water in refurbishing

the aquifers, we would be better off, or if we could find a way to

have it go through the natural system and put it back into use in

the aquifers.

Mr. HIRSCH. I am not familiar with the details of the examples

that you are talking about, but we would be happy to come and

visit with you and get some more details and see if we can be of

any help.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I would appreciate it, sir, because that goes for

most of Southern California.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady.

I will go ahead and ask a couple of questions, and Mr. Pombo

will be back shortly.

A question was brought up earlier by Ms. Napolitano on the

Streamgaging Program, and I am wondering if USGS is cooperating with other Federal agencies that may have some technologies

that might assist in that—specifically, the National Weather Service, with some of our satellite imagery data, that type of thing. Are

you exploring new technologies to be able to do this type of information-gathering?

Mr. HIRSCH. First, just to comment on the National Weather

Service, we provide virtually all of the streamflow information that

the National Weather Service uses in making their streamflow

forecasts, and we work very, very closely with them on our program.

From a technology standpoint, we had a workshop with NASA

and many of their funded entities and a number of parts of the Defense Department, in fact, to talk about potential money-saving or

improvements in our streamgaging activities.

Over the last three years, we have had a program within the

USGS that we call Hydro 21, looking at radically new ways of

going about this process of streamgaging, and in fact have conducted a couple of experiments in which we have used helicopters

and radar away from the stream in fact to make measurements.

We believe that this will in the long run lead us to some abilities

and some reliabilities that we have not had in the past.

None of those have shown themselves to be technologies that are

ready for widespread deployment, but we are actively pursuing

that kind of—

31

Mr. CALVERT. I was going to ask how accurate is that data?

Mr. HIRSCH. In fact, the few experiments that we have done have

shown it to be quite accurate, really, in the same range of less than

5 percent error as we would see with our current meter-based

measurement.

Mr. CALVERT. That is using helicopters and other fixed-wing aircraft?

Mr. HIRSCH. Not fixed-wing, but helicopters. The application of

the helicopter technology, which in fact would be quite expensive

but has tremendous potential applicability to large regional flood

situations in which it is very difficult to deploy our staff on the

ground to safely make the kinds of measurements that are needed.

The other application is from a couple of kinds of radars that

were developed for military application, one of which senses the velocity of the water on the surface—a lot like a police radar gun, essentially—and another kind of radar which penetrates the water

and defines the channel shape as it changes over time, which is

very important in a lot of Western streams.

Those are the kinds of technologies that we are looking at, and

they do appear to be accurate and at the moment not more costeffective than the ones we use today. But we need to explore that

and look for savings from miniaturization and a large market that

might potentially develop.

Mr. CALVERT. Back to developing water supply plans for the

West, do you guys in the water reclamation business and the USGS

work closely together to make sure we develop additional water

supplies for the West?

Mr. MCDONALD. We do indeed. Both of us can respond that way.

There are many cooperative programs between the two agencies,

Congressman. We in Reclamation often look to USGS for technical

expertise. We participate in their Streamgaging Program, rely on

their science in many instances, and I think we have a long, literally decades-old, tradition of cooperation and collaboration.

Mr. CALVERT. Could you give us some examples on use of

groundwater and surface storage that can make the Western States

more drought-resistant? There was certainly some talk about that

earlier. Are there plans under way that you are aware of that we

do not know about?

Mr. MCDONALD. I would defer to Mr. Brophy if he has examples

among the Western States. I cannot think of anything, Congressman, that Reclamation itself may have.

Mr. BROPHY. Mr. Chairman, the State of Arizona is involved in

an extensive groundwater banking program where Colorado River

water is stored underground either by direct recharge into the

aquifer or by delivery of surface water to irrigated fields, and they

do not pump groundwater where ordinarily they would. In that

way, the State of Arizona is generating hundreds of thousands of

acre-feet a year additional storage in aquifers in Central Arizona.

That water is going to be used to firm up our municipal supplies

in Central Arizona and is also going to be used to facilitate interstate water banking and help the State of Nevada get over the next

30 years as they grow in Clark County.

Mr. CALVERT. I know that in California, this is extremely important. As you are aware, we are going to have to be looking toward

32

the 4.4 million acre allocation in the next several years, so we are

looking for a lot of help in groundwater management in California,

certainly, to make sure we have enough supply to get through the

time when we are not able to take over the 4.4 million acre-foot

allocation. So we look forward to working with both USGS and Reclamation and anybody else to help us get to that point.

With that, Ms. Solis, do you have any further questions?

Ms. SOLIS. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Ms. Napolitano?

Ms. NAPOLITANO. One thing that is puzzling me—there was mention in one of the comments of the Indian water rights. I had a conversation with a tribal chairman who indicated to me that they had

water that they did not use. What is it that prevents us from being

able to work out a cooperative agreement? It is a different State

than California, and I am wondering if it is something that we

need to look at, because I had been given information from another

agency that there was no law that permitted it or that it was not

legally feasible. So I am wondering if there is an ability for us to

dialogue—and I am speaking specifically to the Colorado River

water.

Mr. BROPHY. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Napolitano, Indian

water rights claims throughout the West are a threat to non-Indian

water uses, and the Council has actively supported negotiated settlement of Indian water rights claims throughout the West. There

are significant claims in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana,

the State of Washington, and throughout the West.

Typically, when claims are settled, it puts Indian communities in

a position to market water that they might receive. Under the current state of the law, at least, many people think that the NonIntercourse Act prohibits Indian communities from leasing water

which they have rights to and that they need congressional permission to be able to lease or otherwise dispose of their water; that

they need an exemption from the Non-Intercourse Act.

Also, there is general opposition in many quarters in the West

to Indian communities marketing their water supplies if in fact the

water supplies that they are using are meant to satisfy their reserve rights to water. The thought is that that water should be

used on reservations, so many interests in the West will oppose the

marketing of water that is in fact reserved water.

Colorado River water in Arizona, for example, is marketed by Indian communities that have achieved water rights settlements, and

it is done with the permission of Congress.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I see. That answers one question.

Now, another question that comes to mind is that land along the

Colorado River is Federal, and there is an issue of salinity and

what we can do to help clean up some of that salinity before it gets

down to the users in the other States.

Mr. MCDONALD. I will respond to the Congresswoman. Congress

has authorized something called the Colorado River Basin Quality

Control Program. It is administered principally by the Bureau of

Reclamation and involves a number of other agencies. It is a program that was developed and carried out cooperatively with the

seven Colorado River Basin States and has as its objective reducing

salt-loading to the Colorado River from both natural and manmade

33

sources in a manner that will allow the seven Basin States to continue to the development of their compact-entitled waters. In Reclamation’s judgment, it has been a very successful program over

the years; it has been authorized and amended a couple of times

by Congress to streamline it and tailor-make it to the situation

faced in the Colorado River Basin, and I think that Reclamation,

working cooperatively with the States, has found it to be quite a

successful program.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I would request, Mr. Chair, that we get a report on that salinity program so that we are aware of how it is

going to affect us.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection.

Mr. MCDONALD. We make regular annual reports to Congress,

and we would be glad to provide the most recent one.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you.

[Information furnished by Mr. McDonald follows:]

[The ‘‘2000 Annual Report on the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program’’

was too lengthy to be included and is retained in the Committee’s official files.]

Mr. CALVERT. I just have a quick tag-on question before we go

back on the issue of Native American water rights. The Gila River

Indians are obviously interested in this. In the new settlement

agreement, Mr. Brophy, that is apparently being negotiated, will

the Gila Indians be able to market their water?

Mr. BROPHY. Mr. Chairman, the Gila River community will be

given statutory authority to market a portion of their Colorado

River entitlements.

Mr. CALVERT. Within the State of Arizona or outside the State

of Arizona?

Mr. BROPHY. Strictly within the State of Arizona.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. Osborne?

Mr. OSBORNE. I have one question. Where I come from and I

think every place else, we are trying to get more water, and one

suggestion has been a revision of forestry practices where undergrowth and dead timber is removed. I have heard estimates of

being able to save several hundred thousand acre-feet of water.

Is this pie-in-the-sky in your estimation, or is this an accountable

and accurate way of solving some of the water issues?

Mr. HIRSCH. I assume we are talking about the trees that grow

in the areas near streams. That is one aspect of this topic. In fact,

we worked very closely with the Bureau of Reclamation for quite

a number of years, particularly in the Gila River Basin of Arizona

and a number of other areas, to look at the efficacy of these approaches, and while I think the general conclusion is that on a

short-term basis, one can increase water yields by changing the

vegetation along the riparian zone, it is very difficult to maintain

that improved yield over a period of time because of the need to

repetitively go in and modify the vegetation.

In general, yes, modifying the vegetation can have some effect,

but I am not familiar with any large areas where that has been

done to great effect.

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you. I have no further questions.

34

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Ms. Solis?

Ms. SOLIS. No questions.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Otter?

Mr. OTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go back with Mr. McDonald one more time. I just want

to make it clear—so I can put my folks at home at ease—we are

not going to spill one drop of water to replace those valves; we are

not going to waste any water?

Mr. MCDONALD. If we maintain the construction schedule that

we are on now, because it is a drought and the reservoir would be

drawn down anyway to deliver water to irrigators, we will have the

happy circumstance, the ironic circumstance, of being able to pull

it down because we had to anyway to deliver water, and we will

not waste anything, and that will expose the valves so that we can

proceed to construction.

Mr. OTTER. Great. So the stars are lined up, and we know where

we are going.

Mr. MCDONALD. In an unfortunate way, yes, the drought has a

silver lining in this particular case.

Mr. OTTER. All right. We have all got to count our blessings

somewhere, and I would just as soon count mine there.

Mr. MCDONALD. As soon as you convince Scott Campbell, I will

appreciate it.

Mr. OTTER. I would like to ask the panel as a whole if they are

familiar with the term 21,000 megawatts nationwide that could be

added to existing hydroelectric projects, that we could actually add

21,000 megawatts of electricity to bricks and mortar already in

place.

Are any of you familiar with that figure?

Mr. MCDONALD. I am not, Congressman. I suspect it is a figure

that has come from an organization like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that licensed the private power facilities

throughout the country.

Certainly in Reclamation, it would be only a matter of perhaps

a few hundred megawatts that could be financially and economically added to our existing power plants.

Mr. HIRSCH. I am not familiar with it.

Mr. BROPHY. Nor am I.

Mr. OTTER. Finally, I would like to ask Mr. Brophy one more

time to make sure—I cosponsored with Congressman Simpson the

Act which would require the Government to pay its share of the

costs in adjudicating water and fighting for that adjudication. Has

your organization gone on record in support of the Government

paying for those costs in questions of adjudication and water

rights?

Mr. BROPHY. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Otter, yes, we have;

it is attached to my testimony. We think that the United States

should pay its fair share in these adjudications.

Mr. OTTER. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all I have.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Does anyone have additional questions?

35

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Just a follow-up. I do not think I got an answer

about if there are any programs that are being looked at to assist

municipalities in doing either above- or below-ground storage.

Mr. MCDONALD. Certainly, Reclamation as part of its overall

planning process is working with the water— Ms. NAPOLITANO. No—at the municipal level.

Mr. MCDONALD. At the municipal level, we are working with a

number, and I think the Title XVI Wastewater Reuse Program is

a good example. Many of those projects, as you know, Congresswoman, being in Southern California, certainly we have been deeply involved in both the California 4.4 Plan and the CALFED process, which have a variety of structural arrangements that deal with

both surface and groundwater supplies.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. But are you working through the cities themselves, are you working with the counties, or are you working with

the water agencies themselves? That makes a big difference.

Mr. MCDONALD. I see what your question is. I do not recall the

particulars in the context of the 4.4 Plan and CALFED. I would be

glad to get those particulars and respond for the record.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. It would be nice to know, Mr. Chairman, so

that the rest of the members will understand whether they can tell

their communities that they have access to programs that will help

them, or where they can go to get that assistance.

Mr. CALVERT. We will obtain that information and distribute it

to the members.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Walden, additional questions?

Mr. WALDEN. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. I have no additional questions, so I will thank this

panel for their testimony and for answering our questions. We certainly appreciate your attendance and look forward to having you

back again in the future.

Thank you all.

Mr. CALVERT. Our second panel consists of Ms. Jennifer Salisbury, Secretary, New Mexico State Energy, Minerals and Natural

Resources Department; Mr. Steve Malloch, Counsel, Western

Water Project, Trout Unlimited; Dr. Philip M. Burgess, Senior

Fellow, Center for the New West; and Mr. Ronald E. Young, President, WateReuse Foundation.

We thank the witnesses. We have a 5-minute rule, and you have

an indicator light on the witness table. When it is green, you are

fine; when it turns yellow, you have one minute to sum up; and

when it turns red, please attempt to conclude your testimony in a

timely way.

With that, Ms. Jennifer Salisbury, you may begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER SALISBURY, SECRETARY, NEW

MEXICO STATE ENERGY, MINERALS AND NATURAL

RESOURCES DEPARTMENT

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

Committee. It is really an honor to be here.

Although I am the Secretary of the Energy, Minerals and

Natural Resources Department for the State of New Mexico, a

36

department that has jurisdiction over most of the natural resources

in the State, including the 42 million acres of forested land on

which we are required to put out forest fires, I am here to represent the Western Governors’ Association this afternoon. The

Western Governors’ Association is made up of the 18 Western

States and also includes three of the Territories.

I would like to make three points if I may. First, as most of you

already know since you are in the process of experiencing some

level of drought, unlike other disasters, drought moves very slowly.

It takes months of below-normal precipitation to create a drought

and more than one good rainfall to catch up.

While it may be slower or less dramatic than other natural disasters, the effects are long-lasting and widespread and can cause

great misery. I just want to give you some examples of the direct

physical impacts that I know you are aware of.

In the 1995-1996 drought that New Mexico experienced, and in our sister States of Arizona and Texas, Texas had in excess of $1.2

billion in damages to its agricultural industry. Other drought effects are that it can exacerbate forest fires. Last year, as I am sure

all of you know, New Mexico had one of its worst fire seasons in

history. The Cerro Grande fire in Los Alamos burned up more than

40,000 acres as well as hundreds of houses.

The fire season also burned across the State more than 500,000

acres and cost us about $60 million. Drought means less water in

our streams, soil, and resources. Drought results in less water for

livestock and for wildlife. The Northwest, as was mentioned in the

earlier panel, has been experiencing a drought, and I think it is interesting that the effect might be really bizarre down the road. Because there is less water in the reservoirs, it may mean there is

less water available for electricity; that may mean that less electricity may be made available to California this summer when it

expects more electricity from the Northwest, which could exacerbate the rolling blackouts that they are expecting.

So drought may be slow to be recognized, but it can be severe

and cause incredible consequences.

The second point that I would like to make, which we experienced in New Mexico in our 1996 drought, is that once drought is

over, it is very hard for the institutions to retain or maintain any

sort of memory. For the most part, we lose that memory, we move

on to whatever the next most important issue is. Although intellectually, we would like to think that we can continue on, what really

happens is that you just forget, and people move on.

So instead of being proactive, what we are most like is what the

characters were like in John Steinbeck’s ‘‘East of Eden,’’ and I

would like to quote: ‘‘And it never failed that during the dry years,

the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years,

they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way.’’

The third point that I would like to make is that be that as it

may, the Federal response to drought is uncoordinated, ad hoc, and

very difficult to get. The assistance that is provided is primarily

geared toward relief; very little is available to help States plan for

drought. Of the 88 drought-related programs that have been

funded by the Congress over the last decade, only 47 of those provide for drought relief, and only 7 provide for drought planning.

37

Let me give you a couple of examples of what I mean by the response being ad hoc and difficult to get. Farmers learned in New

Mexico during our drought that the documentation that was acceptable to get assistance from the Department of Agriculture

under some of the programs that they have available may not be

sufficient documentation for other programs. In other words, you

may have to fill out more than one form or several forms to actually get relief.

Obviously, all of these programs are dependent on appropriations, and a lot of these appropriations are only available through

the supplemental process; they are not regularly available. So relief

may not be available, for example, until a farmer has already experienced disaster.

Another example—the Secretary of the Army, the Corps of Engineers, has authority to transport or haul water in emergency situations to farmers and other localities. The problem is that in the 20

years they have had this authority, they have only exercised that

authority one time that we are aware of, and that was on an island

on the East Coast somewhere. The reason is because they have apparently over 20 pages worth of guidelines in the Federal Register,

all of which are very hard to overcome, so the bottom line is that

it is virtually impossible to get the Corps of Engineers to haul

water in an emergency.

How can this situation be changed? I think the Western Governors would recommend to this Committee and the Congress that

we believe that a comprehensive, coordinated, and integrated approach is needed to address future drought emergencies. Western

Governors would like to emphasize to the Committee that the approach must include four elements.

First, the approach must provide for a monitoring system to collect, analyze, and assess data. That has already been mentioned in

the previous panel. This is absolutely fundamental to making good

policy decisions. The problem is that the existing system does not

allow for a standardized format, and it is not coordinated.

Second, this approach must provide a framework that promotes

planning and mitigating drought impacts. Over 30 States have

drought plans already in existence. But having a plan is of little

value if it is not implemented. Successful implementation obviously

requires practice, particularly when you are not in a drought situation which we are not in right now, because if you do not practice,

people move on and retire, and you lose that institutional memory.

Third, the approach must enhance the response capability of the

Federal Government. At a minimum, we believe that the Federal

Government must improve the way that droughts are managed,

particularly by streamlining the processes and programs and by

providing some sort of coordinated relief.

And fourth, the approach must find a way to better communicate

to the citizens of our States that they are in a drought. We believe

that if citizens are given the tools to do the right thing, they will

do the right thing and conserve.

The Governors believe that these four elements—monitoring,

planning, response, and communications—are the keys to ensuring

that the devastating effects of drought are mitigated if not minimized.

38

The Western Governors are in the process, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, of putting together a comprehensive piece

of legislation which we hope we will be able to present to this Committee and other members of Congress sometime in the next month

or so. It will contain all of these elements.

Thank you very much. I will be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Salisbury follows:]

Statement of Jennifer Salisbury, Secretary, New Mexico Department of

Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources, on behalf of The Western Governors’ Association

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to

appear before you today to discuss an issue of great importance to the Western

states -- Western water and specifically the status of drought planning and response. My name is Jennifer Salisbury. While I am the Secretary of the New Mexico

Department of Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources, I appear today on behalf

of New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who is the Lead Governor for the Western

Governors’ Association Drought Program. The Western Governors’ Association is an

independent, nonprofit organization representing the governors of 18 states, American Samoa, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Through their Association,

the Western governors identify and address key policy and governance issues in natural resources, the environment, human services, economic development, international relations and public management.

Drought is a normal part of the climate for virtually all regions of the United

States, but it is of particular concern in the West, where any interruption of the

region’s already limited water supplies over extended periods of time can produce

devastating impacts. Records indicate that drought occurs somewhere in the West

almost every year. However, it is multi-year drought events that are of the greatest

concern to planners, natural resource managers and government policy makers.

Water scarcity continually defines and redefines the West. The steady growth that

has been characteristic for much of the West today creates increased demands for

agricultural, municipal and industrial water supplies. Furthermore, such competing

demands as the public’s rising concern for meeting ‘‘quality of life’’ and environmental objectives create water supply management challenges in times of normal

precipitation. Drought exasperates these challenges.

During the 1995–1996 drought, the Southwest and southern Great Plains states,

including New Mexico, which were hit hard by the drought, were often frustrated

in our attempts to provide drought assistance to our citizens. In my own state, for

example, the drought exacerbated the fire season. In 1996, more than 85,380 acres

burned on state and private lands costing taxpayers about $7 million. What we generally found was that most government agencies, at all levels, lacked policy for planning and responding to drought, regardless of its duration or impacts. In addition,

this provides confusion and a lack of understanding of roles and responsibilities

among government entities. The lack of state-wide preplanning for some states, plus

the absence of organizational structures and processes to identify and resolve issues,

facilitate networking and promote partnerships also hindered reaction time and effectiveness.

At the Federal level, we found that droughts had historically been treated as

unique, separate events even though there had been frequent, significant droughts

of national consequences over the years. Actions were taken mainly through special

legislation and ad hoc action measures rather than through a systematic and permanent process, as occurs with other natural disasters. Frequently, funding to assist states with related impacts was unavailable, or not available in a timely manner.

In reaction to this disjointed national drought policy, Governor Johnson worked

with his colleagues in WGA to develop a policy resolution. His efforts were successful as the Governors adopted a resolution which stated in part: ‘‘The Western governors believe that a comprehensive, integrated response to drought emergencies is

critical...[and that] it is important to work together and cooperatively with other affected entities to plan for and implement measures that will provide relief from the

current drought and prepare for future drought emergencies.’’ In addition, the resolution called on western states to further study the issue and make recommendations on how to improve Federal and state responses to drought.

39

The states’ recommendations are contained in a 1996 report ‘‘Drought Response

Action Plan.’’ Besides making suggestions on how to improve responses to droughts,

the report emphasized the need for incorporating mitigation and preparedness

measures in government drought programs. One key recommendation called for the

development of ‘‘a national drought policy or framework that integrates actions and

responsibilities among all levels of government (Federal, tribal, state, regional and

local).’’ With strong support of the Western Governors, Congress enacted the ‘‘National Drought Policy Act of 1998, P.L. 105–109. The law established an ‘‘advisory

commission to provide advice and recommendations on the creation of an integrated,

coordinated Federal policy designed to prepare and respond to serious drought emergencies.’’ The National Drought Policy Commission’s report was issued last year.

A second key recommendation in the 1996 WGA report called for the creation of

a regional drought coordination council. This recommendation led to a Memorandum

of Understanding between WGA and several Federal agencies which was signed in

early 1997. The MOU resulted in the establishment of the Western Drought Coordination Council (WDCC). Co-chaired by Governor Johnson and Deputy Secretary

Richard Rominger of USDA, the Council members concentrated their efforts on improving drought preparedness, mitigation and response in the West.

During the next two years, the WDCC worked to close some of the gaps identified

in the report. As examples, the WDCC generated such products as: (1) a step-bystep guide for planners to help identify and assess their vulnerability to drought;

(2) the Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs, which was an effort to identify all

of the Federal drought assistance programs and make them available in one catalog;

and, (3) the Western Climate and Water Status Report, which was an effort to coordinate available monitoring data into quarterly reports to alert officials to potential drought development.

Despite making significant strides in coordinating drought programs, the WDCC

recognized a critical piece was still missing: Federal legislation articulating, indeed

mandating, the coordination and integration of drought programs. Consequently, in

May 1999, the Western Drought Coordination Council went into hiatus in order to

focus on providing assistance to the National Drought Policy Commission and to

avoid a duplication of effort.

In a 1999 policy resolution, Western governors reiterated their call for a comprehensive, integrated response to drought emergencies, including mitigation planning. Western governors view this as critical to the social, environmental and economic well-being of the West.

In urging that Congress enact legislation, which provides for a comprehensive, coordinated and integrated approach to future drought emergencies, the Governors

also recommended the following elements:

(1) Monitoring/Assessment/Prediction -- Provides for the development of a comprehensive monitoring system to collect, analyze and disseminate available

data and products in a useable manner so citizens and businesses can make

critical decisions based on credible data.

(2) Preparedness and Mitigation -- Provides a framework that assists states, Federal agencies, tribes, local governments and water utility agencies to assess

vulnerabilities and therefore enable them to reduce the economic, social and

environmental impacts (i.e. vulnerability) of drought; provides incentives for a

variety of preparedness actions, policies and mitigation options that will facilitate improved cooperation among all levels of government and promote individual responsibilities in planning for and mitigating drought impacts; and

provides policy to promote drought contingency planning, emphasizing a more

proactive, anticipatory approach to drought management.

(3) Response -- Enhances the current drought response capability of Federal agencies, states, localities and tribes through a variety of appropriate policies and

programs; provides needed policy to promote regional drought response mutual

aid; strengthens intergovernmental response partnerships; and improves overall drought response management and customer service.

(4) Communications -- Encourages the use of a variety of communication tools to

identify and use drought-related information.

As mentioned above, the National Drought Policy Commission issued its report

in May 2000. In recommending that comprehensive legislation be enacted, the Commission found that ‘‘this country relies on a patchy approach to reduce the impacts

of drought.’’

Using the reports and recommendations of the Western Governors, the Western

Drought Coordination Council, and the National Drought Policy Commission, WGA

now has begun to develop draft legislation to turn the recommendations into reality.

We cannot emphasize enough that Congress must engage this topic and act in order

to develop national policies which will organize and integrate the Federal drought

40

preparedness programs and improve the overall response to drought. Additionally,

we believe Congress should consider reviewing such programs and issues as the

prepositioning of fire fighting equipment, water hauling, crop insurance, livestock

feed assistance, drought planning, drought monitoring programs, and the definition

and use of Federal drought program ‘triggers.’ Finally, the legislation should provide

the appropriate authorization and funding. WGA anticipates forwarding a draft bill

to Congress for your consideration in mid- to late April.

The WGA drought bill will be comprehensive and likely require review and consideration by a number of Congressional committees, including this one. Nevertheless, given La Nina, El Nino, Global Warming, and the normal occurrence of

drought, we hope Congress will meet the challenge and help prepare the nation for

drought by enacting legislation.

Again, on behalf of the Western Governors, thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide testimony on Western Water Issues and in particular drought policy. We look forward to working with you to address the complex water issues that

face our region and nation.

Mr. CALVERT. The next witness is Mr. Steve Malloch, Counsel for

the Western Water Project, Trout Unlimited.

You may begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN MALLOCH, COUNSEL,

TROUT UNLIMITED

Mr. MALLOCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me here today.

I am Counsel for Trout Unlimited. TU’s 130,000 members are

Teddy Roosevelt-style conservationists, working in their communities and engaged in solving real problems affecting trout and

salmon.

The fundamental problem we face in the West is that the

Western water system established in the mining camps a century

and a half ago simply deferred gunfights. Today, we are in the

thick of those fights over competing uses. While once the objective

in the West was putting water to use, now we have a much more

complicated situation, with population growth and very real environmental water needs.

In this testimony, I will touch on some of the innovative water

work in the West, the good; highlight some problems, the bad; and

suggest areas ripe for change, ugly but could be better.

First the good. I would like to highlight three positive forces. In

collaborative watershed initiatives, irrigators, urban water interests, and conservationists find that they in fact have much in common and that crafting their own solutions is much better than having solutions forced upon them—from Washington, from the Federal courts, and from their local courts.

Second, in maintaining healthy river flows, market force are

starting to work. In several States, notably, Montana, Oregon, and

Washington, private parties obtain water rights through willing

seller/willing buyer transactions, and they manage to keep the fish

wet.

Third, water quantity issues are going national. Public interest

in water issues is growing as Western-style quantity problems

spread from the Southeastern ACF and Everglades systems to the

main conflicts over Atlantic salmon flows. We are no longer dealing

with a strictly Western set of problems.

Now for the bad. I would like to highlight two of the seemingly

endless list of conservation problems. The most fundamental

41

conservation problem is in the decline of aquatic ecosystems. We

have already lost 20 complete species of Western fish to extinction;

100 more are considered threatened, endangered, or of special concern. That is about 70 percent of the native fish species west of the

Rockies. Add to that hundreds of sub-species or, as the Fish and

Wildlife Service call them, ‘‘ecologically significant unit,’’ particularly Pacific salmon and steelhead, have been extirpated or endangered.

It is almost impossible to find a major water project without an

ESA problem. Of course, the ESA is not the problem; it simply tells

us how badly the aquatic ecosystems have fared.

We have heard a fair amount today about the growth in demand

for new water. There is a figure attached to my testimony that

shows that in much of the West over 85 percent of the annual runoff is already used. There simply is not much new water left. The

inescapable consequence is that we will have to shift water from

existing uses to new uses and make better uses of the water already developed.

Now for the ugly. There are really no shortages of creative and

innovative solutions. First, we clearly need to invest in facility improvements. We should stop needlessly killing fish and damaging

aquatic ecosystems. A recent study at a Bureau project on the

Lower Yellowstone River found over 800,000 fish, including two

ESA candidate species, sucked into the irrigation system in one

season. Let us invest in fish screens and fix this problem.

We also need to stop wasting water. Let us invest to increase efficiency and devise mechanisms to put conserved water to use

meeting pressing urban environmental demands. In much of the

West, losing 30 percent of the diverted water, wasting it before it

ever reaches the farm, is normal. At a Montana Bureau project on

the Sun River, the system loses over 58 percent of diversions. At

this same project, the Arctic grayling, an ESA candidate species,

lives in the irrigation canals because the project sends over 1,500

CFS into the irrigation ditches and leaves barely 100 CFS for the

river. If we fix the conveyance loss problem, there would be lots

more water left for the fish. We really need to invest in conservation, both through the conveyance system and on the farms.

We need to encourage market solutions, particularly those that

allow private interests to hold rights to river flows. We need to promote the watershed initiatives. Federal agencies need to be encouraged to engage in these initiatives and be creative in using their

authority to implement the solution. Congressional guidance and

encouragement to the agencies would be very helpful there.

We need to base decisions on good science. We have already

heard a fair amount about the USGS Streamgaging System; let me

add my voice to that. Money and collaboration are worthless without good science and good information.

Finally, we need to review the operations, facilities, and uses of

Federal water projects. In light of the growing need for water in

the West, we need to create an efficient and collaborative mechanism to review Federal projects and to make changes needed while

respecting existing property and contract rights.

Trout Unlimited does not advocate heavy-handed Federal action,

however, we do need changes to the Western water system. We

42

recognize valid property and contract rights in water, community

concerns, and the rights of States. There is, however, a significant

role for Federal investment and engagement in solving the real

problems before us.

Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for his testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Malloch follows:]

Statement of Steven Malloch, Counsel, Trout Unlimited

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today.

I was asked to testify about innovative ways to accommodate environmental needs

in western water resources. The problems with western water are legion. Sometimes

it seems that one cannot set foot on a Bureau of Reclamation or western Corps

project without endangering another species. Yet many of the problems are solvable

and there are success stories when dealing with western water environmental

issues.

I am Counsel for Trout Unlimited, Inc, (TU), where I focus on western water

issues. TU is America’s coldwater fishery conservation organization. Our mission is

to conserve, protect and restore North America’s trout and salmon fisheries and

their watersheds. We are a private, non-profit organization with 130,000 members

in 500 chapters nationwide. TU members are not stereotypical environmentalists we

are usually middle-aged, educated, Teddy Roosevelt-style conservationists, engaged

in solving real problems, rather than posturing. Our members put substantial

amounts of their personal resources and time into restoring and enhancing their

home Rivers.

The fundamental problem we face is that the water allocation system established

in the mining camps of the mid–1800’s was not designed to balance competing socially beneficial uses it was designed to award rights and defer gunfights. Billions

of Federal, state and private dollars were then invested in projects built upon that

poorly engineered foundation. Today, in the 21st century, the gunfights avoided a

hundred years ago are breaking out. Just as diverting water for irrigation, mining

and municipal use is valuable and important, so is water flowing in rivers for ecological, recreational and aesthetic uses. Species conservation, human health, recreation, sustainable economic development and quality of life all demand that rivers

and streams be treated as more than mere suppliers of commodity water.

There are positive signs that water in the West is being used in more balanced

ways and there are examples of how water policy is changing as well. In this testimony, I will touch on some of the problems, but focus on opportunities for protecting

and restoring the environment as well as meeting agricultural and municipal needs.

There are three main parts to my testimony a summary of some of the innovative

water resources work in the West; highlights of some of the ecological and system

problems; followed by suggestions for change that is needed.

Positive Forces Around the West

Teddy Roosevelt’s pragmatic style of addressing environmental and conservation

problems is making progress around the West. I want to highlight three enormously

positive forces in that style at work in the West.

Watershed Initiatives

The first is that irrigators, urban water interests, conservationists and others are

finding that they often have much in common if they manage to talk with each

other rather than at each other when faced with a serious problem. We also find

that we would prefer to negotiate our own solutions rather than relying on the

courts or regulatory agencies to make the decisions. The rise of hundreds of collaborative watershed initiatives is a tremendously positive force, in large part because

it forces all parties to face real problems and wrestle with real solutions. Here are

a few of the many examples:

• In some cases, such as on Idaho’s Henry’s Fork, the conversation led to significantly improved operations that benefit rivers below Bureau of Reclamation

dams. For the Henry’s Fork, perhaps the premier destination trout stream in

the country, flushing sediment from the reservoir devastated the fishery; the

reservoir operators now know the problems flushing causes, both to the fishery

and the recreation-dependent local economy, and manage the project to avoid

the problem. Solving that issue led to a host of other collaborative efforts in the

watershed, some successfully completed, some still in discussion, such as transferring ownership of the Reclamation project to the irrigation district.

43

1For many California examples, see The Pacific Institute (1999). Sustainable Use of Water:

California Success Stories. Oakland. Pacific Institute of Studies in Development, Environment

and Security.

• Watershed groups are also wrestling with tough problems such as responses to

drought and integrating flow with quality problems situations where the

existing legal system typically fails to maintain the ecosystem values of rivers.

In Montana, watershed collaborations have addressed instream use of water in

serious and useful ways. For example, during last summer’s drought, Trout Unlimited, water users and other water interests entered into voluntary agreements based on the principles of shared sacrifice that led to innovative drought

response plans for the Big Hole, Jefferson and Blackfoot Rivers in Montana. The

collaborative drought plan avoided an environmental, recreational and conservation catastrophe.

• The Forest Service is effectively using a form of a watershed initiative in joining

collaborative negotiations over often-contentious bypass flow provisions in Forest

Plan revisions. Using authority Congress granted several years ago, the Federal

land management agencies are finding that many of critical issues can be most

effectively addressed through collaborative processes.

Healthy River Flows

A second enormously positive force is the effort to maintain fisheries and aquatic

ecosystems faced with water shortages. Fish cannot breath air maintaining wet

streams and rivers is a huge problem in the West. In a number of places, efforts

are yielding significant steps towards solutions. For instance:

• In several states, notably Montana, Oregon and Washington, private parties are

obtaining water rights through willing seller, willing buyer purchase or lease,

and putting them to work keeping fish wet. To the astonishment of those who

oppose private parties holding flow rights for conservation, the local economies

are not collapsing. Private land trusts provide a model for these water trusts,

which are a growing and promising partial solution to the flow problem.

• The Bureau of Reclamation is beginning to recognize that it can shape river

flows for purposes in addition to irrigation, flood control and power. In a number of projects, adjustments are being made in operations that improve river

flows for fish and wildlife.

Public Awareness

The third force is public interest and awareness water quantity issues are gaining

an increasing amount of attention. This link between healthy rivers, water quality,

and the growing demand for water for urban needs as well as irrigation and other

commercial uses is gain attention around the country. In the Southeast it is the

Apalachicola/ Chattahoochee/Flint system that looks just like a western interstate

problem; in the Northeast it is the increasing conflict between agricultural uses and

flows needed for Atlantic salmon restoration; while urban water districts vie with

anglers and local communities for the upper Delaware’s water; and around the country it is in relicensing of non-Federal, FERC licensed, hydropower plants where

river flow is often contested. The issues we face in the West are spreading to other

regions, and national public awareness of the problems is growing.

There are countless success stories around the West, solutions shaped to fit the

local conditions and accepted by the affected stakeholders. Many are coming out of

California, where despite bloody and protracted water wars, and unresolved issues,

many positive steps have been taken. 1

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ECOSYSTEM PROBLEMS

The purpose of this hearing is not to explore the seemingly endless list of problems in western water. However, the most acute of those problems are what push

us towards making progress on the other, less urgent, problems. In discussing innovative solutions, it is important to mention some of the most pressing issues for

which those innovative solutions are needed.

Decline of Aquatic Ecosystems

It is becoming difficult to work on any Bureau of Reclamation project without

stumbling over the Endangered Species Act. Members of this committee will be familiar with the litany of wrenching ESA problems the Bureau has faced in the last

few years: Columbia–Snake salmon and steelhead; Upper Colorado fish; Rio Grande

silvery minnow; Sacramento–San Joaquin salmon and other fish; Missouri sturgeon;

Trinity salmon and steelhead; the Platte whooping cranes and more. In the news

44

2 Heibert, S., R. Wydoski and T. Parks (2000). Fish Entrainment at the Lower Yellowstone

Diversion Dam, Intake Canal, Montana, 1996–1998. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 3Minckley, W.L. (1997). Sustainability of western native fish resources. In W.L. Minckley

(Ed.), Aquatic Ecosystem Symposium (pp. 65–78) Denver, CO. Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission. Available at http://www.den.doi.gov/wwprac/reports/aaquatic.htm. 4 Nehlsen, Willa, J.E. Williams and J.A. Lichatowich (1992). Pacific Salmon at the Crossroads:

Stocks at Risk from California, Oregon, Idaho and Washington. Trout Magazine, Vol.33, no. 1

this month, Klamath Project irrigators request invoking the God Squad to allow

them access to water despite the risk of extinction for salmon and suckers.

Of course the problem does not lie in the ESA the ESA simply tells us that we

have systematically degraded western aquatic resources through the enormous investment in western water projects by Congress and others over the last century.

In fact, the ESA often provides the impetus to address festering problems, and provides the tough problem that finally brings all sides together in a settlement process. In some cases the ecosystem problems are fundamental and can only be solved

by drastic solutions. The Lower Snake River is an example of a problem caused by

dams for which there is simply no good technological or operational fix. An extreme

solution removal is the only alternative to extinction for a number of salmon runs

there.

However, in many cases, projects constructed before the rise of environmental consideration and regulation are simply unintentionally destructive they were built

using diversions that fish cannot pass and intakes that pull fish into deadly irrigation ditches. A recent study of fish entrainment at a Bureau project on the lower

Yellowstone River found over 800,000 fish sucked into the irrigation system at one

dam alone over the four-month irrigation season. 2 This destruction of fish is not intentional; it is a result of fish entrainment simply not being a design issue when

the project was built.

The overall damage to western fish species has been extreme. We have already

lost 20 species of western fishes to extinction in the last century. One hundred more

fish species are considered threatened, endangered or of special concern in total

70%, of all native fish species west of the Rocky Mountain are at risk. 3 In addition

to extinction of full species, hundreds of subspecies or ecologically significant units

have been extirpated or endangered. The American Fisheries Society surveyed Pacific salmon and steelhead stocks several years ago: of over 400 stocks identified,

100 are already extinct, 214 were considered to be at moderate or high risk of extinction or of special concern, and only about 120 were considered secure. 4

Growth in Demand for Water

Demand for new, assured, water supplies is growing at a time when essentially

no unused water is available. In addition to relatively stable irrigation water uses,

demand for explicitly recognized instream uses such as fish and wildlife, recreation,

and aesthetics is greatly increasing, and demand for withdrawal and consumption

for the rapidly growing western cities is climbing. Add to that demand the reality

that groundwater mining withdrawal in excess of recharge is both common and ultimately unsustainable, and the problem is stark. In many western basins, more

water is claimed than is typically available.

The problem is shown graphically in the attached figure showing the proportion

of runoff already withdrawn from the water system. In much of the central-west and

southwest, over 85% of the annual runoff is used. This level of water development

leaves nothing for instream use or for growth in urban use.

Energy

The West now faces energy woes that pose a whole series of problems for the

western and Federal water system. Demand for electricity in a time of electricity

shortage and drought has caused operations to shift to maximum power production

despite resource damage. The short-term problem in the West is also leading to calls

for permanently relaxing natural resource and water quality protection in Federal

and non-Federal power production.

Power costs affect the western water system because so much power is used in

moving water around. Conservationists have urged use of more efficient diversion

technology for years. A diversion dam may block fish passage and entrain fish into

irrigation canals pumps are more efficient and less damaging. In much of the West,

fish screens and fish passage on existing dams and diversions would be difficult to

install and costly; these fixes are best designed as part of the system rather than

being added later. In other cases, the screens and passage simply do not achieve

the goal. Shifting to pumps often makes the most sense. But running pumps takes

electricity and energy costs are skyrocketing. In the years of cheap electricity, many

45

5Solley, W., R. Pierce, H. Perleman (1998) Estimated Use of Water in the United States in

1995, US Geological Survey Circular 1900. Available at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/pdf1995/

html/. Basin specific information referenced available at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/

spread95.html.

irrigators were willing to incur the cost of pumps and shifted to more modern, less

damaging forms of diversion. But now they are paying the price through higher electricity costs.

Solutions

In your invitation, you asked for creative and innovative solutions. There is no

shortage of creativity and innovation in the western water system. There is sometimes a failure to communicate and understand perspectives, there is fear of the future, and there is a need for investment. Congress has a role in all of these. Given

rising public attention to the problems, some of the solutions will have wide acceptance we should work through those as quickly as possible. Other solutions will require more careful crafting and conscious development of support; the alternative

to those difficult and painful steps is continued degradation of aquatic ecosystems

and ultimately extinction for many species and stocks.

It should be understood, however, that western water issues are fundamentally

the problems of the states; states issue water rights, are responsible for managing

fish and wildlife, and are charged with environmental protection. Even Federal

water rights are typically adjudicated in state forums and processes. In many cases

the Federal role will be to encourage, cajole, and support the states in taking bold

steps to solve the problems.

Invest in Facility Improvements

The first level of solution is very basic bring 19th century water technology into

at least the mid–20th Century, if not the 21st. Much of the irrigation system we

use in the West, and much of the Reclamation system, is century-old technology. It

was fine for its day, but it was not designed to deal with endangered fishes, shortages of water and competing demands on the system. We need significant upgrades

in the system many of those upgrades need not be divisive. Money is going to be

the answer for many of the problems facing us; however the money should not be

going into new water projects. Instead Federal funds should be directed at enhancing the existing projects so that they are more efficient and provide benefits to

greater numbers of people, while restoring affected ecosystems.

Fish Passage and Entrainment

We should stop needlessly killing fish when fish screens would help. The last Congress enacted a law to support installing fish screens in the Northwest. There is an

appropriate Federal role in technology development and advice, as well as funding,

for installing fish screens throughout the Federal and non-Federal water system. We

can avoid the wrenching ESA problems by ceasing to kill fish and other aquatic organisms unintentionally through entrainment in irrigation ditches.

Technology improvements are also needed for many diversions. Across the West,

diversion dams cut off access to habitat because there is simply no way for fish to

get around the dams. In some cases, fish passage can be retrofit for existing dams.

In others, the diversion should be shifted to surface or groundwater pumping.

Again, there is a compelling Federal role for improving Reclamation dams and those

on Federal lands. There is also a role for aid to non-Federal projects.

I must note that fish screens and improved diversion structures are not a total

answer to all problems of fish entrainment and passage. In some cases, the existing

structures cannot be effectively modified, and should be removed. Those situations,

foremost among them the lower Snake River hydropower dams, should not prevent

application of technological fixes where they are appropriate and effective.

Conveyance Efficiency

There is a huge need for increasing the conveyance efficiency of existing projects

and on-farm water use. The best general information that gives an indication of how

inefficiently water is used in the West is from the USGS’s five-year assessments of

national water use. 5 In the Pacific Northwest, where flows are an enormous problem because of salmon, the conveyance loss of irrigation water withdrawn from rivers and the ground is 31% - almost a third of the water is simply lost, usually

through leaky ditches. In the Missouri region, the figure is about the same 32%.

Other regions are more efficient, ranging from 28% loss in the Rio Grande to 6%

in California. From a hydrologist’s perspective, much, but not all, of that water finds

its way back into the system, through runoff or groundwater recharge. However,

46

water returning to streams is changed in quality, temperature and timing and simply removing water from rivers has important ecological consequences.

Individual projects and basins may be significantly less efficient. For instance in

Montana on the Sun River, irrigation conveyance losses amounted to 58.5% of freshwater withdrawals over half of the water withdrawn from the Sun River was lost

to leaky ditches. The Sun River is a good example of the need for conveyance efficiency investment because the 1920’s era Reclamation project there sends over 1500

cubic feet per second (cfs) into the irrigation ditches and leaves barely 100 cfs for

the river. Yet more than half of that diversion never reaches its goal. The result

is that a population of arctic grayling that the Fish & Wildlife Service has determined to warrant listing under the ESA now lives in the irrigation canal because

there is little water in the river. Investment in conveyance efficiency, coupled with

mechanisms for leaving the water in the river, would go a long way towards preventing listing of the grayling and improving the wild fishery in the Sun River.

In addition to distribution system efficiency, on-farm conservation is needed.

While this is traditionally not within the Bureau of Reclamation’s realm, it is an

important piece of the overall solution to western water problems, quantity and

quality. Appropriate ways to provide incentives for on-farm efficiency must be developed.

Efficiency improvements are a much cheaper way of obtaining additional water

than either reuse and recycling efforts or building new water projects. In most

places in the West there is simply no unused water available; additional traditional

projects, even for necessary goals such as settling Indian water rights claims or forestalling ESA problems compound the problems.

Investments in fish passage and entrainment measures, efficiency improvements,

and recycling and reuse projects, are a terrific start on many of the West’s problems.

TU does not advocate heavy-handed Federal action in making facility improvements; we recognize valid property rights in water and community concerns. Nor

are we advocating simply giving more money away to farmers already heavily subsidized through the Reclamation and Federal farm programs. The quid pro quo for

efficiency improvements should be solving real problems.

Encourage market solutions

That markets for water must develop in the West is part of the current conventional wisdom in water policy. Markets are growing through water banks, drought

action plans and outright sales. Congress does, however, need to encourage western

states, Federal agencies and water users to use these approaches.

The growth of private water transactions to solve river and fishery problems is

one of the most promising developments in the West. While the water trust movement is far from the scale of the land trust movement that has swept the nation

over the last decade, it is growing. Three states are leaders Oregon, Montana, and

Washington. In Oregon, last year there were over 50 separate water rights transactions for conservation purposes. In Montana 220 cfs were leased for fishery and

river conservation. The Montana program has been so successful that a bill extending the 10-year lease program to 30 years to encourage capital investments needed

to improve efficiency swept through the legislature without significant opposition—

a sign that despite significant differences between environmental and agricultural

interests, there has been enough progress to be willing to sit down and find out

what we can agree on, and act on that agreement.

We recognize the reluctance of many in the West to grant water rights for healthy

river flow to state or Federal Government. A solution to that problem is to use third

party intermediaries such as the state water trusts, the Nature Conservancy and

Trout Unlimited to broker willing seller deals, and where appropriate, hold the

water rights, or allow the landowners to convert their consumptive use rights to

river flow right. But in many states this cannot be done. If the Federal Government

wants to create incentives for voluntary flow restoration, Congress should reward

the states that allow and encourage such conversions.

Reclamation and the other Federal agencies are increasingly working on habitat

and flow protection and enhancement, both in response to the ESA and in anticipation of ESA problems. We strongly urge Congress to support these efforts, and suggest that wherever possible Federal funds be channeled to states and third parties

to efficiently complete transactions that would be made more difficult by direct Federal participation.

Promote Watershed Initiatives

Federal agencies are notoriously fickle actors in collaborative efforts. Movement

towards effective and successful collaborative watershed initiatives is often impeded

by Federal agencies unsure of their authority to engage in the initiatives and unVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:51 Dec 11, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 71352.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
47

6 Available at http://www.damsreport.org/.

willing to commit to actions outside of standard procedures. Congressional support,

direction, and funding for active agency engagement in collaborative watershed

initiatives, and increased latitude in Federal agency actions based upon these initiatives, would be helpful.

Although it is outside this Committee’s jurisdiction, TU strongly supports efforts

to use incentives to address water quantity and quality issues. A leading example

of this approach is found in the Fishable Waters Act of 2001, H.R.325. An amendment to the Clean Water Act, the FWA would provide watershed councils the funding and scientific and technical resources needed to design and implement watershed measures for protecting and restoring fish habitat to meet the fishable waters

goal of the CWA. The state-established watershed councils would include the major

fisheries conservation and private landowner stakeholders in the watershed, who

will work together cooperatively to prepare customized plans to meet local fisheries

habitat needs. Typical fish habitat conservation measures that the FWA would

yield, all done cooperatively with landowners and local communities, would include

controlling soil erosion and other forms of non-point pollution, removing obstacles

to fish migration, such as obsolete dams, and providing additional flows.

Base Decisions on Good Science

All the money and all the collaborative effort in the world are worth next to nothing if the facts that decisions are based upon are wrong. Without reliable factual

information upon which to base decisions, the choices we face are risky gambles.

The stakes are too high the future of western growth, development, recreation and

biological heritage to base upon wishes, suppositions and inference when facts could

be had. We will face risks in any event, so we should try to minimize them by using

the best factual basis and best science to make decisions.

Unfortunately the fundamental facts for water problems are at risk. The US Geological Survey has long provided the fundamental information about stream flows

everyone uses for water management, flood control, power generation, recreation

and aquatic biological resource management. But the streamgaging budget for the

USGS has not kept pace with the cost of the system and many gaging stations have

been closed. Unfortunately, hundreds of the most valuable stations the ones with

long records, most useful for scientific research and hydrological analysis are gone.

The streamgage system needs to be modernized and expanded.

In addition to streamgage information, TU strongly supports enhanced basic and

applied science needed to manage the Federal lands and the western aquatic ecosystems.

Review the Operations, Facilities and Uses of Federal Water Projects

One of the most striking recommendations of the recent World Bank-sponsored

World Commission on Dams was that facilities and operations of large water

projects should be periodically reviewed. 6 However, there is no mechanism short of

an Act of Congress to review the purposes, operations and facilities of Federal water

projects. In light of the growing need for water in the West, the time has come to

create an efficient mechanism to review Federal projects and to make changes needed to bring the benefits in line with society’s current needs, while respecting existing property and contract rights. A collaborative process, where all affected parties

work together to achieve consensus on changes needed is the best starting model

for such an effort.

In addition to the suggestions above, there are issues that need to be addressed

that will be more controversial, and will take larger leaps to accomplish. For instance, Congress has a history of encouraging states to modernize state water laws

in order to make Reclamation projects more efficient or legally possible; it is time

for Congress to consider encouraging states to allow private rights for healthy river

flows, to develop water markets and to use water efficiently, as a quid pro quo for

needed investment in Federal projects. The whole realm of Federally reserved

rights, for Native Americans as well as Federal land reservations, is politically

charged, but absolutely needs solutions; over 200 unresolved Indian claims remain

outstanding. Congress should work with states, tribes and affected persons to establish clarity in Federal water rights and to meet the Federal goals.

Thank you for your attention.

Mr. CALVERT. Next, Dr. Philip Burgess, Senior Fellow, Center for

the New West.

Dr. Burgess, you may begin your testimony.

48

STATEMENT OF PHILIP M. BURGESS, PH.D., SENIOR FELLOW,

CENTER FOR THE NEW WEST

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a statement that I would ask be included in the record.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection.

Mr. BURGESS. My job today is to talk about the demographic

trends in the West. Let me say that 11 of the 12 public lands

States in the West headed the list of America’s fastest-growing

States. With the exception of Wyoming, which grew 9 percent,

every Western State grew faster than the national average of 13.2

percent. Even California, which went into the decade with a huge

base, 29 million people, ended the decade with 33 million people

and grew at 13.8 percent. So even the sixth-largest Nation in the

world grew faster than the national average.

The punchline on the rates of growth is that the sparselypopulated but rapidly-growing interior States of the Mountain

West are America’s fastest-growing region. What we have here is

a huge, almost nation-State, California growing faster than the national average, and another huge collection of States surrounding

California in the Inter-Mountain West that are growing even faster, and the population base of both of them is about equal.

Second, let us talk about absolute numbers. Of all the growth in

the West, about 10 million people of the Nation’s 33 million

growth, about 40 percent of that occurred in California; the other

60 percent occurred outside California. The growth in the West totalled 10.3 percent, and that accounts for one-third.

The third point I want to make is about the urban-rural distribution. Contrary to popular belief, the West is the most urbanized

area of the country—not if you talk about SMAs and conventional

Census definitions, because we have capitals out there that do not

meet the Census definition of a metropolitan area—but if you talk

about the percentage of people who live in communities over 15,000

or 25,000 or 50,000, the West is at the top of almost all of those

lists. And that continues. The West is about 80 percent of the people living in these urbanized areas, four out of five people, whereas

the national average, depending on how you talk about urban, is

more like one out of two.

The second thing is that in the West, it is not just the cities, it

is also the rural areas. In other parts of the country, this Census

shows that we have had a tremendous return to the urbanized

areas. That has happened in the West. The cities are growing very

rapidly all through the West. But also in the West, small towns

and rural areas are growing, and that is what sets the West apart

very dramatically.

For example, all 29 of Utah’s counties, both urban and rural,

gained population. All of Washington State’s counties gained population. All but six of Colorado’s 63 counties gained population. All

but two Idaho counties gained population, and 28 of 44 Idaho counties topped the Nation’s growth average.

So when we start looking at what is happening in the West, it

is not just growth in the metropolitan and urbanized areas; it is

also huge growth in the urban and small towns and rural areas.

49

So it is a very important new development that just started happening toward the very end of the 1980’s and took off in the early

part of the 1990’s.

The third thing is that the interstate corridors in the West are

magnets for growth. Much of Montana’s growth is along I-90. Much

of the growth in Washington and Oregon is clustered around I-5.

Utah’s rapidly growth Wasatch Front is bisected by I-15. The 10

most populous counties in Colorado straddle the I-25 corridor. In

fact, the I-25 corridor in Colorado today has more people than the

entire State of Colorado had in the 1990 Census.

Another important new development in the West is the emergence of what we call leapfrog counties. What we are seeing is that

people are jumping over the county adjacent to a metropolitan area

and going out two counties to live and work.

Why is this happening? We have gone out and interviewed a lot

of these people, and it is happening because with new telecommunications technology, people feel free to move out farther;

they can come in later because they can work at home in the morning; they can come home later at night; they can work 4 days a

week instead of 5 days a week and stay connected to their office

on the fifth day while they work at home.

In our view, the growth of these leapfrog counties at a time when

everybody is focused on reducing sprawl shows a tremendous disconnect between where a lot of the policy debate is and where people are voting with their feet.

Fourth is the growing diversity. Only the South and the West

benefited from domestic migration. The Northeast and Midwest

suffered a net out-migration, and very substantially in the Northeast. On the other hand, all regions of the country experienced substantial population growth from immigration, although most of the

new immigrants came to the South and to the West, and to the

West by a nearly two-to-one ratio.

So the biggest increase of immigration came to California, Washington, and Arizona and are having a huge impact not just on the

economies but also on the populations.

Let me close by saying that I think one of the most important

changes in the West has been the economic diversification of what

were once monocultures relying on agriculture or mining. Today,

the new economy has moved full force into the Inter-Mountain

West with spillover from California—computers, software, microprocessors, multi-media, environmental control systems, medical

instruments. Companies are moving there because for the first

time in history, we have people-driven growth. In the past, growth

was always driven because of the availability of jobs. Today what

is happening is that high-end knowledge workers, the kinds of people these new economies need, are moving to the West for other

reasons, for personal reasons, life-style reasons, quality of life reasons, and now, companies are following them there in order to get

access to the talent, which is the crown jewel of the new economy.

Thanks very much.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Dr. Burgess.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Burgess follows:]

50

2The 11 public lands states of the lower 48 include Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

Statement of Philip M. Burgess, Ph.D., Senior Fellow for Technology and

Society, Center for the New West

Mr. Chairman. My name is Phil Burgess. I am a senior fellow for Technology and

Society at the Denver-based Center for the New West. I have been a student of the

forces shaping the New West since 1975, when I first moved to Denver to serve as

executive director of the Federation of Rocky Mountain States. I appreciate the opportunity to be here to day to talk about the demographic trends that are shaping

the West today.

Census 2000 overview. Preliminary data from Census 2000 show clearly that the

11 public lands states 2 of the American West head the list of America’s fastestgrowing states and continue to attract people both Americans looking for new opportunities and immigrants in large numbers.

First, consider growth measured by the percent change, 1990 - 2000:

• All 5 of the top 5 fastest growing states are in the West: Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Utah and Oregon

• The West also includes 6 of the top 10, 8 of the top 15, and 10 of the top 20.

Only Wyoming (rank 22) did not make the top 20 fastest growing states.

• Punchline: The sparsely-populated but rapidly-growing Western states make the

West America’s fastest growing region.

Second, consider growth measured by absolute members, 1990 - 2000:

• Two of the top 5 (California and Arizona) and 4 of the top 10 (California, Arizona, Washington and Colorado) are located in the West.

• Adding Nevada (13), Oregon (16) and Utah (21), 7 of the top 25 are in the West.

• New growth in the West totaled 10.2 million. Of this total, 80% occurred in the

top 7 including 40% (or 4.1 million) in California.

• Punchline: 1 out of every 3 new persons in America counted in Census 2000 is

located in the Western US and nearly half of those are in California with the

rest distributed among the remaining Western states.

Third, the West is become more diverse as many of the new immigrants, especially Hispanic and Asian immigrants, are settling in the American West.

Migration. Since World War II, the West and the South have been America’s fastest growing regions. This trend continued during the 1990s as more Americans migrate to the American West and as more of America’s new immigrants, especially

those from Asia and Mexico, settle in the West.

As a result, Westerners are younger, more ethnically diverse, and better educated

than the rest of the country. Examples: Washington state has the nation’s highest

percentage of high school graduates; Colorado the highest percentage of college

graduates; New Mexico leads the country in Ph.D’s per capita.

Today, the West is also the destination of choice for the footloose opportunity

seekers including Americans who are moving in droves to what Rand McNally calls

America’s ‘‘mild and wild’’ places and immigrants from other countries, especially

from Mexico and Asia, who are major assets providing energy, connections and

know-how to the West’s entrepreneurial and increasingly globalized economy and

they reinforce American idealism: They know why they are here.

Finally, because the West is attracting so many people from New Economy knowledge workers to professional nomads and retirees we have the phenomenon of population-driven growth as people move to the West to provide services to the region’s

growing population. This is quite a change

Urbanization. Zane Grey, Shane and Lonesome Dove, the solitary cowboy riding

fence on the open range these images come to mind when you think about the West.

Even today, the Big Sky, large ranches, trekking or mountain biking in what Joel

Garreau called the ‘‘empty quarter’’ are common scenes of the West. Despite these

gripping rural images, however, the West is America’s most urbanized region. More

than 4 of 5 Westerners live in urbanized areas unlike the rest of the U.S., where

nearly 1 of 3 lives in a rural setting.

Most of the West resembles an archipelago of urbanized areas separated from

each other by vast expanses of largely empty land. Relations among these ‘‘citystates’’ and between these cities and their rural hinter-lands increasingly define important fault lines in the politics of the West.

Diversification. For most of its economic history, the West has been a natural

resource colony of the West. Western oil, gas and coal fueled humming factories to

the East. Western beef and grain fed their workers. Western timber provided housing for their people.

51

The West is still the nation’s natural resource treasure house and extractive industries still play an important role in the culture and economies of the West. But

the relative importance of natural resource industries has decreased with economic

diversification especially as the new knowledge-based industries on which America

and the region’s economic future increasingly depend.

The nation’s economic center of gravity is shifting west. Example: Since 1983,

trade across the Pacific has exceeded trade across the Atlantic and is now more

than double the Atlantic trade.

Another example is the growth of the West’s manufacturing base. For decades

California and Washington have been the world leaders in aerospace, America’s principal manufacturing export. But few have noticed that Los Angeles is now the

center of the nation’s apparel industry, that one of America’s most productive steel

mills is in Utah, that California is America’s largest industrial state and its largest

agricultural state or that Western states are found among the top tier in manufacturing job growth.

Western states especially California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Arizona

hold a disproportionate number of the Inc. 500 ‘‘fastest growing’’ businesses in

America. Midway through the decade, for example, all of Forbes magazine’s top 10

cities for starting New Economy business were located in the West.

There are important changes that advantage the West and make it attractive to

the new migrants. Example: Entertainment now rivals space exploration and defense as the driving force for the development and application of new computing,

software and multimedia technologies. Metropolitan Denver has become a global

hub for the communications industry both cable and telecommunications and is the

home of CableLabs, the industry’s R&D unit.

Many of the nation’s most important New Economy companies are located in the

West: 11 of 14 semiconductor manufacturers listed by the Business Week 1000, 14

of 22 manufacturers of computers and peripherals, and 18 of 31 software firms including the two largest are headquartered in the West. Of the top six biotechnology

firms, the three largest are in the West. And the West is home to the nation’s aero- space industry.

The West is a leader in these foundation industries of the New Economy for several reasons. First, the region’s social, political and institutional atmosphere is more

conducive to start-up industries. Example: Expansion Management magazine consistently ranks the Western states in the top categories of their business climate

ratings.

Second, talented people are the crown jewels of the New Economy, and talented

people are in short supply. Hence, because we live in a sellers’ market for talent,

New Economy industries are attracted to the West because more of the entrepreneurs and knowledge workers on whom these industries depend prefer lifestyles

and the natural and cultural amenities that are abundant in the West.

Globalization. International trade is America’s fastest growing commercial sector.

This pattern is also found in the Western states, where exports are a major source

of new jobs. Western exports come from both the traditional resource industries

(e.g., agriculture, coal) and from the new knowledge-based industries. Examples:

‘‘edu-tainment’’ (computers, software, entertainment, multimedia) and business and

professional services (telecommunications, management consulting, design and construction, financial).

As global economic activity has shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific, Los Angeles is poised to be in the 21st century what New York was during most of the 20th,

London in the 19th, and Paris in the 18th a ‘‘world city,’’ a dominant center of world

commerce, culture and fashion.

Seattle (like Atlanta and Miami in the South and Chicago on the Great Lakes)

is already an established global hub; Denver, Salt Lake City, Portland and Phoenix

are emerging global hubs. The coming Pacific Century will also be an American

Century and will draw even more people to the region.

Gentrification. The revolution in telecomputing (computers plus software plus

high-speed, broadband networks) and rapid advances in express mail are quickly

eliminating most of the liabilities of the West’s remote location of many of the

West’s cities and towns. One result: More entrepreneurs and freelance professionals

writers, brokers, software designers, analysts, engineering and management consultants are migrating to the West’s small towns and urbanized areas where they

use new telecomputing technologies to create new businesses as they remain connected to the outside world by faxes, modems, express mail and airplane tickets. We

call these people Lone Eagles. Two or three Lone Eagles can be a major economic

boon to a small town.

As we enter the 21st century, the West has many assets that will continue to attract people its geographical location, the richness of its natural resources, the

52

education and energies of its peoples, the youthfulness of its population and openness of its political structures. The West also has growing political clout, as shown

by the Electoral College, where the region accounts for one out of three votes up

from one out of five (16%) in 1952.

But the West’s greatest advantage may be its culture. In the words of the great

Western writer Wallace Stegner, the West is ‘‘the native land of hope.’’ And hope

is a powerful magnet for people not just for Americans, but for people from around

the globe.

Mr. CALVERT. The next witness is Mr. Ronald E. Young, President of WateReuse Foundation.

You may begin your testimony, Mr. Young.

STATEMENT OF RONALD E. YOUNG, PRESIDENT, WATEREUSE

RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. I am Ron Young, and I am from Southern California, Mission Viejo. I am President of the WateReuse

Foundation, and I also serve on the Research Advisory Board of the

National Water Research Institute.

In my career, I have worked both in the public and the private

sectors, so I have had an opportunity to look at environmental engineering and the water business from both sides of the cup.

I have some descriptive literature on NWRI and WateReuse, and

I will submit that for the Committee’s reference.

Mr. YOUNG. I have been asked to talk today about the need for

research and technology improvements in water recycling and desalination.

My rhetorical question is: What are the two greatest drivers to

creating new water supplies? The first answer to that question is

population growth. I feel like I wasted my time putting this together after hearing all the other speakers talk about it. We see

the U.S. population projected to double and then quadruple in the

next 100 years. We see Southern California being in a growth mode

in the five-county Southern California area, where in the next 20

years, they talk about increasing the population by 6 million people in an area that currently houses 10 million people. They will

be doing that without adding any additional land to the development area. That 6 million people is the equivalent population of

two Chicagos, which would be 3 million people each that we see

now.

The second answer to that question is threatened water supplies.

As you have heard, our water supplies have real competition nowadays, and there are also issues of contamination. One example of

competition that we heard relates to threatened or endangered species. That number of species has risen from 300 to 1,200 in the last

20 years, and with that rise is a need for environmental water to

be able to satisfy that progress.

Looking at a specific example, the CALFED Bay-Delta process,

they have identified an order of magnitude of water of about

one million acre-feet that will be required for environmental needs.

That happens to be the amount of water that could supply the population of two Chicagos.

When we look at contamination, we know that that can come

from nature by adding salts to the ground water, making it brackish and not fit for irrigation. We also know that leaking tanks and

53

drainage flows from livestock and agriculture can add to

contamination in areas like Riverside County, Ontario, Chino

Basin area, where the dairies have contributed, and solutions are

being worked out with desalination as we speak.

But how can water treatment technologies come to the rescue?

New technologies supported by applied research are critical to providing safe and sustainable treatment for recycling and desalting

water to meet our future urban, industrial, agricultural, and ecosystem needs.

The two key areas are wastewater recycling and water desalting.

Wastewater recycling is a common practice in many States, but it

needs to be more than just irrigating golf courses and playgrounds.

Florida, Texas, Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington all

have such projects. We need to add industrial and commercial uses

such as cooling water, car washing, and toilet flushing to that list

of uses.

Recycling for potable use is also possible. As an example, again

putting numbers to some of the flows, the four major wastewater

outfalls in Southern California from L.A. City, L.A. County, Orange

County, and San Diego, discharge about a billion gallons a day of

fresh water to the Pacific Ocean. That is the equivalent amount of

water that could be used to supply water to two Chicagos for

6 million people.

Desalting is also key. Recycling brackish water and other water,

desalting those waters, is important as a new source of supply. A

1997 Bureau of Reclamation report reported that about 75 percent

of the desalting is done on brackish water, and that is carried out

in California, Florida, the Virgin Islands and Texas leading the

Nation in desalting treatment plants.

Ocean desalting comprises only about 10 percent of the desalting

and is an area that needs more work. The Virgin Islands lead the

way there.

Applied research is needed to provide a scientific basis for our

country’s engineers and water professionals to use new technologies

to facilitate development of future water supplies. To that end—

and I will also submit these to the Committee—the National Water

Research Institute has completed national meetings where desalinization and water research priorities have been put together by a

panel of national experts. They met for three days to study each

of these priorities, and those are the priorities that are in my testimony. Because of the Committee’s time requirements, I will not go

through all of that.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, with the rapidly growing populations of the Sun Belt States of California, Arizona, Texas and

Florida, coupled with the multiple threats to water supplies, there

will be a continuing need to develop recycling and desalination

technologies to treat new sources of water in a safe, sustainable,

and economic manner.

Mr. Chairman, we know that applied research works. As an example, research and applied technologies in the field of personal

computing have increased the power of PCs from 200 to 800 megahertz in the last four years, while reducing the cost of those units

from $4,000 to $1,500.

54

Reverse osmosis desalting costs have dropped due to changes in

technology from about $15 per 1,000 gallons in the 1950’s to about

$2 per 1,000 gallons today.

The common thread in these two examples is power. The major

operating costs for desalting are chemicals and power. Better membranes in desalting will reduce fouling, and that will reduce chemical usage. Better membranes using lower pressures will reduce

power costs and requirements. Even with the desalting costs reduced to today’s levels, they are still above the average cost of conventional treatment. Improving treatment economics and the value

of water through applied technology could alleviate future water

shortages.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we need the continued support of your

Subcommittee to allow applied technology research to address the

nationwide research priorities that I have outlined here. To bring

that research into production, we need Congress to provide additional resources for Title XVI funding.

Therefore, as your Subcommittee deliberates on program priorities, we ask that you consider ranking water technology research

and Title XVI at the very top of the priority list.

I thank you for this opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

Statement of Ronald E. Young, P.E., DEE, President, WateReuse

Foundation

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Water and

Power for the invitation to discuss how water recycling and desalination can increase water supplies in the arid West.

By means of a self-introduction, I am Ron Young, a resident of Mission Viejo, CA.

My professional career of 35 years is entirely in the Environmental Engineering

field. I am a Registered Civil Engineer in CA and a Diplomate of Environmental

Engineering with the American Association of Environmental Engineers. I am a

Senior Associate with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., one of 1200 employees in this national

century-old exclusively environmental engineering consulting firm. My background

includes both private and public sector experience with 11 years as General Manager of the Irvine Ranch Water District, one of the nation’s leaders in water recycling. I serve as a member of the Research Advisory Board of the National Water

Research Institute and as President of the WateReuse Foundation Board.

The WateReuse Foundation (WRF)

The WateReuse Foundation is a non-profit organization established in 1993 by

representatives of public and private sector organizations to develop the science and

technology necessary to support and enhance the water recycling needs of the 21st

century. The Foundation is the only national organization dedicated to the research

and educational needs of the water recycling industry and ultimately the public.

The WateReuse Foundation provides education and research to benefit the environment, sustain agriculture, and meet the needs of urban and industrial water

users. It produces high quality research in the areas of technological, social, and economic advancement designed to lead to the creation of cost-effective, safe and reliable recycled water supplies. I would like to submit for the record additional information on the Foundation and the WateReuse Association that I believe may be useful for this Subcommittee as you consider policy responses to meet the needs of the

west.

What are the two greatest drivers to create new water supplies?

The American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual meeting in San

Francisco last month presented a session on ‘‘the Collapse of Complex Societies’’.

The overriding theses presented by speakers was that of all the factors contributing

to the collapse of Rome, Babylon and the Mayan empire,

Two stood out: too many people and too little fresh water.. Dr. Vernon Scarborough, an archaeologist at the University of Cincinnati pointed out that the

Mayans ‘‘suffered.from problems that are startlingly similar to those today’’.

55

First, Population Growth.

In a recent American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AwwaRF)

study to assess the future of water utilities, they cited a U. S. Bureau of Census

projection that the U. S. population would double by 2100 using moderate fertility,

immigration and longevity assumptions. The same projections quadruple using aggressive assumptions. On a more immediate timeframe, the Southern California five

County area population growth in the next twenty years is estimated to increase

by 6 million people or ‘‘two Chicagos’’ within the same land area that the current

10 million residents occupy. This growth is from the March 2001 report; Sprawl hits

the Wall, Confronting the Realities of Metropolitan Los Angeles, The USC Southern

California Studies Center and The Brookings Institutional Center on Urban and

Metropolitan Policy.

Second, Threatened Water Supplies.

Traditional water supply sources have real competition and contamination issues

that will reduce growth rates to match the population increases. Water is a finite

resource. Every school child learns that 3/4 of the earth’s surface is covered in

water. What often is lost in this fact is that only 5% of that volume is fresh water.

Seventy percent of the fresh water is locked in the frozen ice caps at the tips of our

planet. As the number of species listed as threatened or endangered has risen from

300 to 1200 in the last 20 years, the environmental needs for water have also increased. In California, environmental water needs being examined as part of the

Bay–Delta environmental review process are in the order of magnitude of the water

needs of ‘‘two Chicagos’’. New environmental water would not be available for urban

or agricultural supply. In addition to this need, we are beginning to witness international demands for ecosystem water supplies that will affect our abilities to meet

domestic demand.

Contamination of water supplies also threatens to reduce available supply for

growing needs. Sources of contamination can be from nature, such as salts to create

brackish water not fit for irrigation or man-made drainage that can contain chemicals from leaking tanks, waste flows from livestock/agriculture or small quantities

of substances we are only now able to detect using extremely sophisticated instrumentation.

How can water treatment technologies come to the Rescue?

In that same AAAS meeting, speakers pointed out that previous prophets of doom,

such as the English politician economist T. R. Malthus and the ‘‘Club of Rome’s’’

report, entitled The Limits to Growth, which in 1972 predicted the world’s population would overwhelm its resources, have been proved wrong so far by the rapid

progress of technology.

New technologies supported by applied research are critical to providing safe and

sustainable treatment for recycling and desalting water to meet our future urban,

industrial, agricultural, and ecosystem demands. As pristine water is already used

we will search for new sources to meet society’s needs. This search has already

begun.

The recycling of wastewater is no longer an option just for irrigation of parks and

golf courses but is used for residential lawns, toilet flushing in office and industrial

buildings, cooling water in industrial (refineries and power generating plants) and

commercial buildings, car washes and the replenishment of water sources used for

drinking water. These uses are underway in Florida, Texas, Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington. Several communities around the Great Lakes are also relying

on reusing water supplies to comply with restrictions on increasing lake pumping.

While today’s hearing focuses on the West and its future water needs, the point that

I would like to add is that water demands and supply are increasingly becoming

matters of concern for areas without regard to the area’s climate. For example, Florida is now in the midst of a drought even though historically the State receives 43–

44 inches of rainfall annually.

We will also look to recycled wastewater discharged into the ocean through outfall

pipes as a source of drinking water. The one billion gallons per day from the four

major Southern California outfalls could meet the needs of a little more than

two million households or ‘‘two Chicagos’’. This is a prime topic for research to

prove the safety and reliability of treatment given the histories of projects in Denver, San Gabriel, Dublin San Ramon, Tampa Bay and San Diego.

We will look to desalting brackish water (too salty to drink but not as salty as

sea water) to blend into drinking water supplies to optimize local sources. A 1997

Bureau of Reclamation Report No. 24 lists 178 potable water-desalting plants in the

U.S. with about 75% using brackish water. The plants were located in 21 states and

56

territories with Florida (90), California (17), Virgin Islands (14) and Texas (11) having the majority. Most of the plants are small, less than 1 million gallons per day.

We will look to the ocean as a source that is close to coastal growth areas. The

1997 survey listed about 10% of the desalting plants using the ocean as a source.

The largest are in St. Thomas and St. Croix, Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority with a capacity of 8.1 million gallons per day. There has been only slight

growth in ocean desalting compared too brackish and membrane softening, which

are growing in double-digit percentages. Total U.S. desalting is about ‘‘ 3/5 of a Chicago’’. The use of recycling and desalting has only scratched the surface and needs

more use to become accepted and commonplace as a source of water.

Applied research is needed to provide a scientific basis to the country’s engineers

and water professionals to use new technologies to facilitate development of future

water supplies. To that end the National Water Research Institute has assembled

two Research Workshops of nationally recognized experts and leaders to develop Research Priorities in the field of Non–Potable Water Recycling (May, 1999) and Desalination (January, 2001).

WRF Research Agenda

The WateReuse Foundation’s prioritized research agenda was developed through

a workshop held in May 1999 by the National Water Research Institute on water

recycling. Workshop participants developed a list of 25 priorities with the top 10

plus one (salinity management) becoming the research agenda of the WateReuse

Foundation. The 11 research priorities are as follows:

1. Microbial risk assessment methodologies as a tool to help establish water

reuse criteria;

2. Identify reuse criteria that are both protective of public health and enable

maximum flexibility and efficient use of treatment technologies;

3. Understand the pathogen inactivation relationship and performance parameters for various disinfection and treatment processes to develop cost-effective

public health protection;

4. Develop a program to quantify, measure, compare, and communicate relative

levels of safety of non-potable reuse to the public and policymakers;

5. Develop water quality standards for chemical constituents;

6. Establish a rational basis for demonstrating equivalent treatment with alternative processes for pathogen removal/inactivation;

7. Ensure that recycled water is microbiologically safe;

8. Maintain water quality in the reclaimed water storage/distribution system;

9. Standardize protocols for field-testing of recycling equipment and practices;

10. Develop monitoring strategies to verify treatment and disinfection reliability;

and

11. Conduct salinity impact, source control, and treatment studies.

These 11 research priorities form the basis for the Reuse Foundation’s research

program in 2001; this program is being carried out in partnership with the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation. This 11-point research program will also act as the basis

for the Foundation’s Annual Research Conference in Monterey, CA in June 2001.

Proposed Scope of Work and Research Agenda for 2001

The WateReuse Foundation’s Research Committee convened a meeting on February 23 to select an initial group of projects for funding in the year 2001. After

considerable deliberation, the Committee selected the following projects for funding.

The estimated cost of each research project is shown in parentheses.

• Investigate the Effectiveness of Treatment Technologies to Eliminate Precursors

or Destroy/Remove Nnitrosodimethylamine NDMA;

• Develop and/or Refine Analytical Methods for NDMA;

• Long Term Edible Crop Irrigation Project;

• Develop a Better Understanding of Political Opposition to Potable Reuse

Projects;

• Investigate Removal of NDMA in Various Soil Types to Expand the Knowledge

of NDMA Fate and Transport; and

• Investigate the Effectiveness of Low and Medium Pressure UV to Destroy

NDMA.

At its January 29 Board meeting, the WateReuse Foundation’s Board of Directors

approved funding for two ongoing projects being led by the AWWA Research Foundation:

• Salinity Impact and Source Control; and

• Characterizing Microbial Water Quality in Non–Potable Reclaimed Water Distribution Systems to Optimize End Uses.

57

The WateReuse Foundation also is contributing to two research projects dealing

with pharmaceutically active and endocrine disrupting compounds being jointly

funded by the Joint Water Reuse Task Force, a coalition consisting of the AWWA

Research Foundation, the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERE), and

the National Water Research Institute (NWRI).

These 10 projects, in addition to several existing projects initiated in previous

years, constitute the WateReuse Foundation’s research agenda for 2001. The WRF

is actively pursuing matching funds to accomplish this agenda.

Desalination Priorities

The top ten priorities from the NWRI Workshop out of 18 issues developed by a

panel of 27 national researchers, utility, business and consulting experts follow:

1. Research and Development to Improve Membrane Process Technology;

2. Develop an Education and Public Relations Strategy to Facilitate the Implementation of Desalination Projects;

3. National Desalting and Water Quality Improvement Act;

4. Develop a Comprehensive Framework to Guide the Decision-making Process

for Potential Desalination Users;

5. Concentrate and Waste Management;

6. Energy Reduction for Desalination Plants;

7. Look Outside-the–Box for Innovative Solutions;

8. Determine the Value of Water for Different Water Uses;

9. Improve the Fundamental Understanding of Membrane Science;

l0. Establish a National Advisory Panel for Developing Water Purification Technologies to Increase Water Supplies.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, with the rapidly growing populations in the ‘‘Sunbelt states’’ of

California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida, coupled with the multiple threats to water

supplies there will be a continuing need to develop Recycling and Desalination Technologies to treat new sources of water in a safe, sustainable, and economic manner.

Mr. Chairman, we know Applied Research works. As an example, research and

applied technologies in the field of personal computing have increased the power of

PC’s from 200 to 800 MHz in the last four years while reducing costs from $4,000

to $1,500. Reverse osmosis desalting costs have dropped due to changing technological applications from $15 per 1,000 gallons in the 1950’s to $5.50 in the 60’s to

about $2 in 2001. The common thread in these examples is power. The major operating cost for desalting are chemicals and power. Better membranes with reduced

fouling will reduce chemical usage. Better membranes using lower pressures will reduce power costs. Even with the desalting costs reduced to today’s levels they are

still above the average costs of conventional treatment. Improving treatment economics and the value of water through applied technology research could alleviate

future water shortages.

Mr. Chairman, we need the continued support of your Subcommittee to allow Applied Technology Research to address the nationwide Research Priorities outlined

herein. To bring that Research into production we need Congress to provide additional resources for Title XVI funding. Therefore, as your Subcommittee begins deliberations on program priorities, we ask that you consider ranking 1) water technology research and 2) Title XVI at the very top of the priority list. We also request

that you work with your colleagues on the spending committee to ensure the appropriation of adequate budgetary resources for these priorities.

Thank you for the opportunity to share the views of the WateReuse Foundation

and the National Water Research Institute with you today. Both organizations

stand ready to assist you and the Subcommittee. I would be pleased to respond to

any questions the Subcommittee may have.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

It has been excellent testimony from all the witnesses today. I

think you have covered the waterfront, so to speak, as far as the

various needs and potential solutions that may be out there.

To start off, I will ask my questions, and then we will rotate

among the various Members who are here.

Ms. Salisbury, what do you think are the most important actions

that we need to take to mitigate drought conditions in this country?

58

Ms. SALISBURY. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the most important

thing the Congress could do is to try to provide for a way for

drought to be coordinated among the Federal agencies. That would

mean probably designating the lead agency as the coordinating

agency.

Mr. CALVERT. Okay. That leads to another question. What would

be the relationship between water storage and coordination with

various agencies and drought preparedness—do you think that that

is handled very well?

Ms. SALISBURY. I think it probably is not handled well, Mr.

Chairman, partly because we do not get the data that we need, the

appropriate data or enough data, to determine when we are in a

drought situation, to take those steps that we need to take to conserve more.

I know that in my own State of New Mexico, we do not coordinate with the Federal Government very well to know when there

are going to be drawdowns on the reservoirs. Right now, we are

talking about doing drawdowns on certain reservoirs to provide

more water downstream for the silvery minnow, which is an endangered species in New Mexico. Luckily, we are not in a drought situation, so that will not be exacerbated in any way, but it could be.

Mr. CALVERT. Do you have any recommendations to increase

water supply in the West and help coordinate not only with Federal agencies but with the environmental community as far as

being able to in effect increase the amount of water that we presently have in order to meet these various requirements—ESA,

urban uses, et cetera?

Ms. SALISBURY. Mr. Chairman, there are probably a lot more

people in this room who are qualified to answer that question than

I am.

Mr. CALVERT. I did not know if your Western Drought Coordination Council had made any official recommendations for the Congress.

Ms. SALISBURY. We have made some recommendations, Mr.

Chairman, through conservation measures, to increase the amount

of water that may be available, and—

Mr. CALVERT. Certainly, I think conservation is supported by

everybody, but I was thinking primarily of new supplies as well.

Any suggestions would be welcome.

Mr. Malloch, does Trout Unlimited support the removal of dams

in the Western river basins? Specifically, what is Trout Unlimited’s

position on removal of four Snake River dams and the Glen Canyon

dam?

Mr. MALLOCH. The short answer is that we support removal of

a very small number of dams that have extreme problems. The two

sets of dams that you just mentioned are good examples. We do

support removal of the Snake River dams, because based on the

science as we understand it, there is no other alternative to preserving the stocks of salmon on that river.

If I may just finish, on Glen Canyon, we have not taken any position in support of removal of that dam.

Mr. CALVERT. Do you think that you could work with various

groups to find an alternative to removal of dams, technology being

59

what it is? Have you looked into that at your organization to find

alternatives to dam removal?

Mr. MALLOCH. Absolutely.

Mr. CALVERT. And you have found no other alternative other

than dam removal?

Mr. MALLOCH. Based on the science as we understand it now and

the actions that have been taken to date, removal of the Snake

River dams is the only alternative to extinction. Given the decisions that have been made about removal, we are actively working

to implement the recovery plans and doing everything we can to

make sure that those are effective.

Mr. CALVERT. You mentioned in your testimony that the Forest

Service is using a form of watershed initiatives in negotiations over

bypass flow provisions. Can you give an example of that?

Mr. MALLOCH. Yes. In Colorado, there are three National Forests

where the Forest Service is using what I believe they call the

‘‘pathfinder process.’’ We understand that bypass flows are often very controversial. In

Colorado, they are quite controversial. If there is a way to achieve

the goal of meeting the needs of the natural resources without the

Forest Service exercising that bypass flow authority, we are all for

it.

At the same time, I think it is necessary in the negotiations for

the Forest Service to have that authority in case the negotiations,

the watershed initiatives, do not work.

Mr. CALVERT. You mentioned in your testimony that we have already lost 20 species of Western fish. What is the source of that

information?

Mr. MALLOCH. That is Professor Minckley at University of Arizona, and it is a report that he prepared for the Western Water

Policy Review Commission. The reference is in my testimony.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Ms. Solis?

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to also thank the Chairman for bringing this panel

together. I think it would have been very interesting to see reactions by the previous panel to see how they might help us address

some of these issues.

I am very delighted to hear that the Western Governors’ Association has a proposed plan to put forward. Some of the ideas are really great, but I would ask you what is it going to cost us to do that.

Ms. SALISBURY. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Solis, at this

point, the drafts that I have seen of the legislation would set up

a coordinating group and would try to streamline some of the authorities that currently exist. I think that presupposed in the legislation, however, is that some of these programs that currently exist

today would be funded. The way I understand how some of them

work, they are authorized but not necessarily funded from year to

year.

Ms. SOLIS. So we need to do a better job, then, of bringing, as

you said earlier in your testimony, folks together, and there could

potentially be a cost savings?

Ms. SALISBURY. I would think so. I would hope so. And not only

that, it would be more seamless for the customer, for the person

60

out there trying to use some of the authorities that currently exist.

It can be mind-boggling if you are a farmer or a rancher, and you

are facing devastation, and you have no idea or clue where to go,

and the local agency that you are seeking help from may not necessarily know what exists in other agencies. It is a pretty daunting

task.

Ms. SOLIS. Just one last comment for the last speaker regarding

the use of water reusage and programs there. I know that the

State of California has used and implemented many programs to

use gray water and reclaimed water, for example, on some of their

university campuses. I wonder if the Federal Government has set

any kind of example in moving that kind of technology forward

with our own public lands that we hold, or facilities. I would be

anxious to hear—maybe this is a question for the other panel—if

there has been any movement in that way to kind of set the tone,

so to speak, as to what kinds of innovative technologies could be

undertaken and their usefulness.

Maybe you know of some of those that have been done by the

Federal Government. I do not have any knowledge of that.

Mr. YOUNG. If I may, I know of no national policy for water recycling or reuse of wastewater, although in California, as part of the

CALFED process, all the stakeholders did come together and sign

a common proclamation, which was all the environmental and research agencies of the State of California Department of Fish and

Game, Fish and Wildlife, the Federal Government, Bureau of Reclamation, EPA, Corps of Engineers. They signed a supporting proclamation along with the WateReuse Association, encouraging and

supporting water reuse, so we can plan to move ahead and take advantage of available opportunities with Title XVI funds. But it was

just at that kind of umbrella level that it was moved forward.

Ms. SOLIS. It is interesting and may be something that this Committee might want to ponder if there is such an inclination to want

to move in that direction to try to better utilize technology and advance that.

Mr. CALVERT. If the gentlelady will yield, we are going to do exactly that, as a matter of fact, as we move forward on our CALFED

legislation. So we look forward to working with you.

Mr. Osborne?

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all for coming today.

I am a trout fisherman and a salmon fisherman, so I am interested in some of Mr. Malloch’s testimony. This is a little bit off the

point, but what is the status of whirling disease right now in the

West?

Mr. MALLOCH. We are still in pretty bad shape. There is no cure

for whirling disease. There is some promise of resistant strains of

rainbow trout. But there is a lot of need for better hatchery practices in the States that are stocking fish, and there is a lot of need

for trout fishermen to be really careful not to spread whirling disease.

Mr. OSBORNE. So you do not feel that it has bottomed out and

is on its way back at this point?

Mr. MALLOCH. I hope it has bottomed out.

61

Mr. OSBORNE. Okay. What is the status of summer stream flows

in the West? Do you feel that it is going to be critical in terms of

temperature and flows given the current situation, or do you feel

that flows are apt to be adequate?

Mr. MALLOCH. Well, the West is a big place. In the Pacific Northwest, it is going to be absolutely critical. In Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, parts of California, there are going to be very large

problems with maintaining existing fish stocks.

In other parts of the West, water supply is not so much of a problem.

Mr. OSBORNE. I have just one more question. In regard to the

question that was asked by the Chairman about the removal of

dams on the Snake River, I know they have tried fish ladders, and

they have tried trucking. Do you feel that there is no viable alternative to knocking the dams out?

Mr. MALLOCH. The real problem is getting the smolts downstream, and those dams are just big, hot lakes that kill the fish on

the way down. There seems to be a very depressing trend in the

population of the fish since the dams were built, and I certainly

hope that there are alternatives that will work, but to date, the

science does not appear to be very promising.

Mr. OSBORNE. So there has been a steady decline in the salmon

stocks, then?

Mr. MALLOCH. There is a lot of noise in the populations; you can

get a better year or a worse year, but overall, a steady decline.

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you.

I have a question for Mr. Burgess. Is the infrastructure used to

store and transport water adequate to meet the needs of the West’s

growing population?

Mr. BURGESS. No—a quick answer. I think there is no question

that we will have major growth over the next decade. America’s

economic center of gravity is moving to the West, and there is no

reason to believe that that is going to stop when you look at the

forces that are shaping that.

The new industries that are starting are also water-intensive

industries, water and energy-intensive industries. So I think that

contrary to popular belief again, the high-tech community is a big

user of water and a big user of energy both.

So we are looking at some major needs to build new facilities,

create new supplies, reallocate existing resources—whatever the solution, there has to be more water for M and I uses in the coming

years.

Mr. OSBORNE. Say some more about new facilities. What do you

mean by new facilities—dams?

Mr. BURGESS. Storage facilities, surface storage facilities,

recharging—all the things that the first panel talked about I think

should be on the table.

Mr. OSBORNE. So you and Mr. Malloch are not quite on the same

page here; is that correct?

Mr. BURGESS. I do not think so. We are next to each other, it

looks like. I would like to minimize that right now.

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you.

No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

62

Ms. Napolitano?

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Given the information that we heard from the first panel, what

would be the ideal way that we could work together to bring a

solution to the surface so that we can all work together, not only

the trout organizations and the environmentalists and the Bureau,

as well as the users? What would be the ideal solution? What can

we look forward to—given the fact that we know we have an increase in citizens in the Western area of this country, given the

fact that we in California are going to have to face a 4.4 billion acre

restriction—given all the givens that we know, what would help?

What would be the thing that this Committee and the Congress

should be looking at?

Mr. BURGESS. Could I comment on that? I believe that one of the

most overlooked facts in the current debate on energy—and we are

going to have one on water at some point unless we change our

ways—is that the debate always balances the environment against

energy supply or, as we have heard today from some witnesses, the

environment against water supply.

I have been working in the West for more than 20 years, and I

remember the Energy Mobilization Board in 1980; I remember the

oil shale installations in Colorado where we built towns of 30,000

people overnight; I remember the coal development when we had

30 tons a year in 1975, and today in Wyoming, we have one mine

that produces over 200 million tons of coal a year.

I think the biggest threat to the environment is unstable supplies

of water and energy. The biggest threat to the environment is an

unstable supply of water and energy, because when those supplies

become unstable, people will do anything, and Members here are

driven to do things they would never have done one year earlier

as they did in 1980.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Which is why the question—what can we do?

Mr. BURGESS. So what we do is give the highest priority to solving the supply problem. Stable supplies are key to a good environment.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. How—we know that is the question, but— Mr. BURGESS. No, we do not. With all due respect, I think a lot

of people are saying that we have to balance these two, and maybe

they go together. I am suggesting they do not go together.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. No, I am not saying there is a balance. I am

really asking for answers from those people who are bringing information to us and saying we know we have to work together—that

is a given—but how do we make it happen?

Mr. MALLOCH. We do sit next to each other. I do not think I

could agree with Dr. Burgess more that unstable supplies are a

real threat. But I would like to propose two very standard answers

to the Western water situation. The first is efficiency. We have to

use the water that we have in a much more rational fashion;

squeeze the good out of every drop that we can. And the second is

markets. We have to have markets to reallocate the water from

uses that may be an artifact of history, that may still provide some

economic benefit. But compared to what Intel can pay for their

water, perhaps there are some ways that we need to change the

use of water.

63

So I just do not see that there are going to be a lot of new,

standard-issue water projects built in the West. There just is not

that much water left to dam. There may be some conveyance facilities that are needed, and there is an awful lot of investment in efficiency that is required, and we really need to figure out a way to

reallocate the water. So efficiency and markets.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. How about speeding up the process for the

research on recycled water?

Mr. YOUNG. Terrific. May I?

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I am talking your language.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. I think that that is absolutely paramount to start that process and fully engage the process, not in a

part-time way but in a full-time way, so that we can look at research, so that we can look at supplies.

I think that what we have heard today is that pristine water is

being used about to its maximum and that we are going to have

to look to alternate supplies to be able to find those new sources

of water. That billion gallons a day of fresh water that is going out

into the ocean out of the outfalls needs to be scalped or recycled

and reclaimed so that it can be put to appropriate uses. There are

small agencies individually applying themselves to do that, but it

needs to be done on a much larger scale, and to do that and accomplish that threshold, we need a public confidence and/or approval

that says this is a tack that we approve of going on. And I think

research brings the credibility and the science to the technology so

that the practicing engineers can put that infrastructure in place.

As we all know, if you go down to the wastewater plant, that flow

comes 24-7-365, so that is pretty darn reliable, and I think that if

we use that in appropriate ways, we can release some of that water

upstream for the fish or the growing smaller communities that are

in the watersheds away from the growing metropolis areas.

Ms. SALISBURY. And if I could segue—and this is sort of intuitive

and probably very obvious—but to ensure the stable supplies and

efficiency and perhaps markets requires planning and coordination.

Those are key.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. By all agencies.

Ms. SALISBURY. Absolutely—and States and localities and tribes

as well.

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. Burgess, you made an excellent point and one that I agree

with, obviously. When I was Chairman of the Energy and Mineral

Resources Subcommittee, I used to argue that if we do not move

toward finding resources and delivering those resources, we may

come to a day when we may try to obtain resources from folks who

normally would be opposed to that may find themselves in favor of

something that they were opposed to in years past.

When I was Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, I would make the same argument for nuclear power,

that we ought to look at nuclear power and develop nuclear power

if we want no CO2 in the atmosphere, et cetera.

Now we are here today with water, and we have heard great testimony from all of you and certainly you have testified that our

64

population will continue to increase in the West. We have had this

mentality—do not built it, and they will not come. Do not build the

freeways, do not build the power plants, do not build the infrastructure, do not build additional water delivery systems.

And I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Malloch that there

are ways to add to water supplies, either offstream storage, which

obviously has more acceptance to the environmental community,

and some additional onstream storage by expanding additional reservoir capacity and potentially several other reservoirs that could

be used also for flexibility and for environmental mitigation and

that we can offset some of these things.

So my question to Mr. Burgess would be if we did not build any

of this, if we do not build any additional infrastructure for water

specifically, will people come to California and to Idaho and to Oregon and everywhere else, anyway? Will the population continue to

increase?

Mr. BURGESS. Dick Lamm, the former Governor of Colorado, had

that theory on building highways, and he did not build the highways because he thought that would help manage growth; and

what it did was create traffic jams. People kept coming—as I said,

we have more people living in the front range of Colorado today

than the entire State.

So I think that as long as we have a Constitution that guarantees the free movement of people and goods across State lines, you

are going to see people moving to the West.

Mr. CALVERT. We saw this mentality, what we refer to as

‘‘growth inducement’’—if you build an infrastructure project that

induces growth, growth will come. I have found that it comes anyway, that if you do not build the infrastructure, it comes anyway.

I think everyone on the panel agrees that reclamation is a good

thing; that developing water sources and reutilization of existing

water is a good thing and certainly something that I support. My

area, obviously, Riverside, California and certainly Orange,

California, is trying to undergo probably the largest reclamation

project in the country where you are from, wanting to reclaim

about 100,000 acre-feet of water to recharge aquifer and reutilization of that water through the community. That is a significant

project, and certainly, I am hopeful that legislation could support

that. That lessens demand for other uses.

I would like to ask a couple of other questions also regarding

urbanization in the West. In California specifically, obviously—

since I am here, I will go ahead and ask the question—we have certainly seen urbanization, as you mentioned. I guess it is not a very

well-kept secret that Los Angeles is a big city, and we will see that

city continue to grow. It is probably the fastest growing city in the

West, I suspect, not only percentage-wise but just with actual numbers of individuals; is that a correct statement?

Mr. BURGESS. Yes. The whole Southern California area is now

the world’s leading agricultural area and the world’s leading industrial area.

Mr. CALVERT. How many people live in the Los Angeles Basin

right now?

Mr. BURGESS. More than 12 million.

65

Mr. CALVERT. I was going to say it is more than that, actually,

but it is certainly an area that is going to need a lot of water, and

we are going to need to build the structures for it. And in the West,

certainly, that has the same effect—Phoenix; certainly Idaho has

significant growth. I guess Idaho is the fastest growing State in the

Union; is that correct?

Mr. BURGESS. Nevada is, but Idaho is in the top five.

Mr. CALVERT. So it is right up there; okay.

For WateReuse, how many acre-feet of water is currently being

recycled nationally, Mr. Young?

Mr. YOUNG. I do not know that number exactly. I know that

California and Florida are kind of neck-and-neck at about

300 million gallons a day.

Mr. CALVERT. So in the next 20 years, if there is adequate funding and we have the right program in effect, do you believe we can

expand that dramatically?

Mr. YOUNG. Absolutely.

Mr. CALVERT. Certainly the technology is there to do that, and

that would certainly lessen the urban demand for water to some

degree.

What should be the role of the locals and States in funding such

a recycling program? Do you think that they should take that on

by themselves, or do you think that Federal assistance is necessary

in order to kickstart this?

Mr. YOUNG. It depends on the level of recycling that the water

agencies themselves are involved in. Part of my background is with

the Irvine Ranch Water District in Orange County, and we had one

of the Nation’s largest dual distribution systems where we recycled

80 percent of all of our wastewater and used it as an irrigation

source throughout the open space, parks and schools, and used it

at every possible location that we could, and that was totally funded by local funds.

Mr. CALVERT. Getting beyond the so-called gray water—because

I know that in their heads, people have toilet-to-tap mentality—

how do we start changing the perception of people that water reutilization is necessary? Do you start educating children at a young

age about the importance of conservation and water reutilization in

the schools, and that this water is sometimes actually cleaner than

the water they are using in the first place?

Mr. YOUNG. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. It happens through an

education process with children in schools. It is also a very important education process with the professionals in the field and with

the policymakers and decisionmakers at the local, State, and Federal Government to have that support.

National Academy of Sciences has done work on it, and they

raise issues, and I think the issues need to be answered through

a research mode so that we can have that level of academia supporting not only the technologies but also the process that is gone

through in making those decisions.

Mr. CALVERT. That is certainly important.

Mr. Walden, do you have any questions?

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being in and out.

There have been a few crises, some related to the very issue we are

discussing, especially as it relates to my district.

66

Mr. CALVERT. You can probably expect more of those crises in the

future, I suspect. That is what we are talking about.

Mr. WALDEN. Yes, I think so, Mr. Chairman. As we have seen

in this hearing and as I have seen over in the Energy and

Commerce Committee, not only are we facing this extraordinary

energy crisis, but also in the Pacific Northwest a water crisis of

epic proportion, unfortunately, and that is putting huge stress on

our hydro system and on our economy as well as on our crops and

on the environment.

I would say that I reject the notion and would reiterate it again

to remove the Snake River dams. I do not think that is a shortterm solution by any means, and I am not convinced that it would

be that successful long term and it would certainly have an incredible impact on the region out there, both in terms of transportation

and the economy of the region as well as our access to power; it

is enough power to light the city of Seattle, and even the city of

Seattle has backed off from their original support of that concept.

I think most of us have.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I have another meeting I have to go

to.

Mr. CALVERT. We are going to leave the Columbia dam up there,

too.

Mr. WALDEN. There are several right up the Columbia River system. But having said that, there are clearly some things that we

are doing in the watersheds. I noticed in some of the testimony

positive comments about the work that is being done on the ground

and in the streams. I think that too often, I have seen good work

on the ground for which we get no credit in the big national debate

over this.

It is unfortunate, because the watershed councils, the basin

projects, the Dechutes Resource Conservancy—a lot of effort is

going on. Clearly, down at the Klamath Basin, one of the solutions

down there to the problem of over-application of the water is added

storage, which could be done fairly reasonably at both Klamath

Lake and I believe it is either Gerber or Clear, where you could

add the storage, which will help fish, both the salmon and perhaps

the suckers as well, and provide more water for all of us to fight

over for these competing needs.

But right now, I think we have a Federal Government that, over

time, has appropriated that water about three different times, and

in this drought situation, it is coming to the ‘‘perfect storm’’ down

there, only it is a dry lightning storm—there is no water.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. It is a big problem. Thank you.

Mr. Osborne, do you have any additional questions?

Mr. OSBORNE. Yes, just a couple. Obviously, water is necessary

for human consumption, animal consumption and irrigation, I

guess for crop consumption, but it really does not have to be there

for power generation.

I think the Chairman earlier alluded to nuclear power, and of

course there is wind power, solar power, and alternative sources of

energy. Have any of you thought extensively about some solution

to the water dilemma along those lines?

[Pause.]

67

Mr. OSBORNE. Do you understand my question? What I am saying is that we obviously have to have power, and we are using huge

amounts of water right now to generate power, and it seems to me

that there are other ways to generate power besides running it

through a hydroelectric dam. It would seem that one very obvious

way to conserve water would be to look at alternative sources, and

yet there are a lot of environmental concerns about nuclear power.

I do not imagine there has been a lot done on the West Coast in

nuclear power for some time. I know there is some wind generation. I do not know much about solar power. But I just wondered

if any of you have tried to put a pencil to the possibility of relieving

some of our water demands by using alternative sources for power

generation.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Congressman, it is a good question, and I think

one of the answers is that because a lot of the research in the

water-derived industry has been lacking, we have not had the opportunity for the great minds at the universities to sit back, take

a pencil, and just start noodling those very highly philosophical

questions—like is there a better way; can we be innovative and

think outside the box of streams and dams to supply water, and

is there a way to break the link, as you suggest, between water and

power, because they historically have been linked together just absolutely hip-to-hip.

I guess I would reiterate my point that if we have congressional

funding that can get the research at a much higher level and at

a much broader level, there might be opportunities for that.

I know that the power industry, EPRI, the Electric Power Research Institute, has a tremendous funding source and looks at it

from their side, but we have not had similar parity in looking at

it from the water side. The nuclear power plants do require a tremendous volume of water because they still have the same cooling

cycle that is required in the generation process because of the heat

that is generated by nuclear instead of using coal or gas-fired burners, and the plants along the ocean then become—and we have

seen this happen in Tampa Bay and in other locations where

desalting of the ocean water can synergistically be collocated with

power plants because the water is warmer, the water is able to be

reused, the brine from desalting is able to be mixed with the discharge water without actually adding any new salt to the discharge

stream or to the ocean to minimize or completely negate any environmental effects.

So there are some opportunities, I think, in that field if we are

able to more fully explore what we can do with what we have. And

I think, as pointed out earlier by the panel, if you do it in a nonthreatening atmosphere where the populace is screaming down at

you, ‘‘We have to have this problem solved tomorrow,’’ it would be

a much better way to go to be able to establish those solutions.

Mr. MALLOCH. If I could briefly answer the question, Trout

Unlimited did not do this report, but I am aware of a report done

by NRDC looking at where the power would come from if you removed the Snake River dams. Their conclusion was that a relatively feasible amount of new wind generation, which is one of the

most rapidly growing of the renewables, coupled with some conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:51 Dec 11, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 71352.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
68

servation, could fairly painlessly and in fact economically efficiently

replace the power generated at the Snake River dams.

I have a copy of that report, and I would be happy to provide it

to you if you would like it.

Mr. CALVERT. That would be fine. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. I want to add one editorial comment, since I used

to chair the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, so I have

some knowledge on some of the so-called renewable energy uses.

I think that a good point was made about the utilization of nuclear or any power source in order to reutilize that hot water to

make desalinization less costly; you could do it for about $700 an

acre-foot rather than $1,500 an acre-foot. But the reality is that we

become less dependent on hydroelectric, because as the population

has grown in the West, we have not built additional dams, so the

amount of capacity and percentage of the total amount of demand

has diminished. But it has great spiking capability because those

turbines come on immediately when we need that power.

So it would be very difficult in the West to meet our energy requirements—or anywhere, quite frankly—without hydroelectric

without a long time of creating new energy sources. But certainly

wind is important—we use a lot of it in Riverside County; we are

the largest wind farm in the country, I think, down the Banning

Pass—and we are doing a lot on solar energy. Those are great ways

to get additional energy, but it is going to take a while to replace

hydroelectric, which is still a significant source for electric power,

especially in the West. But we need to change the mentality of a

lot of people, especially on nuclear, because that is really the only

way we can go without resolving some of the environmental problems. We are doing to hear from New Mexico and maybe Wyoming

here now.

Ms. SALISBURY. Yes. I was just going to say, Mr. Chairman, that

we have plenty of natural gas that we would be happy to provide.

Mr. CALVERT. Built a couple more distribution lines out to

California; we would be very happy if you would do that.

Are there any additional comments from the panel?

Mr. Burgess?

Mr. BURGESS. One thing that concerns me is that looking forward, not only do we need more water, but also more energy in the

West, and yet on the other hand, we are having lively public debate

about decommissioning dams. We will soon be decommissioning nuclear power plants because they are coming to the end of their useful lives. We now have proposals to tax fossil fuels that were defeated back in 1993, but they are coming forward again under the

Kyoto Treaty.

So it seems to me that the lively debate is about getting rid of

energy sources in the midst of an energy crisis.

Mr. CALVERT. I can fairly say that this administration is not

going to move toward taxing energy sources relative to the Kyoto

Accord. I suspect they do not have very many votes for the Kyoto

Accord in the Senate. But your point is well-taken—we have to

start resolving these issues now.

I am going to close this hearing because I have to go back to the

office. I want to thank this panel for your excellent testimony and

for answering our questions. You certainly pointed out that water

69

is the crisis right now, and we need to start working toward resolve

it.

With that, thank you for your testimony and for answering our

questions.

We are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material supplied for the record follows:]

[The following statement was submitted for the record by

Andrew Purkey:]

Statement of Andrew Purkey, Executive Director, Oregon Water Trust

The Oregon Water Trust (OWT) is a private, nonprofit organization established

in 1993 and governed by a Board of Directors which reflects the diversity of water

interests in Oregon. OWT uses a voluntary, market-based approach to enhance

streamflows by acquiring consumptive water rights from willing sellers and converting them to instream water rights under Oregon state water law.

OWT appreciates the opportunity to submit written testimony to the House Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power. OWT believes that its approach to streamflow restoration should serve as a model for other states attempting

to address this ecological problem. OWT is interested in exploring opportunities for

the Federal Government to encourage and support private, voluntary, ‘‘willing

buyer/willing seller’’ exchanges that improve water quantity and quality, consistent

with state water law.

Background

Despite Oregon’s reputation as a perpetually rainy place, for many months of the

year in many parts of the state the water in our rivers and streams is over-appropriated-more rights to divert water have been issued than there is water in the

stream. When periods of naturally low flows coincide with withdrawals, many

streams suffer from inadequate streamflows and some are dewatered entirely. When

natural streamflows are modified by diversions, the ecology of the stream system,

watershed, and basin are affected as well. The altered flow may no longer be sufficient to provide habitat for anadromous or resident fish; as water temperature rises,

sediment accumulates and water quality diminishes. When all water is siphoned

from a stream making passage impossible, fish may be unable to reach their productive habitat areas. Every plan for recovery of salmon and steelhead runs recognizes

the importance of water quantity and streamflow enhancement for restoring and

preserving aquatic habitat, fisheries and ecological systems.

OWT specializes in reallocating water to instream use by acquiring previously allocated water rights and transferring them to instream use. OWT acquires water

rights with relatively senior priority dates, and uses existing laws and water markets to accomplish voluntary transfers to put water back into Oregon’s rivers and

streams to enhance streamflow, restore habitat, and improve water quality.

Oregon Water Law

In Oregon, it was not until the 1987 passage of the Instream Water Rights Act

(ORS 537.348) that instream flows were legally recognized as being a beneficial use

of water. The Instream Water Rights Act allows a water right holder to donate,

lease or sell part or all of their existing water right to become an instream water

right, which retains the same priority date of the original right. Acquiring instream

water rights with relatively senior priority dates is the most certain way of restoring

streamflows, since senior water rights are less likely to be shut off in dry years and

summer months when there are more rights to withdraw water than water in the

stream. It is also the fairest way of restoring streamflows as it respects existing

water rights that have been issued by the state.

OWT converts existing water rights to instream flows using the Instream Water

Rights Act by first negotiating a private, ‘‘willing buyer/willing seller’’ agreement

with a water right holder, and then applying to the Oregon Water Resources Department for approval of a lease or transfer of the water right to instream use.

The 1987 amendments to Oregon’s water laws also provided the first incentives

for water right holders to conserve water resources through more efficient use of

water. The Conserved Water Program (ORS 537.455) makes it possible for a water

user who voluntarily increases irrigation efficiency to reallocate the saved water to

70

instream use, use it to irrigate additional lands, or lease or sell the water to another

irrigator.

OWT’s Tools

Given Oregon’s water laws, water right holders may voluntarily choose to work

with OWT to create short-term leases, long-term or permanent transfers, and conserved water for instream use.

• Short-term Instream Leasing Program: For temporary agreements of one or two

years, OWT applies to the Oregon Water Resources Department’s (OWRD)

instream leasing program. Leases are a temporary way for landowners to

restore streamflows and still retain the option of irrigating in the near future.

A lease is considered by the state to be a beneficial use of water and thus protects a water right from forfeiture due to non-use.

• Permanent or Long-term Instream Transfers Program: For permanent and longterm transfer agreements, including a permanent sale or donation or a longterm lease, OWT negotiates a private agreement with the water right holder.

OWT then files a transfer application with OWRD.

• Conserved Water Program: OWT helps finance and implement projects to conserve water through increasing irrigation efficiency, usually converting from less

efficient flood irrigation to more efficient sprinkler irrigation. In exchange, the

landowner then agrees to reallocate his share of the saved water to an instream

1water right through OWRD.

OWT’s Results

Since its founding in 1993, OWT has pioneered the use of Oregon’s Instream

Water Rights law and Conserved Water Program statute, negotiating the first lease

and first purchase of water rights for transfer to instream use and completing the

first conserved water project.

In 1994, OWT completed 4 one-year leases that restored about 2 cubic feet per

second (cfs) of flow. By 2000, OWT had completed 57 deals involving over 100 water

right certificates that restored 35 cfs of flow to instream use.

Current Federal Support for OWT

OWT receives acquisition funds from a variety of private and public funding

sources, including local, state and Federal agencies. OWT has received funding from

the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) to restore

streamflow to an important tributary of the Snake River. The Bureau has also supported OWT’s acquisitions in the Deschutes Basin of central Oregon.

OWT has also received funding from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA),

under is anadromous fish recovery program. BPA funds support OWT’s acquisition

work throughout the Oregon tributaries of the Columbia River. For example, OWT

purchased an 1860 priority date water right on Fifteenmile Creek, an important

winter steelhead tributary of the Columbia River near The Dalles, Oregon.

Finally, OWT and the Applegate River Watershed Council worked with Oregon’s

congressional delegation last year to secure a $500,000 appropriation from Congress

to help support the Farmer’s Ditch project on the Little Applegate River in southwestern Oregon.

The $1.5 million project will restore approximately 14 cfs of flow (7000 gallons

per minute) to the Little Applegate and allow for the removal of two diversion structures that serve as passage barriers for fish. Project funds will be used to switch

participating landowners to pump and sprinkler irrigation systems with water being

diverted from the mainstem Applegate River to irrigate approximately 700 acres.

The Applegate River has a U.S. Corps of Engineers storage facility at its head, with

the Bureau allocating water for downstream irrigation use. Other finders of this innovative project include the state of Oregon, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Orvis Company and the World Wildlife Fund.

Conclusion

Again, OWT appreciates the opportunity to submit this written testimony to the

House Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power. We look forward to working with members of the committee to evaluate appropriate opportunities for the Federal Government to encourage and support the work of OWT and

similar private organizations across the United States, consistent with each state’s

water law.

[The following statement was submitted for the record by Greg

Walcher:]

71

Statement of Greg Walcher, Executive Director,

Colorado Department of Natural Resources

Mr. Chairman, the State of Colorado thanks you for holding this important hearing on drought and the need for water storage in the West. We may have grown

complacent about water supplies over the recent decades of abundance, but last

summer’s hot, dry conditions provided a sobering reminder of cyclic drought and

devastation.

In December of 1999, Colorado Governor Bill Owens convened a state-wide conference on flood and drought preparedness. There, we learned the question is not

‘‘if’’ butt ‘‘when’’ we will enter another severe, long-term drought like the dust bowl

of the 1930s or the drought of the 1950s. Only water storage provides adequate protection against these natural disasters, so it was encouraging that a recent survey

of Coloradans found 90% believe we should build reservoirs to conserve surplus Colorado River water.

The first Europeans to explore what is now Colorado labeled it an arid wasteland.

In this century, water storage and irrigation transformed the State. Cottonwoods

and willows dot the once-treeless plains. Rivers that dried up in the summer months

now provide drinking water, irrigation, recreation and wildlife habitat year-round.

However, last year, Colorado suffered a dry spring and record-breaking summer

heat which led to drought conditions. South Platte River flows were lower than ever

in recorded history and demand for irrigation water drained several key reservoirs.

Nearly two dozen counties were forced to seek Federal drought disaster relief. Several other communities placed restrictions on lawn watering, showers and even toilet flushing.

The Colorado Water Conservation Board recently surveyed communities to judge

state-wide preparedness for drought and found that less than half of cities surveyed

have done any kind of drought planning. If dry conditions persist, we could be in

serious trouble.

In a sustained drought, farmers and ranchers would lack water required to

produce food. Many could be forced to sell their land or water, thereby encouraging

development of open space and loss of wildlife habitat. Even farms with senior

water rights could be gobbled up by municipalities thirsty for drinking water. The

impact on rural communities could be devastating.

Conservation measures help stretch limited supplies, but conservation alone may

not be enough. Some water users are collaborating to stretch supplies through innovative new measures such as conjunctive use and water reuse. These efforts, which

examine how to recharge aquifers in wet years and reuse municipal water for irrigation and industrial use, hold real promise. But the most certain drought protection

is a long-term water supply through storage.

At Governor Bill Owens’ flood and drought conference, the Army Corps of

Engineers calculated reservoirs have saved Coloradans $19.8 billion from natural

disasters like floods and droughts. That equates to a six dollar savings for every dollar spent on reservoirs for flood control and drought mitigation. Water storage also

provides resources for recreation and wildlife.

Across the West, our future is forever linked to our water. Our challenge is to

bring together diverse interests to find common goals for the benefit of local communities and the environment. Without adequate planning, innovative measures and

new water storage, the West could once again resemble the hostile and arid wastelands disparaged by early travelers.

Æ