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

55–628 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–339 

MISCELLANEOUS WATER BILLS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

S. 1757 

S. 1758 

S. 1759 

NOVEMBER 5, 2009 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, ARIZONA 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

JEFF BINGAMAN and LISA MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator From Utah .............................................. 8 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator From California ............................................ 6 

Candee, Hamilton, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Representing Grassland Water District, San Francisco, CA ....................................................................................... 29 

Connor, Michael L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of 

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 11 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator From California ........................................ 3 

McIntyre, Martin R., General Manager, San Luis Water District, Los Banos, 

CA .......................................................................................................................... 20

Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator From Michigan ......................................... 1 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 41 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 55 

(1) 

MISCELLANEOUS WATER BILLS 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Debbie Stabenow 

presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator STABENOW. It’s my pleasure to call the subcommittee to 

order. Our Ranking Member Senator Bennett will be joining us 

right now. Welcome. That’s wonderful. That was great timing. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you. 

Senator STABENOW. Some great timing. It’s my pleasure to welcome everyone to the hearing today. We have 3 separate bills pending before the subcommittee. 

Senator Bennett is here as our ranking member. We’ll hear 

about 2 bills that he is sponsoring. In addition we’re very pleased 

to have Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer here with us today, who 

have introduced a bill and will speak to the committee about that 

bill as well. 

Our bills today cover several different subjects in the area of 

water resources management. 

S. 1757 introduced by Senator Bennett will allow the prepayment 

of amounts due to repay the United States for construction costs 

relating to a portion of the central Utah project. 

A second bill is Senator Bennett’s and Senator Hatch’s will reallocate certain costs associated with the development of hydroelectric power within the Bonneville unit of the central Utah 

project. 

S. 1759 introduced by Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer relating to transfers of water between water contractors within the Central Valley project in California. 

So we look forward to your testimony. I now turn it over to Senator Bennett for his comments. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Madame Chairman. I will withhold, in deference to our 2 colleagues who are here. Let them talk 

about their bills first, or their bill. Then I’ll launch into the fascinating description of the intricacies of the Central Utah project 

after they’re through. 
2 

Senator STABENOW. Alright. We will take that. We’re pleased to 

have Senator McCain here as well. If you had a brief opening comment, we would welcome that as well. 

Senator MCCAIN. No, Madame Chairman. I thank you for having 

this hearing. I thank our witnesses. 

This is a real emergency crisis in California of proportions the 

likes of which we have not seen in that State. Arizona and California share many challenges and water is one of them. This situation argues for action as quickly as possible. 

I thank you for holding the hearing. I appreciate the witnesses, 

all of them, being here today. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. Let’s begin with Senator Feinstein. Welcome. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costa follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COSTA, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, 

ON S. 1759 

On October 7, 2009, I joined with Congressman Cardoza in the House of Representatives and Senators Feinstein and Boxer in the Senate to introduce the 

‘‘Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009.’’ This legislation builds upon and makes 

permanent the language that we passed in the Energy and Water Appropriations 

bill, which was originally limited to only two years. The Water Transfer Facilitation 

Act of 2009 is one step in a host of efforts to bring more water to the San Joaquin 

Valley amidst of a three-year drought and ongoing water crisis. Given the severity 

of California’s water crisis and the need for short-term solutions to prepare for the 

coming growing season., I thank Chairwoman Stabenow for moving quickly to hold 

this hearing and I am pleased to participate by submitting this testimony today. 

The immediate impacts of the Delta smelt biological opinion have directly contributed to the devastation of the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley in my Congressional District. Water supply reductions coupled with an economic downturn has led 

to overwhelming unemployment in Valley cities, reaching as high as 30% and 40%. 

With tens of thousands of jobs lost and approximately 500,000 acres of some of our 

nation’s most productive farmland fallowed, the Westside has been absolutely devastated. Given that this region supplies the nation with nearly half of its fresh 

fruits and vegetables, this is a cris that not only threatens our local communities, 

but also the security of our nation’s food supply. Of equal concern to the farmers 

and farmworkers in the San Joaquin Valley is the shadow of the salmon, green sturgeon and steelhead biological opinion that will reduce future water deliveries, and 

the livelihood they depend on. 

This legislation is intended as a critical lifeline to reduce unnecessary delays in 

water transfers at a time when San Joaquin Valley farmers have been hardest hit 

by water supply reductions due to both changes in hydrology and regulatory restrictions. It would allow for new water transfers of an estimated 250,000 to 300,000 

acre-feet of water per year, depending on the water year. The bill would grant the 

Bureau of Reclamation the authority to approve voluntary water transfers between 

sellers and buyers within the Valley. It would also streamline environmental reviews for water transfers by ensuring that they occur on a programmatic basis, instead of the current project-by-project basis. 

Transferring water between aand within counties is a vital tool for water districts 

and indivudal farmers during periods of drought. While I have consistently maintained that the best solution would be to have the federal and state pumps fully 

operational, the inflexibility of the Endangered Species Act has left us with limited 

solutions until it can be successfully modified. This legislation makes permanent the 

ability to transfer water to our Valley’s farms when it is most needed, therefore providing our farmers with interim solutions and allowing them to continue to grow 

crops and support our local economy. More will need to be done to protect the Valley’s water on a short, mid, and long-term basis, and I will continue that fight. 
3 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. I appreciate being 

able to do this promptly as does Senator Boxer because I have to 

chair Intelligence at 3. I know she has commitments as well. So 

thank you very much. 

Senator Bennett, good to see you again and Senator McCain as 

well. 

The bill, this bill which is co-sponsored by Senator Boxer would 

facilitate additional water transfers of up to 250,000 to 300,000 

acre feet in California’s Central Valley which has been particularly 

hard hit by prolonged drought. It does so by granting new authority to the Bureau of Reclamation to approve voluntary water transfers. By simplifying and expediting environmental reviews for Central Valley water transfers. 

I think this is a reasonable and timely way to mitigate the most 

important impacts of a water crisis in California. California is in 

its third year of a prolonged drought primarily caused by depleted 

seasonal rainfalls. Right now key supply reservoirs are at 42 percent of capacity. The forecast for next year’s runoff are very uncertain and not good. 

At the same time restrictions have been put in place that limit 

how much water can be sent south through the Sacramento-San 

Joaquin delta pumps because of concerns about endangered and 

threatened species in the delta. This summer agricultural users on 

the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, these are the most junior 

water rights holders, received only 10 percent of their allocation 

from the Federal Central Valley project. That’s the lowest ever in 

history. 

This week California legislators finally approved a viable water 

bond and a package of bills to address the water infrastructure 

problems of the State. Now that’s a breakthrough. But it’s going to 

take time. But the valley can’t wait for a long term solution. 

The one thing we can do and I think without litigation or harassment in the short term is to facilitate voluntary water transfers. 

Moving water from those regions in the valley, generally the east 

side that have extra water to those that need it most, namely the 

west side. This past summer some water users in the San Joaquin 

Valley received their full allocation of Federal water while others, 

particularly those on the west side, had to fallow fields and cut 

down trees because there wasn’t enough water to sustain crops. 

Westlands Water District for example, comprises more than a 

half a million acres of some of the most productive farmland in the 

country. But more than half, 220,000 acres were fallowed last summer. To date, the Bureau of Reclamation has authorized transfers 

of 600,000 acre feet of water around the Central Valley. 

But more could have been available had the agency developed a 

more efficient process for considering and improving voluntary 

transfers. That’s what this bill would do. There are 3 key parts. 

The first would provide new authority for the Bureau to permit 

San Joaquin Valley water transfers. It removes 2 restrictions from 

the CVPIA, California Valley Project Improvement Act, for transfers of water. Those restrictions unnecessarily limit the amount of 
4 

water people can transfer even if they were all in the San Joaquin 

Valley or within the same division of project contractors. 

This legislation eliminates those obstacles and allows those 

transfers to occur. So that water can be moved back and forth 

based on need, provided all other conditions of the CVPIA and 

other environmental laws, are met. These conditions are already 

waived for transfers within the same watershed. The Bureau estimates that this first provision could make up to 100,000 to 150,000 

acre feet of water available for transfer. 

The second key provision directs Interior to facilitate transfers 

throughout the Central Valley by doing programmatic environmental review rather than individual review on each transfer 

which only holds everything up. If you can evaluate it environmentally as a program, that makes the best sense. This past year 

the process was so complicated and uncertain that many water 

users just simply didn’t apply for transfers. We need to ensure that 

willing sellers are not kept from willing buyers by red tape. 

The Bureau has already committed to address this. And this bill 

ensures that it does so expeditiously without waving any environmental laws. Water users and Reclamation estimate that this provision could facilitate up to 150 to 200,000 acre feet of transfers a 

year. 

The third and final provision requires the Department to make 

recommendations on how to facilitate future water transfers more 

efficiently and expeditiously. 

Now I know that transfers alone cannot provide the entire solution. They’re costly. They’re still constrained by pumping restrictions, State law and the very real limits of our water supply infrastructure. 

Yet, I really believe this legislation will provide much needed 

help at a time of great hardship and controversy. It is supported 

by many water users including and I’d ask that these letters, Madame Chairman, be put in the record. 

Senator STABENOW. Without objection. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. The San Luis Water District, The Conaway 

Preservation Group, The Westlands Water District, Reclamation 

District 2035 out of Woodland, California, The Association of California Water Agencies, The San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors, The San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority, The Banta 

Carbona Irrigation District, The Northern California Water Association, The Tehama Colusa Canal Authority, Friant Water Users, 

which is a main source of water transfer, Glen Colusa Irrigation 

District and 2 page letter, again Friant. 

So if those could go in the record I would appreciate it very 

much. 

Senator STABENOW. Without objection. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Now, just to conclude this is, in my view, 

after spending a great deal of time on this and other areas of water 

in California the most prudent thing we can do to handle a problem that may be more exacerbated next year. It’s viable. It’s voluntary transfers. It’s from people who have enough water who are 

willing to transfer it to those who do not. 
5 

So there should be no objection to this legislation as a very practical kind of no nonsense way to facilitate water use in a valley 

that’s really hard pressed as Senator McCain correctly stated. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Feinstein follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

Chairman Stabenow, Senator Bennett and Members of the Subcommittee, let me 

thank you for holding a hearing on the ‘‘Water Transfer Facilitation Act.’’ 

This bill, which is cosponsored by Senator Boxer, would facilitate additional water 

transfers of up to 250,000 to 300,000 acre-feet in California’s Central Valley—which 

has been particularly hard hit by the prolonged drought. It does so by granting new 

authority to the Bureau of Reclamation to approve voluntary water transfers, and 

by simplifying and expediting environmental reviews for all Central Valley water 

transfers. 

I believe that this is a reasonable and timely way to mitigate the most urgent 

impacts of the water crisis in California. And I appreciate the opportunity to brief 

you on this critical bill. 

THE PRESENT WATER SHORTAGE

California is in the third year of a prolonged drought, primarily caused by depleted seasonal rainfalls. Right now, key supply reservoirs are at only 69 percent 

of average and 42 percent of capacity. And the forecasts for next year’s runoff are 

very uncertain. 

At the same time, restrictions have been put in place that limit how much water 

can be sent south through the Sacrament-San Joaquin Delta pumps, because of concerns about endangered and threatened species. 

This summer, agricultural users on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley—the 

most junior water rights holders—received only 10 percent of their allocation from 

the federal Central Valley Project, the lowest ever. 

This week, California legislators finally approved a viable water bond and a package of bills to address California’s water infrastructure problems. This was a major 

breakthrough. But the Valley can’t wait for a long-term solution—they need help 

now. 

WATER TRANSFERS CAN HELP

One thing we can do to help in the short-term is facilitate voluntary water transfers, moving water from those regions in the Valley that have extra water to those 

that need it most. 

This past summer, some water users in the San Joaquin Valley received their full 

allocation of federal water, while others, particularly those on the Westside, had to 

fallow fields and cut down trees because there wasn’t enough water to sustain crops. 

Westlands Water District, for example, comprises more than 500,000 acres of some 

of the most productive farmland in the country, but more than 220,000 acres were 

fallowed last summer. 

To date, the Bureau of Reclamation has authorized transfers of 600,000 acre-feet 

of water around the Central Valley—but more could have been available had the 

agency developed a more efficient process for considering and approving transfers. 

And that’s exactly what this bill would do. 

WAIVING RESTRICTIONS

There are 3 key parts to the legislation. 

The first provision would provide new authority for the Bureau of Reclamation to 

permit San Joaquin Valley water transfers. It removes 2 restrictions from the Central Valley Project Improvement Act for transfers of water. Those restrictions unnecessarily limited the amount of water people could transfer even if they were all in 

the San Joaquin Valley, or within the same Division of project contractors. 

This legislation eliminates those obstacles, and allows these transfers to occur, 

provided all the other conditions in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and 

other environmental laws are met. These conditions are already waived for transfers 

within the same watershed. 

The Bureau of Reclamation estimates that this first provision could make up to 

100,000 or 150,000 acre-feet of water available for transfer. 
6 

EXPEDITING AND STREAMLINING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The second key provision directs Interior to facilitate transfers throughout the 

Central-Valley by doing programmatic environmental review, rather than individual 

review on each transfer (as is current practice). 

This past year, the process was so complicated and uncertain that many water 

users didn’t apply for transfers. We need to ensure that willing sellers are not kept 

from willing buyers by red tape. The Bureau has already committed to address this. 

This bill ensures that it does so expeditiously without waiving any environmental 

laws. 

Water users and Reclamation estimate that this provision could facilitate up to 

150,000 or 200,000 acre-feet of transfers each year. 

The third and final provision requires the Department to make recommendations 

on how to facilitate future water transfers more efficiently and expeditiously. 

CONCLUSION

I know that transfers alone cannot provide the entire solution—they are costly, 

and they are still constrained by pumping restrictions, state law, and the very real 

limits of our water supply infrastructure. 

Yet I believe this legislation will provide some much needed help at a time of 

great hardship and controversy. It is supported by many water users—and I ask 

that their letters of support be included in the record. I recognize that some Valley 

stakeholders have concerns about specific language, but I am confident that we can 

resolve these issues by working together. 

In the meantime, I will continue to work on additional short-term and long-term 

solutions, and I look forward to working with the Committee on them. 

Again, I thank the Chair and the Members of the Subcommittee for devoting their 

time this afternoon to considering this legislation. Thank you. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein. I 

know this is an extremely serious issue. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Senator STABENOW. Welcome Senator Boxer. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Madame Chairman. Thank 

you very much, Senator Bennett, Senator McCain, for being here. 

Yes, this bill S. 1759 is called the Water Transfers Facilitation 

Act of 2009. I’ll try not to be repetitive. My colleague was very 

clear on what this does. Simply put Senator Feinstein and I have 

introduced this legislation to facilitate voluntary water transfers 

within the San Joaquin Valley. 

Friends, this is about getting water where it is needed, when it 

is needed. It is common sense. It’s about finding ways we can all 

come together to find pragmatic solutions to the crisis of the 

drought rather than everyone just going into their corners. 

I want to point out that anyone who knows the history of California knows that when it comes to water people tend to go to their 

corners. We’re trying to break through. In that regard I wanted to 

show some bipartisan support. 

I can assure you that Senator Feinstein, the letters that you put 

in there, some of those individuals signing those are Republicans, 

some are Democrat, some are independent. We have a letter here 

today to both of us from Senator, from, I’m sorry, Governor Arnold 

Schwarzenegger writing to express his support for our bill. So we 

feel really good about this. 

We feel this isn’t the be all and end all. But this is a very good 

step. Three years of below average precipitation have restricted 

water supplies. 
7 

We know in agricultural communities in the San Joaquin Valley, 

where more than 500,000 acres of crop land have been fallowed, 

there’s an economic struggle going on. And that’s why we’re moving 

and hopefully swiftly. We’re deeply concerned about the crisis and 

the impacts of it. 

This legislation, as we said, will facilitate these water transfers 

among some of the water users. You heard about some of them. 

It will improve flexibility in water management. 

It will provide water to those communities who need it most. 

I want to thank Representatives Cardoza and Costa. They 

worked with us to include a measure in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill that temporarily allowed these voluntary water 

transfers between water users on the east and west side of the San 

Joaquin Valley. This provision became law last week. 

All of the affected water districts negotiated and supported that 

amendment. Again, that’s unusual. I’m very pleased. 

In addition to being so grateful to my colleague, I am so grateful 

to Senator Bingaman. He worked with us on that amendment. He 

committed to hold these prompt hearings. Madame Chairman, you 

were so gracious to set it at a time that we could both be here. 

This bill builds upon the provisions that we got in there for 2 

years. It would make it permanent. The water users on the east 

and west sides of the valley, again, have written very, very strong 

letters that Senator Feinstein has put in the record. The Governor 

has, and as Senator Feinstein has stated, this is signaling kind of 

new day for us. We’ve had some breakthroughs in the legislature 

in California. 

Farmers who have excess amounts of water now have to fallow 

their fields in order to transfer water to other farmers. Our legislation would provide flexibility to move water around the valley. The 

bill directs, as you heard, the Department of the Interior to use a 

more pragmatic approach to environmental review so that all the 

transfers will still have to undergo applicable reviews, but they’ll 

be conducted in a more efficient and timely fashion. 

I want to close just by reiterating that the Bureau of Reclamation has told us in writing through email that the Feinstein/Boxer 

legislation will transfer as much as 250,000 to 300,000 acre feet of 

water per year to communities in need. This is 130 to 150 percent 

more water than the west side got from the Federal water project 

last year. To put this amount into perspective 300,000 acre feet of 

water would serve 600,000 typical families for 1 year. So this is not 

a trivial transfer. 

I am committed to working with the committee, the Administration, my colleagues and all of our stakeholders to advance this bill. 

I can’t thank you enough, both of you. I feel, we feel, so strongly 

that this would send such a good signal to our people back home 

that we’re thinking about them and we’re going to take moves to 

ease their problems. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today to discuss S. 1759, 

the Water Transfers Facilitation Act of 2009. Senator Feinstein and I have intro-
8 

duced this legislation to facilitate voluntary water transfers within the San Joaquin 

Valley. 

This is about getting water where it’s needed, when it’s needed. It’s about finding 

ways we can all come together to find pragmatic solutions to the water crisis, rather 

than everyone just going to their corners. 

Three years of below-average precipitation have restricted water supplies for 

much of California. Drought conditions have particularly affected agricultural communities in the San Joaquin Valley, where more than 500,000 acres of cropland 

have been fallowed, further compounding existing economic struggles in this region. 

I am deeply concerned about this crisis and the impact it is having on agricultural 

communities in the San Joaquin Valley. That’s why Senator Feinstein and I joined 

to introduce the Water Transfers Facilitation Act of 2009. This legislation will facilitate voluntary water transfers among some water users in the San Joaquin Valley, 

improving flexibility in water management and providing water to those communities who need it most. 

Senator Feinstein and I worked with Representatives Cardoza and Costa to include a measure in the Energy and Water appropriations bill that temporarily allowed voluntary water transfers between water users on the east and west sides of 

the San Joaquin Valley. This provision became law last week. All of the affected 

water districts negotiated and supported that amendment, and I am very pleased. 

I am grateful to Senator Bingaman for not only working with us on that amendment but also for committing to hold prompt hearings on permanent legislation 

building upon that successful amendment. The Feinstein-Boxer Water Transfers Facilitation Act of 2009 permanently extends and builds upon the provisions in the 2- 

year Energy and Water appropriations amendment. 

The water users on the east and west sides of the valley who will benefit from 

this legislation have written many strong letters of support for the Feinstein-Boxer 

bill, as has the Governor of California, and I ask unanimous consent that these letters be entered into the record. 

Now, farmers who have excess amounts of water need to fallow their productive 

fields in order to transfer water to other farmers experiencing shortages. Our legislation provides more flexibility to move water around the valley. 

The bill also directs the Department of the Interior to use a more pragmatic approach to environmental review for water transfers so that appropriate transfers 

can be approved more quickly. Transfers will still have to undergo all applicable reviews, but those will be conducted in a more efficient and timely way. 

Finally, the legislation requires the Department of the Interior to prepare a report 

and submit recommendations on how to facilitate water transfers throughout California, including between the state and federal water projects. This will guide future 

efforts to improve the flexibility of water management statewide. 

The Bureau of Reclamation has told us that the Feinstein-Boxer legislation will 

transfer as much as 250,000 to 300,000 acre-feet of water per year to communities 

in need. This is 130 to 150 percent more water than the west side got from the federal water project last year. To put this amount into perspective, 300,000 acre-feet 

of water would serve 600,000 typical families for one year. 

I am committed to working with the Committee, the Administration, and our 

stakeholders to advance the Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009. I thank the 

Committee for considering this important legislation, and look forward to working 

with my colleagues to secure its passage through the Senate. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Senator Boxer. I look forward to 

working with Senator Bennett, with Chairman Bingaman as we 

move forward on this legislation. I know this is a crisis for California as well as surrounding areas. 

So we thank you for your leadership on this important issue. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Thank you. 

Senator STABENOW. Given the time I know that both of you need 

to be excused. So we appreciate your coming and your testimony. 

Before moving on to Mike Connor, the Commissioner of Reclamation, I’d like to turn now to Senator Bennett to speak about the 2 

bills that he’s sponsoring before the committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM UTAH 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. 
9 

S. 1757 grants prepayment authority to the Uintah Water Conservancy District for its contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for construction of the Jensen unit of the Central Utah project. 

Those that are familiar with Utah names will recognize all of 

those. Others will find them completely new. 

But the Jensen unit provides municipal, industrial and irrigation 

water to the city of Vernal and surrounding areas. It’s been, it was 

completed in the 1980s. Now in the 1980s we had the bust side of 

the boom and bust cycle in energy prices and exploration. 

There’s a lot of energy in the Uintah basin where Vernal is. We 

were in the bust. The conservancy district amended their agreement with the Bureau to reduce the amount of subscribed water. 

Now we’ve gotten into the boom side when the price of oil went 

back up. The Uintah basin has seen unprecedented growth in energy development industry. That means an increased demand for 

municipal and industrial water. 

Besides considering completion of the Burns Bench pump station, 

the district in this circumstance has re-evaluated its financial arrangement with the Bureau and decided that it would be beneficial 

to pay the remainder of its contract obligations to the Bureau 

early. That may be a little different than we usually hear around 

here that somebody wants to give the Federal Government some 

money. 

But S. 157—pardon me, S. 1757 would allow the districts to prepay the contract by 2019 instead of requiring the payment be 

stretched out until 2037. Included in the bill is a requirement that 

the district pays the present value of the whole amount without 

early repayment. So that keeps the Federal Government whole on 

the issue. 

It’s good for the conservancy district. It’s good for the Federal 

Government. I would hope it would not be particularly controversial. 

Now the second bill, S. 1758, would indefinitely defer sunk costs 

assigned to power generation in the central Utah project. We would 

do this because it will allow for economical development of 50 

megawatts of hydropower on the Diamond Forks system of the 

Bonneville unit. The Colorado River storage project allowed for 

power development and allocated system costs for repayment and 

these costs have grown over time and now make any hydropower 

facility developed at Diamond Fork $161 million in the hole before 

any dirt has been turned. 

So if we want the power and we do. S. 1758 would indefinitely 

defer power allocation costs similarly to the costs associated with 

municipal and industrial water which were deferred and then prepaid in 2005. This is a pattern that we’ve seen before. By permanently affixing and deferring system wide costs that have been allocated for repayment by power features, hydroelectric power generation at Diamond Forks system can go ahead and will become economic. 

So that is the purpose of the second bill. As I said, I am sure everybody found that fascinating. But it is important to the people in 

Utah. I believe be a good deal for the Federal Government as well. 
10 

Thank you for allowing me to go through that explanation. I look 

forward to spending time with our witnesses on all 3 of these bills, 

the 2 Utah bills and the California bill. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Senator Bennett. Possibly the 

prepayment bill could start a trend. I don’t know. But we—— 

Senator BENNETT. I’m not holding my breath. 

[Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bennett follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

• Thank you all for being here. It is with great pleasure that I have the opportunity to act as the ranking member of this hearing on 2 necessary Utah bills, 

S. 1757 and S. 1758, and S. 1759, that addresses some of the water challenges 

faced by farmers in the Central Valley of California. 

S. 1757 

• S. 1757 grants prepayment authority to the Uintah Water Conservancy District 

(UWCD) for its contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for construction of the Jensen Unit of the Central Utah Project. The Jensen Unit provides municipal, industrial, and irrigation water to Vernal and the surrounding 

communities and has since its completion in the 1980’s. 

• Due to economic hard times in Uintah County in the mid- to late ‘80s, the conservancy district amended their agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation to 

reduce the amount of subscribed water. 

• Since then, the Uintah Basin has seen unprecedented growth in the energy development industry and demand has increased for municipal and industrial 

(M&I) water from the UWCD. Besides considering completion of the Burns 

Bench pump station, the district has reevaluated its financial arrangement with 

BOR and found that it would be beneficial to pay the remainder of its contract 

obligations early. 

• S. 1757 would allow the UWCD to prepay the contract by 2019 instead of requiring the payment until 2037. Included in the bill, is a requirement that 

UWCD pays the present value of the whole amount due without early repayment, thus keeping the federal government whole. 

• S. 1757 is good for both the conservancy district and the federal government. 

The federal government would receive payment early and would be kept whole 

in relation to present value of the contract obligation, while UWCD would be 

allowed to reduce its long-term debt obligations. 

S. 1758 

• S. 1758 would indefinitely defer sunk costs assigned to power generation in the 

Central Utah Project, allowing for economical development of 50 megawatts of 

hydropower at the Diamond Fork System of the Bonneville Unit. 

• The Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) allowed for power development and 

allocated system costs for repayment. These costs have grown over time and 

make any hydropower facility developed at Diamond Fork $161 million in the 

hole before any dirt has been turned. 

• S. 1758 would indefinitely defer power allocation costs, similarly to costs associated with municipal and industrial water which were deferred and then prepaid 

by 2005. 

• By permanently affixing and deferring system wide costs that have been allocated for repayment to by power features, hydro electric power generation at 

the Diamond Fork System will become economic. 

S. 1759 

• I appreciate that Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer are here with us today. 

• I recognize all the work that they have undertaken to find solutions for many 

of the water challenges that California is currently facing. 

• S.1759 seeks to add some flexibility to California’s water system by streamlining the water transfer process and allowing additional water transfers to 

occur within the central valley. 

• Earlier this year, at their request, language was added to the Energy and 

Water Appropriations bill, to provide a temporary fix to allow water to be transferred in Central Valley of California. 
11 

• The bill before us today provides additional authority for these types of transfers to continue. • As we discuss this bill today I look forward to hearing whether these water 

shortages are mainly caused by drought, or if, as we have heard on the Senate 

Floor several weeks ago, caused by federal regulations. 

Conclusion 

• Once again, I thank the witnesses for your presence and thank you, Senator 

Stabenow, for conducting this hearing. I look forward to hearing the testimony 

today. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much for your leadership on 

these 2 bills. 

We welcome Mike Connor, the Commissioner of Reclamation, 

who is going to speak about all 3 of the bills that are on our agenda 

today. We welcome you, Commissioner Connor. We’d appreciate if 

you take 10 minutes to summarize your testimony. Then we will 

have a few questions. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you. Madame Chairwoman, Senator Bennett, I’m Mike Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation 

and I’m pleased to provide the views of the Department of the Interior on the 3 bills before the subcommittee today. As you note I will 

quickly provide a summary of those 3 bills and I’ve submitted my 

written statements for the record. 

The first bill is S. 1757, the Uintah Water District Repayment 

legislation mentioned by Senator Bennett. This legislation would 

allow for prepayment of the current and future repayment obligations of the Uintah Water Conservancy District in Utah. The Department supports S. 1757 and acknowledges improvements made 

to the bill since its passage by the House in September. 

The District’s current contract from 1992 requires them to repay about $5.5 million through the year 2037 at the project interest 

rate of 3.2 percent with annual payments of about $226,000. My 

written statement provides more detail on this legislation. But in 

summary, the Department believes that the proposed legislation 

will provide for terms favorable to both the District and the United 

States and provide flexibility to address any future situations that 

could affect the District’s ultimate repayment obligation as determined by a final cost allocation for the Jensen unit of the CUP. 

The second bill is S. 1758, the Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower Facilitation Act. S. 1758 would facilitate the development of 

hydropower on the Diamond Forks system of the Utah project pursuant to the Central Utah Project Completion Act, otherwise 

known as CUPCA. The provisions of S. 1758 increase the likelihood 

of private hydropower development by indefinitely deferring repayment of $161 million in reimbursable costs that would otherwise 

have to be repaid by a private developer of hydropower on the Diamond Forks system. 

Current law requires repayment of this $161 million in costs 

which were incurred in developing the Diamond Forks system and 

allocated to the power generation purposes of the project. Since S. 

1758 would defer responsibility for these costs it would effectively 

reduce the cost of private hydropower development at this site. The 
12 

Department understands and appreciates the legislation’s goal of 

facilitating the development of hydroelectric power on the Diamond 

Forks system. 

Nonetheless, the Administration has serious concerns about losing the ability to recoup the Federal investment made in these facilities. The Federal Government may benefit in the midterm from 

annual payments from the use of facilities that would paid if a 

leasee entered into a lease of power privilege arrangement as a result of this bill. We acknowledge that. These payments are estimated at $400,000 a year beginning the 

year of the project as completed continuing for the life of the 

project. However the long term fiscal implications are unclear as to 

how the Federal Government would be whole for the loss in repayment of the $161 million in sunk costs. We estimate the loss would 

amount to approximately $5.3 million a year for 50 years if hydropower could be developed under the current law. This concern is 

consistent with the views expressed before the House Natural Resources Committee in May earlier this year. 

The last bill I’ll speak to is S. 1759, the Water Transfer Facilitation Act. The Department supports S. 1759 with minor modifications. The Central Valley of California is experiencing a third year 

of drought which has drained the resources of both the state water 

project and the Central Valley project. 

The prolonged drought coupled with environmental needs in the 

California Bay Delta region has created severe hardship especially 

to farmers, farm workers and related economies on the west side 

of the San Joaquin River Valley. The Department is cognizant of 

the need for creativity and flexibility in meeting the water demands of those served by the Central Valley project. Particularly 

during this period in which we are working toward long term solutions to California’s water crisis. 

If enacted S. 1759 will strengthen Reclamation’s ability to facilitate appropriate water transfers. This year in the CVP Reclamation 

has facilitated the transfer of over 600,000 acre feet of water by 

and among CV contractors as well as users of the State Water 

project. This has been a record for Reclamation since on average 

there are approximately 250,000 acre feet of transfers which are 

processed between the Central Valley project and the State Water 

project. 

Specifically within the CVP itself Reclamation has approved a 

total of 168 individual transfer totaling approximately 435,000 acre 

feet of Federal contract water. All were accomplished within the accelerated water transfers program which are those within the same 

watersheds and counties. An additional 9,156 acre feet of water 

was transferred among Sacramento Valley contractors using transaction specific environmental documentation. 

Separate from the transfer program Reclamation approved the 

delivery of a large volume of water that was rescheduled or held 

over in storage from the 2008 water year. This was approximately 

390,000 acre feet of water. As clear from this year’s activity the Department supports facilitating the transfer of water to areas experiencing shortages. 

Reclamation does however have a continued obligation to ensure 

that transfers are not detrimental to the operations of the CVP, do 
13 

1 All net present value figures cited in this testimony were calculated by discounting the payment stream to the year 2009 using the rate fro 30-year Treasury constant maturities for the 

week ending October 9, 2009. The exact net present value will fluctuate based on the date of 

the calcualtion and the Treasury rate. 2This allocation will be subject to revision should there be additions to the project. 

not cause harm to third parties, including tribal interests and does 

not create adverse environmental consequences. To that end if S. 

1759 is enacted, Reclamation will review its procedures and put in 

place effective and efficient administrative guidelines to ensure 

that the water transfers addressed by the bill can’t take place consistent with other legal obligations that exist within the Central 

Valley project. This review will not, however, apply traditional consumptive use and historic use criteria pursuant to the terms of the 

bill. 

I would also like to note that S. 1759 may have some financial 

implications associated with its provisions. Because of the adversity 

of CVP contractors and the many different scenarios under which 

water transfers take place. However, Reclamation would only be 

able to fully calculate the financial impacts at the time of the given 

transfer. An example is provided in my written statement. 

Finally the Department recommends several technical corrections 

to the legislation as set forth in my written remarks. One of these 

corrections however, has already been addressed recently in the recently enacted 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. This 

concludes my prepared remarks. I’m happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:] 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

S. 1757

Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Mike Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide 

the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 1757. The legislation allows for prepayment of the current and future repayment contract obligations of the Uintah Water 

Conservancy District (District) of the costs allocated to their municipal and industrial water (M&I) supply on the Jensen Unit of the Central Utah Project (CUP) and 

provides that the prepayment must result in the United States recovering the net 

present value of all repayment streams that would have been payable to the United 

States if S. 1757 were not enacted. S. 1757 would amend current law to change the 

date of repayment to 2019 from 2037. The legislation would also allow repayment 

to be provided in several installments and requires that the repayment be adjusted 

to conform to a final cost allocation. The Department supports S. 1757. 

The District entered into a repayment contract dated June 3, 1976, in which they 

agreed to repay all reimbursable costs associated with the Jensen Unit of the CUP. 

However, pursuant to Section 203(g) of the Central Utah Project Completion Act of 

1992 (P.L. 102-575) the District’s contract was amended in 1992 to reduce the 

project M&I supply under repayment to 2,000 acre-feet annually and to temporarily 

fix repayment for this supply based upon an interim allocation developed for an 

uncompleted project. The 1992 contract required the District to repay about $5.545 

million through the year 2037 at the project interest rate of 3.222% with annual 

payments of $226,585. The net present value of the amount remaining from this income stream starting in 2009 is $4,028,443.1

However, the costs allocated to the contracted M&I supply, and the M&I supply 

available through additional contract amendments, may be significantly revised in 

the future upon project completion and Final Cost Allocation. An additional currently unallocated cost of $7,419,513 is expected to be allocated to the contracted 

2,000 acre-feet.2 These are the costs that paragraph 3 of S. 1757 requires to be included in the prepayment. Assuming that the costs allocated to the contracted 2,000 

acre-feet will be increased by $7,419,513 with the reallocation in 2019, the net 
14 

present value of the stream of benefits from this reallocation is $4,924,701. Therefore, under Reclamation’s assumptions, the net present value of the total stream of 

benefits anticipated under this contract is $4,924,701 plus $4,028,443, or $8,953,144. 

The contracted M&I amount is $4.1 million and the adjustment amount is $7.4 million. In total non-discounted dollars, the Conservancy District owes the Federal government $11.6 million. 

Under Reclamation law, water districts are not authorized to prepay their M&I 

repayment obligation based upon a discounted value of their remaining annual payments. 

This legislation would authorize early repayment by the Uintah Conservancy District to the Federal government. Because there is an interest component to the M&I 

repayment streams to be repaid early, early repayment without an adjustment for 

interest would result in lower overall repayment to the United States. To keep the 

United States whole, the Bureau of Reclamation would collect the present value of 

the whole amount that would be due without early repayment. Thus, given Reclamation’s assumptions the present value of the payments collected under this legislation will be at least $8,953,144, although the legislation allows some flexibility in 

the timing of the repayment and under some scenarios the total amount due could 

be higher. 

The language in S. 1757 has been amended from the language contained in an 

earlier version of this legislation, H.R. 2950. The amended language clarifies that 

this legislation requires that the Federal government be paid what it is owed by the 

Conservancy District. Because the United States supports the goals of providing for 

early repayment under this contract, and S. 1757 clearly establishes that early repayment under this legislation must be of an amount equal to the net present value 

of the foregone revenue stream, the Department supports this legislation. 

S. 1758

Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, I am Michael Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today on behalf 

of the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science who oversees the Central Utah 

Project Completion Act activities to present the Administration’s views on S. 1758, 

the Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower Facilitation Act. The proposed legislation is 

associated with development of hydropower on the Diamond Fork System, Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project. 

The Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA) provides for the completion 

of the construction of the Central Utah Project (CUP) by the Central Utah Water 

Conservancy District (CUWCD). CUPCA also authorizes programs for fish, wildlife, 

and recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an account in the Treasury 

for deposit of appropriations and other contributions; establishes the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to coordinate mitigation and conservation activities; and provides for the Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement. 

Hydropower development on CUP facilities was authorized as part of the Colorado 

River Storage Project Act (CRSPA) under which the Central Utah Project is a participating project. The development of hydropower on the Diamond Fork System has 

been contemplated since the early days of the CUP. The 1984 Environmental Impact 

Statement on the Diamond Fork System described the construction of five hydropower plants with a combined capacity of 166 MW of power. 

However, these hydropower plants were never constructed and the 1999 Environmental Impact Statement on the Diamond Fork System presented a plan which specifically excluded the development of hydropower, stating ‘‘... there are no definite plans or designs, and it is not known if or by whom they may be developed.’’ 

Although hydropower development was not included, construction of pipelines and 

tunnels for the Diamond Fork System were completed and put into operation in 

July 2004. Under full operation the Diamond Fork System will annually convey 

101,900 acre-feet of CUP Water and 61,500 acre-feet of Strawberry Valley Project 

Water. 

In 2002 CUPCA was amended to authorize development of federal project power 

on CUP facilities. With this new amendment plans for hydropower development at 

Diamond Fork were included in the 2004 Utah Lake System Environmental Impact 

Statement and the 2004 Supplement to the Definite Plan Report for the Bonneville 

Unit (DPR). These documents describe the construction of 2 hydropower plants on 

the existing Diamond Fork System for a total generating capacity of 50 MW. 

Section 208 of CUPCA included provisions that power on CUP features would be 

developed and operated in accordance with CRSPA and CUP water diverted out of 

the Colorado River Basin for power purposes would be incidental to other project 

purposes. 
15 

There are 2 options for hydropower development on the Diamond Fork System: 

1) federal project development or 2) private development under a Lease of Power 

Privilege contract with the United States. 

Under the first option the CUWCD would construct the Diamond Fork hydropower plants under contract with the United States and contribute an upfront local 

cost share of 35 percent of the construction costs. In addition to the hydropower construction costs, the costs associated with conveyance facilities upstream of the Diamond Fork would have to be repaid by the non-Federal project sponsors. 

The DPR allocates costs of the CUP according to project purposes. The reimbursable costs allocated to power are $161 million based upon the costs of developed features upstream of the Diamond Fork System. It is anticipated that under this option, these allocated costs would be repaid through an arrangement among Interior, 

CUWCD, and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). 

Under the second option, private hydropower could be developed. Although the 

DPR and 1999 EIS describe federal hydropower development, they also provide the 

option for a Lease of Power Privilege arrangement with the United States. Under 

this arrangement Interior would implement a competitive process to select a lessee 

for private development of hydropower at Diamond Fork. The lease arrangement 

would require repayment of the $161 million of upstream costs plus annual payments to the United States for the use of the federal facilities, amounting to at least 

a 3 mil rate paid by the lessee to the United States. 

S. 1758 does not preclude federal development of hydropower, but it does increase 

the likelihood of private development. If enacted, this bill would indefinitely defer 

the $161 million in costs allocated to power development in the Diamond Fork System under section 211 of CUPCA, thus reducing the cost of hydropower development 

at this site. This bill would increase the likelihood that a private developer would 

pursue a Lease of Power Privilege arrangement because the private developer would 

not, under this legislation, be required to repay the $161 million of construction 

costs that were allocated to power as would be required under existing law. 

We understand and appreciate the goal of this legislation of facilitating the development of hydroelectric power on the Diamond Fork System. 

However, the Administration has serious concerns about losing our ability to recoup the Federal investment made in these facilities as set forth in this legislation. 

The Federal government may benefit in the medium term from the annual payments for the use of Federal facilities that would be paid if a lessee entered into 

a Lease of Power Privilege arrangement for production of hydroelectric power on the 

Diamond Fork System. Assuming only a summer water supply as under current deliveries, these payments are estimated at about $400,000 a year starting the year 

that the project is completed and continuing for the life of the project. However, because payment of $161 million of allocated power costs would be postponed indefinitely, it is unclear what the long-term fiscal implications of enactment of this legislation would be and how the United States Treasury would be made whole. This 

legislation would potentially permanently postpone anticipated receipts to the U.S. 

Treasury at the expense of the Federal taxpayer. While it is not clear at this time 

whether a nonfederal developer would propose a hydroelectric project at Diamond 

Fork under current law, if this were to occur, repayment of the allocated power costs 

would begin after the hydroelectric project is completed and average $5.3 million a 

year for 50 years. 

Section 5 of S. 1758 would prohibit the use of tax-exempt financing to develop any 

facility for the generation or transmission of hydroelectric power on the Diamond 

Fork System. This provision was added to the bill to prevent any loss of revenue 

to the federal government as a result of the financing mechanism used for development of hydropower at this site. 

Further analysis would help to determine whether this legislation to facilitate private development of hydropower at Diamond Fork would provide sufficient benefits 

to justify the costs. 

S. 1759

I am Mike Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to 

be here today to provide the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) 

on S. 1759, the ‘‘Water Transfer Facilitation Act.’’ The Department supports S. 1759 

with modification as explained below. Further analysis would help to determine the 

role that this bill could play in providing improved flexibility and efficiency for 

water management in the Central Valley. 

The Central Valley of California is experiencing a third year of drought which has 

strained the resources of both the State Water Project under the jurisdiction of the 

State of California, and the Central Valley Project (CVP) operated by Reclamation. 
16 

The prolonged drought has created severe hardship especially to farmers, farm 

workers, and related economies on the west side of the San Joaquin River valley. 

The Department is cognizant of the need for creativity and flexibility in meeting the 

water demands of Californians served by the Central Valley Project. The Department supports facilitating the transfer of water from those areas having available 

water supplies to areas experiencing shortage to the extent that water transferred 

is not detrimental to the operations of the CVP, does not cause harm to third parties, and does not create adverse environmental consequences. 

When they are done right, water transfers move water from willing sellers to willing buyers in transactions that can improve economic well-being, increase efficiency 

in water use, and protect against negative externalities. There are many situations 

where water transfers during periods of drought can be used to ensure that available water is used in areas where it is most needed, and S. 1759 is aimed at facilitating these efficient water transfers. We recognize the potential of voluntary water 

transfer as a mechanism to increase flexibility into our water management system 

and respond to changes in available water resources. However, we are also committed to implementing review processes for all water transfers that will effectively 

protect the broad range of interests that can be impacted by changes in water use. 

Our goals as a Department include ensuring efficient use of available water infrastructure as well as maintaining vibrant communities and protecting the environment. 

Together with the California State Water Code, current Federal law in Section 

3405(a)(1) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA) (Public 

Law 102-575, 106 Stat. 4709) prescribes those conditions under which CVP water 

is transferable. While the proposed legislation establishes that water transfers between and among specified South of Delta divisions are presumed to meet the historical and consumptive use requirements of subparagraphs (A) and (I) of section 

3405(a)(1) of Public Law 102-575, the proposed legislation does not change the obligation of the Department to protect the public interest and the integrity of the CVP, 

and to otherwise act in accordance with the provisions of the CVPIA. To this end, 

if the proposed legislation is enacted, Reclamation will review its procedures and ensure that administrative guidelines are in place as necessary to assure that transfers of water continue to serve the overall public interest. Specifically, Reclamation 

will continue to ensure that transfers take place without significant adverse impacts 

to other water users, federal programs, Indian tribes, CVP operations, or the environment. We suggest that these guidelines be expressly incorporated into the items 

we report to Congress under Section 4(a) of the bill, under which Reclamation would 

submit reports to Congress on the status of efforts to help facilitate and improve 

the process for water transfers within the Central Valley and water transfers between the CVP and the State Water Project. 

Under the CVPIA and contract provisions, Reclamation must approve proposed 

water transfers and cannot approve transfers unless the transfer is consistent with 

California water law. Transfers are on a willing buyer, willing seller basis, and Reclamation facilities can be used to deliver transferred water only when approved by 

Reclamation. Reclamation collects various charges, including operation and maintenance charges, incremental conveyance costs, and CVPIA restoration fund charges, 

together with the cost of service rates, as required by law from the entities that 

transfer the water (the transferors). Because of the diversity of CVP contractors and 

the many different scenarios under which water transfers take place, if S. 1759 were 

enacted there would probably be some financial impacts that Reclamation would 

only be able to fully calculate upon completion of a given transfer. For example, depending on the contract in place with specific CVP contractors, the legislation could 

generate additional revenue for the CVPIA restoration fund and for the San Joaquin 

River Restoration fund in some years in the Friant Unit of the CVP. In this area 

in 2008, Friant contractors could have transferred about 40,000 acre-feet to westside CVP contractors in the San Luis Unit under the proposed legislation. The 

transferred water would have been subject to the CVPIA restoration fund charges 

(about $9) under Title X of Public Law 111-11, Section 10009(c)(1)(B), as well as 

Friant surcharges, resulting in additional revenues to the Restoration Fund. 

If enacted, S. 1759 could strengthen Reclamation’s ability to facilitate appropriate 

water transfers. We would note, additionally, that Reclamation already has a robust 

water transfer program. This year in the CVP, Reclamation has facilitated the 

transfer of over 600,000 acre feet of water by and among CVP contractors, as well 

as users of State Water Project water. This has been a record for the Reclamation 

since on average there are approximately 250,000 acre feet of transfers which are 

processed by the CVP and State Water Project. For figures specific to only the federal CVP, Reclamation has signed off on a total of 168 individual transfers totaling 

approximately 435,286 acre feet of federal contract water. All were accomplished 
17 

within the accelerated water transfers program using programmatic environmental 

documentation. An additional 9,156 acre feet was transferred among Sacramento 

Valley contractors using transaction-specific environmental documentation. 

Separate from the transfer program, a large volume of water was delivered that 

was ‘‘rescheduled,’’ or held over in storage, from the 2008 water year. Of the 337,307 

acre feet of water rescheduled in San Luis Reservoir from 2008 into 2009, approximately 12,518 acre feet were eventually transferred, approximately 50,000 acre feet 

remains in San Luis, and the remainder was delivered to the party rescheduling it. 

Friant Division contractors rescheduled approximately 55,615 acre feet in Millerton 

Reservoir, and of that, 11,848 acre feet were transferred. Cross Valley Contractors 

rescheduled 6,063 acre feet of water from 2008, all of which together with 11,550 

acre feet of 2009 contract supply was transferred to Westside contractors. These 

transfers were in addition to the accelerated transfers described above. 

In addition to the suggested change to Section 4(a) above, the Department would 

also like to offer a technical change to the proposed legislation. The Department 

suggests that the initial reporting in Section 4(a) be set at 6 months from the date 

of enactment to provide adequate time for meaningful information to be available 

to Congress. Accordingly, we suggest editing the reference in Section 4(b) to delete 

‘‘Not later than July 15, 2010’’ and to call for Reclamation to update the report every 

180 days after the date on which the initial report is submitted to Congress. 

With regard to Section 3 of S. 1759, the Fish and Wildlife Service has confirmed 

that the Service could provide a programmatic biological opinion to Reclamation on 

water transfers if this is determined to be appropriate. The consultation process 

would begin with a request from Reclamation for consultation accompanied by a biological assessment that describes Reclamation’s water transfer program and evaluates the potential effects of the program on listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat and determines whether any such species or 

habitat are likely to be adversely affected by the program. The Service could potentially expedite a programmatic biological opinion, subject to the availability of appropriations. 

I would also like to note that Reclamation is currently working with the California Department of Water Resources in developing consistent evaluation criteria 

for a long-term, programmatic water transfer program designed to provide for water 

transfers from State and Federal contractors North of the Delta to contractors South 

of the Delta. These transfers will continue to be subject to the consumptive and beneficial use requirements in the State Water Code. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Let 

me first talk about S. 1758 and ask you if this legislation is enacted would the Department of the Interior initiate a competitive 

bidding process to issue a lease of power privilege for the right to 

develop hydroelectric power at the Diamond Fork system facilities? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, that’s typically the process to initiate an open 

competition or inquiry of interest amongst whoever wants to express that interest for at least a power privilege arrangement. 

Senator STABENOW. What are your plans to develop green energy 

including hydroelectric power? 

Mr. CONNOR. The Bureau, as Secretary Salazar has pointed out 

here in front of this Committee, the Department has a very broad 

agenda in the area of green energy, renewable energy resources. 

Reclamation, in particular, has put it in the category of 3 different 

areas that we’re looking at hydropower development and another 

area that we’re looking at renewable energy development. 

With respect to the 3 areas of hydropower development, the first 

is we are conducting a review of our current facilities looking to 

those opportunities that we think exist for putting hydro generation units on those existing facilities. So new units on existing facilities. 

There was a study done pursuant to the 2005 Energy Policy Act 

which required us to look at those opportunities. We were going to 

take another look at that study with its renewed emphasis on renewable energy development. We might have a few more identified 
18 

potential projects than these 6 that were—that came out of that 

particular report. 

A second area is our long standing Reclamation program which 

we’re going to give more emphasis to which is up rating and increasing efficiency at existing hydroelectric units. Over the last 30 

years I think the figure is and if I’m wrong I’ll correct it for the 

record, is something in the neighborhood of 1,800 megawatts in capacity has been created just through efficiency gains in up rating 

and re-building some of these units. 1,800 megawatts of capacity 

is approximately the capacity of Hoover Dam generation facilities. 

As an ongoing effort right now we are up rating 2 units at Grand 

Coulee Dam which will result in a yield of 110 megawatts of additional capacity which is the equivalent of a large wind farm. So 

there’s some pretty significant gains that could be made through 

the efficiency program. 

Last we are looking at trying to facilitate low head, hydro, small 

hydro opportunities. We have a lot of creative thinking going on 

amongst our water user communities and power communities 

where they are looking at using drops in their canal structures 

since water is flowing through there putting in canal generation 

units. Through the 40 million dollars we made available through 

Recovery Act funding we allocated $40 million for water conservation efficiency and renewable energy type projects. 

We did one in Oregon that was a win/win for many projects—as- pects. We invested $2 million in to lining of about a mile of canal. 

Actually taking an unlined canal out of service, replacing with a 

pipeline, putting in a 0.75 megawatt unit turbine on that pipeline 

system saving 29 cubic feet per second of water that we allocated 

to the stream for fish purposes. 

So those are the type of projects that we’re going to do with respect to hydro power. We’ve already done some. We’re going to look 

to expand that in fiscal year 2010. 

The last area is just non hydro renewables whether it be wind, 

solar, geothermal. We are going to look to try and integrate some 

of those renewable energy opportunities into our water operations. 

If we can do that and use some of our project needs for power 

through those renewable energy resources we can save our hydro 

power resources and keep more on the grid. 

Senator STABENOW. Great. Thank you very much. It’d be helpful 

to gain some understanding of some of the general mechanics of 

the legislation addressing the California water transfers. 

I wondered if you might speak to what the bill does. For example, section 2 relates to certain conditions that the Bureau of Reclamation must follow in evaluating water transfers within the Central Valley project. That relates to transfers of irrigation water 

among certain projects and contractors within certain divisions. 

Can you confirm that all of those divisions are located below the 

pumping stations in the delta that take water from the Sacramento 

Valley to the San Joaquin Valley? 

Mr. CONNOR. The provisions of section 2 of the bill, our interpretation has been that they are south of delta facilities. That those 

are the districts and facilities indicated by the legislation there has 

been, I know, some discussion about that point. Maybe some clarification may be necessary. 
19 

But that’s been our interpretation in looking at the bill. 

Senator STABENOW. Ok. Thank you. 

Senator Bennett. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much. You make reference in 

your comment about the amount the Federal Government would 

lose under 1758. The amount they would lose if it were developed 

under present law. 

But you acknowledge that the best way to facilitate hydro power 

development at Diamond Fork is to allow this bill to pass. Do you 

believe that if we do not allow this bill to pass that there will be 

hydro development there? Because you’ll lose it all—— 

Mr. CONNOR. Right. 

Senator BENNETT [continuing]. If there is no hydro development 

on at Diamond Fork. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, Senator Bennett. Thank you for that question. 

I would just caveat, as you know, the Central Utah project and its 

operations are run out of the Assistant Secretary’s office. 

Senator BENNETT. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOR. So, I may supplement some of these answers for 

the written record. But I think in reviewing this matter there has 

been some economic analysis in a definite plan report that the Department had done with respect to hydro power development. The 

economic analysis, as I understand, this is a 2004 definite plan report, did show that there was economic viability of a project that 

could take into account that $161 million in sunk cost. 

So that was the Department’s perspective. That you could repay 

those costs, still develop sufficient hydro power resources and recoup that and make it a viable economic enterprise. So from that 

standpoint we think there should be able to be hydro power development. 

Having said that, it’s safe to say there was controversy or there 

was disagreement about that economic analysis. 

Senator BENNETT. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOR. There has not yet been hydro power development 

to date. 

Senator BENNETT. So we’ve had 5 years of experience since the 

time someone opined that yes, it should go forward. We’ve had 5 

years of experience without it going forward. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, right. 

Senator BENNETT. Is that a safe summary here? 

Mr. CONNOR. That’s correct. 

Senator BENNETT. Ok. I’m leaning on that 5 years experience to 

say let’s not let another 5 years go by without any money coming 

into the Federal Government. The $161 million has been spent. It 

is indeed a sunk cost. 

If we do not have any hydro power there as the 5 ars we’ve had 

indicate we will not have. Then the 161 is never going to be repaid. 

But if we can indefinitely defer the repayment and thus lure somebody on to build the dam and create the power, then indefinitely 

deferred is not the same thing as cancel. The Congress can come 

back and say, alright, now you’ve got a viable activity going on and 

these are the terms we want. 

Isn’t that a viable thing to look forward to? 
20 

Mr. CONNOR. That certainly is a strategy that could play out. I 

certainly understand that. I think that in the interim as Congress 

decides how it will proceed with this bill we will continue to look 

at the economics and keep your office updated. 

Senator BENNETT. I’m a businessman. I look at it in terms of 

cash-flow, Madame Chairman. The cash has already flowed. An opportunity to get some of it back is something that’s attractive to 

me. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Senator Bennett. 

At this point unless we have further questions I would thank 

Commissioner Connor very much for your testimony. 

We would move to our second panel of Martin McIntyre, representing the San Luis Water District. 

Hamilton Candee, representing the Grassland Water District. 

So we welcome and again, appreciate very much you’re traveling 

here today to be able to speak about what I know is a very important topic for both of you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. McIntyre is you would take about 5 minutes to summarize 

your testimony we would appreciate it. Then Mr. Candee, if you 

would do the same as well, we would appreciate it. Then we will 

open it for questions. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MARTIN R. MCINTYRE, GENERAL MANAGER, 

SAN LUIS WATER DISTRICT, LOS BANOS, CA 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Thank you, Madame Chair, Senator Bennett. I’m 

grateful to be here today. My name is Martin McIntyre. I am the 

General Manager for the San Luis Water District. 

I would like to make clear, however, that today I represent more 

than just the San Luis Water District and its constituents. I’m carrying with me today the hopes, the needs of cities, communities, industry and thousands of family farms in the San Joaquin Valley. 

I consider that to be a substantial burden. Hopefully I will represent those interests fairly and effectively today. 

I’m grateful to speak in support of S. 1759 and want in particular to thank Senators Feinstein and Boxer for their sponsorship 

of this bill. As you’ve heard previously and undoubtedly know from 

your own experience, the San Luis Water District, the San Joaquin 

Valley and indeed the entire State of California is experiencing a 

severe social and economic crisis driven by limited availability and 

reallocation of water supplies throughout the state. The decisions 

that we make in the next year or 2 will have a profound impact 

on the economy and the people of California. 

I’d like to tee up my comments very briefly, if I might, by referring you to a map that I believe was handed out to you earlier. So 

that perhaps we can become geographically oriented. I’m going to 

draw your attention to several features on the map. 

If you look to the far left hand corner of the map you will see 

the state and Federal pumping plants identified as CVP and State 

Water Project Banks Pumping Plant. Just to the north or to the 

left off the map is the Sacramento San Joaquin delta of which 

there’s been much information shared of late. All of our water supply on the west side largely comes through the San Joaquin delta. 
21 

It has become a choke point for both the state and Federal water 

projects. 

So the west side of the valley is to the bottom of your page where 

the San Luis Water District is located. On the upper side of the 

map in green is the Friant unit. There are 2 critical lines both in 

a reddish color running from the pumps all the way along the west 

side and south as far as Los Angeles. That is the California aqueduct. It is one of the carotid arteries, if you will, of water supply 

and economic and social well being within the state. 

To the north is the Friant Kern canal. They both converge down 

at the right side of your map. Those projects serve at least a significant portion of water supply to 25 million people within the 

state. They service to the north, Silicon Valley, to the south, all the 

way to Los Angeles commercial and industrial centers. It is indeed 

a critical artery through which water supply flows. So the bill before you would affect only those areas reflected on this map and 

not those areas north in the delta region. 

The west side of the San Joaquin Valley is a consequence of environmental, regulatory actions in the delta have seen in the past 15 

years their water decline from their contracted supply from an average approaching 100 percent of that contract supply all the way 

to an average of 35 percent of contract supply. Shockingly this year 

our allocation was 10 percent. That has led to some pretty extraordinary dislocation of families and economies in the Central Valley. 

I have seen farmers with fear and anger in their eyes as they see 

their family legacies, second and third generation farms, at risk. 

We’ve seen food lines hundreds of feet long where unemployed farm 

workers are receiving food handouts to feed their families. We have 

tried to adapt to this changing environment. 

We’ve done so with extraordinarily aggressive implementation of 

water efficiency programs, drip irrigation, lining channels, piping 

facilities, fallowing ground. We have, in San Luis Water District 

100 percent of our agricultural water is metered. But none the less 

we have been unable to satisfy the water supply needs. We 

fallowed over 500 square miles of some of the most productive Ag 

land in the world. 

In simplest terms this bill would simply help facilitate some 

transfers between the east side of the San Joaquin Valley on the 

map I referred to on the west side. In practice, however, water 

transfers are generally very complex. Can require 6 to 8, 10 

months in order to accomplish and often miss the critical target for 

irrigation season or urban needs. 

I was going to present to you today a brief summary of the extraordinary efforts we’ve gone through this year to move water 25 

miles reflected on your map right in the center of the map with the 

red arrow from the green area to the blue area. As a consequence 

of limited facilities and other restrictions however, it was necessary 

to gain approvals from 5 different agencies to execute half a dozen 

agreements. To transfer that water all the way down the northerly 

artery, across the valley and wheel it back up all the way to the 

San Luis reservoir on the north end of the California aqueduct. 

That process was fraught with risk, cost and in fact, took us 9 

months to accomplish. We’re still not certain the water will actually be received. 
22 

So this bill is a welcome aid in facilitating some portions of those 

complex transfers. But indeed the largest solutions, as expressed 

by both of the Senators that testified earlier, requires a much 

broader perspective and must address a declining bay delta area 

where food webs have collapsed, species populations have collapsed. 

We believe that the state and Federal pumps that provide the life 

blood to the state have been disproportionately blamed for the decline of species. We encourage a broad re-visitation of the biologic 

opinions that were issued for delta smelt in particular in view of 

recent science that has become available. 

I thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I trust that we 

will be able to avoid some of the impending human tragedy that 

is on the horizon. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntyre follows:] 

STATEMENT OF MARTIN R. MCINTYRE, GENERAL MANAGER, SAN LUIS WATER

DISTRICT, ON S. 1759 

Chairwoman Stabenow, honorable members of the Committee: Good afternoon, I 

am Martin McIntyre, General Manager of the San Luis Water District, and I greatly 

appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. 

I am here in support of S. 1759, the Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009. I 

frequently speak on behalf of the San Luis Water District but today I also represent 

the hopes and needs of a much larger constituency including cities, industry, thousands of family farms, their employees and many water districts served by the Central Valley Project (CVP). 

I was asked to testify before this committee because the San Luis Water District 

will live or die by the success or failure of water transfers. In 2009, with only 10 

percent CVP allocation, failure to transfer adequate supplies of supplemental water 

would have resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of acres of high value permanent crops. I have been personally responsible for oversight of numerous transfers 

and negotiating the withering gauntlet of agreements, administrative approvals, 

and regulatory processes required for a one time single year transfer. 

The social and economic tragedy that has been unfolding for years is now upon 

us. In 2009, a combination of prior regulation, 3 years of below normal precipitation 

and new Endangered Species Act regulations have resulted in a meager 10 percent 

allocation of CVP contract supplies to districts lying south of the San Joaquin/Sacramento Bay Delta (Delta). Over 500 square miles of productive land has been 

fallowed, threatening farms, families, cities and counties with unprecedented economic hardship. 

Worse still, the US Bureau of Reclamation has advised that in 2010 we will receive only 10 to 30 percent water supply allocation under average hydrology and 

only 25 to 40 per cent allocation in the wettest of years. Prior to Biologic Opinions 

(B.O.s) rendered in the past 2 years, south of Delta CVP allocations averaged 65 

percent. Current hydrologic modeling forecasts a decline of average annual allocations to 35 percent as a consequence of the recent smelt and salmon B.O. 

California’s water supply is in crisis. The Delta is in crisis. Numerous species, 

habitat and levees are all in serious decline. Twenty-five million people and 3 million acres of prime agriculture depend on water supply from the Delta. There are 

many troubling causes for decline of Delta species including: 

• Collapse of the food web 

• Toxic runoff 

• Invasive species 

• Thousands of unscreened water pumps throughout the Delta 

• Changes ocean conditions 

Despite all these other critical impacts, decline of Delta aquatic species has been 

historically blamed on the State Water Project and Central Valley Project pumps 

that support much of the State’s population and agriculture. Until we address the 

primary causes of Delta decline, California’s water supply security will continue to 

erode. 

Under these increasingly dire circumstances, we cannot survive without exercising all available tools, including the tools to be provided by S 1759, the Water 

Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009. 
23 

Central Valley Project water users support S. 1759 because it would expedite our 

ability to employ water transfers as one tool to make the best use of our limited 

supplies. We thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer for introducing this legislation. Congressmen Jim Costa and Dennis Cardoza have introduced companion legislation in the House, and we urge Congress to move forward on these bills as soon 

as possible. 

S 1759-WHAT IT WOULD DO AND WHAT IT WOULD NOT DO

In the Central Valley, irrigation districts and water agencies have for decades exchanged and transferred water to each other as a means of getting surplus water 

to water short areas. These water transfers are regulated by California water law 

and by federal and state environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and the National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA). Transfers of water in 

federal Central Valley Project are subject to an additional level of regulation under 

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 1992 (CVPIA). 

One of the major purposes of the CVPIA was to ‘‘assist California urban areas, 

agricultural water users, and others in meeting their future water needs.’’ (CVPIA, 

Section 3405(a)). The law affected water transfers in 3 major ways. First, it allowed, 

for the first time, CVP water to be sold by individual water users to entities outside 

the CVP service area. The authors of the legislation intended this provision to ‘‘open 

up’’ CVP supplies to major urban areas, such as Los Angeles, and generate revenue 

for CVP environmental restoration through transfer fees. Second, it allowed certain 

water-rights holders in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys to transfer water 

made available to them by the CVP under settlement contracts with the federal government. Third, the CVPIA made these newly-authorized transfers subject to review 

and approval by the Interior Department, through the Bureau of Reclamation, according to a set of criteria written into the Act. 

The CVPIA has not achieved its goal of facilitating water transfers to help Californians meet their water needs. The envisioned transfers of water out of the CVP 

service area to urban water agencies have not occurred for several reasons, including environmental restrictions on the Bay-Delta pumps. Transfers among agencies 

within the CVP service area have been slowed and even discouraged by the Bureau’s application of CVPIA. 

Before the Act, water agencies within the CVP routinely transferred water among 

themselves, often on short notice, in compliance with state law. Now, those transfers 

are subject to months of review by the Bureau. Moreover, CVP users believe that 

the Bureau is misinterpreting the CVPIA by applying the water transfers criteria 

intended only for the new transfers specifically authorized by the Act to historical 

transfers within regions of the CVP. The result is that some once-routine transfers 

are now not possible. S. 1759 is intended to facilitate water transfers among agencies within the CVP south of Delta service area by removing some of the bureaucratic impediments that discourage transfers or make them unnecessarily slow by 

doing the following: 

• First, Section 2(a) of the legislation would deem that transfers among water districts within the same region of the CVP south of the Bay-Delta have met the 

two CVPIA criteria (3405(a) (1) A and I) that were originally intended for only 

transfers outside of the CVP, for transfers between the Sacramento and San 

Joaquin Valleys and transfers from the Settlement Contractors. 

The purpose of the criteria is to ensure that agencies transfer only water that 

they actually have and could otherwise use so that transferring agencies do not impact the supplies of other water users. These ‘‘consumptive-use’’ and ‘‘historic-use’’ 

safeguards make sense for transfers that would move water through the Delta from 

the Sacramento Valley to the San Joaquin Valley or to a region entirely outside of 

the CVP service area. But they don’t make sense for transfers among agencies within the same region that are sharing the same limited regional water supply. 

• Section 2(a)(1) of the bill deems that the CVPIA ‘‘consumptive-use’’ and ‘‘historic-use’’ criteria are met by transfers among CVP water agencies (‘‘contractors’’) in specific Divisions of the Project south of the delta. This would allow 

some south-of-delta agencies to make water available for transfer they otherwise may not have made available under the Bureau’s interpretation of the two 

criteria and in general are wet year excess water. This provision would apply 

only to transfers among agencies south of the Delta. Transfers through the 

Delta and transfers to outside agencies beyond the CVP service area would still 

have to meet criteria in (3405(a)(1)A and I) of CVPIA . 

• Section 2(a)(1) of the bill deems that the criteria are met by transfers between 

CVP contractors and other agencies that are within the same CVP Division and 
24 

hold temporary CVP water supply contracts or once held temporary or longterm CVP water supply contracts. These are non-CVP irrigation districts within 

the service area of the Friant Unit of the CVP and intermingled with Friant 

districts. They receive water from the Kings, Kaweah and other rivers that flow 

through the Friant service area, and overlap the same groundwater aquifers as 

Friant districts. Temporary CVP contracts allow them to buy flood water from 

the CVP, when it’s available. 

Transfers among Friant CVP contractors and neighboring non-CVP districts have 

historically been used to make the best use of groundwater storage opportunities. 

The Bureau’s application of the CVPIA consumptive-use and historic-use criteria to 

these water-management transfers has made them more difficult, and in some cases 

impossible. S. 1759 would ease this impediment and allow for improved management of surface and groundwater supplies. 

• Section 2(b) (1) ensures that any transfer affected by S. 1759 not interfere with 

implementation of the San Joaquin River Settlement. • Section 3 of the bill would facilitate transfers within the entire CVP by directing the Interior Department to use existing authority to develop a programmatic environmental review of CVP water transfers. All CVP water transfers are subject to review under ESA and NEPA and currently a new review, 

stand-alone environmental review for each transfer even though many of the 

elements examined are common to most transfers. A programmatic approach allows the regulatory agencies to develop a framework addressing these common 

elements so that they don’t have to be examined anew for each transfer. Individual transfers would still be subject to separate environmental reviews, but 

reviews could be done faster within a programmatic framework. 

S. 1759 would not create any new water transfer authorities.—It would not waive 

or shortcut reviews of transfers under federal or state environmental laws, and it 

would not reduce revenues from environmental fees paid into the Central Valley 

Project Restoration Fund. It does not affect reviews of north-south transfers through 

the Delta or outside of the CVP. 

S. 1759 also does not create new water.—It removes some of the hurdles and expedites the efficient transfer and management of dangerously short and unreliable 

water supplies. Transfers help us buy time until long-term solutions are developed 

to return adequate and stable water supplies to California agriculture. But time is 

running dangerously short. 

S. 1759 does not create ‘‘Paper Water’’.—When the transfer provisions of the 

CVPIA were being assembled, it was clear that transfers of CVP water that had historically been provided to certain CVP contractors in settlement of water right 

issues associated with the development of the CVP, were going to be in play in 

terms of the new transfer capabilities to be provided by the proposed changes in 

law. In particular, the ability to transfer Sacramento River water rights settlement 

water supplies, as well as water supplies provided in settlement or exchange of San 

Joaquin River water rights, were now proposed to be able to be transferred. 

There was concern among existing CVP water service contractors from throughout 

the Project that some of this transfer potential for water rights settlement water 

supplies could adversely impact the availability of their CVP contract water supplies 

as some of the established water right settlement contract amounts had never been 

all put to use. To the extent this water hadn’t been put to use, it would be available 

for use as Project contract yield to the CVP water service contractors. Similarly, 

there were Municipal and Industrial CVP contracts that were still in a ‘‘build up’’ 

period that had a history of not using all of their CVP contract entitlement which 

raised similar concerns among the other contractors relative to the potential for 

transfers to occur with water that did not have a history of being put to use (e.g.. 

the term ‘‘paper water’’). 

Thus, the conditions associated with both Sections 3405(a)(1)(A) and 3405(a)(1)(I) 

were intended to protect CVP contractors from the potential that water which never 

had a history of being used (and thus was available to become part of the CVP yield 

for the balance of the CVP contractors) could now be transferred. The proposed 

changes modifying the application of these two sections of the CVPIA contained in 

the subject legislation would only apply to transfers as between CVP contractors 

south of the Delta (San Luis, Delta-Mendota, Mendota Pool, Cross Valley, San 

Felipe and Friant Divisions). The potential for ‘‘paper water’’ transfers for CVP contractors south of the Delta has never existed and does not exist today. While temporary surpluses of water for an individual contractor may exist from time to time 

(due in particular to local annual hydrologic conditions) there are no contractors 

that have contract entitlement amounts that otherwise go unused unless trans-
25 

* Figures 1 and 2 have been retained in subcommittee files. 

ferred. This is especially true under the water shortage conditions that exist for all 

CVP contractors south of the Delta resulting from reduced Delta pumping for protection of endangered species or resulting from new releases of water for San Joaquin River restoration. Thus, the proposed language does not increase the potential 

for ‘‘paper water’’ transfers. However, it does remove a significant impediment that 

was inadvertently created with the passage of the CVPIA and the unfortunate application of Sections 3405(a)(1)(A) and 3405(a)(1)(I) to transfers that used to occur with 

limited review which now are virtually precluded from occurring, all at a time when 

a great need exists to move water within the Project due to the previously mentioned conditions of water shortage. 

The San Luis Water District-A ‘‘Westside’’ District 

The San Luis Water District (SLWD) serves 66,000 acres located on the western 

side of the fertile San Joaquin Valley (See Figures 1 & 2)*. Historically, adequate 

supplies of water, fertile soils, an ideal climate and innovative farming practices 

have been combined to produce superior yields of high value crops which feed both 

the country and the California economy. In the past ten years there has been a 

growing shift from row crops to permanent crops (trees and vines). 

SLWD irrigation facilities are among the most efficient anywhere. District facilities include 52 miles of pipelines, 14.3 miles of lined canals and only 3.3 miles of 

unlined canals. SLWD does not own or operate any wells. On-farm irrigation efficiency is estimated to average greater than 80%. Water use efficiency in San Luis 

Water District includes the following features: 

• Over 96 percent of the distribution system is piped or lined 

• Over 80 percent of the irrigated lands are served by drip or micro systems 

• Less than 8 percent of irrigated lands are served by furrow and flood irrigation 

• 100 per cent of District and grower turnouts are metered 

• 100 per cent of on farm tail water retained/reused 

• Zero spill at conveyance system terminus points 

Despite this extremely efficient system, in 2009 about 25 percent of the District 

irrigable land has been fallowed and over 80 percent of annual crops have been 

abandoned due to cut backs in water supply. Even more ominous, the survival of 

permanent crops and family farms now hang in the balance. 

San Luis Water District’s only long term source of water supply is a contract with 

the US Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for up to 125,000 acre feet per year 

from the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project (CVP). Groundwater is extremely limited and generally of very poor quality. Due to factors discussed below, 

our CVP supply has become so unreliable that high value permanent crops are at 

serious risk. A single water short year could result in loss of permanent crops and 

associated capital investment. 

The Westside CVP 

The SLWD is situated roughly in the middle of a 3,300 square mile region of the 

California San Joaquin Valley generally known as the Westside of the San Joaquin 

Valley. This region (about the size of Delaware and Rhode Island combined) is located south of the California Bay-Delta (Delta) and extends roughly from the City 

of Tracy in the north to Kettleman City in the south and generally bordered on the 

east by the San Joaquin River and extending to the west into San Benito and Santa 

Clara (Silicon Valley) counties. 

Common to SLWD and 28 other Westside water purveyors south of the Delta are 

CVP water supply contracts administered by the Reclamation. The CVP is the largest single water project in the Nation. The Project provides water for farms, homes, 

factories, and the environment. It produces electric power, and provides flood protection, navigation, recreation, and water quality benefits from California’s great Central Valley to major urban centers in the San Francisco Bay Area. Water provided 

by the CVP to the Westside serves more than 1.3 million acres of highly productive 

farm land, 1.7 million Californians from small rural towns to the ‘‘Silicon Valley’’, 

and countless waterfowl dependent upon more than 100,000 acres of important wildlife management areas situated in the Pacific Flyway. 

West Side Water Supply Impacts 

For over 15 years, Central Valley Project contractors—particularly agricultural 

service contractors on the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley such as the San Luis 

Water District—have been experiencing a steady decline in both the volume and reliability of their water supply. Beginning with the listing of winter-run Chinook 
26 

salmon in 1989, followed by implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and Clean Water Act, the region endured a gradual decline in average annual CVP water allocations from nearly 100% prior to 1989 to current estimates of 

only 35%. As discussed below, this has severely strained the social and economic 

fabric of communities throughout the Westside. 

Supply Management and Water Use Efficiency 

In order to cope with this water supply decline, water districts and farmers 

throughout the Westside implemented new management practices, technologies, and 

strategies to improve the efficiency of their water use, conserve supplies, and acquire supplemental water. These changes have garnered worldwide attention and 

have established the Westside as the most water efficient agricultural producing region in the world. 

The following strategies have been widely adopted throughout the area: 

Conservation.—Tens of millions of dollars have been invested to conserve water 

so that it can be spread to as many acres as possible. Drip irrigation for permanent 

crops is standard and is also being implemented on a broad scale for row crops. Canals and ditches have been lined to reduce losses; low interest revolving loan programs have been implemented to encourage investment in conservation and water 

reuse. 

Transfers.—Transfers are active at the farm, district and Authority regional level. 

However many types of transfers require long lead times and entail uncertain approvals. Inter-region transfers are contingent upon Delta export pumping capacity, 

which has been virtually eliminated by recent B.O.s 

Crops.—In order to afford the investments in conservation and to be able to compete in costlier water markets, farmers have had to convert to high value vegetable 

and permanent crops. Trends over the last 15 years have shown a gradual and consistent conversion. 

Groundwater.—Unfortunately, groundwater in the region is generally spotty in 

both availability and quality. Monitoring programs have been implemented to track 

groundwater levels, drawdown, recovery rates and subsidence to determine sustainable yield and to maximize sustainable use. 

Land Fallowing/Retirement.—Unfortunately, even after aggressively implementing conservation, transfers, and groundwater programs there hasn’t been 

enough water available to irrigate all of the 1.1 million Westside acres. 300,000- 

400,000 acres have been idled either by farmers consolidating their supplies or 

through district programs. 

Despite the foregoing effort, recent, rapid, and successive federal Endangered Species Act actions have crippled the effectiveness of much of these prior strategies and 

investments due to severe operational limitations that have been imposed on the 

CVP by the FWS and NMFS to protect ESA listed delta smelt, Chinook salmon, 

green sturgeon, steelhead, and Southern Resident killer whales. These limitations 

dramatically reduce the Westside’s ability to supplement its chronically short contract supplies of water with traditional transfers from the north to the south. 

Regulatory Actions and the Future of Westside Agriculture 

In December 2008, the FWS issued a new Delta Smelt opinion on the continued 

operations the CVP and SWP. No estimate has been produced as to the population 

level benefits of the actions imposed by the FWS; however, adverse impacts upon 

the water supply of the CVP and SWP are generally agreed to average approximately 750,000 acrefeet of water per year. Numerous suits have been filed over the 

new opinion. 

In June 2009, the NMFS issued a new opinion Salmon, Steelhead and Green 

Sturgeon opinion further impacting the continued operations the CVP and SWP. No 

estimate has been produced as to the population level benefits of the actions imposed by the NMFS; however, adverse impacts upon the water supply of the CVP 

and SWP are estimated to average 450,000 acre-feet of water per year. Numerous 

lawsuits have been filed over the new opinion. 

Many in the academic and non-federal scientific communities point to impacts 

being caused by factors other than the CVP and SWP exports, such as invasive species, pollution, the thousands of non-CVP and SWP diversions, legal and illegal harvest, ocean conditions, and climate change. Lately, the federal fish agencies have 

begun to acknowledge that these other factors are contributing to the decline of species. But despite a growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating the significance of these other factors, they have done nothing either to estimate their importance or, more importantly, to curb their impact. 
27 

While benefits to fish through the FWS and NMFS historical management practices have been elusive, the adverse impacts to water users have been immediate, 

widespread and devastating. In a span of less than 2 years, farmers south of the 

Delta have seen their CVP water supplies cut from 65 percent of contract to 35 percent on average, an almost 50% percent reduction. 

In summary, the Westside’s ability to supplement its chronically short contract 

supplies of water with traditional transfers from the north to the south is severely 

limited and thus the ability to more effectively transfer and/or exchange water between the Westside and Eastside of the San Joaquin Valley, as well as within divisions, is critical in order to meet immediate water needs. 

Without tools that can provide immediate and meaningful relief to the Westside, 

the future of agriculture throughout the region is in extreme peril. The loss of agriculture throughout the region will disproportionately affect the small, rural communities that are based on this economy. 

‘‘Eastside’’ CVP, (Friant Division) 

The Friant Division is located on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley and 

serves approximately 15,000 farms on nearly 1 million acres of highly productive agricultural lands (See Figure 2). A number of cities and communities, including Fresno, Orange Cove and Lindsay, receive all or a significant portion of their water supply directly from the Friant Division. The Friant Division’s water supplies, which 

historically averaged about 1,250,000 acre feet per year, come from the San Joaquin 

River via exchange with the historical water rights holders who are to receive a 

more reliable water supply from northern California CVP facilities. The Friant Division is predominantly permanent crops. Some contractors are wholly dependent 

upon Friant supplies. Other contractors have supplemental supplies, including 

groundwater. Friant is a ‘‘conjunctive use’’ services area. In wet years, Friant supplies are used to recharge groundwater aquifers which are relied upon to make 

water deliveries in dry years. 

California water conditions—Impacts to Friant Water Division 

Pumping reductions in the Delta as a result of environmental regulations are also 

affecting the Friant Division. Earlier this year, for the first time in the nearly 60 

years of the project, Reclamation was concerned that it could not deliver northern 

California water to the Exchange Contractors. The Exchange Contractors could then 

call upon their historical water rights from the San Joaquin River. Up to 200,000 

acre feet of Friant water could have been lost. Unfortunately, modeling demonstrates that this risk will continue if conditions in the Delta are unchanged. 

Cross Valley CVP water supplies (128,000 acre feet) also come from northern California and those contractors reside within the Friant Division. Delta conditions have 

severely limited delivery of those water supplies and those diminished deliveries are 

impacting groundwater supplies for both the Cross Valley contractors and neighboring Friant contractors. 

Friant, Reclamation and the NRDC recently settled an 18 year old lawsuit over 

San Joaquin River operations and its effect on salmon fisheries which was supported by federal legislation, advanced by Senator Feinstein, earlier this year. The 

Settlement has two goals—restore the river system and salmon fishery and avoid 

or reduce water supply impacts to CVP contractors. Water released from Friant 

Dam can be recovered in the Delta. However, recent biological opinions have called 

into question whether restoration flow releases can be recaptured in the delta and 

returned to Friant. 

The delta pumping restrictions affecting water supplies in the Friant Division 

could result in the fallowing of over one hundred thousand acres of permanent and 

annual crops with significant economic impact to the eastside of the San Joaquin 

Valley and the loss of specialty crops, such as fruits and nuts, to the entire Nation. 

The Benefits of Transfers within the Friant Division of the CVP 

One of the key features of the Friant Division is the conjunctive use of surface 

and groundwater. Since the inception of the Project, wet year water has been used 

to replenish groundwater supplies. In certain instances, ground water recharge has 

been accomplished by transferring water to non-long term contractors within the 

Friant Division boundaries who share in a common groundwater basin. That transferred water is then used instead of groundwater (‘‘in-lieu recharge’’) or put into recharge facilities for direct groundwater recharge. Given the hydrological volatility of 

water supplies in the Friant Division, wet year conditions may suddenly occur and 

the opportunity to transfer the wet year water is short as a result of limited storage 

capability at Friant Dam.Transfer approvals are needed quickly to take advantage 

of groundwater recharge capabilities in wet years. 
28 

Case Study-Friant Division (East Side) Transfer 

Since the passage of CVPIA, transfers of wet year water to non-long-term CVP 

contractors have become increasingly difficult. The proposed legislation contains a 

provision which would statutorily meet the transfer conditions of the CVPIA that 

are currently causing restrictions and delays in transferring water. 

As an example, in the last wet year cycle, some Friant contractors were able to 

reduce irrigation demands due to rainfall into late May. One of the Friant districts, 

who has limited direct groundwater recharge facilities, desired to transfer water to 

a non-CVP contractor in the Friant Division who could recharge the groundwater 

using their facilities. The consumptive use condition in the CVPIA had the affect 

of thwarting this transfer. The water was ultimately put to beneficial use but by 

means not nearly as efficient and effective. Relief from the current CVPIA provisions for this type of transfer would improve the ability to use wet year conditions 

to recharge groundwater. Delays as a result of these provisions could result in a loss 

of water supplies to an already water supply deficient area. 

Case Study Eastside to Westside Water Transfer 

Many water transfers are extraordinarily complex, requiring numerous agreements, multiple exchange partners and various state and federal agency approvals, 

long processing times and multiple environmental documents. These processes add 

risk, time and cost to transfers. In many cases it is simply not possible to complete 

a transfer during the timeframe water is available. Due to a lack of conveyance facilities and excessive requirements, some seemingly simple transfers can become 

very complicated. One example: 

San Luis Water District (SLWD) is a Westside CVP contractor in Fresno County 

experiencing a zero water supply allocation in early 2009. Fresno Irrigation District 

(FID) is an Eastside CVP contractor also in Fresno County. FID owns and operates 

a water bank. In 2009 FID had surplus banked water to sell. In April terms were 

struck for a one time transfer of 10,000 acre feet, contingent on successful completion of environmental documents and various approvals. 

The transfer required: 

• Negotiation and execution of four agreements • Completion of federal environmental assessment • Approval by Reclamation • Approval by State Water Resources Control Board • Approval by Department of Water Resources • Approval by State Water Contractors • Approval by City of Fresno 

Despite the most diligent of efforts involving over twenty professionals, it was not 

until 6 months later, in the last feasible month, before transfer water actually began 

its 300 mile journey from FID to SLWD which have facilities separated by less than 

25 miles. Throughout the entire process there was no certainty that the essential 

water would actually be transferred. 

Human Impacts of Westside Water Shortages 

In January and February 2008, pumping constraints imposed upon the CVP and 

SWP by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California intended to 

protect delta smelt cost the projects collectively approximately 600,000 acre-feet of 

water. The impacts of regulation would have been worse except that drought took 

over, resulting in the driest March through May on record. Dr. David Sunding, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics at UC Berkeley, estimated the average statewide economic effect of protecting the threatened delta smelt under the 

constraints imposed by the Eastern District Court would exceed $1 billion and could 

eclipse $3 billion through lost crops and more expensive water. While the potential 

statewide impacts of these regulations is staggering, they in fact impact regions differently, and disproportionately affected the San Joaquin Valley’s Westside agricultural region due to lack of replacement supply and diminished transfer opportunities. 

As a result of the water supply shortages manifested in early 2008, water supply 

rationing was imposed in June by the CVP upon south-of-Delta contractors and the 

water supply allocation was cut from 45% to 40%. These actions occurred in the 

heart of the Westside’s growing season and resulted in economic impacts estimated 

by Dr. David Sunding to exceed $175,000,000 and 700 jobs in a matter of weeks. 

These impacts were in addition to those that had already rippled through the region 

as a result of the Eastern District Court constraints. 

Lack of transfer water has caused districts and individual growers to increase 

their reliance upon local groundwater and surface supplies. Forecasted economic im-
29 

* Letter has been retained in subcommittee files. 

pacts indicate potentially significant effects upon the region and State. The most recent analysis conducted by the UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource 

Economics suggests that the economic impact upon Central Valley agriculture due 

to 2009 water supply reductions resulted in 21,000 lost jobs and reductions in income exceeding $703 million. These findings are dependent upon an assumed ability 

of farmers to increase groundwater pumping, which is locale dependent and likely 

to increase production costs substantially. 

Land fallowing along the Westside has exceeded 350,000 acre feet and 500 square 

miles of highly productive land. Unemployment rates through many parts of the 

Westside exceed Depression era levels. Food lines are common in several rural 

Westside communities and need has often outstripped the ability of the food banks 

to provide. Currently, the Central Valley food bank is out of money. They have been 

serving an estimated 30,000 people through the summer, which is traditionally the 

best period for agricultural employment. Sadly, demand for social services is peeking at a time when the ability of local and state government to respond is also severely depressed due to the broader global economic downturn. 

Residents in the rural community of San Joaquin standing in relief line to receive 

food imported from China. 

The fact is regulatory impacts upon the CVP and SWP are affecting more than 

just water supplies. Rural communities, big cities, development, and environmental 

restoration are all being impacted. Currently there is a large, concerted, and long 

overdue effort to overhaul California’s water supply infrastructure and regulatory 

paradigm. However, many solutions lie too far out in the future and cannot satisfy 

the critical and urgent need for meaningful improvements now. Reforming the 

transfer provisions of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act is one important 

and readily available tool. 

Attachment 1: Letter* from Del Puerto Water District to the Honorable Ken Salazar, Secretary of Interior. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Candee, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HAMILTON CANDEE, ALTSHULER BERZON 

LLP, REPRESENTING GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT, SAN 

FRANCISCO, CA 

Mr. CANDEE. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madame chairwoman and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the invitation to testify before you today on S. 1759. 

My name is Hamilton Candee. I’m a partner in the San Francisco law firm of Altshuler Berzon. I’m appearing today on behalf 

of the Grassland Water District which is a contractor of the Central Valley project located in Merced County and a beneficiary of 

water transfers in the CVP. 

Grassland Water District is part of the larger Grassland Resource Conservation District which encompasses approximately 

60,000 acres of wetlands which is one of the most important wetland complexes west of the Mississippi. 

Grassland Water District delivers water to privately owned wetlands as well as to neighboring state and Federal wildlife refuge 

areas pursuant to a contract with the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Grasslands is also a participating organization within the Central Valley joint venture. An entity that is specifically referenced 

in the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Acts, CVPIA, for 

its central role in promoting and facilitating the acquisition of adequate water supplies for wetland habitat including state and Federal wildlife refuges. In working on this transfers bill we’ve been 

working closely with some of the NGO’s in the Central Valley Joint 
30 

Venture including National Audubon, California Audubon, Defenders of Wildlife and Ducks Unlimited. 

While Grasslands is supportive of the goals of S. 1759, we believe 

certain changes are needed to ensure that there are no unintended 

adverse impacts of the legislation on the refuge supply issue and 

to reaffirm the importance of meeting the goals of CVPIA with respect to wetlands and refuge areas. We appreciate the encouragement we have received from the authors of the legislation to provide suggested language improvements. We look forward to working with the committee and with the bill’s co-authors to identify 

ways to address each of our concerns. 

My written testimony and the attachments set out a more detailed statement of the predicament faced by Central Valley Refuges and the importance of the water supply provisions to address 

the ongoing predicament. In the interest of time I’ll be providing 

a short summary. I ask that the full written statement be put into 

the record. 

Between the 1850s and the 1950s the wetlands in the Central 

Valley went from 4 million acres down to less than 300,000 acres. 

Things continued to get worse between 1950 and 1970. Then when 

the drought hit in the 1970s the situation became much, much 

worse. 

During the latter part of the 1970s the greatly reduced wetland 

water supplies and in some instances eliminated all wetland water 

deliveries. The combination of drought and poor wetland water supply reliability resulted in significant impacts to wetland habitat 

and water bird populations. Partly in response, the North American Water Fowl Management Plan was enacted. That’s what led 

to the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture that I mentioned. 

Those groups worked together with Congress. In 1992 the Central Valley Project Improvement Act was enacted. In summary the 

CVPI was to provide key wetland basins with sufficient water supplies for the purpose of achieving optimum habitat management in 

all but the most critically dry years. 

There have been several long term water conveyance like contracts and agreements negotiated after the passage of CVPIA. Unfortunately the original program of CVPI was to provide what they 

call level 2, which is the historic water supplies and the basic mitigation supplies that were expected for all of the refuges, but also 

a level 4 supply. The difference was that level 2 would be provided 

right at the outset when the bill was passed and then level 4 would 

come in over time over 10 years and it would be acquired through 

transfers. 

Unfortunately the level 4 supplies have never shown up in the 

full amount. I attached a chart at the end of my testimony that 

shows what the level 4 supplies are supposed to be according to 

Congress, according to the act in 1992. What they’ve actually been 

delivered is far short of the actual level 4 target. 

Grassland Water District and the other organizations in the joint 

venture, the NGO’s will be providing separate written comments. 

But I want to focus on 2 areas where we’re concerned there may 

be an impact from the transfer legislation, the goals of the 1992 

CVPIA with regard to refuges. 
31 

The first is we understand that it’s the intent of the authors to 

preserve all the existing protections of the Federal and State environmental laws. But we feel that that issue needs to be clarified. 

It’s not 100 percent clear as you read through the bill that all the 

protections that are already in the CVPIA will be preserved. 

We think there are different ways you could do that. You can do 

it by amending section 2(a), by amending section 2(b) or you could 

put in a separate stand alone provision. We’re happy to work with 

Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer’s staff and the committee 

staff on what’s the best way to accomplish that. But we think this 

intent which apparently is implicit in the intention of the authors 

needs to be made more explicit. 

Second, we are concerned that the protection and restoration of 

wetlands will become more difficult as a result of this bill as it 

opens up the transfers market. There’s more demand for the transfers and the price goes up. The competition to move that water 

around becomes more intense. There could be negative impacts on 

the wildlife refuges. So there should be one or more mitigation 

measures to try to address that. 

One measure that we would recommend which is consistent with 

the philosophy of the bill in terms of facilitating transfers would be 

to make it easier for State and Federal wildlife refuge managers 

to move water from one refuge to another. You have this unusual 

situation now where some refuges in the north will not need their 

full supply in a particular year where some of the refuges in the 

south need a lot more water. They would like to move the water 

from one refuge to the other. But it’s very hard to do that and 

sometimes what happens is the water just ends up going back into 

the general pot and being distributed to cities or farms without any 

attention given to how you could move that water from one refuge 

to the other. 

It’s actually—it’s a doable thing. In fact even the current contracts with the refuges anticipate that that would be the first thing 

that you would do with any extra water. So we’d like to propose 

language, if it’s ok with the chair to the subcommittee, to suggest 

how that could be accomplished as a mitigation measure. 

Senator STABENOW. We’d be happy to have that information 

given to staff. Work with you on that. 

Mr. CANDEE. Thank you very much. 

The Wetlands of the Central Valley of California have national 

and international significance. Are truly an important resource for 

our state and country. The CVPIA Congress made clear that these 

refuge areas need to receive an adequate water supply through 

both level 2 and the level 4 programs. 

While we support the goal of facilitating water transfers that are 

at the heart of S. 1759, we urge the committee to revise the legislation as needed to ensure that these unintended adverse impacts to 

Central Valley Wetlands are avoided and mitigation is provided. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Candee follows:] 
32 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HAMILTON CANDEE, ALTSHULER BERZON LLP, 

REPRESENTING GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 

Thank you Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate 

the invitation to testify before you today on S. 1759, The Water Transfer Facilitation 

Act of 2009, which is intended to facilitate and expand voluntary water transfers 

in the Central Valley Project in California. My name is Hamilton Candee and I am 

a partner in the San Francisco law firm of Altshuler Berzon LLP. I am appearing 

today on behalf of the Grassland Water District, which is a contractor of the Central 

Valley Project (CVP) located in Merced County and a beneficiary of voluntary water 

transfers in the CVP. Grasslands is a participating organization within the Central 

Valley Joint Venture, an entity that was specifically referenced in the 1992 Central 

Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) for its central role in promoting and facilitating the acquisition of adequate water supplies for Central Valley wetland habitat, 

including national and state wildlife refuges and privately owned wildlife habitat. 

In its work on the proposed transfers legislation, Grasslands has been coordinating 

its efforts in particular with Audubon California and Defenders of Wildlife, and with 

Ducks Unlimited and California Waterfowl Association, all founding members of the 

Joint Venture. A recent brochure prepared by Joint Venture members about Central 

Valley wetlands and the importance of the CVP refuge water supplies is attached 

to my testimony. 

While Grasslands is supportive of the goals of S. 1759, we believe certain changes 

are needed to ensure there are no unintended adverse impacts from the legislation 

and to reaffirm the importance of meeting the goals of CVPIA with respect to wetlands and refuge areas. We appreciate the encouragement we have received from 

the authors of the legislation to provide suggested language improvements and we 

look forward to working with the Committee and the staff to Senators Feinstein and 

Boxer to identify ways to address each of our concerns. My written testimony sets 

out a more detailed statement of the predicament faced by Central Valley wetlands 

and the importance of fully implementing the CVPIA’s refuge water supply provisions to address this ongoing predicament. In the interest of time I will be providing 

a short summary of this testimony today but I ask that my full written statement, 

including the attachments, be included in the record of this hearing. Thank you. 

Background 

The loss of wetlands since the 1850s has been well documented by a variety of 

publications and reports. Surveys in the 1850s estimated there to be over 4 million 

acres of wetlands in California’s Central Valley. By the 1950s, expanding development decreased Central Valley wetlands to an estimated 290,000 acres. Continued 

decline of Central Valley wetlands occurred between 1950 and 1970. Water supplies 

for managed wetlands during this period were not secure. Most managed wetlands 

depended upon agricultural irrigation return flows, low-priority water contracts, or 

non-binding agreements for their water supplies. This situation continued during 

the 1970s until a severe drought during the latter part of the decade greatly reduced wetland water supplies, and in some instances, eliminated all wetland water 

deliveries. The combination of drought and poor wetland water supply reliability resulted in significant impacts to wetland habitat and water bird populations, and in 

particular, wintering waterfowl. 

Partly in response to this crisis, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

(NAWMP) was enacted in 1986 and the Central Valley was identified as one of the 

major focal points for addressing the needs of North American waterfowl. The Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture (CVJV) was formed in 1988. Based upon the findings of the subsequent 1989 federal Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations, 

one of the top priority goals of the CVJV became securing firm, reliable water supplies for managed Central Valley wetlands. Several CVJV partners worked closely 

with Congress to include wetland water supply provisions within the Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) of 1992. In summary, the CVPIA was to provide 

key wetland basins with sufficient water supplies for the purpose of achieving optimum habitat management in all but the most critically dry years. To date, the 

CVPIA remains the most important legislative action ever taken to protect and restore Central Valley wetland habitat. 

The CVPIA authorized and mandated that historic water supplies and 2/3 of baseline CVP mitigation requirements (collectively called ‘‘Level 2’’ supplies) must be 

provided by the Secretary of the Interior from the Central Valley Project. In addition, the incremental water supplies necessary for wetlands to operate at full habitat development levels (known as ‘‘Level 4’’ supplies) were to be acquired through 

purchase from willing sellers and provided in 10% increments per year until 2002, 

when full water supply requirements were to be met. These full water levels have 
33 

not been achieved, due in large part to federal and state budget shortages, inconsistency in the timing of water deliveries, and increases in water costs on the spot market. This shortfall has been a serious problem for Grassland Water District and 

other federal and state wetlands in the Central Valley. As we analyze the new proposed legislation, our goal is to ensure that the bill does not inadvertently aggravate 

this shortfall by making it even more difficult for Interior officials to carry out their 

Level 4 mandate, as well as the related diversification goal of CVPIA that also depends on transfers to succeed. 

Since enactment of the CVPIA in 1992, delivery of water supplies of adequate 

quality and quantity to public refuges and the privately-managed wetlands of the 

Grassland Resource Conservation District (GRCD) has improved wetland habitat 

quality and benefited many wetland-dependent wildlife populations, including waterfowl, shorebirds, colonial water birds, and several threatened and endangered 

species. These benefits have been documented in annual reports to Congress and a 

variety of studies and reports conducted by individual refuge units. 

Several long-term water conveyance/supply contracts and agreements were negotiated during the 1990s that increase the reliability of the CVPIA water supplies 

to be delivered over the 25-year contract term. However, water costs have also escalated as 2 water acquisitions to meet CVPIA, urban, and agricultural needs resulted 

in a sharp increase in spot market prices, further stressing limited budgets. Even 

if fully realized, CVPIA’s refuge water supply provisions did not resolve the issue 

of firm and reliable supplies to all the NWRs, WAs and private wetlands in the Central Valley. The CVPIA required the Secretary of the Interior to investigate and report to Congress the water supply needs for the remaining private wetlands of the 

Central Valley and those lands included in the CVJV wetland restoration objective. 

This investigation, known as the ‘‘Central Valley Wetlands Water Supply Investigations of December 2000,’’ identified available water supplies for existing private wetlands and water supply requirements to meet the wetland restoration goal of the 

CVJV 1990 Implementation Plan. 

We strongly believe that the refuge water supply provisions are among the Act’s 

greatest achievements to date. Vast increases in restored wetland acreage, seasonally flooded spring and summer habitat, bird use numbers on Central Valley wetlands, and increases in non-waterfowl wetland dependent species are but a few examples of what the CVPIA has already accomplished. Despite these successes, we 

are concerned that this recovery cannot be fully realized without the Bureau of Reclamation being given the resources to meet their statutory Level 4 refuge water supply obligations, and could be further impacted in future years due to the rapid increase in water costs and increased competition for CVPIA Restoration Fund dollars. I am attaching a chart that shows the shortfall in Level 4 deliveries, and how 

that shortfall has increased in recent years as the spot market price of water has 

gone up. 

The Water Transfers Legislation 

Grassland Water District and several of the individual organizations within the 

Joint Venture will be providing written comments in the days ahead making specific 

suggestions for changes to the legislation to prevent adverse impacts to wetlands. 

For example, some of these comments will focus on clarifying the provisions of Section 3 of S. 1759 to ensure that the call for expedited environmental review does 

not create unintended consequences; others will address the concern that Section 2’s 

expanded exemption from CVPIA not allow for ‘‘paper water’’ transfers by which a 

particular district might try to sell water that it is not currently using, water which 

in fact may be in use by other water users or wetland areas. 

In my present testimony, I wish to draw the Subcommittee’s attention to two particular problems, which we believe are easily solved without causing any harm to 

the goals of the bill. First, we understand it is the intent of the authors of the legislation to preserve existing protections of federal and state environmental laws that 

are otherwise applicable to water transfers, with the sole exception of the expanded 

exemption in subsection 3405(a)(1)(m) of the CVPIA as provided in Section 2 of the 

present bill, and the directive for programmatic environmental reviews in Section 

3 of the bill. Unfortunately, because of the structure of the legislation, especially its 

status as a standalone bill rather than an amendment to CVPIA, this intention is 

not as clearly reflected in the legislation as it should be. In particular, we believe 

the numerous protections for wetlands and refuge water supplies provided in the 

CVPIA must be clearly reaffirmed as conditions on the newly expanded transfers 

authorized by this legislation. We believe this 3 can be easily achieved in different 

ways (for example, by revisions to either Section 2(a) or to Section 2(b)) and will 

be submitting proposed language under separate cover to make clear that, just as 

the San Joaquin River Settlement is now protected in the current version of S. 1759, 
34 

all other applicable provisions of federal and state law, including but not limited to 

NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the CVPIA and state water transfer laws, are 

also fully preserved. 

Second, we are concerned that the protection and restoration of wetlands under 

CVPIA will become more difficult as a result of the measures provided in this bill 

and, therefore, believe one or more mitigation measures are needed to help counteract this unintended adverse impact. This impact will result from the reduction in 

available water for acquisition by refuges, the increasing market price for acquired 

water as more buyers are seeking that available water, and potentially through increased priority placed on water supply transfers authorized by this bill. To help 

counteract this adverse impact, our recommendation is to include language within 

the bill to facilitate and expand a particular kind of voluntary transfer that will assist wetland areas, specifically language that facilitates transfers from one refuge 

area to another. 

We believe this language will also help reduce costs to the Federal Government, 

assist Interior in meeting its existing CVPIA obligations, and encourage efficient use 

of refuge water supplies by federal, state and private wetland managers. While 

some may believe that Interior and its refuge customers already have the ability to 

accomplish such refuge-to-refuge transfers, the fact that they are not at all common 

and that refuge water in the Sacramento Valley that is not needed in a particular 

year is returned to the CVP for general delivery to urban or agricultural customers 

before the water supply needs of other CVPIA refuges are met, indicates that further authority and direction from Congress is needed. We would note that this mitigation provision would not only help Interior meet its Level 4 obligations, it would 

also help promote the diversification of Level 2 supplies, which requires more surface water supplies to be successful. Again, in the coming days we and other organizations within the Joint Venture intend to provide the Committee with specific language proposals to accomplish this straightforward mitigation concept within the 

structure of S. 1759. 

Conclusion 

The wetlands of the Central Valley of California have national and international 

significance and are truly an important resource for our state and country. In the 

CVPIA, Congress made clear that these refuge areas need to receive an adequate 

water supply through the combined Level 2 and Level 4 programs. While we support 

the goal of facilitating water transfers that is at the heart of S. 1759, we urge the 

Committee to revise the legislation as necessary to ensure that unintended adverse 

impacts to our Central Valley wetlands are minimized and to ensure that refugeto-refuge transfers are specifically authorized to provide mitigation for the inevitable 

impacts that are caused. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much to both of you for your 

testimony. We’ll turn to questions now. 

First, Mr. McIntyre, welcome again. In general your testimony is 

supportive of the provisions of S. 1759. Do you think there are 

more areas in which we could facilitate transfers between the east 

side and the west side water districts and improve the water transfer process? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. I do, Madame Chair. I would encourage and have 

invited the Bureau of Reclamation to engage in workshops to identify and distinguish between practice and protocol and statutory requirements. 

We believe that we could substantially expedite the transfer of 

water supplies if we did a comprehensive re-visitation of past practices and determine which of those are required by law, which are 

appropriate and which are unnecessary. While at the same time exercising due diligence to comply with both state and Federal environmental laws. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you. Speaking of environmental laws, 

other than the Endangered Species Act which I know we have 

heard concerns about. Are there other factors that contribute to a 

decreased water supply for irrigators in the district? 
35 

Mr. MCINTYRE. There have been a series of decisions all intended 

to shore up a declining delta habitat and delta species set. But 

those are goals and objectives that I believe Mr. Candee and I 

would strongly agree on. It’s the approach that has been taken by 

virtue or by virtue by the way the Endangered Species Act is written that allows what we believe to be the more significant causes 

of the decline of the delta to remain unaddressed. While the focus 

remains on the state and Federal water supply pumps which surely 

are not responsible for the introduction of invasive species or the 

collapse of the food web on which all those species, important native species, depend. 

So as I mentioned earlier we encourage the National Academy of 

Sciences review of the recent biologic opinions in an expanded view 

of the delta and how to resurrect it, species and habitat. We do not 

believe that will occur without a comprehensive view and the introduction of the best and most currently available science. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Candee, in your testimony you indicated that you’re concerned about the protection and restoration of wetlands. That 

would be more difficult as a result of certain measures in the bill. 

I wonder if you might speak further because how would enactment 

of the bill result in a reduction in available water for acquisition 

by the refuges? 

You’ve talked about the refuges somewhat related to that, but 

and an increased market price for the acquired water. Shouldn’t 

the opposite be true that an additional supply of water would result in lower prices? 

Mr. CANDEE. Actually it appears that one of the effects of the bill 

could be to increase the demand, but not necessarily the amount 

of water that’s available. So for example the, right now there are 

certain contractors who are able to access water that’s put on the 

market. I think one of the goals of the bill. I think the authors are 

quite clear, is to make it easier, broaden that group. 

For example in CVPIA those 2 provisions that are referenced in 

section 2 are exempted only for a very limited group. There’s a very 

limited exemption. What section 2 of the new bill does is broaden 

that to all of the south of delta divisions in the CVP. 

So clearly that will enable more people to compete for that same 

block of water since right now the Interior Department is currently 

one of the people in the market, one of the groups in the market, 

trying to acquire water to meet its obligations for refuges. It just 

seems logical that that will increase the demand and increase the 

price. If you look at that chart at the end of my testimony, it shows 

that as the price was going up the supply for the refuges was going 

down. I think there’s a limited amount of money that’s been made 

available. 

One of the things that Grasslands and other groups have asked 

for is additional funding support for acquiring that water. I understand earlier this week the state legislature also finally kicked in 

some State money for that as well. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Bennett. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. 
36 

Mr. McIntyre, let’s talk about the pumps. Even if the legislation 

were passed how much impact would these transfers have in meeting your needs if there are no changes made in the pumps? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Proportionately speaking it’s a relatively limited 

benefit compared to returning the pumps to their prior permitted 

capacity. Even if we just go back 2 years ago. Essentially in the 

past 2 years we’ve lost. 

There may be some dispute in these numbers. But not clearly is 

there any dispute on the order of magnitude. Our average reliability 2 years ago, 2 1⁄2 years ago, was roughly 65 percent of our 

contract amounts. Today best modeling efforts appear to indicate 

that we’re at 35 percent with much greater, more likely occurrence 

of very low allocations from 0 to 10 percent at which point essentially all of the permanent cropping and many of the business enterprise on the west side will collapse. There is simply insufficient 

transfer water south of the delta available to sustain those crops 

in a 0 to 10 percent environment. 

Senator BENNETT. Alright. So your economy and your crops are 

threatened. How much of that threat comes from red tape or environmental considerations and how much of it comes from the physical ability to deliver the water? 

If the red tape were to be resolved could the water be delivered? 

Is the water available? Could it be there in a timely fashion? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. If I could refer you back to the map. At the left 

hand side or the upper end of the map, above that point resides 

the Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta System, otherwise known 

as the Bay Delta. The primary reason that we cannot move water 

through those facilities is not as a consequence of the facilities 

themselves, but the environmental constraints. 

Senator BENNETT. It’s not a technical problem. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Correct. Correct, it is. So your question is difficult to answer directly because there is the physical capacity to 

return our average supply to 65 percent. It is the environmental 

constraints imposed by the recent smelt and salmon biologic opinions that have further restricted the operation of the pumps. 

Senator BENNETT. So it’s our concern for the smelt that is causing the unemployment, driving out of people from their homes and 

their jobs and so on. It isn’t the drought. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. In all fairness to—— 

Senator BENNETT. I’m not saying the concern of the smelt is 

right or wrong here. But I’m just wanting to see where the water 

is really—— 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Yes. 

Senator BENNETT [continuing]. Why the water is really being 

held up. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. I understand. The water is being held up as a 

consequence of a combination of drought. Although we had near average precipitation this year and a 10-percent CVP water supply 

allocation. 

But as to the fairness issue the delta is in serious crisis. The 

issue we take with the response to that crisis is that the focus has 

been pump centric. In other words, notwithstanding all of the many 

other factors causing delta habitat and food chain decline the 

pumps are the vehicle that has been subject to a media restrictions. 
37 

We think, frankly, that you could shut the pumps off all together 

and we would continue to see decline of the smelt and other species 

in the delta because of the collapse of the food web and toxic intrusion into the delta. 

Senator BENNETT. So just so that I understand exactly what I 

think you’re saying. The delay in delivering the water and the fact 

that they’re getting only 10 percent is more of a regulatory factor 

than it is a physical factor. You have average rainfall. 

But you’re getting only 10 percent of the water in the place 

where it’s desperately needed because of delays based on regulation 

rather than any physical inability to deliver the water. Is that a 

safe summary of what you’re telling me? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. That’s generally true, yes. 

Senator BENNETT. I see. Thank you very much. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Senator Bennett. 

Senator McCain. 

Senator MCCAIN. Do you have any response to the colloquy that 

just took place between Mr. McIntyre and Senator Bennett? 

Mr. CANDEE. Grassland Water District didn’t ask me to come 

here to talk about those particular issues, but I understand—— 

Senator MCCAIN. Alright, then never mind. 

Mr. CANDEE. I do have—— 

Senator MCCAIN. I’ll talk to Mr. McIntyre, then. I was just giving 

you the opportunity. If you don’t want it—— 

Mr. CANDEE. As an individual can I just make one comment? 

Senator MCCAIN. Sure. 

Mr. CANDEE. That is both the state government and the Federal 

Government earlier this year issued written statements that it’s 

really more the drought than any regulatory restrictions that has 

caused any of the water cutbacks this year. I think one of the interesting things is earlier this week the state legislature finished 2 

months of unbelievable work trying to come together on a delta 

package. What’s interesting is that you had farmers and environmentalists working together. 

You had legislators from the north and the south. You had 

Democrats and Republicans. It was very difficult for them to come 

to agreement. But they were trying to come up with a package of 

bills to go with a lot of these issues. 

Finally after an all night session they did reach agreement. So 

I think that’s a pretty interesting development. Senator Feinstein 

referenced that earlier. 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you. Also unfortunately the state is not 

empowered to address some issues such as the Endangered Species 

Act and others that are Federal law. 

Mr. McIntyre, is it true that 500,000 acres or nearly so were 

fallowed this year, that 13 percent of our Nation’s food supply and 

it’s believed to have cost about 40,000 jobs in these rural farming 

communities which already had a 40 percent unemployment rate? 

Are those numbers pretty accurate? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Excuse me. I believe they are generally accurate. 

I can speak specifically to the 500 square miles of fallowed ground. 

We believe it’s in excess of that number and chose one that was 

easily defensible. 
38 

I believe that cumulatively over the past 2 years as a consequence of continuing declines in water supplies that we’re seeing 

close to 40 percent unemployment in some of the smaller communities in those rural areas. Tremendous hardship, human hardship, 

as you might imagine associated with that. 

Senator MCCAIN. So really what we’re doing is maybe not endangering the existence of human beings, but certainly we are endangering their way of life that, as I understand, is multigenerational. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. I believe that that is undeniable. 

Senator MCCAIN. So the 6-month study that was enacted in the 

Interior Appropriations bill is not much comfort while we await a 

6-month review of the biological opinions by the National Academy 

of Sciences. Is that really comforting for the farmers and their families out there? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. We are grateful for any opportunity to revisit, in 

any manner, the biologic opinions including the National Academy 

of Science studies provided that the appropriate questions are submitted to the Academy. 

Senator MCCAIN. Would that provide any short-term relief for 

the families? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. It will not provide relief for this coming water 

supply year as best as we can tell. 

Senator MCCAIN. What if we passed an amendment to suspend 

the biologic opinions for 1 year. Would that have helped? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Yes, I believe it would. 

Senator MCCAIN. As you know that was voted down as an at- tempt to do so the Administration spent over $400 million in stimulus money to help modernize California’s water infrastructure including $40 million by the Bureau of Reclamation to help Central 

Valley farmers. Has any of that—has any benefit from this spending been realized? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Not to this point. But they are moving aggres- sively with the $40 million projects which essentially are ground 

water related projects. We do have numerous shovel ready projects 

that we believe would be exceptional candidate for stimulus money 

should those funds be returned or deemed inappropriate for some 

of the original applicants. 

We stand in line, hat in hand, eagerly waiting any analysis of 

that matter. 

Senator MCCAIN. It’s a human tragedy that I visited out in your 

part of the country. Even been on several occasions, even before it 

got this serious. You know it really does seem that at least in the 

short term we may have our priorities upside down here when you 

have 40,000 jobs and a way of life disappearing. 

I will match my environmental record against anyone. But I’m 

not sure that those people who voted for the Endangered Species 

Act and other acts intended that the consequences would be unemployment as high as 60 percent as a direct result of it. I don’t know 

what can be done, Mr. McIntyre. But I think we owe the people 

there at least some straight talk. 

That is that the environmental community has more influence 

here than those 40,000 families who have lost their jobs. They 

ought to be told exactly what the prospects of them ever regaining 
39 

their former way of life. What has sustained not only them, but 13 

percent of America’s food supply. At least we owe them that. 

I wish the Administration would be more forthcoming in telling 

them exactly what they can expect in the months and years to 

come. So far I don’t think that’s the case. So I extend my thanks 

to you for your service. I extend my sympathy to the families who 

what, 5, 6 generations have farmed out there and done so much for 

America. 

But there are some of us who will continue to try to get you relief 

rather than lip service even if we’re unsuccessful, we won’t quit 

trying. Thank you, Madame Chairman. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Senator McCain. Finally I would 

just have a question for each of you. 

First of all, Mr. Candee, would waiving the Environmental Species Act provide additional water to the farmers that we’re all concerned about? 

Mr. CANDEE. You know it’s interesting. Governor 

Schwarzenegger’s top water official wrote a letter recently to the 

Senate saying that they did not support that as an emergency relief measure. I think part of the reason both the Republican Administration and the Democratic leadership in the State Legislature focus so much on the recent delta legislation, the package of 

water bills that just passed, is because they want to look at solutions that are really going to work on the ground. 

So I think there’s not a big cry for waiving Federal environmental laws. I think the hope is that’s there’s going to be progress 

on the State legislation moving forward. 

Senator STABENOW. Mr. McIntyre, could you speak to the positive aspects of S. 1759 in terms of ways that you believe this will 

help the situation which obviously is a crisis. 

Mr. MCINTYRE. Yes, thank you for that question. We believe that 

solutions to our current dilemma, dire though it is in the current 

environment, and I mean that the physical environment and the 

political environment necessarily must be incremental in nature. 

We consider this to be an important incremental step in helping us 

bridge the gap between our 10 percent water supply allocation and 

a time during which we will see a more comprehensive and realistic delta restoration plan that doesn’t unduly focus on the state 

and Federal water pumps which are the lifeblood of the state. 

So I’m very grateful for this bill to put it in shortest form. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Senator Bennett. 

Senator BENNETT. Just one last quick question. Has this affected 

farmer’s ability to get financing on their crops? 

Mr. MCINTYRE. You know, you must have some background in 

agriculture. One of the extraordinary parts of farming is that most 

farmers are ‘‘all in’’ as the term goes every year. They hock land 

and equipment and other assets in order to gain loans for purposes 

of buying this very expensive supplemental water, for buying seed, 

for buying fertilizers. 

Yes, indeed, I am fielding an increasing number of calls from 

lending institutions looking for some confidence that if they loan 

the money the water will follow. That discussion is becoming increasingly difficult. It is the first critical chalk stone that gets 
40 

kicked out of the viability of agriculture is the inability to obtain 

Ag loans for each year’s startup. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you very much, Madame Chairman. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. Thank you to both of 

you for traveling here and for speaking about this important legislation. I’d like to note that the subcommittee has received additional written testimony on the bills before us today. That testimony, as well as written submissions from our witnesses today, 

will be made part of the official record. 

Senator STABENOW. For the information of Senators and staff, 

questions for the record are due by close of business tomorrow. 

Without further questions this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(41) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR STABENOW

S. 1759

Question 1a. Your testimony indicates that the Bureau of Reclamation is currently 

working with the State of California to develop evaluation criteria for a long-term, 

programmatic water transfer program. 

Is that the program that Reclamation will request consultation on with the Fish 

and Wildlife Service? Will that result in a programmatic biological opinion that covers water transfers throughout the Central Valley Project? 

Answer. Reclamation is working with the State of California to obtain a programmatic biological opinion covering transfers from Federal and State contractors 

located north of the Delta to contractors south of the Delta. This process will involve 

consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) as well as the National 

Marine Fisheries Service after which programmatic biological opinions will be provided by those agencies. These biological opinions will cover transfers from North 

of Delta to South of Delta contractors but they will not cover water transfers between contractors who are both located South of Delta which S. 1759 addresses. 

Question 1b. How long do you anticipate it will take for Reclamation to have the 

biological assessment for the water transfer program completed? 

Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is working towards the goal of 

issuing the final biological assessment in the spring of 2011. 

Question 1c. Your testimony indicates that the Fish and Wildlife Service could potentially expedite a programmatic biological opinion subject to the availability of appropriations—what additional appropriations will be required? 

Answer. The FWS allocates its Endangered Species Act funding based on a number of factors that help determine the priority of projects or office needs. If other 

projects are no longer going to be carried out, it may be possible to reallocate or 

reprogram these resources to help expedite the programmatic biological opinion. 

Question 2a. Your testimony indicates that Reclamation has already approved 

water transfers covering over 400,000 acre-feet of water this year. 

Can you provide the committee an accounting of those transfers? 

Answer. To date in the 2009 Water Year, transfers among CVP contractors north 

of the Delta amounted to approximately 105,230 acre-feet. Transfers south of the 

Delta among CVP contractors accounted for 246,739 acre-feet on the Westside of the 

San Joaquin Valley and approximately 83,317 acre-feet within the Friant Division. 

Question 2b. Is the programmatic environmental documentation that was used to 

evaluate those transfers still in place and available for use to review future transfer 

applications? 

Answer. Yes. These transfers are accomplished pursuant to 3 programmatic environmental documents, each of which covers a period of 5 years. Reclamation obtains 

updated programmatic environmental documents upon the expiration of the existing 

documents, and these documents are available for transfers occurring within the relevant 5-year timeframe. 

Question 3a. Section 2 (a)(2) relates to transfers of water among several different 

categories of contractors but requires that the transfers occur within a Central Valley Project division. 

Does this provision relate to transfers that would occur both north and south of 

the Delta as long as the transferred water remains within a particular division? 
42 

Answer. Yes. The ‘‘North of the Delta’’ category includes the American River Division, Sacramento River Division, and Eastside Division (San Joaquin River tributaries). The ‘‘South of the Delta’’ category includes the Friant and Delta divisions; 

the San Felipe and San Luis units comprise the Delta Division. 

Question 3b. Under this provision, if a potential transfer will not remain within 

a division, would it still be subject to the entire, existing list of requirements under 

the Central Valley Project Improvement Act? 

Answer. Section 2(a)(2) must be read in conjunction with section 2(a)(1). Taken 

together, only those transfers of CVP water from North of the Delta to South of the 

Delta would still be subject to all Central Valley Project Improvement Act requirements. 

Question 3c. Does this provision of the legislation enable transfers of water from 

north of the delta to south of the delta? 

Answer. This legislation does not change the status quo with respect to transfers 

of CVP water from North of the Delta to South of the Delta. Currently, water may 

be transferred from North of the Delta to South of the Delta upon a showing that 

the water was made available for transfer through a savings in consumptive use or 

groundwater substitution. 

Question 3d. Can Reclamation provide an inventory of the various types of contractors that fall into those categories? 

Answer. Reclamation’s Mid-Pacific Region has approximately 104 current water 

service contractors whose capital repayment and charges for operations and maintenance are factored into their water service rate. Three of these 104 contractors have 

separate water service and capital repayment contracts. In addition, there are145 

settlement contractors, and 4 exchange contractors. There are approximately 11 

former temporary water service contractors. CVP contractors are listed on the internet with the CVP ratebooks at http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpwaterrates/ratebooks/ 

index.html 

Question 4a. Your testimony indicates that if S. 1759 is enacted, Reclamation will 

develop administrative guidelines to ensure that transfers take place without significant adverse impacts to other water users, federal programs, Indian tribes, Central Valley Project operations or the environment—are these criteria consistent with 

the criteria that are currently used to evaluate water transfers within the Central 

Valley Project—or are they new criteria that would be developed through the new 

guidelines? 

Answer. These criteria are consistent with criteria currently used to evaluate 

water transfers. 

Question 4b. How quickly would Reclamation be able to develop these administrative guidelines? 

Answer. If this legislation is passed, Reclamation will have the guidelines in place 

for the 2010 Water Year. 

Question 4c. Will these guidelines ensure that third parties such as the Hoopa 

tribe will not be adversely impacted by the transfers facilitated by this legislation? 

Answer. The goal of the guidelines would be the prevention of any adverse impacts to third parties. The guidelines will require that all environmental documentation be completed prior to transfer approval. This documentation must address 

third-party impacts. 

Question 4d. Will these criteria ensure that the interests of the wetlands and the 

Bay Delta are not adversely affected? 

Answer. It would be the goal of the guidelines to prevent adverse effects to wetlands and the Bay Delta. The guidelines will require that all environmental documentation be completed prior to transfer approval. This documentation must address environmental impacts to the Bay Delta and wetlands, among other issues. 

Question 5. Regarding the water acquisitions currently required by Section 3406 

of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act for wildlife refuges, will enactment 

of S. 1759, help, harm or have no effect on those acquisitions? 

Answer. Reclamation does not have information as yet to determine a positive or 

negative effect on the refuges. Market forces, hydrology and other variables come 

to play on refuge water supplies, particularly Level 4, but we anticipate that this 

legislation will have no effect upon acquisitions of water for refuges. Reclamation 

could use this as an opportunity to facilitate transfers between CVP contractors and 

the refuges, and also between refuges. Facilitating these transfers could have mutual benefits to both the contractors and the refuges. 

Question 6. Your testimony indicates that it is difficult to calculate the financial 

impacts of S. 1759, but can the Administration ensure that it will be administered 

in a way that revenues for the environmental restoration fund will be protected? 

Answer. Payments to the Restoration Fund are required for all water delivered 

to a CVP contractor, including water which is transferred. There should be no ad-
43 

verse impact to these collections, and if anything, collection could increase to the 

extent water transfers result in increased deliveries of water. 

QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DROUGHT CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA

Question 7. Please describe the factors that contribute to the decreased water supply available to water supply contractors within the Central Valley Project? For example, how much have the drought and low reservoir supplies contributed to the 

reduction in water supplies? 

Answer. The 2009 Water Year represents the third consecutive year of dry conditions in the Central Valley. The result was decreased runoff to all the major river 

systems and lower than normal contract allocations for many CVP water service 

contractors. CVP exports South of the Delta were further limited due to new fishery 

protections required by the 2008 FWS Biological Opinion. For the 2009 Water Year, 

approximately 75 percent of the reduction in the combined exports of the CVP and 

State Water Project (SWP) was related to low runoff, and the remaining 25 percent 

was attributable to the new delta smelt protections under the FWS biological opinion. 

Question 8. Attempts have been made to try to prevent the application of the Endangered Species Act within the Bay Delta system -would the Administration support those efforts? What would the anticipated consequences be if such a provision 

were to be adopted? 

Answer. The Administration is not in favor of suspending application of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We are currently collaborating with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to help them research whether there are any ‘‘reasonable and 

prudent alternatives’’ (RPAs), that, based on the best available scientific data and 

analysis, (1) would have lesser impacts to other water uses as compared to those 

adopted in the FWS’ and National Marine Fisheries Service’s biological opinions, 

and (2) would provide equal or greater protection for the relevant fish species and 

their designated critical habitat given the uncertainties involved. We will thoroughly 

review and consider the analysis, conclusions, and recommendations from the NAS 

report and use that information as we continue to work with partners to address 

the drought that California is facing.In addition, the Administration is supporting 

the expedited review of and, if feasible, construction of projects such as the Intertie 

that may provide new water supply reliability benefits to CVP and SWP customers. 

The Administration believes that strong potential exists to improve water supply reliability while protecting endangered and threatened species. These twin goals have 

been achieved in many other river basins across the West. Suspending application 

of the ESA could result in irreparable harm to the Bay-Delta ecosystems when alternative solutions exist and are being sought. 

Question 9. There are a lot of factors that contribute to the health of the Bay 

Delta—what is the Administration doing to protect and stabilize the situation? For 

example, the Department of the Interior, collaborating with the Department of Commerce, is commissioning the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study with 

respect to the biological opinions relating Delta. What are the Administration’s 

plans for implementing the recommendations of the NAS study? 

Answer. The Administration is supporting ongoing efforts to improve our understanding of the Bay-Delta ecosystems and our management of human uses of the 

system. We support the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review of the implementation of the biological opinions governing Central Valley Project and State 

Water Project operations. The NAS has extraordinary public respect and is the right 

independent entity to conduct this review. Both the Department of the Interior and 

the Department of Commerce have sought to structure the NAS review to ensure 

that its findings and recommendations address the most pressing management 

questions and are implementable. The Administration plans to follow-up on all recommendations that are likely to improve the concurrent management of the BayDelta ecosystems and water project operations. 

The Administration supports the ongoing development of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, which potentially may frame future water project operations in a system 

of habitat and ecosystem conservation measures that are being designed to contribute to the recovery of endangered and sensitive species and ecosystems while 

also improving the reliability of water supplies. The Administration also supports 

the ongoing Pelagic Organism Decline (POD) investigation. The POD investigation 

is a collaborative effort of 6 Federal and 3 State agencies to determine why multiple 

open-water Delta fish species populations declined sharply after 2001. The POD investigation has uncovered evidence suggesting that multiple factors, including food 

web changes, toxic chemicals, and water project operations have each contributed 

to the historical declines of these species. The Administration is committed to fully 
44 

exploring all factors that may be contributing to excess mortality of endangered and 

sensitive species, so that important initiatives like the Bay Delta Conservation Plan 

can benefit from the best available science. 

Question 10. In the interim, while the NAS study is being conducted, are there 

other measures that can be taken to help alleviate the drought conditions? Please 

describe the efforts the Administration is undertaking to address the drought conditions in California? 

Answer. Please see attached fact sheet. 

Question 11. There has been discussion about legislation to address specific endangered species in other states, such as the silvery minnow in New Mexico. Can 

you describe that situation and the actions taken by Congress, and explain whether 

that situation is applicable to the current situation in the California Bay Delta? 

Answer. Some argue that an ESA exemption was used earlier this decade to address an ESA-water rights crisis, similar to the one in the CA Central Valley, in 

the Middle Rio Grande involving the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow. The 

legislative language in question, attached to the 2004 Energy & Water Appropriations bill, P.L. 108-137, Section 208 (2003), provided protection from legal challenge 

to a 2003 FWS biological opinion (BiOp) addressing the impacts of Reclamation’s 

Middle Rio Grande water operations on the endangered silvery minnow. In other 

words, the silvery minnow rider called for compliance with the Endangered Species 

Act through compliance with the biological opinion. As such, the water project is in 

compliance with the ESA only so long as there is full compliance with the BiOp. 

The silvery minnow rider created added incentives for all stakeholders to take the 

actions necessary to protect the silvery minnow, because if they don’t follow the 

BiOp, the rider’s protections disappear. 

The silvery minnow situation stands in stark contrast to legislative proposals to 

exempt the Central Valley water project from the Endangered Species Act, to operate it without a Biological Opinion of any kind, or to reinstate biological opinions 

that have already been determined to be scientifically insufficient by the Federal 

District Court. Whereas such proposals would eliminate the ESA’s protections for 

the listed species, the silvery minnow rider implemented the ESA’s protections for 

the minnow by reaffirming the BiOp. 

The second part of the minnow rider eliminated the Secretary’s discretion to unilaterally reallocate San Juan-Chama (SJ-C) project water away from Reclamation 

contractors to provide flows for the silvery minnow. The SJ-C is a trans-basin diversion that diverts water from the San Juan Basin and delivers it to the Rio Grande 

basin in New Mexico where it supplements the water supply available to sustain 

the minnow. Since the use of this water (an imported supply) was not responsible 

for degrading the minnows’ habitat, Congress decided it should not be reallocated 

to provide flows for the minnow absent a willing seller arrangement. No similar protection was provided for native Rio Grande water. 

The silvery minnow BiOp contained an incidental take statement that required 

reconsultation should the amount of minnow mortality exceed an established limit. 

To this date, no such reconsultation has been necessary because minnow mortality 

has not exceeded the limit established by the BiOp. Consistent with regulations for 

all Biological Opinions (50 CFR §402.16), reinitiation of the silvery minnow BiOp 

may also be triggered if (a) new information reveals effects of the agency action on 

listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in the 

BiOp, (b) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an 

effect not considered in the BiOp, or (c) a new species is listed or critical habitat 

designated that may be affected by the action. The silvery minnow BiOp also specified additional reinitiation requirements specific to this consultation. These include 

required reinitiation if any of the following occurs: (a) deviations from any environmental commitments, (b) densities of silvery minnows fall below current levels in 

the Angostura Reach, (c) no ‘‘wet years’’ (as defined in the BiOp, excluding years 

in which Compact Article VI or VII storage restrictions are in place) occur within 

6 years of the BiOp issuance, or (d) a net loss of southwestern willow flycatcher 

habitat. 

RESPONSES OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BENNETT

S. 1759

Question 1. We are disappointed that the State of California was not able to testify today regarding this bill—— 

Can you generally describe the relationship or interactions between the Bureau 

of Reclamation and the State of California relating to the transfers process? 
45 

Answer. Reclamation and DWR work together on a daily basis to coordinate the 

joint operations of the CVP and SWP. Reclamation and DWR worked cooperatively 

on the 2009 Drought Water Bank and have undertaken the joint development of 

programmatic environmental documentation and guidelines to cover north to south 

transfers on a long-term basis. Reclamation and DWR use the combined export capacity of the two water projects to take maximum advantage of transfer windows 

for all north to south transfers. 

Question 2. Can you please describe what Reclamation’s current process is for review of an application to transfer water from one district to another? How will enactment of S. 1759 speed the process up? 

Answer. A written application describing the entire transfer transaction is submitted to one of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region area offices. Reclamation then prepares a reimbursable agreement and upon receipt of the requested deposit, Reclamation begins evaluating the transfer in accordance with the CVP Water Transfer 

Guidelines. The transferor’s (seller’s) request must include, where appropriate, a description of how the water to be transferred is being made available, as well as a 

description of the facilities to be used, and the timing of the conveyance of the 

water, the name of the transferee (buyer). If the transfer is not covered by an existing programmatic environmental document, appropriate environmental documentation, including ESA compliance, must be prepared before approval. The area office 

determines if additional costs for the use of additional facilities must be collected. 

If the transfer is approved, an approval letter is then sent to the transferor district. 

S. 1759 will speed up the process by mandating additional programmatic environmental documentation be in place, reducing the time needed to develop such documentation on an individual basis, and by eliminating the need for conclusive proof 

that the water for transfer was made available through savings in consumptive use. 

As always, transfers will still be subject to the availability of capacity through a 

combination of CVP and SWP facilities. 

Question 3. Does Reclamation have any way of quantifying the amount of additional water that may be available to be transferred to some of the water districts 

that are currently suffering from a lack of water if this legislation is enacted? 

Answer. The quantity of water considered for transfer varies significantly from 

year to year. It depends upon several factors, many of which are beyond the control 

of Reclamation. Hydrologic conditions, commodity prices, and availability of Delta 

pumping capacity are a few of these conditions. 

Question 4. Do you know the percentage of districts that have a groundwater supply available to supplement the surface water supply? Can you provide any estimate 

of the amount of groundwater pumping that may occur in any given year? 

Answer. Overall, Reclamation estimates that approximately 65 percent of CVP 

contracting districts have a groundwater supply available to supplement surface 

water supply (counting only those districts that have wells that can pump in excess 

of 1,000 acre-feet per year). 

Question 5. President Obama recently signed the Energy and Water appropriations bill that contains short term provisions that are similar to the provisions in 

S. 1759. What has Reclamation done to implement that new law? Would Reclamation do anything differently to comply with S. 1759 if it is enacted? 

Answer. Reclamation is unaware of any transfer applications made since the enactment of the appropriations bill so we have not had the opportunity to implement 

the new law. If S. 1759 is enacted, Reclamation will undertake preparation of the 

programmatic environmental documentation for transfers from the eastside to the 

west side of the San Joaquin Valley. 

Question 6. One of the requirements of Section 4 of the bill is that Reclamation 

must submit updated reports to Congress regarding the water transfer program 

until the Commissioner ‘‘determines that no further Federal action would be warranted or authorized’’—How will Reclamation make that determination? 

Answer. Reclamation would make this determination on the basis of whether new 

water transfer applications are still being submitted and the environmental documentation called for in this Act is in place. 

Question 7. Is the current infrastructure in California able to handle the increased 

transfers as envisioned in this bill or will new connections need to be built—pipelines, interties, etc? 

Answer. Reclamation does not envision that new infrastructure will need to be 

constructed as a direct result of this legislation. 

Question 8a. Could the San Joaquin River be utilized to move transferred water? 

What impact does the San Joaquin River Settlement have on potential water transfers? 

Could the San Joaquin River be utilized to move transferred water? 
46 

Answer. Yes, the river could be used to transfer water. However, a permit from 

the State Water Resources Control Board for an additional point of diversion on the 

San Joaquin River would be required to transfer project water out of Millerton 

Lake. 

Question 8b. What impact does the San Joaquin River Settlement have on potential water transfers? 

Answer. There would potentially be limited times of the year during March and 

April where there is no available channel capacity to transfer water in the San Joaquin River because of pulse flows required by the Settlement. Proposed transfers 

from May-February should not be affected by Settlement flows. 

P.L. 111-11 contains provisions substantially similar to many of the provisions in 

the current legislation. Although worded slightly differently, the impact of that law 

is to authorize the same transfers as S. 1759 authorizes in Section 2(a)(2). The 111- 

11 language requires two conditions precedent to transfers: the first is release of Interim or Restoration Flows and the second is conversion of the current 9(e) water 

service contracts to 9(d) repayment contracts. Upon fulfillment of the conditions 

precedent, and upon submission of a narrative describing how the transfer will mitigate the effects of the Restoration and Interim flow releases, the contractors can 

transfer any portion of their contract allotment other than the water used for Interim and Restoration flows without a showing of a savings in consumptive use and 

without regard to the limits established by the CVPIA historic use provision. 

Question 9. How have reduced deliveries in wet years impacted groundwater supplies, in particular, as they relate to conjunctive use projects? 

Answer. The Friant Division was originally conceived as a conjunctive use project. 

Transfers during dry years will impact groundwater supplies by both drawing on 

those supplies through groundwater pumping and because the aquifer will not recharge if surface water is being transferred. In general, Reclamation believes that 

groundwater pumping during dry years depletes the aquifer and transfers of water 

decrease the amount of recharge. Friant Division contractors will thus have an incentive to limit the amount of water that they make available for transfer in order 

to manage their groundwater supplies to ensure availability of water when it is 

needed. 

S. 1758

Question 1. Under current regulations, what is the likelihood of hydropower being 

developed on the Diamond Fork Unit? 

Answer. In October 2004, the Central Utah Water Conservancy District completed 

the Supplement to the 1988 Definite Plan Report for the Bonneville Unit (DPR). The 

DPR Power Appendix and Financial and Economic Appendix provide a detailed 

analysis of federal power development on the Diamond Fork System. Although the 

analysis determined federal power development would be feasible based on the October 2004 DPR Supplement, power development at Diamond Fork could not begin 

until after the Utah Lake System has been constructed. It is uncertain when or 

whether federal power would be developed at Diamond Fork. 

Question 2. If hydropower is not developed on the Diamond Fork, how will the 

$161 million allocated to power generation be recouped? 

Answer. If hydropower is not developed on the Diamond Fork System as contemplated in the DPR, the costs allocated to power generation would be re-allocated 

to the remaining project uses. The Municipal and Industrial, Irrigation, and Fish 

and Wildlife water users would be obligated to pay a proportionately larger share 

of the project costs. 

Question 3. If hydropower is installed at Diamond Fork, how much will federal 

revenues increase due to annual power fees? 

Answer. If federal power is developed on the Diamond Fork System, in accordance 

with the DPR, the revenue generated is expected to be approximately $5.3 million 

annually. The revenues would be used to repay the capital costs of power development ($161 million) and the operating and maintenance costs allocated to power. 

Question 4. According to CBO, hydropower sponsors would be required to pay 

$400,000 in fees beginning in 2015. So from 2015-2019, the federal revenues would 

increase by $2 million. 

Answer. If private power is developed on the Diamond Fork System as an alternative to federal power as described in the DPR the private developer would be required to enter into an agreement with the United States under the authority of 

a ‘‘Lease of Power Privilege.’’ A lease payment to the United States by the private 

developer would be negotiated. In the past, similar private power developments on 

Reclamation projects have resulted in a lease payment to the United States of 3 

mils or $3 per mega-watt hour. Under the Diamond Fork System scenario and with 
47 

the current water supply a 3 mil payment to the United States would equal approximately $400,000 annually. 

Question 5. It seems to me that you aren’t getting anything now, and are very 

unlikely to in the future because the cost structure in place doesn’t make it feasible. 

With this legislation, you will at least receive $2million in power fees, on a system 

that already been built out and largely paid for. 

Answer. If federal power is developed at the Diamond Fork System it would not 

be built until after the Utah Lake System is constructed. The power would be marketed by the Western Area Power Administration with estimated revenues of $5.3 

million annually. The revenues would be used to repay the capital costs of power 

development and costs allocated to power. 

If private power is developed at the Diamond Fork System no federal investment 

would be required. Under existing law, private developers would provide the capital 

costs and a portion of the revenues would be paid to the United States under a 

Lease of Power Privilege. 

In general the federal government has to be careful to ensure that its policies are 

fiscally responsible over the long term. We need to look not only at years 2015–2019, 

but at future fiscal years to determine what the overall impact would be on the 

Treasury. 

ATTACHMENT.—CALIFORNIA DROUGHT RESPONSE FACT SHEET

California is in the third year of dry hydrologic conditions. While the most adversely affected by the drought conditions are the water service contractors north 

and south of Delta, Reclamation is working with all water users on short and longterm actions to improve California’s ability to deal with droughts and low water 

supply allocations. Some of these actions include facilitating and supporting water 

transfers, utilizing groundwater banks, and further diversifying water supplies. 

• California is in the third year of drought conditions, resulting in reduced runoff 

and lowered reservoir levels. Precipitation in some river basins in 2009 was 

near-normal, but the runoff up and down the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys has consistently been at only 65-70% of normal. The run-off is a good measure of the water available to fill California’s reservoirs and inform the Bureau 

of Reclamation’s allocations. The smaller basins responded well to the late-season precipitation: the American River Basin’s Folsom Reservoir nearly filled and 

the San Joaquin’s Friant Division is now at 100% Class 1 and 23% Class 2 deliveries. But while some areas were aided by the improved weather conditions, 

the South-of-Delta area still felt the effects of the continued dry conditions. As 

it relates to westside Central Valley Project (CVP) agriculture, the dry conditions in the spring of 2008 and early winter of 2008/2009 (drought related), combined with the late winter and spring 2009 pumping restrictions (ESA and regulatory related), resulted in a 10% allocation. Dry hydrologic conditions resulted 

in a loss of about 1,600,000 acre-feet of water and pumping curtailments in the 

Delta to protect delta smelt resulted in a loss of about 500,000 acre-feet of 

water. This 2,100,000 acre-feet of water could have been delivered to agricultural and urban users. For the CVP, these reduced supplies have fallen predominantly on the water service contractors in the west side of the San Joaquin 

Valley who hold junior water rights. • For the 2009 water year, Reclamation and the water users worked together to 

minimize the impacts of 3 consecutive dry years. The CVP water allocation for 

2009 equates to about 80 percent of 5-year average of the overall amount of 

water delivered to all CVP contractors; however, CVP water allocations vary by 

type of contractor (e.g., water service, urban, water rights, refuge) and by geographic location; therefore reductions in allocations do not affect all water users 

the same. As mentioned above, the most adversely impacted CVP contractors 

are those on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley where the allocation to 

agricultural water service contractors is only 10 percent or about 195,000 acrefeet of water and M&I is 60 percent or about 83,000 acre-feet. 

In 2009, water contractors worked to secure water from alternative sources to address the needs of their customers by acquiring water from willing sellers and by 

increasing groundwater pumping. State and Federal Contractors participated in the 

2009 Drought Water Bank, transferred Yuba River Accord supplies, and purchased 

water from the Sacramento Valley and Stanislaus River water districts contractors. 

South-of-Delta contractors have also utilized Federal facilities pursuant to Warren 

Act contracts to move water acquired from non-Federal sources south-of-Delta. 

• The contract water supply compared to the actual allocations for both north-and 

south-of-Delta as of August 2009 are as follows: 
48 

• In order to alleviate effects of the drought in 2009, Reclamation continues to 

coordinate actions and activities with numerous Federal and State agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

the California Department of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control 

Board, California water users, and many other water entities. Following are 

specific activities that are being implemented: 

Water Transfers—Reclamation is working closely with the California Department 

of Water Resources to use the flexibility of the CVP and SWP facilities to accommodate water transfers and exchanges among water districts to make the most effect 

use of limited supplies. Reclamation has worked to facilitate critical ‘‘North to 

South’’ transfers to CVP contractors totaling 146,000 acre-feet. Since January 2009, 

more than 136 local transfers, totaling some 340,000 acre-feet, have been approved 

between willing sellers and buyers throughout the CVP. Of this, some 230,000 acrefeet were south-of-Delta transfers (including transfers of rescheduled water). 

Banked Groundwater—Reclamation is prioritizing the review and approval of proposals for the return of previously banked groundwater. As of July 17, Friant Division Contractors withdrew 7,016 acre-feet and Westlands Water District withdrew 

6,063 acre-feet from existing groundwater banks. 

Rescheduling—Reclamation approved requests from water contractors to ‘‘reschedule’’ (carryover) 2008 water supplies they had conserved in San Luis and Millerton 

Reservoirs into 2009. The total water rescheduled in San Luis Reservoir was 

336,701 acre-feet and 55,615 acre-feet in Millerton Reservoir (Friant Division). 
49 

Consolidated Place of Use—Reclamation and the California Department of Water 

Resources filed a joint petition in March 2009 with the State Water Resources Control Board to Consolidate the CVP and SWP Places of Use to increase operational 

flexibility. In May, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted an Order approving the petition which allows CVP and SWP water to be delivered within the 

same overlapping area which aided in facilitating transfers and exchanges of water 

among both sets of contractors. 

Refuge Level 2 Water Supply Deliveries—Reclamation continues to coordinate 

with Federal and State refuge managers on scheduling delivery of their WY 2009 

contracted water supplies of 422,251 acre-feet to months outside the agricultural 

season. Further, groundwater wells are being installed to help supply water to the 

refuges, thus freeing up CVP supplies for agricultural and urban use. 

• During his Town Hall Meeting in Fresno on June 28, 2009, Secretary Salazar 

announced his appointment of Deputy Secretary David Hayes to lead the Federal response to California’s water supply and related environmental issues in 

coordination with the State and stakeholders. Further, the Secretary has assigned Associate Deputy Secretary Laura Davis and Reclamation Commissioner 

Michael Connor to co-chair the Federal Drought Action Team, which includes 

representatives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA Fisheries, Small Business Administration, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Labor, the Council on Environmental 

Quality, and the Office of Management and Budget. The team meets regularly 

to ensure maximum attention to ways the Federal agencies can assist in marshaling existing resources to respond to and mitigate the impacts of the drought 

on California water users. • On Oct 23, 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the creation of 

the Bay-Delta Fish and Wildlife Office, located in downtown Sacramento. This 

new office will focus on conservation issues related to the increasingly vital 

Delta. 

The Secretary has also elevated Federal involvement and leadership in the development of the State-led Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), a collaborative planning process that seeks to provide for a sustainable Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

to address the needs of several threatened and endangered species while improving 

water system reliability south of the Delta. Reclamation has executed Financial Assistance Agreements with the California Department of Water Resources to assist 

in the completion of planning efforts, environmental documents, and technical studies. 

• The Department has allocated $40 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds for drought relief projects to help reduce impacts as 

quickly as possible in the short term and with a major emphasis on minimizing 

impacts in WY 2010. The projects include temporary pipelines and pumps, new 

domestic and irrigation water wells, well-enhancement projects, and a groundwater monitoring effort. Many of the projects will help preserve permanent 

crops and associated jobs in the San Joaquin Valley, an area experiencing economic hardship and high unemployment rates. 

• Reclamation has allocated $134 million for 27 projects approved under the Title 

XVI (water recycling and reuse) Program; over $22 million will be spent on 6 

projects in the MP Region. These projects will provide 13,000+ acre-feet of recycled water per year, reduce dependence on existing potable water supplies and 

improve water supply reliability. 

• Reclamation finalized a funding agreement with the Tehama Colusa Canal Authority (TCCA) to build an interim pumping plant at Red Bluff to allow for 

pumping of an additional 500 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water to TCCA for 

irrigation starting in May 2009. This is in addition to existing pumping capacity 

of about 465 cfs. The interim pumping plant will allow the gates of the Red 

Bluff Diversion Dam to remain open, providing unimpeded fish passage for 

threatened and endangered salmon, steelhead, and green sturgeon, as well as 

other fish species. 

• With funding provided by the ARRA and other water conservation programs, 

Reclamation is encouraging water use efficiency projects to accelerate implementation of conservation activities through cost-shared grants: 

• ARRA—Reclamation has solicited proposals for $40 million in ARRA 

Challenge Grants for water use efficiency projects. 4 grants will be awarded 

to San Joaquin Valley water districts totaling almost $11 million. An additional project in Sacramento for urban water meters will be awarded for $5 

million. Projects in the Mid-Pacific Region include expanding existing 
50 

groundwater water banks and development of new groundwater banking facilities, water marketing, automating water delivery structures, and installation of water meters. Awards will range from $1-$5 million. In all, 

projects in California totaled over $27 million of the program’s $40 million. • Water Marketing and Efficiency Challenge Grants—Reclamation is currently awarding eight Water Marketing and Efficiency grants to San Joaquin Valley Contractors for $2.4 million. Awards are for $300,000 each and 

projects include ground water banking facilities, flow measurement, and 

system automation. • CALFED Water Use Efficiency Grant Program-Two projects were awarded in the San Joaquin Valley for $1.6 million. Projects will provide 

benefits to the Bay-Delta while providing better water management to the 

districts. • Water Conservation Field Services Program-Reclamation has awarded 

five grants in the San Joaquin Valley for system automation, flow measurement control, and mobile irrigation labs for land owners to aid in efficient 

irrigation practices. Awards totaled $175,000. 

• On July 31, 2009, the Mid-Pacific Region issued Rescheduling/Carryover Policy 

and Guidelines for the 2010 water year, which runs from March 1, 2010, 

through February 28, 2011. Historically, Reclamation has released the Guidelines late in the water year; however, recognizing contractors’ need to make 

plans in preparation for the 2010 water year, the Region committed to publishing the 2010 Water Year Guidelines by August 1, 2009. In addition to the 

Guidelines, which apply to allocated CVP water only, the policy also addresses 

storage priority for various types of Project and non-Project water to be stored 

in San Luis Reservoir, some of which may be kept in storage well into the 2010 

water year. • As California’s population continues to increase, Reclamation is working with 

the State on longer-term plans and projects to prepare to manage future water 

supply shortages, improve available supplies, and minimize hardships. Projects 

include: 

• Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP): The BDCP is a collaborative 

planning process that seeks to provide for a sustainable Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Delta to address the needs of several threatened and endangered 

species while improving water system reliability south of the Delta. Reclamation and the Department of Water Resources have jointly entered into 

Financial Assistance Agreements to provide and aid in the development and 

completion of planning and environmental documents, along with technical 

studies. • Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC) and California Aqueduct Intertie Project: 

The Intertie would connect the DMC and Aqueduct via a new pipeline and 

pumping plant to help meet water supply demands, allow for maintenance 

and repair activities, and provide the flexibility to respond to CVP and SWP 

emergencies. The project was identified as a proposed action in the August 

2000 CALFED Bay-Delta Program Programmatic Record of Decision. A 

Record of Decision is planned to be signed in December 2009 allowing initiation of construction. 

• Other Storage Projects: As a component of CALFED, Reclamation is 

studying storage projects related to water supply and reliability, including 

the Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation, North-of Delta Offstream 

Storage Investigation (Sites Reservoir), Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion 

Investigation, and the Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation. 

RESPONSES OF MARTIN R. MCINTYRE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BENNETT

Question 1a. Please describe the direct economic contribution of agriculture in the 

Central Valley of California. 

Answer. Agricultural production and processing are especially important to the 

Central Valley. The University of California estimates that in the Central Valley, 

considering the economic ripple effects, 24% of private sector employment and over 

18% of private sector labor income is attributable to these sectors. 

Question 1b. Please describe the percent of the private sector labor force that is 

directly related to California farms and the processing sectors. 

Answer. According to the University of California, approximately 7.3 % of the 

state’s private sector labor force is directly related to California farms and food proc-
51 

essing sectors alone. The majority of these jobs exist in the San Joaquin Valley. According to the USDA, total California farm and farm related employment is significantly larger and was approximately 2,750,000 in 2002 (13.8 % of Ca. labor force). 

Question 1c. What % of the California state labor income can be attributed to 

these industries? 

Answer. According to the California Department of Agriculture, direct California farm receipts in 2007 totaled $36.6 billion or about 13% of the Nations total gross 

farm receipts. Almost 6% of California labor income is attributable to farms and 

closely related processing industries. In 2007, California agriculture accounts for 

$11 billion in international exports. 

Question 1d. How many jobs are created in your area for every $ in farm sales, 

both directly and indirectly? Answer. Every $1 billion in farm sales generates about 18,000 jobs. 

Question 1e. Please describe how much of the agricultural productivity in your 

area is driven by water. If there is less water available, how much will this impact 

the productivity level? 

Answer. Over 95% of agricultural production in this area is directly related to irrigation. Reduced water deliveries will result in reduced productivity of nearly one for 

one. In other words, a 1% reduction in water supply results in approximately 1% 

in reduced productivity for affected lands. 

Question 2. Please describe why over the last ten years there has been a growing 

shift from row crops to permanent crops (trees and vines). 

Answer. The shift in cropping patterns is depicted in the graphic below. Factors 

that have driven the shift from row crops to permanent crops during the past 10 

years include the following: 

• Increased water supply costs-Increased costs have forced more growers to seek 

out high value permanent crops to offset sharply increased production costs. • Water conservation investments-substantial capital investment is necessary to 

implement high efficiency irrigation systems. Those costs can be better absorbed 

in higher value permanent crop environments. 

Question 3a. As indicated in your testimony, your on-farm irrigation efficiency is 

estimated to average greater than 80%. Please describe why in 2009 you had to fallow 25% of your irrigable land, and why you had to abandon 80% of your annual 

crops. 

Answer. There are three primary reasons for increased fallowing and abandonment of annual crops: 

• 2009 saw the lowest water supply allocations in the history of the Central Valley Project (CVP): In March of 2009, the US Bureau of Reclamation notified 

west side water Districts that contracted South of Delta (SOD) CVP water supply allocations would initially be zero and that under any circumstances allocations were likely to remain very low. Planting decisions must be made in late 

winter/early spring based on available water supply forecasts. 

• No reliable alternative water supplies: Any and all supplemental water supplies 

(water transferred from elsewhere) are uncertain and require long lead times. 

A grower cannot afford the great expense of planting annual crops without an 

assured water supply. 

• Water costs: Under such circumstances supplemental water, if available, is very 

expensive. Supplemental water costs delivered to the west side of the San Joaquin valley in 2009 averaged over $400 per acre foot. A cost above that which 

annual crop markets can support. 

Question 3b. At what point are your permanent crops at risk? 

Answer. Permanent crops located SOD were at risk this year and will remain at 

risk until or unless Delta pumping constraints are returned to the 65% average reliability available prior to the implementation of the Delta smelt Biologic Opinion 

(B.O.). Even for the most profitable permanent crops, $400 acre foot water costs are 

not sustainable. Additionally, with post B.O. average CVP allocations at about 35% 

the occurrence of years when CVP yields zero agricultural water supply increases 

substantially. At that point little to no supplemental water would be available and 

permanent crops would die or become seriously damaged. 

Question 4. Please describe the process you undertook to transfer water within the 

CVP prior to the implementation of CVPIA. Furthermore, describe what you may 

consider a routine transfer that historically had occurred but now is not possible. 

Answer. Prior to the implementation of the CVPIA, or more accurately the interpretation of the CVPIA by the Reclamation, transfers were considered a contract 

right and water was moved around within the CVP with a relatively simple notification of Reclamation by the contractor and the subsequent approval of what, in es-
52 

* Table has been retained in subcommittee files. 

sence, was a water schedule change involving the transferring contractor and the 

receiving contractor. Transfers were viewed as an operational issue where the 

change in the point of delivery and the timing of the delivery as a result of the 

transfer needed to be checked for potential operational impacts. It was not viewed 

as a significant federal action. Thus, there was a real ease in moving water among 

Project contractors. 

Prior to CVPIA, Project contractors included entities that did not have long-term 

contracts, but either contracted with Reclamation on a temporary basis (one-year 

contracts) or on a short-term basis (contracts of up to fifteen years in length). These 

entities would have access to Project supplies that were in excess of the contractual 

demands of the long-term contractors. 

Transfers to and from temporary or short-term contract neighboring districts 

which shared common groundwater resources occurred commonly. These same 

transfers can no longer occur without meeting the ‘‘consumptive use’’ test and without undergoing individual review. 

Question 5. Prior to the implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) were transfers occurring within the Central Valley? In general, 

how long did it take for water to be transferred amongst different entities once an 

agreement was made on a transfer? 

Answer. Transfers within divisions of the CVP occurred regularly. There were 

transfers occurring annually to balance annual vagaries in supply and demand as 

between contractors. Temporary surplus or shortages among contractors of available 

water supplies were easily managed. Most of the CVP was in a water surplus condition and supplies were highly reliable. The Friant Division of the CVP was more 

isolated from the main CVP storage reservoirs on the Sacramento, Trinity and 

American rivers and thus was more subject to shortages, but only in the driest 

years was water sought from other parts of the CVP. Some water was obtained in 

the drought year 1977 from other parts of the CVP for the Friant Division, but this 

was Project water set aside by Reclamation as a drought water bank and not transfer supplies from another CVP contractor. 

As noted above in response to the previous question, transfers were largely viewed 

as operational issues. Typically there was little concern associated with the changed 

point of diversion or timing of the diversion as a result of the transfer. In most circumstances, a call could be placed to Reclamation’s operations personnel, who would 

verbally approve a transfer on the spot. Follow up paperwork sufficed as the official 

request for the transfer along with the appropriate response from Reclamation’s contracting officer both of which often trailed the actual movement of the water. Transfers were thus approved very quickly. If there was concern as to canal capacity or 

reservoir operations resulting from Reclamation’s initial review of a transfer, there 

would be a delay until Reclamation could validate or dismiss their concerns, but the 

delay usually entailed a couple of days at the most. 

Question 6. As referenced in your testimony on page 11, you indicate that prior 

to Biologic Opinions (B.O.s) rendered in the past two years, south of Delta CVP allocations averaged 65%, but now are forecasted to be only between 10—30 %. How 

much of this reduction can be attributed to the B.O.s? 

Answer. Hydrologic modeling reveals that the combined water supply impacts of 

the two recent B.O.s will cause the average annual south of Delta, CVP agricultural 

allocation to fall from 65% to 35%. These impacts are summarized in the table* 

above. The Committee’s question is more difficult to answer. 

The forecast of a water supply allocation of between 10—30% presented on page 

2 of my testimony refers specifically to 2010 and takes into consideration circumstances as they now exist, including the effects of drought and regulatory restrictions to the degree they are currently understood. Predicting how much of the 

potential reduction is drought and how much is regulatory is a difficult task due 

in large part to the wide range of discretion available to the United States Fish & 

Wildlife Service (FWS) to curtail pumping by the Central Valley Project (CVP) and 

State Water Project (SWP). While it is difficult to predict how severely FWS decisions will impact next year’s water supply, we can look to how 2009 was affected 

by implementation of the 2008 FWS biological opinion. 

According to the Department of the Interior, FWS actions resulted in the loss of 

500,000 acre-feet of water in 2009, thus exacerbating the effects of the natural 

drought by over 30%. Other estimates are higher. There is no evidence, however, 

that these actions resulted in any improvement to the fish population level. On the 

contrary, current delta smelt trawl data indicates abundance is at an all time low 

despite two consecutive years of severe operational curtailment of the CVP and 

SWP. If this water had been available, the water allocation to our farmers would 
53 

have likely risen from 10% to 25%, a two-and-a-half fold water supply increase, 

mitigating many of the economic, social, and environmental impacts that savaged 

our rural, agricultural region. 

Of even greater concern, these severe impacts do not include any of the effects 

from the United States National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) biological opinion, which was not issued until June, after the period it would have affected the 

2009 water supply. However, it will impact the 2010 water-year in ways that are 

far from fully understood. Disagreements about interpretation of the biological opinions and questions over how they might be implemented and potential conflicts between their prescribe actions, for example, are hampering development of the Bay 

Delta Conservation Plan. Although these vagaries make forecasting incredibly difficult; we can suggest the likely ranges of impact using conservative assumptions. 

Currently, analyses conducted by the California Department of Water Resources 

indicate that on average the long-term adverse water supply impacts attributable 

to issuance of the two biological opinions upon people who rely on water from the 

CVP and SWP will create losses ranging between 650,000—1,040,000 acre-feet due 

to the FWS biological opinion, and between 230,000—530,000 acre-feet of additional 

loss under the NMFS. These levels of impact are based upon assumptions regarding 

the ‘‘likely’’ application of FWS and NMFS discretion and the best available computer simulation modeling of data collected over an 82 year hydrologic record. 

Question 7. On page 10 of your written testimony you include the chart that depicts the rededication of CVP & SWP water supplies since 1992. You estimate that 

more than 3 million acre-feet of water has been rededicated for environmental purposes. Do you see these actions as the main cause for water shortages in the Central 

Valley? 

Answer. Absolutely. While droughts inevitably occur, the regulatory rededication 

of CVP and SWP supplies has resulted in chronic shortages, particularly for the 

CVP agricultural water service contractors south of the Delta. Deliveries of CVP 

water to the Westside began in 1952. From that time until winter-run Chinook 

salmon were listed as threatened in 1990, the CVP delivered full water supply entitlements to agricultural service contractors in every year but one, 1977, when allocations were limited to 25% due to drought. Since 1990 however, the CVP has only 

delivered full water supply entitlements three times. Three (1995, 1998, 2006). At 

first the impacts of the changing regulatory paradigm were difficult to perceive because of an ongoing drought and the lack of computer modeling capability. In 1993 

though, when drought conditions finally abated, south-of-Delta agricultural water 

supplies only rose to 50%. At that point, the effects of the rededication became 

quickly and painfully evident. 

Comparing the current drought conditions with previous events will help to distinguish the effects of accumulated regulations versus the effects of drought. On March 

31, 1977, the CVP had 3,035,300 acre-feet of water stored in its northern California 

reservoirs. This point in time is the driest on record and yet the CVP was able to 

deliver to its south-of-Delta agricultural contractors 25% of their contract supply 

plus some additional water to help protect permanent crops. In 1991, the fifth year 

of a protracted drought, the CVP was again forced to curtail its deliveries to 

Westside farmers to only 25% of contract supply. Under these true drought conditions, CVP storage ran approximately 37% and 44% of capacity, respectively. This 

year however, northern CVP storage stood at 5,033,200 acre-feet or 61% of capacity 

on March 31 and yet the project was only able to provide its south-of-Delta agricultural customer 10% of their water supply. The difference between these ‘‘dry’’ periods is attributable entirely to changes in the regulatory constraints placed upon the 

CVP since the early 1990s. 

Another indicator of the impact regulation is having comes from the California 

Department of Water Resources, which announced on December 1 an initial 2010 

water supply allocation for the State Water Project of only 5%. While it is true that 

these initial allocations often increase, it is informative to compare conditions the 

State is assessing in making the initial allocation determination. At the beginning 

of the 2009 water year, storage at their primary reservoir, Lake Oroville, was at 

31% of capacity while at the beginning of the 2010 water year Oroville storage was 

at 38% of capacity. This improvement is due in part to the fact that northern California precipitation in the 2009 water year was 93% of normal. Further, current 

northern California precipitation is at 144% of average for this time of year. Yet, 

despite better conditions at this point in the 2010 water-year, the initial 2009 allocation forecast was for 15% of supply. A key difference between the 2009 and 2010 

supply forecast is the added regulatory burden of the NMFS biological opinion, 

which was issued after it could have affected the 2009 water supply situation. 

While the magnitude of the impacts of the FWS and NMFS biological opinions 

will not be fully understood until the current drought abates, the immediate effects 
54 

are sadly well known. More land will be fallowed, more people will lose their farms 

and businesses and jobs, small, rural communities will become poorer, and people 

will suffer more depression, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and divorce. 

The regional environment will also be further impacted. Expansion of unirrigated 

fields will produce more dust, compounding the already significant number of respiratory ailments associated with the San Joaquin Valley, particularly asthma. 

More unirrigated fields also means more habitat for non-native plant species such 

as Russian thistle (aka tumbleweed), which, upon maturity, breaks from the soil 

and is transported with the wind. This migration can threaten remaining native 

plant ecosystems, impact crops and infrastructure such as highways and canals, and 

produce rashes and allergic reactions among people exposed to the noxious weed. 

In short, the Westside region, which was developed and sustained for over half a 

century by water promised by the United States, will continue to bear the disproportionate brunt of the adverse impacts resulting directly from the FWS and NMFS 

biological opinions. 
(55) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

STATEMENT OF DONALD A. CHRISTIANSEN, GENERAL MANAGER OF THE CENTRAL

UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

S. 1757

I am grateful to be able to submit written testimony in support of S. 1757. I want 

to thank Senator Robert F. Bennett for introducing this bill on behalf of the Uintah 

Water Conservancy District (District). The District was formed in 1956 for the purpose of ‘‘conserving, developing and stabilizing supplies of water for domestic, irrigation, power, manufacturing, municipal and other beneficial uses, and for the purpose 

of constructing drainage works’’. The District operates and maintains the Vernal 

and Jensen Units of the Central Utah Project which was authorized by Congress 

as part of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956.. The District encompasses 

almost all of Uintah County, Utah in eastern Utah adjacent to the border of Colorado. 

At the time of its construction (1984-1987), The Jensen Unit was to provide 

18,000 Acre Feet (AF) of M&I water to the residents of Uintah County. 6,000 AF 

were to be developed with the construction of Red Fleet dam and another 12,000 

AF were to be developed at a later date with the construction of the Burns Bench 

Pump station on the Green River in Jensen, Utah. Due to the economic bust in the 

mid to late 80’s there wasn’t the demand for water that had been foreseen and an 

amendatory contract was signed in 1989 with the Bureau of Reclamation reducing 

the amount of water subscribed to by water providers to 2,000 AF. 

The Bureau desires to do a final cost allocation on the Jensen Unit. If that allocation were done without developing the remaining 12,000 AF, the cost per AF would 

be approximately 2.5 times as much as if the 12,000 AF were developed. A Block 

Notice was issued to the District from the Bureau of Reclamation for the 2,000 AF 

and the District contracted with the municipalities, water improvement districts, 

and a private company for all of that water. Since that time the additional 4,000 

AF of M&I water has remained unsubscribed. The Bureau of Reclamation took 700 

AF to increase the conservation pool in the reservoir which leaves 3,300 AF of available water. The Burns Bench pump station will not be constructed until all of the 

M&I water available in Red Fleet is subscribed to. In the past year, due in large 

part to the projected growth, the District has received requests for all of the remaining M&I water available in Red Fleet. Vernal City and Ashley Valley Water and 

Sewer have each requested 1,000 AF, Maeser Water has requested 675 AF, Jensen 

Water has requested 175 AF, Uintah County in conjunction with Jensen Water has 

requested 150 AF, and a private company has requested 300 AF. 

The price of the water was set by the amendatory contract. The amount per AF 

was based on the cost of the Jensen Unit (including an estimated cost of the pump 

station) divided by 18,000 AF. The resulting cost is $5,555.21 per AF and is payable 

by dividing that amount by the number of years remaining until 2037 with the last 

payment being made in 2037. Water purchased in 2006 would be paid for at a rate 

of $179.07 per AF per year for 31 years. The District approached the Bureau about 

the possibility of discounting those payments at either the 3.222% rate used by the 

Bureau to calculate the repayment or the federal funds rate at the time of the discounting. According to the Bureau, the amendatory contract does not allow for prepayment. The District then determined that it would seek legislation similar to that 

used by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District that has allowed for prepayment of the repayment contracts for the Bonneville Unit. Prepayment of our contract with the Bureau will substantially reduce the cost of water to the District. S. 

1757 will also produce a substantial payment to the federal treasury which we estimate to be between $4-5 million. 
56 

S. 1757 directs the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of the specified contract between the United States and the Uintah Water Conservancy District 

providing for repayment of municipal and industrial water delivery facilities under 

terms and conditions similar to those used in implementing provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act. It also provides that the prepayment: (1) may be 

provided in several installments to reflect substantial completion of the delivery facilities being prepaid; (2) shall be adjusted to conform to a final cost allocation; and 

(3) may not be adjusted on the basis of the type of prepayment financing utilized 

by the District. The Senate bill reflects amendments made to the House companion 

at the suggestion of the Administration. These amendments insure that the entire 

amount of the repayment contract will be prepaid. 

S. 1758

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman, my name is Don Christiansen and I am General Manager of the 

Central Utah Water Conservancy District (District), the State sponsor of the Central 

Utah Project. I appreciate the opportunity to submit written testimony in support 

of S. 1758 which was introduced by Senator Robert F. Bennett and Senator Orrin 

G. Hatch. The Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project develops water for communities in 10 counties covering three Congressional Districts. We express appreciation to our elected representatives for their introduction of this bill which will clear 

away sunk system-wide costs which constitute an economic roadblock to the development of clean hydropower in the Diamond Fork feature of the Bonneville Unit. 

The District is an experienced developer of hydropower 

The District has a proven track record of developing non federal hydropower on 

federal facilities of the Bonneville Unit. At an important dam in Summit and 

Wasatch counties, we worked from the initial design of the Jordanelle Dam to facilitate outlet plumbing for the eventual installation of the recently constructed 

Jordanelle hydropower plant. The District has been involved in each step of this 

very successful project which has a maximum capacity to generate 12 megawatts 

of hydropower at Jordanelle dam. The project has been certified by the Low Impact 

Hydropower Institute as ‘‘Green Power’’. 

The plant began commercial operation on July 1, 2008. The District developed the 

Jordanelle power plant in partnership with Heber Light & Power (a local public 

power entity) which purchases and markets the energy. Since it was originally anticipated that federal power would not be developed at Jordanelle dam, none of the 

costs of the dam or system-wide project costs were allocated to power. Therefore, 

during the negotiation of the Lease of Power Privilege one of the negotiation points 

was to determine a reasonable fee to be paid to the federal government that would 

not push the cost of the power beyond market conditions. The negotiated fee is 3 

mills per kilowatt hour escalating at 3% per annum. 

Potential for Diamond Fork Hydroelectric Power Plants 

The Supplement to the 1988 Definite Plan Report for the bonneville Unit (2004) 

and the Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (September 2004) detail the proposed power facilities that could 

be built at Diamond Fork. In general, two hydroelectric power plants would be located in Diamond Fork Canyon. they are at: 

1. The Sixth Water Flow Control Structure with a capacity of 45 MW and, 

2. The Upper Diamond Fork flow Control Structure with a capacity of 5 MW 

The potential Diamond Fork power plants have some similarities and yet some 

distinct differences from the Jordanelle power plant. Of particular importance is the 

manner in which power costs have been assigned by the Department of the Interior. 

$161. million in Strawberry Collection System sunk costs have been assigned to be 

recovered from a future Diamond Fork power plant. This significantly complicates 

hydropower development at Diamond Fork. In essence, any developer of power at 

Diamond Fork starts in an economic ‘‘hole’’ of $161 million before installing any 

power turbines or constructing any transmission lines. 

Moreover, power generation at Diamond Fork is based ont he ‘‘run of the river’’ 

(generation which is incidental to water releases), and therefore Diamond Fork hydropower has less value in energy markets because it cannot be scheduled to meet 

peak demands. In fact, Section 208 of PL 102-575 places limitations on the operation of the power plants at Diamond Fork. The Central Utah Project Completion 

Act or ‘‘CUPCA’’ says; ‘‘Use of Central Utah Project water diverted out of the Colorado River Basin for power purposes shall only be incidental to the delivery of water 

for other authorized project purposes. Diversion of such waters out of the Colorado 
57 

River Basin exclusively for power purposes is prohibited.’’ Hence, flow releases 

through the Diamond Fork System of aqueducts and pipelines would be dictated by 

Central Utah Project (CUP) and Strawberry Valley Project (SVP) water needs and 

would be used for electric energy generation at the hydroelectric power plants as 

a secondary purpose. 

Legislation is needed to defer sunk system costs allocated to Diamond Fork Power 

Because the power costs allocated to Diamond Fork make the project uneconomic, 

we approached the Utah delegation with a remedy to defer these costs similar to 

other costs that have already been deferred. The costs allocation was initially done 

using the Use of Facilities (UOF) method as directed by the Comptroller General 

in a letter of January 26, 1994. Application of a strict UOF allocation of costs to 

power resulted in an allocation of $540.3 million to power. This ammount would result in a power rate significantly higher than its market value. Consequently, a 

modified use of facilities approach was used to calculate the power allocation. Under 

this approach, the cost allocated to power is $161.0 million. 

Even with the modified use of facilities approach this amount allocated to power 

makes power development very expensive and infeasible. At a time when the demand for energy is skyrocketing and the need for renewable energy is paramount, 

the sensible approach of S. 1758 is to defer the costs assigned to power and allow 

development of this valuable resource. As was done with Jordanelle dam, the fee 

paid to the Federal government for the investment in facilities which make power 

development feasible could be negotiated through a competitive Lease of Power 

Privilege process. Current market conditions and construction costs would be known 

and a reasonable fee could be established. 

Conclusion 

S. 1758 reflects modifications made to the bill in the House Resources Committee 

to address PAYGO conccerns. The bill was amended to preclude the use of tax exempt financing on the project. While we would have preferred to use all our tax advantaged financings available to us, we understand that Congressional budget rules 

makes this impossible. The District stands ready to initiate a process to apply for 

the right to develop clean hydropower at Diamond Fork if the economic hole created 

by the allocation of sunk system-wide costs is deferred. We strongly urge your approval of this important legislation as soon as possible. 

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, 

CALIFORNIA OFFICE, 

Sacramento, CA, November 19, 2009. 

Hon. DEBBIE STABENOW, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Re: Testimony on S. 1759 

DEAR SENATOR STABENOW: Defenders of Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to 

present written testimony on S. 1759 and to suggest recommendations to improve 

this bill. (Attached) This testimony is presented as part of the hearing held by the 

Subcommittee on November 5, 2009. Defenders of Wildlife has invested, and continues to invest, a great deal of time and energy in the effort to protect and conserve 

the Central Valley’s natural resources, including its grasslands, wetlands, and waterways. 

We thank you for the opportunity to provide our views on this bill. We look forward to working with you and your Subcommittee staff as this bill moves forward 

in the legislative process. 

Sincerely, 

KIM DELFINO, 

California Program Director. 

ATTACHMENT.—STATEMENT OF KIM DELFINO, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, ON S. 1759 

Defenders of Wildlife appreciates the opportunity to present written testimony on 

S. 1759 and to suggest language to avoid any unintended consequences. The goal 

of S. 1759 is an important one: to expedite necessary water transfers in California 

while maintaining the integrity of Central Valley ecosystems. With adequate planning and foresight, these water transfers can bring water to areas experiencing 

shortages due to drought without compromising the surrounding environment. At 

the same time, if water transfers are not done carefully and pursuant to existing 

environmental laws, they could result in further degrading an already struggling environment in the Central Valley. 
58 

Defenders of Wildlife has invested, and continues to invest, a great deal of time 

and energy in the effort to protect and conserve the Central Valley’s natural resources, including its grasslands, wetlands, and waterways. In addition to serving 

as a member of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan Steering Committee, Defenders 

is also a founding member of the Central Valley Joint Venture (CVJV). As you already know, based on the testimony presented by the Grasslands Water District— 

an important partner with the CVJV, there are specific concerns about the potential 

impacts of poorly designed water transfers on the Central Valley wetlands and wildlife refuges and associated migratory bird populations. 

The following are three specific issues we have identified in S. 1759 with suggested amendments to clarify and resolve those issues: 

1. Clarify that S. 1759 will continue to ensure that water transfers will comply with all applicable laws and agreements and will not undermine the environmental protections inherent in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. 

Section 3405(a)(1) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (‘‘CVPIA’’) was 

carefully negotiated to assure that water transferred in the Central Valley Project 

did not interfere with the water intended to be used in the system to meet fish and 

wildlife protections and restoration obligations. We are concerned that Section 2(a) 

of S. 1759, which overrides subparagraphs (A) and (I) of CVPIA § 3405(a)(1), will 

take away the carefully negotiated safeguards established by Congress when it enacted the CVPIA. We do not believe that the intent behind S. 1759 is to weaken 

those fish and wildlife protections or result in transfers not conditioned by existing 

environmental protection laws, but we are concerned that this section as currently 

written could have this unintended consequence. 

In order to address these concerns, we suggest the following amendment to Section 2(b): 

(b) Condition—A transfer under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the transfer does not contravene—— 

(1) the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11; 

123 Stat. 1349), including the priorities described in Section 10004(a)(4)(B) of 

that Act (123 Stat. 1350) relating to implementation of paragraph 16 of the Settlement (as defined in Section 10003 of that Act (123 Stat. 1349)); 

(2) the Settlement.; and 

(3) all other applicable federal and state laws, including but not limited to 

the Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, the Central 

Valley Project Improvement Act, except as expressly amended by subsection (a) 

above, and state water transfer laws. 

2. Clarify that the directive for expedited review in S. 1759 is not intended 

to result in a limitation of the scope of environmental review or in the partial 

exemption of environmental review. 

Defenders recognizes the need to ensure expeditious environmental review for 

water transfers. The language in Section 3(a) will ensure that such review is not 

delayed while the seasonal window for water transfers closes. However, Defenders 

is concerned that such language will give the impression that Congress has created 

a partial exemption for environmental review of water transfers. Moreover, we believe that when the ‘‘expedited’’ permitting language in Section 3(a) is read in conjunction with the singular directive in Section 3(b) to address concerns regarding 

Giant Garter Snake, there is a risk that Section 3 could be interpreted as narrowly 

limiting environmental review to only Giant Garter Snake. Therefore, in order to 

ensure that the intent of this provision is not to limit the scope of all applicable 

environmental reviews, Defenders suggests deleting Section 3(b) and adding the following language to Section 3(a): 

. . . shall initiate and complete, on the most expedited basis practicable, the 

programmatic development of all applicable environmental compliance required for 

implementing voluntary water transfers within the Central Valley Project. 

3. Ensure that S. 1759 does not result in adverse impact to Central Valley 

refuges and wetlands. 

Wildlife refuges also experience water shortages during prolonged drought. In 

compliance with CVPIA Section 3406, water is required to be delivered to wildlife 

refuges to maintain the habitats for migratory birds and associated wetland species. 

Our Central Valley refuges and wetland areas already struggle to maintain a water 

supply to meet minimal wildlife needs in a landscape that has already lost more 

than 95% of its historic wetlands. We share the concerns that have been raised by 
59 

the Grasslands Water District in their written and oral testimony regarding the potential impacts to Central Valley wetlands and wildlife refuge water supply from 

this bill. We fully support the suggested amendments by the Grasslands Water District to facilitate the use of carry over storage for unused refuge water supplies; to 

facilitate transfers between and among federal, state, and private wetland areas 

that receive Central Valley Project water; and to direct the Bureau of Reclamation 

to develop and implement a process for securing the necessary budget for fully implementing Level 4 water supplies that are authorized under the CVPIA. We believe 

that the Grasslands Water District’s suggested amendments to S. 1759 will ensure 

no impairment of the goals of the CVPIA with respect to wetlands and wildlife refuges. 

We thank you for the opportunity to provide our views on this bill. We look forward to working with you and your Subcommittee staff as this bill moves forward 

in the legislative process. 

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Environmental Defense Fund greatly appreciates your 

efforts to help resolve California’s pressing water issues. In particular, we thank you 

for bringing balance to the discussions and fending off attempts to undermine fundamental protections of existing law, including, but not limited to, the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

EDF is engaged at all levels to find solutions to these problems, including work 

to help structure the recently enacted state legislation, participation on the Bay 

Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) steering committee, open dialogue with key players 

in the agricultural and municipal water sectors and engagement with the Department of the Interior on various issues. EDF has long believed that voluntary water 

transfers, particularly among users south of the Delta, have an important role in 

sensible allocation of available agricultural water, especially during drought. 

It is in this context of constructive engagement that we offer our support for S 

1759, the Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009, as amended and passed by the 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources this week. We support the report language suggested by Grasslands to ensure that the wetlands and refuge 

issues are fully addressed, and look forward to working with you and the Committee 

to ensure its inclusion. 

Sincerely, 

MARY E. KELLY, 

Senior Counsel, Rivers and Deltas. 

WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT, 

Fresno, CA, October 6, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

RE: Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009 

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: I am writing on behalf of Westlands Water District to 

express its support for your bill, the Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009, authorizing certain transfers of water in the Central Valley Project and other purposes. 

Water transfers are a critical tool for providing water supplies for areas that are 

faced with chronic water supply shortages. However, the approval process for many 

transfers often distract from their usefulness. Your legislation will bring important 

reform to existing transfer authorization thus increasing the efficacy of this essential water management tool. 

As you are keenly aware, the chronic water supply shortages impacting the area 

of the San Joaquin Valley served by the Central Valley Project demands that water 

users in the affected area rely on water transfers. Moreover, the need to transfer 

water is often urgent and in response to climactic conditions that are frequently sporadic and ephemeral. Regrettably, bureaucratic process can unnecessarily thwart 

successful execution of a transfer. The clarity your legislation brings to existing authorizations will only improve the capability of water managers throughout the 

State to effectively respond to the ongoing crisis and put our scant water resources 

to use even more efficiently. 
60 

The westside of the San Joaquin Valley is inarguably the most transfer dependent 

region of the State. Your efforts to address this important matter are greatly appreciated. If there is anything I can do to be of help in connection with your efforts, 

please let me know. 

Very truly yours, 

THOMAS W. BIRMINGHAM, 

General Manger/General Counsel. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES COALITION, 

Washington, DC, November 2, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. Senate, 112 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington, DC. 

RE: California Conservation Groups concerns with S-1759, Water Transfers Facilitation Act, 2009 

DEAR SENATORS FEINSTEIN AND BOXER: The below listed organizations have come 

together to provide this input to you for consideration in the pending water transfers legislation, S-1759. We respect the need to transfer water to affected communities and farmers to reduce the economic impacts caused by drought related shortages. It is vital to ensure this effort is accompanied by key provisions to protect 

against unintended consequences and to mitigate the effects of unavoidable impacts. 

Unlimited or poorly designed water transfers can have very serious and negative 

impacts to the environment in areas where the transfers begin, and as such, additional protections may be needed. We offer these recommendations and comments 

on the pending bills (S-1759 and HR 3750). 

1. Water for Refuges 

There is concern this transfer legislation could put additional, unintended demand on already limited wildlife refuge water, both state and federal. This, in 

turn, can result in increased cost for refuge water, and/or reduced availability 

of both level 2 and level 4 water under CVPIA. To alleviate this possibility, we 

recommend the legislation allow refuge-to-refuge transfers. This would make 

the system both flexible and fair, by allowing wetlands managers the ability to 

move available wetlands CVPIA water to the areas in the most need. Thus, they 

would operate like any other water user in the system, putting diminished 

water supplies to best use. 

2.Water Transfers should only be for use in the Central Valley 

As we understand it, the purpose of these bills is to provide flexibility in the 

water system in order to assist agricultural communities and farms impacted 

by ongoing drought, and not to incentivize speculation in the water markets. To 

this end, the bills should place some limitations on the transfers to ensure that 

the transferred water is used for agriculture and farming in the Central Valley 

(or to support refuges in the Central Valley) and not sold on a secondary market. If some of the transferred water in wet years is to be banked, as a holdover for another year, some system of accounting, monitored by BOR and available to the public, must account for that water, and show that it is subsequently 

used as intended for farming and agriculture in the Central Valley and not resold or re-transferred out of the system to other uses. 

3. Impacts to Groundwater Must be Included in the PEIS and Report 

One of the impacts of great concern is the possibility for increased groundwater over-draft resulting from efforts to replace transferred surface water. In 

the Sacramento valley, where nearly 2/3 of the transfers are likely to originate, 

groundwater replacement of transferred water in the 1990s led to dry or polluted wells, and negative impacts to nut farms dependant upon wells for irrigation. Much of the farming in the Sacramento valley, other than rice, is well dependant. For example, the Tuscan Aquifer, which lies under several Sacramento 

valley counties, is currently a healthy aquifer, unlike many over-drafted 

aquifers in the Tulare basin (see USGS facts sheet 2009-3057). It is also connected to several surface streams in the western Sierra, like Butte Creek, Deer 

Creek, and Mill Creek, which supports 98% of the remaining California Spring 

Chinook salmon, a federal ESA listed species. It is likely that a lower Tuscan 

Aquifer would result in reduced stream flows and elevated stream temperatures, thus putting ESA listed fisheries at risk. 
61 

We would make two recommendations relative to groundwater. One, that 

groundwater replacement of transferred water is prohibited. If water is transferred, the associated irrigated land must be either fallowed or planted in crops 

requiring reduced water consistent with that transferred. Second, because there 

is no state law on groundwater monitoring, we would recommend the federal 

government initiate and fund a USGS Tuscan groundwater aquifer study to determine its functional capacity, especially under drought conditions. 

4. Comprehensive Environmental Review is Needed 

Section 3 of the Senate bill calls for preparation of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and we agree that completing the programmatic review is essential. In Section 3, sub-section (b), mentions ‘‘all applicable environmental reviews, permitting, and consultations, including the environmental documentation needed to address concerns with respect to the Giant Garter 

Snake.’’ However, it is clear that a comprehensive EIS will also need to look 

at impacts to other aquatic, riparian, and wetland dependent species in the 

Delta and Central valley watersheds that may impact transfer timing and 

amounts whether or not these species are called out by name in the bills. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide inputs designed to reduce negative 

impacts and un-intended consequences from these transfers. Though it is important to help impacted communities and farms if possible, it is also vital to do 

so while continuing to protect our natural resources and wildlife species that 

are already under significant stress. 

Sincerely, 

DR. C. MARK ROCKWELL, D.C., 

California State Representative, Endangered Species Coalition, Penn Valley, CA. 

JOHN BEUTTLER, 

Conservation Director, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Berkeley, CA. 

ALLEN HARTHORN, 

Executive Director, Friends of Butte Creek, Chico, CA. 

ROBIN HUFFMAN, 

Board member and Advocacy Coordinator, Butte Environmental Council, Chico, 

CA. 

FLORENCE M LARIVIERE, 

Chairperson, Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, Palo Alto, CA. 

DAN SILVER, 

Ex. Director, Endangered Habitats League, Los Angeles, CA. 

DAVID PHILLIPS, 

Director, International Marine Mammal Project, Earth Island Institute, Berkeley, 

CA. 

TARA HANSEN, 

Executive Director, California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 

LLOYD CARTER, 

President. Board of Directors, California Save Our Streams Council, Clovis, CA. 

ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES, 

October 5, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

112 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

RE: ACWA support for Water Transfer Legislation 

DEAR SENATORS FEINSTEIN AND BOXER: Thank you for introducing water transfer 

legislation for the Central Valley Project (CVP) which ACWA is pleased to support. 

As California’s water supply challenges multiply, this legislation can provide greater 

flexibility for management of CVP water supplies. As you know, ACWA’s 450 public 

agency members are collectively responsible for 90 percent of the water delivered 

in California for residential and agricultural uses. 

California’s water supply situation is dire and worsening. Three years of below average precipitation along with heavy regulatory restrictions through the ESA and 

Biological Opinions, have seriously diminished California’s water supplies. Under 

these conditions, it is essential that short term actions, such as provided by your 

legislation to flexibly enable water supplies to move across the San Joaquin Valley, 

be pursued. 
62 

Again, thank you for introducing water transfer legislation. ACWA looks forward 

to working with you to secure its passage in an expedited manner. 

Sincerely, 

TIMOTHY QUINN, 

Executive Director. 

ALTSHULER BERZON, LLP, 

San Francisco, CA, November 18, 2009. 

Hon. DEBBIE STABENOW, 

Chair, Subcommittee on Water & Power, U.S. Senate Washington, DC. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

331 Hart Office Building U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER

112 Hart Office Building U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

RE: Supplemental Comments & Suggested Revisions to S. 1759 re Water Transfers 

DEAR SENATOR STABENOW, SENATOR FEINSTEIN AND SENATOR BOXER: I appreciated the opportunity to present testimony at the November 5, 2009 hearing of the 

Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee on behalf of Grassland Water District to comment on S. 1759, the Water 

Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009. We also appreciated the Subcommittee’s invitation 

to submit these additional comments and recommended changes to the legislation. 

As I indicated at the hearing, we believe some improvements to the bill are needed to ensure protection of the Central Valley refuges that have been so severely impacted by development of the Central Valley Project and which are supposed to receive additional water supplies through CVPIA, in some cases through voluntary acquisitions and transfers. As we indicated in our testimony, one part of this protection would involve more explicit reference to the prior protections of the CVPIA as 

continuing to be applicable to all of the new, expanded transfers facilitated by this 

bill. I will suggest specific language in that regard below. 

The other key part of this requested protection would be in the form of mitigation 

measures which should be included in the legislation to help offset the inevitable 

impacts that the bill will cause to the refuge water supply program of CVPIA. I 

have attached a separate document that outlines these proposed measures in the 

form of a new section to the bill. Each of these modest measures represents sound 

public policy that is consistent with the purposes and provisions of the CVPIA, but 

which will benefit from further legislative authorization to ensure they are actually 

carried out. 

We appreciate your considering our views. We would be happy to provide additional information if it would be helpful. 

I. Suggested language to reaffirm the protections of CVPIA and other applicable laws 

Right now, the only federal law explicitly referenced as a condition of the new 

transfers is the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. Like many other 

stakeholders, we believe it would be more reasonable and provide better protection 

for the public to broaden that condition to include all applicable laws, including the 

CVPIA. Here is our proposed replacement language for Section 2(b): 

(b) CONDITION—A transfer under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the transfer is consistent with: 

(1) The provisions of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (except to 

the extent section 3405(a)(1) is expressly modified by subsection (a) above), the 

National Environmental Policy Act, the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, and all other applicable provisions of federal and state law; and 

(2) The Settlement in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers, CIV-S88-1658-LKK (E.D. California), as identified in Section 10003 of Public Law 

111-11; 123 Stat. 1349. 

II. Suggested language to provide mitigation for adverse impacts to refuges and wetlands 

As we indicated in our prepared Testimony for the November 5th hearing, Grasslands and other participants in the Central Valley Joint Venture believe there are 

a number of ways that the provisions of S. 1759 could adversely impact the acquisition of sufficient water for Central Valley refuges and wetland areas. Accordingly, 

we have proposed three specific, albeit modest provisions which we request be added 

to the legislation to help address these unintended consequences and to help ensure 

these adverse impacts will be properly mitigated. The proposed language is attached 
63 

and includes provisions (a) to facilitate use of carry over storage for unused refuge 

water supplies, (b) to facilitate transfers between and among federal, state and private wetland areas that receive CVP water, and (c) to direct Reclamation to develop 

and implement a process for securing the necessary budget for fully implementing 

Level 4 water deliveries that are authorized by the 1992 CVPIA. 

Thank you again for considering our additional views on this legislation. 

Sincerely, 

HAMILTON CANDEE, 

On behalf of Grassland Water District. 

ATTACHMENT.—PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO S. 1759 (WATER TRANSFERS

FACILITATION ACT): 11-18-09 

SEC. 6. MITIGATION FOR CENTRAL VALLEY WETLANDS AND REFUGES

In order to help offset potential adverse impacts to Central Valley refuges and 

other wetland areas receiving water supplies under section 3406(d) of the CVPIA 

(collectively ‘‘CVPIA refuge areas’’), and in furtherance of the purposes of CVPIA, 

the Commissioner, in consultation with the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, shall within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, and consistent with applicable law, do each of the following: 

(a) Develop and implement a plan, a copy of which shall be submitted to the relevant oversight committees of Congress, to ensure that refuge water supplies that 

are provided pursuant to CVPIA section 3406(d) will be offered ‘‘carry-over’’ water 

storage opportunities in CVP storage facilities equivalent to those afforded other 

CVP water uses, including agricultural and municipal & industrial contractors. In 

the plan, the Commissioner shall also identify the terms and conditions established 

by the CVP for ‘‘carry-over’’ storage opportunities for irrigation customers as well 

as the terms and conditions for ‘‘carry-over’’ storage that will be offered to federal, 

state and other CVPIA refuge areas receiving water pursuant to section 3406(d). 

(b) Develop and implement a process to facilitate and expedite water transfers between CVPIA refuge areas, to enable those waters conserved by any CVPIA refuge 

area in any given year to be offered and delivered to any other CVPIA refuge area 

for the purpose of meeting the goals and purposes of CVPIA, including achieving 

Level 4 water supply needs and furthering Level 2 diversification opportunities as 

referenced in Section 3406(d). 

(c) Develop and submit to the Congress projected one year, 3 year and five year 

budgets for the long-term acquisition of water supplies necessary to provide to 

CVPIA refuge areas their full Level 4 water supply needs as identified pursuant to 

the CVPIA. The Commissioner shall also identify where in the future budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation funds will be allocated to meet these projected 

budgets. 

AUDUBON CALIFORNIA, 

Sacramento, CA, November 18, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

Attn: Leah Russin, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Re: Comments on S. 1759 

DEAR MS. RUSSIN: We appreciate the opportunity to comment on Senator Feinstein’s bill, S. 1759 (bill). Audubon California respects the need to transfer water 

to affected farmers in order to help reduce the loss of agricultural productivity and 

to minimize unemployment due to the drought. Such efforts however, need to be accompanied by key provisions to protect against unintended consequences and to 

fully mitigate for adverse impacts. Previous state and federal laws addressing water 

transfers have recognized the potential for adverse impacts and the need for third 

party protections. S. 1759 should as well. 

Unlimited or poorly designed transfers can cause significant harm to Valley farmers, communities and the environment unless they are handled properly. CVPIA 

water transfer limitations were instituted specifically to avoid such impacts including the risk of increasing groundwater overdraft to replace transferred water supplies. The proposed changes to water transfers legislation must similarly avoid unintended impacts and mitigate for unavoidable impacts. 

Our comments relate to the bill’s language that: 

1) could impact essential water supplies for national wildlife refuges and state 

wildlife areas as mandated by the CVPIA; 
64 

2) addresses the processes for analyzing impacts on listed species and overall 

environmental effects (§2); 

3) references the applicability of other laws and agreements (§2 and 3); 

4) specifies the geographic scope of the transfers (§2); and 

5) specifies the content of a report by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation ordered by this legislation (§4). 

1. Refuge Water Supply 

A major environmental accomplishment of CVPIA was the commitment to deliver 

to refuges and wildlife areas in the Central Valley a firm (Level 2) yield of 422,252 

acre-feet, 37% of the annual water needs for existing wetlands. In addition, CVPIA 

mandated that an additional 133,264 acre-feet of so-called Level 4 water be acquired 

over a ten-year period commencing in 1992, thus ensuring that roughly half of refuge water needs would be met by the project. Since 1992 legally mandated water 

supplies for the refuges has fallen short by a full 40,000 acre-feet from mandated 

Level 4 quantities. In 2008, refuge water supplies reached approximately 450,000 

acre-feet, a full 100,000 acre feet below congressionally mandated levels. 

We remain concerned that as written S. 1759 would allow a broader range of all 

CVP contractors to compete—with fewer limitations—for the water usually obtained 

by the refuges from existing CVP sources. This could in turn greatly increase the 

cost or reduce the availability of water that federal and state refuges currently depend on toward meeting their Level 2 and Level 4 water needs as promised by 

CVPIA. Congress should ensure that all federal water transfer actions fully mitigate 

against wetlands becoming a ‘‘third party impact.’’ 

2. Environmental Review Processes 

The environmental impacts analysis called for by the legislation should include 

in addition to the species listed, wetlands, wetlands dependent wildlife and/or species covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. For example, one of the areas targeted by the legislation, the Sacramento Valley, is home to significant wetland-dependent species and is one of America’s most important habitats for migratory birds. 

The maintenance and restoration of federal and state wildlife areas in the Central 

Valley is a stated purpose of the CVPIA itself and including mitigation measures 

that protect such wildlife areas will help ensure that there are no unintended impacts from new provisions that expedite water transfers. 

The bill mandates that the Interior Department must expeditiously issue all permits necessary to facilitate water transfers. It is our understanding that the Department is already in the process of developing a comprehensive environmental review 

on issues that pertain to water transfers in the CVP. Further, as specified by the 

relevant language in the 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill the Department through the Fish and Wildlife Service has been instructed as soon as is practicable to ‘‘revise, finalize, and implement the applicable draft recovery plan for the 

Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas).’’ Therefore we question whether δ2 of the 

bill is actually necessary to bring added efficiency to the water transfer process. 

3. Applicability of other laws and agreements 

We appreciate that the bill includes a condition to ensure no impacts to the San 

Joaquin River Settlement. This protection should be expanded so that any transfers 

are conditioned to ensure they are consistent with all other applicable federal and 

state laws, including but not limited to ESA, NEPA, CVPIA and state water transfer laws. 

4. Geographic Scope of §2 

It is not clear to us whether or not δ2 of the bill would apply to transfers through 

the Delta. It is our understanding that the author’s intent in δ2 focuses only on 

south of the Delta transfers with no intention to increase export demands on the 

Delta. 

5. Bureau of Reclamation Report 

The Report on Transfers called for by the bill would not speak to past problems 

involving water transfers such as the allowance for certain current transfers to proceed without complying with CVPIA conditions simply by employing questionable 

contract assignments or forbearance agreements that avoid restoration charges required by CVPIA. We suggest that any new water transfer study mandated by this 

bill should also require a report on these existing problems including previous experience on the water costs for Level 4 refuge water supply purchases occurring alongside water transfer activity. 

In addition to these specific recommendations, we believe that modest amendments to the legislation could be helpful in addressing the unintended impacts of 
65 

additional water transfers to the refuge water supply. We endorse the proposed language offered by the Grassland Water District in their November 18, 2009 letter to 

Senators Feinstein, Stabenow and Boxer that would 1) facilitate the use of carry 

over water for unused refuge water supplies; 2) facilitate transfers between and 

among federal, state and private wetland areas that receive CVP water; and 3) directs Reclamation to develop and implement a process to secure funding to fully implement Level 4 funding for refuge water supplies as mandated by CVPIA. Including these provisions as a new section in the bill would be beneficial toward meeting 

the important wetland conservation goals of the CVPIA and would be consistent 

with the ‘‘get the water where it is needed’’ intent in the bill. 

Thank you for your consideration of our views. We look forward to working with 

the Senator and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to achieve 

an outcome that makes water more available to agriculture in a manner that avoids 

or minimizes unintended environmental consequences. 

Sincerely, 

DANIEL TAYLOR, 

Director of Public Policy. 

STATEMENT OF DAN TAYLOR, AUDUBON CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO, CA 

COMMENTS ON CURRENT LEGISLATION PERTAINING TO CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

WATER TRANSFERS

Audubon California respects the need to transfer water to affected farmers in 

order to help reduce the loss of agricultural productivity and to minimize unemployment due to the drought. Such an effort however, needs to be accompanied by key 

provisions to protect against unintended consequences and to fully mitigate for adverse impacts. Previous state and federal laws addressing water transfers have recognized the potential for adverse impacts and the need for third party protections. 

These new transfers bills should as well. 

• Unlimited or poorly designed transfers can cause significant harm to Valley 

farmers, communities and the environment unless they are handled properly. 

CVPIA water transfer limitations were instituted specifically to avoid such impacts including the risk of increasing groundwater overdraft to replace transferred water supplies. The proposed changes to water transfers legislation must 

similarly avoid unintended impacts and mitigate for unavoidable impacts as 

well. • The environmental impacts analysis called for by the legislation should include 

in addition to listed species, wetlands, wetlands dependent wildlife and/or species covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. For example, one of the areas 

targeted by the legislation, the Sacramento Valley, is home to significant wetland-dependent species and is one of America’s most important habitats for migratory birds. The maintenance and restoration of federal and state wildlife 

areas in the Central Valley is a stated purpose of the CVPIA itself and including mitigation measures that protect such wildlife areas will help ensure that 

there are no unintended impacts from the new provisions. • Congress should ensure that all federal water transfer actions fully mitigate 

against wetlands becoming a ‘‘third party impact.’’ For example moving water 

away from wetland and agricultural regions can result in higher water market 

prices that wetlands management agencies cannot afford. Therefore, adding provisions to facilitate the movement of water between refuges can help carry out 

one of CVPIA’s important goals while also helping to minimize new impacts 

from this legislation. 

• If the transfers bills as written became law a broader range of all CVP contractors would be able to compete—with fewer limitations—for the water usually 

obtained by the refuges from existing CVP sources. This could in turn greatly 

increase the cost or reduce the availability of water that federal and state refuges currently depend on toward meeting their Level 2 and Level 4 water needs 

as promised by CVPIA. 

• The bills appear to mandate that the Interior Department must expeditiously 

issue all permits necessary to facilitate water transfers. Unless corrected this 

wording could potentially undermine objective review and assessment of transfers impacts, both social and environmental. 

• The Report on Transfers called for by the bills says nothing about addressing 

past problems areas such as Reclamation allowing certain current transfers to 

proceed without complying with CVPIA conditions simply by employing questionable contract assignments or forbearance agreements to get around the res-
66 

toration charges required by CVPIA. Any new legislation calling for a new study 

of CVPIA transfers should also require a report on these existing problems with 

implementing water transfers. • Transferred water should be required to be used locally by effected farmers and 

should not be eligible for sale or trade on a secondary market. • The legislation can help address potential impacts to refuges by facilitating wetland-to-wetland water transfers to allow managers to get CVPIA water where 

it is needed most in any given year. If CVPIA refuge supplies are not needed 

by one refuge area but could be beneficially used by other refuge areas, wetland 

managers should be afforded the same ability as any other water user to put 

diminishing water supplies to the best use for the needs of wildlife. • The current bills include a condition to ensure no impacts to the San Joaquin 

River Settlement. This protection should be expanded so that any transfers are 

conditioned to ensure they are consistent with all other applicable federal and 

state laws, including but not limited to ESA, NEPA, CVPIA and state water 

transfer laws. 

BANTA-CARBONA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, 

Tracy, CA, October 2, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. DENNIS CARDOZA, 

1224 Longworth Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. JIM COSTA, 

1314 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Re. ‘‘Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009’’ 

DEAR HONORABLE PUBLIC SERVANTS: We encourage you to pass this proposed bill 

as it can only help Californians best use the waters within the state. It is a waste 

of storage and conveyance systems to limit the uses of these facilities to strictly one 

brand of water, ie. CVP water. When facilities can be used to move various sources 

of water to diverse destinations and beneficial uses then the facilities are doing the 

most good for the American public. These public facilities will then better serve municipal, industrial and agricultural water needs while the environment is being 

served during times of drought. This bill will clarify a portion of law that federal 

regulatory agencies are interpreting in such a way as to prevent conveyance and 

storage of otherwise legal water transfers within the State of California in Federal 

facilities. Please pursue passage of this legislative correction. 

Sincerely, 

DAVID WEISENBERGER, 

General Manager. 

BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, 

Chico, CA, November 4, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. Senate, 112 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

RE: BEC concerns regarding S. 1759: Central Valley Project water transfer facilitation 

DEAR SENATORS FEINSTEIN AND BOXER: BEC opposes the pending transfer legislation bills (S-1759 and HR-3750): they are inappropriate and unnecessary. These bills 

are shortsighted attempts to dismantle the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

(CVPIA), and call for permanent authority to approve and expedite transfers beyond 

what law currently allows. These bills essentially link the State Water Project 

(SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) and institutionalize water transfers. 

Delta exports have reached unsustainable all-time highs -greater demands, increasing populations, climate change, and diminishing supplies-pointing to a collapse of epic proportions. There are no remaining great quanti ties of water that 

will fix this system. We cannot engineer or legislate our way out of this dilemma. 

The unintended consequences are numerous and many remain unquantifiable. Especially troublesome is further facilitation of more transfers from the north to the 

south because these transfers have a direct and historic effect in the form of groundwater mining and depletion. 
67 

Section 3405(a)(1) (J) The Secretary shall not approve a transfer authorized by this subsection unless the Secretary determines, consistent with 

paragraph 3405(a)(2) of this title, that such transfer will have no significant 

long-term adverse impact on groundwater conditions in the transferor’s 

service area. 

The provisions set in Section 3405(a) of the CVPIA are currently ignored and 

transfers take place without the appropriate oversight and research. Transfers must 

not increase total water used or stored during the driest times of the year. Groundwater substitution plays a major role in producing the water for transfers that originate north of the Delta. In our region, groundwater substitutions impact an aquifer 

system directly connected to the Tuscan aquifer. This system underlies 6 North Valley and foothill counties and is crucial for many endangered species and threatened 

habitats. There are approximately 17,000 private wells over the Tuscan, with the 

vast majority being domestic wells. Homes scattered throughout the rural areas 

have no other water source. 

If the Senate promulgates this bill, it must adhere to CVPIA and address the following: 

• Applies to specific emergency conditions only-this should protect from willing 

sellers out to make a profit and curtail dependency and ever increasing demands south of the Delta. 

• HR-1759, Sec. 3(b) must be expanded to include recognized species of HCP/ 

NCCPs of affected regions. It must also include all applicable environmental reviews, permitting, and consultations, including the environmental documentation needed to address groundwater quantity and quality. 

• The Department of the Interior should lead the retirement of western San Joaquin Valley lands per the March 2007 Record of Decision and support the development of a comprehensive approach to sustaining the water supply in the 

North State. The natural systems cannot be further disrupted, salmon runs and 

wetlands must be improved from years of disruption that has caused the current endangerment of many species. 

BEC hopes that you recognize that groundwater substitutions are already occurring and that these bills will further the abuse and decimation of one of the last 

functioning, natural groundwater dependent ecosystems in the State. Consider this 

unintended consequence and reevaluate the purpose of your bill. 

Sincerely, 

CAROL PERKINS, 

Water Resource Advocate. 

[The article ‘‘Reaping Riches in a Wretched Region: Subsidized Industrial Farming and its Link to Perpetual Poverty’’ by Lloyd G. Carter has been retained in subcommittee files.] 

CALIFORNIA WATER IMPACT NETWORK, 

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE, 

Santa Barbara, CA, November 3, 2009. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate 

Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009-S 1759 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BINGAMAN, RANKING MEMBER MURKOWSKI AND MEMBERS OF THE

WATER AND POWER SUBCOMMITTEE: We hereby request that this correspondence be 

included in the hearing record for S 1759 and that it be provided to the committee 

members in anticipation of the hearing on November 5, 2009. 

Our organizations oppose the Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009 as introduced. As California continues to seek resolution to water conflicts, we agree that 

water transfers can play a role but we point out that there is already comprehensive 

water transfer authority in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). 

Pub. L. 102-575 §3405. Moreover, significant progress in facilitating water transfers 

has already been made by the Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department of Water Resources through the federal/state Drought Water Bank. Reclamation and DWR successfully petitioned the California State Water Resources Control 
68 

* Document has been retained in subcommittee files. 

Board to combine the Permitted Places of use for the Central Valley Project and 

State Water Project. However, without adequate protections, the language contained 

in S. 1759 will go too far to expedite transfers, and will likely create a market for 

paper water, create third party impacts, impact federal Indian Tribes, and further 

exacerbate regional conflicts over water in California. 

A determination of availability and need for additional water to be transferred 

must precede any transfers and should come from a comprehensive package of facts. 

Since we are committed to working with you toward a sustainable hydrologic future 

for California, we respectfully urge you to amend the bill to prevent redirected impacts to other beneficial uses of water. Our specific concerns and suggestions are 

provided below. 

Section 2 

Section 2 (a), as written, creates a water transfer market for paper water-water 

that does not exist. Paper water would be created through exemption of transfers 

from the existing requirement in paragraphs (A) and (I) of section 3405(a)(1) of the 

CVPIA that transferred water not exceed the actual 3 year average delivery amount 

and the requirement to show proof that the transferred water would otherwise be 

beneficially used or irretrievably lost during the time period of the transfer. This 

exemption will likely result in additional upstream reservoir drawdown and an impact on water supplies for CVP-dependent rivers and wildlife refuges. 

The legislation, as proposed is also redundant in its description of eligible CVP 

contractors in Section 2(a)1 which refers specifically to the CVP’s San Felipe, West 

San Joaquin, and Delta division contractors as eligible for water transfers , but they 

are also included again in the description of all CVP contractors, past and present 

in Section 2(a)2 as eligible for water transfers. 

Section 2(b) creates a preferential status for the San Joaquin River Restoration 

Program over any other CVPIA program, something never done before for ANY portion of a CVP program. It also supersedes federal and state area of origin protections by favoring the one CVP river system-the San Joaquin, which is a net importer of water, over other basins such as the Sacramento, Trinity and American 

river basins which are net exporters of water to the San Joaquin and Tulare basins. 

It further aggravates the continued failure of the Bureau of Reclamation to charge 

CVP contractors for restoration of the Trinity River as pointed out by the Hoopa 

Valley Tribe in their October 22nd letter. 

Section 2(a) of the legislation, by exempting transferred water from proof of actual 

beneficial use, will further delay fulfillment of Federal Indian Trust responsibilities 

arising under Section 3406(b)(23) of the CVPIA. As pointed out in the letter by the 

Hoopa Valley Tribe, it would do so financially. However, we believe it may also do 

so physically by transferring water stored in Trinity Reservoir which is specifically 

dedicated to the preservation and propagation of the Trinity River fishery. It also 

jeopardizes stored in Trinity, Shasta, Folsom and other CVP reservoirs specifically 

dedicated to Central Valley fisheries and wildlife refuges made available under 

CVPIA Sections 3406(b)(2) and 3406(d), respectively. 

The attached* 1977 Interior Solicitor’s Opinion on a request by the Grasslands 

Water District for additional water supplies explains the federal obligations to protect areas of origin such as the Trinity River from impacts to export water to areas 

such as the Grasslands during periods of drought. 

We therefore recommend that Section 2(a)1 be deleted in its entirety, and that 

if this legislation is adopted in any form it include a condition on transfers that requires as a prerequisite the fulfillment of the contractors’ payment obligations and 

establish additional protections for the Trinity River and Central Valley fish and 

wildlife refuges as provided in Sections 3406(b)2 and 3406(b)23) and 3406(d) of Public Law 102-575 by adding them as prohibitions of harm under new Sections 2(b)3, 

2(b)4) and 2(b)(5), respectively: 

(3) The protection of Central Valley fish and wildlife water supplies, as described in Section 3406(b)(2) of Public Law 102-575 

(4) The Trinity River Restoration Program, as described in Section 3406(b)23 

of Public Law 102-575, and as embodied in the Interior Secretary’s December 

2000 Trinity River Record of Decision 

(5) Central Valley Refuges and Wildlife Habitat areas, as described in Section 

3406(d) of Public Law 102-575. 
69 

1See page 10, paragraph 2 at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterlissues/hotltopics/strategiclplan/2007update.shtml 

Section 3 

We appreciate your emphasis to follow all environmental laws to analyze the impacts to both the areas of origin and the receiving areas from Central Valley Project 

water transfers. As you are aware, the Bureau of Reclamation and the California 

Department of Water Resources have struggled to produce programmatic federal 

and state environmental review for water transfers (including those proposed in 

your bill) since the signing of the Sacramento Valley Water Management Agreement 

in 2001. We suggest that beyond emphasizing that the Bureau of Reclamation, 

‘‘ . . . shall initiate and complete, on the most expedited basis practicable, the programmatic development of environmental documentation to facilitate voluntary 

water transfers within the Central Valley Project,’’ that you add companion language that will protect the areas of origin from harm. 

A programmatic National Environmental Policy Act document will not be completed for 2010 transfers and very likely won’t be finished even for 2011 water 

transfers. In light of that fact, we request that you add the following provisions that 

will safeguard family farms, communities, and myriad species: 

• Prohibit ground water substitution. • Fallowing patterns should err on the side of preventing species impacts. • All water transfers under this bill must be monitored by independent, third parties that are paid for by the buyers and hired through USFWS or NMFS 

Past experience demonstrates just how destructive surface water sales with 

ground water substitution can be in the northern Sacramento Valley. For example, 

in 1994, following seven years of low annual precipitation, Western Canal Water 

District and other irrigation districts in Butte, Glenn and Colusa counties exported 

105,000 af of water extracted from the Tuscan aquifers to buyers outside of the 

area. This early experiment in the conjunctive use of the groundwater resources— 

conducted without the benefit of environmental review—caused a significant and 

immediate adverse impact on the environment. (Msangi 2006). Until the time of the 

water transfers, groundwater levels had dropped but the aquifers had sustained the 

normal demands of domestic and agricultural users. The water districts’ extractions, 

however, lowered groundwater levels throughout the Durham and Cherokee areas 

of eastern Butte County. (Msangi 2006). The water level fell and the water quality 

deteriorated in the wells serving the City of Durham. (Scalmanini 1995). Irrigation 

wells failed on several orchards in the Durham area. One farm never recovered from 

the loss of its crop and later entered into bankruptcy. Residential wells dried up in 

the upper-gradient areas of the aquifers as far north as Durham. 

In 2009, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to comply with the ESA and 

provide information necessary to establish the impact on the threatened giant garter 

snake. The Service also failed to provide measures to minimize the impact of take 

from transfers. To fully comply with the law and minimize the potential for legal 

challenges to surface water transfers, your bill could emphasize the importance of 

including the essential baseline data and mitigation measures to protect the species. 

Section 4 

The Bureau of Reclamation could bring to Congress many of the facts that have 

been absent from the water transfer debate. For example, a State Water Resources 

Control Board Strategic Plan report1 (2008) reveals that there are rights, permits, 

and licenses for at least five times the amount of water than exists. A review of the 

Bureau of Reclamation’s seven Trinity River water permits reveals that Reclamation 

has permits to store and divert twelve times the average annual flow of the Trinity 

River at Lewiston (Stroshane 2009). It is also well known that many speculators in 

hydrologically dry area of California have abused their own water supplies, and 

some have planted permanent crops even when their contracts clearly articulate 

that there will be years that water deliveries may drop to zero. To the detriment 

of all Californians, local, state, and federal agencies have failed to stop blatantly 

wasteful and inappropriate uses and diversions of water and have failed to pursue 

aggressive planning for regional water self-sufficiency. The water transfer legislation, as proposed, encourages more of the same. 

Conclusion 

We appreciate your consideration of our concerns. If you decide after hearing testimony, that there is still a need and desire to move ahead with this legislation, 

we urge you to strongly consider our recommendations so that you do not, in your 

haste to facilitate water transfers,redirect impacts to the areas of origin, harm Cen-
70 

tral Valley fish and wildlife, and violate Federal Indian Trust responsibilities to the 

Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes. 

Sincerely, 

CAROLEE KRIEGER, 

President, California Water Impact Network. 

BILL JENNINGS, 

Chairman, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. 

STATEMENT OF TOVEY GIEZENTANNER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CONAWAY

PRESERVATION GROUP, LLC, WOODLAND, CA 

On behalf of the Conaway Preservation Group, LLC (CPG), thank you for introducing legislation authorizing and establishing a permanent long-term program to 

promote and manage water transfers in the Central Valley of California. We support 

your efforts and this legislation as a means of providing greater flexibility in the 

management of Central Valley Project (CVP) and other water supplies to help meet 

unmet needs critical to the future of the State of California. 

As you are aware, the devastating impacts of diminished water deliveries to the 

CVP as a result of three years of below average precipitation have been made even 

greater by the various regulatory restrictions, including the requirements established by the recent federal biological opinions for endangered fish under the ESA. 

Your legislation will provide immediate, much needed relief in the form of a flexible 

and useful tool that will allow water to be transferred from willing parties to those 

in need within the CVP. Further, the language in your legislation directing the Bureau of Reclamation to work with other federal agencies to develop the necessary 

long-term environmental documentation addressing impacts of a water transfer program on the ESA-listed Giant Garter Snake is a critical and necessary near-term 

next step. 

CPG owns the Conaway Ranch in Yolo County. The Conaway Ranch property covers more than 17,000 acres on the west side of the Sacramento River between the 

cities of Davis and Woodland. Conaway Ranch has been operated for many years 

to meet goals of agricultural production and waterfowl/wildlife habitat. Approximately 40 percent of the Ranch is located within the Yolo Bypass and the remainder 

lies west of the bypass. Conaway Ranch’s water rights and Bureau of Reclamation 

Settlement Contract are held by CPG. CPG’s Settlement Contract water is a major 

contributor to the Conaway Ranch water supply during its annual summer operational term of April 1 through October 31. 

We look forward to working with you and your staff in the coming months in this 

important legislative effort, and appreciate your leadership in advancing this legislation and addressing California water issues so important to our collective future. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, 

Long Beach, CA, November 2, 2009. 

MS. KATHY MROWKA, 

State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights, PO Box 2000, Sacramento, CA. 

DEAR MS. MROWKA: By this letter, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) registers its protest to the US Bureau of Reclamation’s (USBR) Petitions 

for Extension of Time petitions for the Central Valley Project (CVP) (Applications 

5625, 5626, 5627, 5628, 9363, 9364, 9365, 9366, 9367, 9368, 13370, 13371, 13372, 

14662, 14858A, 14858B, 14859, 15374, 15375, 15376, 15764, 16767, 16768, 17374, 

17375, 17376, 18115, 19303, 19304, 21542, 22316, 27319). 

NMFS is responsible for managing fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act and for implementation of the Federal Endangered Species Act ESA with respect to marine species, including anadromous fish. 

NMFS’ ESA responsibility includes working with federal agencies to assist them in 

complying with their ESA duty to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence oflisted 

species or adversely modifying their critical habitat. (ESA § 7(a)(2)) Further, the 

ESA provides that it is Congressional policy that all Federal agencies shall cooperate with State and local agencies to resolve water resource issues in concert with 

conservation of threatened and endangered species. (ESA § 2(c)(2)) 

NMFS is filing this protest to preserve party status in these proceedings in order 

to work with the USBR and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for 

conservation of federally protected marine species in the CVP service area; NMFS 
71 

1The power generation permits are companion filings to the consolidated place of use consumptive use permits. 

must bring its technical expertise to bear in these proceedings if we are to fulfill 

our legal mandates to manage and protect anadromous fish. There is substantial 

uncertainty regarding future environmental conditions in the Sacramento Valley 

and Trinity River Basin. Additionally, the feasibility of providing conservation measures such as fish passage above currently impassable dams remains unclear. We are 

concerned that the petitions at issue could limit future operational flexibility and 

result in significant adverse environmental impacts and, therefore, may be contrary 

to the public interest. 

Project Description 

On July 23, 2009, the USBR filed petitions for extension of time to put water to 

full and beneficial use for 32 water rights associated with the Central Valley Project 

(CVP). These include 16 permits previously approved under SWRCB decision 1641 

(D1641), 9 permits for power generation,1 permit for Black Butte Reservoir, and 6 

permits for the New Melones Reservoir. Operations covered under these permits affect water supplies in the: Trinity River (Trinity Reservoir), Clear Creek 

(Whiskeytown Reservoir), Sacramento River Shasta Reservoir, American River (Folsom Reservoir), Stanislaus River, the San Francisco Bay Delta, the Westside ofthe 

San Joaquin Valley, and the San Joaquin River. Purposes of use include direct diversion and storage for irrigation, stock watering, domestic, municipal and industrial use, power production, fish and wildlife enhancement, salinity control, water 

quality control, and recreation. The current petitions supersede and replace USBR’s 

September 19, 1985 petition and the June 26, 1996 request for partial amendment. 

NMFS, the USBR, and other agencies (including the SWRCB) have been working 

together to address fisheries issues in the Sacramento Valley region for several 

years, and in several forums. Most recently, pursuant to its duty to determine 

whether a proposed federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

any listed species, on June 4, 2009, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion on the longterm operation of the CVP and State Water Project (SWP) (the ‘‘OCAP Biological 

Opinion’’). NMFS concluded that proposed operations were likely to jeopardize five 

listed species and, as the ESA requires, offered an extensive set of actions as a ‘‘reasonable and prudent alternative’’ (RPA) for project operations that would be likely 

to avoid jeopardizing these species. The USBR has provisionally accepted the RPA. 

Consequently, the delivery of water by the CVP and the SWP is governed by the 

terms of the NMFS RPA, as well as by other federal and state decisions. In addition, 

NMFS and USBR are currently engaged in formal ESA consultation regarding 

USBR Proposed Action to continue operation of the Trinity River Division ofthe CVP 

from 2010 to 2030. This consultation is scheduled to be completed in January of 

2010. 

Basis of Protest 

Our protest is based on threats to the conservation of species exposed to potential 

impacts of ongoing and future operations of the CVP in the event petitions are 

granted without appropriate conditions. These species include: Endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Threatened 

spring-run Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha), Southern Oregon/Northern California 

Coasts coho salmon (O. kisutch), Central Valley steelhead (O. mykiss), the Southern 

Distinct Population Segment of North American green sturgeon (Acipenser 

medirostris), and Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca). The storage, release, and diversion of surface flows at multiple facilities affect stream flows, habitat conditions, and temperatures important to the successful completion of spawning, rearing, and migration life-stages for these protected fish, as well as for fallrun Chinook salmon, an important commercial and recreational fishery and food 

source for Endangered killer whales. Detailed analyses ofthese effects are presented 

in the OCAP Biological Opinion and in the 2000 Trinity River Biological Opinion. 

A. Sacramento River 

While NMFS’ OCAP Biological Opinion concluded that the operations under the 

RPA are not likely to jeopardize listed species, the Sacramento Bay Delta ecosystem 

is extraordinarily complex, and future environmental conditions are largely uncertain. Two important variables are climate change and future growth patterns. 

NMFS used the best scientific information available at the time of our analysis, including current projections for climate change and future growth patterns, but we 

expect that new answers to a variety of important questions will become available 

during the coming years that could affect our analysis and conclusions. 
72 

Federal regulations require that NMFS revisit a previous biological opinion ‘‘if 

new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical 

habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered.’ (C.F.R. § 402.16) The 

Opinion requires cooperative research to address many of these uncertainties. For 

example, partially as a response to anticipated climate change in California, the 

RPA requires that the project agencies lead studies to determine how to provide fish 

passage above currently impassable dams so fish can have access to cold water 

spawning habitat. The RPA’s ‘‘no jeopardy’’ conclusion rests in part on the assumption that fish passage will be provided. If this turns out to be infeasible, modification of project operations will most likely be necessary. These modifications could 

require additional cold water releases from Shasta Darn to provide suitable conditions for salmon spawning below the dam. Even under the current ‘‘no jeopardy’’ 

RPA, there is still high mortality of winter-run Chinook, and changed conditions 

could require provision of additional cold water while passage is being studied and 

engineered. 

However, depending on the nature of, and conditions appurtenant to, the water 

rights that are the subject of those agreements, the USBR may or may not be able 

to provide the cold water that could be required for ESA compliance in the future. 

A federal court has ruled that the use of a majority of stored water in Shasta is 

governed by settlement agreements between the USBR and pre-existing water right 

holders. The court determined that USBR has no discretion to amend the agreements. If these water rights are not appropriately conditioned, via the petition process, to allow measures to conserve listed species, conservation of some species simply may not be possible. 

The SWRCB proceedings in this matter are a key intersection of federal and state 

law. Flexibility for USBR to comply with the ESA in the future under changed conditions must be preserved if imperiled anadromous species in the Sacramento Valley 

are to be conserved. The SWRCB has the authority to preserve that flexibility by 

determinations made in these proceedings. The proceedings provide an opportunity 

for federal and state agencies to work in concert on critical water resource issues, 

with NMFS contributing its technical expertise on conservation strategies and fishery management. 

B. Trinity River 

The petitions do not conform to decisions previously made by federal agencies and 

tribal governments regarding instream flow, temperature, and minimum pool levels 

for the Trinity River. NMFS completed formal ESA Section 7 Consultation on October 12, 2000 on the flows provided by the Trinity River Record of Decision and concluded that the flows would not jeopardize listed species. A flow regime different 

than that consulted upon in the Biological Opinion may not meet this standard. 

Similarly, the October 12, 2000 Biological Opinion on the Trinity River assumed 

that the water temperature objectives and the minimum pool levels would be met 

because they were either included in the proposed action or formalized as an reasonable and prudent measure. As submitted, these petitions may limit the potential for 

USBR to comply with the ESA on the Trinity River in the future. We have outlined 

the factual bases for our protest with regard to the Trinity River, and specific recommendations for action, in the ‘‘Recommendations’’ section, below. 

Recommendations 

1. Evaluate alternatives associated with the allocation of water rights under 

settlement contracts to address impacts of CVP operations to stream temperatures for winter-run Chinook salmon below Shasta Reservoir. The majority of 

the water stored behind Shasta Dam has been deemed not subject to USBR discretionary control. Additional alternatives could facilitate future temperature 

compliance for winter-run Chinook salmon on the Sacramento River, which is 

critically important to the survival and recovery ofthis species. 

2. Provide for operational consistency between flow regimes in the CVP and 

the OCAP Biological Opinion RPA. NMFS and USBR have agreed to a suite of 

protective measures using flow manipulations of associated portions of CVP 

water that are designed to avoid jeopardy to species. Fish resources would be 

well served by insuring that all elements of the RPA are fully integrated into 

the water rights permits and licenses held by the USBR for the CVP. 

3. NMFS has recently issued a public review draft of our Central Valley 

Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan. This document analyzes current conditions and threats to threatened and endangered salmonids in the Central Valley 

and provides a comprehensive suite of strategies and actions to achieve their 

recovery. With protest standing, our agency will be better able to provide tech-
73 

nical assistance to the USBR and SWRCB for the purposes of integrating recovery strategies into CVP operations. 

4. The petitions do not include the U.S. Interior Department’s 2000 Record 

of Decision that reduced diversions to the Sacramento River from the Trinity 

River from 90 to 53 percent of average annual Trinity River runoff. The petitions call for minimum instream flows for the Trinity River of 120,500 acre feet, 

well below the minimum agreed upon in the 2000 Trinity River Record of Decision. USBR should submit a petition that conforms to water volumes for the 

Trinity River as established in Trinity River Record of Decision. 

5. The petitions do not include Trinity River water temperature objectives 

that were reviewed and adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency EPA 

as an amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region 

Basin Plan approved by the State Board in Resolution No. 91-94 on September 

26, 1991. The Basin Plan amendment establishes site-specific temperature objectives and an Interim Action Plan for the Trinity River. The review of the 

temperature objectives found them to be protective ofbeneficial uses on the 

Trinity River, and to be based on sound scientific rationale. USBR should submit a petition that includes these water temperature objectives for the Trinity 

River. 

6. The petitions do not include minimum pool levels for Trinity Reservoir. 

NMFS established a 600,000 acre feet minimum pooi level for Trinity Reservoir 

in the October 12, 2000 Biological Opinion on the Trinity River. This minimum 

pool level was deemed necessary at that time to ensure sufficient cold water resources to meet the temperature objectives. USBR should submit a petition that 

includes minimum pool levels for Trinity Reservoir. 

Thank you for considering our protest of the above petitions. We hope that by establishing a formal nexus for our agency to participate in the review and conditioning ofthe subject permits via the SWRCB permitting process, we may provide 

technical assistance and make significant contributions to the survival and recovery 

of threatened and endangered species and management of important commercial 

and recreational stocks. Ifyou have any questions or comments concerning this 

issue, please contact Steve Edmondson, Habitat Manager for Northern California at 

707 575-6052 or Steve.Edmondsonnoaa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

RODNEY R. MCLNNIS, 

Regional Administrator. 

STATEMENT OF C. MARK ROCKWELL, D.C., ENDANGERED SPECIES COALITION, PENN

VALLEY, CA, ON S. 1759 

I am writing for a second time on this legislation, and our group letter, sent to 

you on November 3, 2009, is also attached for reference. Our concern with the current legislation is that we feel it does not adequately protect the environmental 

water designated for the California Bay-Delta ecosystem, and for the central valley 

salmon fishery (Central Valley Improvement Act(Title 34, Public law 102-575). As 

you may know, under the CVPIA 800,000 acre feet of water, classified as b(2) or 

surplus water, was supposed to be allocated for the purpose of Bay Delta estuary 

protection/restoration, and to meet the salmon doubling goals of the CVPIA legislation. Additionally, this water is designated to allow the Secretary of Interior to meet 

Endangered Species Act responsibilities to protect and recover listed salmon species 

in the California central valley. 

As you probably also know, the salmon doubling goals have never been reached, 

and in fact, the central valley salmon populations have severely declined to the 

point where salmon fishing in both California and Oregon has been closed the past 

two years. This has caused both economic hardship on many business and commercial fishing families, as well as hardships on the recreational fishing communities 

in both states. It has caused hundreds of millions of dollars to be lost to the California economy, and contributed to the climbing unemployment figures in these 

states. Loss of salmon is, frankly, a disaster for our state. 

One of the goals of this legislation is to make available water easier to move within the state to those in need. However, as stated by Senator Feinstein’s staff, it has 

to be done with no un-intended consequences. or negative impacts. We are concerned about negative impacts to CVPIA goals and intent, as well as its impact on 

salmon populations in the central valley. Therefore, we recommend the following 

language to firm up the goals and prescribed outcomes of CVPIA (in blue italics): 
74 

(b) CONDITION.—A transfer under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the transfer not interfere with—— 

(1) Implementation of Section 34060)(2) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Ac (Title 34, Public Law 102-575), partiarlarly with regard to the 

Secretary’s obligations under Section 3406(b)(1)(B) and the Endangered Species 

Act as spelled out in that Section; 

(2) the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11; 123 

Stat. 1349), including the priorities described in section 10004(a)(4)(B) of that 

Act (123 Stat. 1350) relating to implementation of paragraph 16 of the Settlement (as defined in section 10003 of that Act (12320 Stat. 1349)); and 

(3) the Settlement. 

We feel this addition would achieve the goals of Senator Feinstein and Boxer of 

making water easier to move to needed locations, while continuing to protect the 

central valley salmon fishery, and meeting the goals and objectives of the Central 

Valley Improvement Act. I can’t stress enough how important it is to recovery the 

west coast salmon fishery for the economy and families of this state. We cannot risk 

any further declines. People’s livelihoods and families are at stake. 

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, 

San Francisco, CA, November 4, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: Environmental Defense Fund recommendations on S 1759 (water transfers) 

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Environmental Defense Fund greatly appreciates your 

efforts to help resolve California’s pressing water issues. In particular, we thank you 

for bringing balance to the discussions and fending off attempts to undermine fundamental protections of existing law, including, but not limited to, the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). EDF is engaged at all levels to find solutions to these 

problems, including work on the pending state legislation, participation on the Bay 

Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) steering committee, open dialogue with key players 

in the agricultural and municipal water sectors and engagement with the Department of the Interior on various issues. It is in this context of constructive engagement that we offer the following comments on S 1759. 

As you know, EDF is supportive of the use of appropriate market mechanisms to 

solve environmental problems, and we played a central role in including such provisions in CVPIA originally. The record is clear that voluntary water transfers provide 

important economic incentives to sellers and buyers alike, resulting in improvements in agricultural efficiency and on-farm productivity. We thus appreciate and 

agree with the general stated intent behind S 1759. 

We do have a few concerns about S 1759 as filed. First, we are concerned that 

Section 2(a) not undo basic important and carefully negotiated provisions of CVPIA 

by providing too broad of an exemption for certain transfers from Sec. 3405(a)(1) of 

the Act. We suggest the following amendment to ensure that S 1759 is limited to 

intended purposes of reducing non-environmental impact related barriers to appropriate transfers and that it does not undermine the environmental protection inherent in CVPIA (additional language in underlined): 

Sec. 2 (b) Condition—A transfer under subsection (a) shall be subject to 

all applicable provisions of existing state and federal law and to the condition that it not interfere with...

Second, we understand that the primary intent of Section 3 of S 1759 is primarily 

to streamline the process for review and approval of through Delta transfers that 

may affect the giant garter snake, currently listed as a threatened species under the 

federal ESA. EDF generally supports this objective. However, we believe the language in Section 3 of the bill as filed may be interpreted to go far beyond the stated 

purpose. We suggest that Section 3 be amended to read as follows (additional language in underline): 

Sec. 3 (a) In General—As soon as practicable after the date of enactment 

of this Act, the Secretary of Interior, acting through the Director of the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Secretary), using 

such sums as are necessary, shall initiate and complete, on the most expedited basis practicable the programmatic development of environmental 

documentation to facilitate voluntary water transfers within the Central 
75 

Valley Project, consistent with all applicable provisions of state and federal 

law. 

Third, we share the concern of the Grasslands Water District and other members 

of the Central Valley Joint Venture that S 1759 should guarantee no loss of water 

to wetlands. We ask that S 1759 include language assuring that if a Central Valley 

refuge is unable to take full delivery of its annual water allocation, the water is 

made available to other refuges that are not in receipt of their full level 2 or level 

4 supplies. 

We are happy to discuss these issues further with your staff, and, again, we appreciate all your efforts to help California meet the overarching dual goals of water 

supply reliability and healthy river and delta ecosystems. 

Sincerely, 

MARY E. KELLY, 

Senior Counsel, Rivers and Deltas. 

SPRECK ROSEKRANS, 

Senior Analyst. 

FRIANT WATER USERS AUTHORITY, 

Lindsay, CA, October 1, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: SUPPORT for Transfer legislation for the Central Valley Project 

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN, On behalf of Friant Water Users Authority (Authority), 

we thank you for introducing transfer legislation for the Central Valley Project 

(CVP) and we support your efforts and this legislation as a means of providing 

greater flexibility for management of CVP water supplies. 

The diminished water deliveries to the CVP as a result of three years of below 

average precipitation amplified by various regulatory restrictions, including the ESA 

and the most recent delta smelt and salmon Biological Opinions, have, as you know, 

created a desperate situation in the San Joaquin Valley. 

While long-term solutions are being sought, numerous short term efforts are needed to help bridge the water supply gap and greater flexibility, as provided in your 

legislation, to move water supplies across the San Joaquin Valley would be a useful 

tool. In addition, the legislation would help Friant districts affected by the SJR Settlement improve management of surface and groundwater supplies. 

The Authority consists of nineteen member water, irrigation and public utility districts. The Friant Service area includes approximately one million acres and 15,000 

mostly small family farms on the east side of the southern San Joaquin Valley 

(Madera, Fresno, Tulare and Kern County). Friant Division water supplies are also 

relied upon by several cities and towns, including the City of Fresno, as a major 

portion of their municipal and industrial water supplies. 

We look forward to engaging in this effort and working closely with you and your 

staff in advancing this legislation and addressing California water issues. 

Sincerely, 

RONALD D. JACOBSMA, 

Consulting General Manager. 

GLEN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, 

Willows, CA, October 2, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: Support for Water Transfer Legislation 

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: On behalf of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID), 

we thank you for introducing legislation authorizing and establishing a permanent 

long-term program to promote and manage water transfers in the Central Valley of 

California. We support your efforts and this legislation as a means of providing 

greater flexibility in the management of Central Valley Project (CVP) and other 

water supplies to help meet unmet needs critical to the future of the State of California. 

As you are aware, the devastating impacts of diminished water deliveries to the 

CVP as a result of three years of below average precipitation has been made even 

greater by the various regulatory restrictions, including the requirements established by the recent federal biological opinions for endangered fish under the ESA. 
76 

Your legislation will provide immediate, much needed relief in the form of a flexible 

and useful tool that will allow water to be transferred from willing parties to those 

in need within the CVP. 

GCID is the largest and one of the oldest diverters of water from the Sacramento 

River, dating back to 1880. As a senior water right holder and CVP Sacramento 

River Settlement Contractor, we believe we can and will actively participate in this 

water transfer program. The language in your legislation directing the Bureau of 

Reclamation to work with other federal agencies to implement the necessary longterm environmental processes addressing impacts of a water transfer program on 

the ESA-listed Giant Garter Snake will be imperative to its usefulness and success. 

We look forward to working with you and your staff in the coming months in this 

important legislative effort, and appreciate your leadership in advancing this legislation and addressing California water issues so important to our collective future. 

Sincerely, 

THADDEUS L. BETTNER, 

General Manager. 

STATE CAPITOL, 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, 

Sacramento, CA, November 4, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. Senate, 112 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN AND SENATOR BOXER, I am writing to express my support for S. 1759, the Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009. I appreciate your efforts to help alleviate the conditions brought on by drought in our state. 

California is entering what could be its fourth consecutive year of drought. The 

state has a history of supporting water transfers and in 2009 implemented a 

Drought Water Bank as a tool for helping with worsening drought conditions. Given 

the challenges facing California’s water supply, water transfers are likely to play an 

increasingly important role in meeting the state’s water needs. My administration, 

through the Department of Water Resources (DWR), is working in partnership with 

the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to facilitate transfers in 2010. DWR and the Bureau 

of Reclamation are also working to develop a long-term water transfers program. 

I appreciate your recognition of the importance of this effort in meeting California’s water supply needs. As Congress considers this legislation, I look forward to 

working with you and your colleagues to ensure that the final version meets the 

needs of both California and the federal government. 

Sincerely, 

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, 

Governor. 

GRASSLAND WATER DISTRICT, 

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY, 

Los Banos, CA, July 9, 2009. 

Mr. DONALD GLASER, 

Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottageway-MP100, Sacramento, CA. 

DEAR DIRECTOR GLASER: We are writing to request a meeting between you, Pablo 

Arroyave, and ourselves—as respective representatives of the San Luis & DeltaMendota Water Authority and Grassland Water District—to discuss the future of 

the Refuge Water Supply Program and how wetland and agricultural interests can 

further our mutual goals while meeting the mandates of the Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act (CVPIA). 

In that regard, the matter of the ‘‘March’’ toward Level 4 acquisition and Level 

2 diversification are at the top of our agenda, as well as how we might be able to 

improve upon the current structure of the Refuge Water Supply Program. We both 

concur that just as Level 4 supplies are an obligation of the CVPIA, so is the requirement to diversity sources of Level 2 supplies to alleviate pressure on agricultural contractors. We wish to discuss how to move both of these objectives forward, 

which we believe possess connectivity in terms of the Bureau’s ability to eventually 

meet both objectives. Our current actions to work together to seek solutions to these 

issues are a reflection of our commitment to work together. Nonetheless, the Bureau 
77 

maintains exclusive regulatory authority over actually meeting, and thus funding, 

these objectives. It is in this regard we wish to meet and begin a more formal dialogue as to how we can move forward. 

We believe that as a starting point, it would be helpful to have this meeting with 

you and Pablo Arroyave. We then envision a follow-up meeting with other members 

of your staff to further refine the ideas which we will develop at this meeting. 

We are both ready to make ourselves available to you based on your schedule. 

Considering recent actions related to changes in Refuge Water Supply Program 

staffing, and the yet to be released PART document related to the refuge water program, we believe it is important we meet at your earliest convenience. 

Thank you for your consideration of our request. We look forward to your response. 

Sincerely, 

DAVID L. WIDELL, 

General Manager, Grassland Water District. 

DANIEL G. NELSON, 

Executive Director, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority. 

HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COUNCIL, 

Hoopa Valley Tribe, 

Hoopa, CA, October 26, 2009. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Building, U.S. 

Senate, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Hon. NICK J. RAHALL II, 

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 1522 Longworth Building, U.S. House 

of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Hon. DOC HASTINGS, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources, 1522 Longworth Building, U.S. 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMEN AND RANKING MEMBERS: S. 1759 and H.R. 3750 would interfere 

with fulfillment of a long-deferred federal trust responsibility owed to the Hoopa 

Valley Tribe that was identified in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

(CVPIA). Pub. L. 102-575 §3406(b)(23) (October 30, 1992). The purpose of this letter 

is to request an amendment to the legislation that would ensure implementation of 

the requirement in the CVPIA that the cost of Trinity River restoration be paid as 

a cost of service by Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors. These contractors have 

repeatedly and persistently fought to avoid their statutory and contractual financial 

obligations to Trinity River restoration. They should not be provided any further 

benefits of Trinity River water until they recognize and pay for the full cost of Trinity River restoration. Also, many of these same contractors oppose the fulfillment 

of the CVP water supply obligations to Trinity River basin communities established 

by Congress in 1955 when it authorized the Trinity River Division. 

The Tribe will respectfully oppose this legislation unless the issues we raise are 

resolved favorably to our Tribe. 

Below are a proposed amendment, an explanation of the need for the amendment, 

and a background statement of the Hoopa Valley Tribe’s interest in this legislation. 

In the event your Committees hold hearings on this legislation, we request that this 

letter be include in the record of your proceedings. 

1. Amendment 

Add at the end of section 2: 

(c) The Secretary shall not approve a transfer authorized by this section 

unless the Secretary determines first that there are funds appropriated and 

presently available to meet the costs of implementing the Trinity River 

Mainstem Fishery Restoration Record of Decision adopted by the Secretary 

with the concurrence of the Hoopa Valley Tribe pursuant to section 

3406(b)(23)(B) of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment 

Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4720) in the amount of 

$16,400,000 per year (October 2007 price levels) through completion of construction and $11,000,000 per year (October 2007 price levels) thereafter for 
78 

so long as the Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project diverts 

water to the Central Valley. 

2. Statement of Need for the Amendment 

S. 1759 and H.R. 3750 would authorize San Joaquin Valley CVP contractors to 

market CVP water exempt from two critical conditions established in the CVPIA. 

The first condition is that a contractor may not market water that exceeds the average of the contractor’s actual use in the prior three years. Public Law 102- 

575§3405(a)(1)(A). The second condition limits transfers to water that would have 

been consumed or lost to beneficial use during the year of the transfer. Public Law 

102-575§3405(a)(1)(I). The elimination of the two conditions will result in a financial 

windfall to the contractors at the expense of both the federal taxpayers and restoration of environmental damage caused by the diversion of Trinity River water to the 

Central Valley. 

In addition, the legislation would streamline environmental reviews of the impacts of proposed water transfers. We support improved efficiency in the application 

of environmental laws to economic activity. We note, however, that many of the contractors who would benefit by S. 1759 and H.R. 3750 spent nearly five years in court 

between 2000 and 2004 trying to prevent restoration of the Trinity River by invoking the same environmental laws under which S. 1759 and H.R. 3750 would provide 

them with favored treatment. 

The amendment the Tribe requests would ensure that no transfer could occur unless CVP contractors, in paying for CVP water at the ‘‘full cost or cost-of-service 

rates’’ established by section 3405(a)(1)(B) of the CVPIA, included the cost of Trinity 

River restoration in their payments. This amendment would not entail direct spending. Rather, it would require that contractors pay as they go for the benefits ofCVP 

water. We request that the Committees consider making the amendment applicable 

to all transfers, not just those that would be authorized by S. 1759 and H.R. 3750. 

3. Background 

The Trinity River Division of the CVP was authorized in 1955 and completed in 

1963. The Division is the only source of water imported by the CVP. Congress included area-of-origin protections for the Trinity River including one establishing 

flow release procedures for Trinity River fish and wildlife preservation and propagation. The Bureau of Reclamation informed Congress that it would divert approximately 50 percent of Trinity River water regulated by the Division. However, until 

the enactment of the CVPIA in 1992, the Bureau consistently diverted 90 percent. 

The Trinity River fishery was devastated. 

Subsequently, several legislative, judicial, and administrative initiatives culminated with the enactment of a Trinity River restoration provision in the CVPIA. 

Public Law 102-575 §3406(b)(23); 106 Stat. 4720. The CVPIA required the Secretary 

of the Interior and the Hoopa Valley Tribe to develop a restoration plan. If the Secretary and Tribe concurred in the plan, the Secretary was required to implement 

it according to its terms. Public Law 102-575 §3406(b)(23)(B). In 2000, the Secretary 

and the Tribe concurred in a plan that retained approximately 47 percent of the 

Trinity River Division’s water in storage for scheduled releases to the Trinity River 

for fishery restoration. To enable that amount of water to be effective for restoration, the plan identified funding requirements to carry out habitat restoration and 

construction, gravel replenishment, and various monitoring programs that would 

have to remain in place so long as CVP diversions continued. 

The Trinity River restoration provision of the CVPIA concludes with the statement: 

Costs associated with implementation of this paragraph shall be reimbursable as operation and maintenance expenditures pursuant to existing 

law. 

Public Law 102-575 §3406(b)(23). However, the Bureau of Reclamation has not incorporated the full cost of Trinity restoration in its operation and maintenance rate 

books or annual rate-setting process, and funding has otherwise not been provided 

in the amounts identified in the restoration plan by the Secretary and the Tribe. 

As a result, critical restoration activities have not occurred in a timely manner, 

some restoration activities have not been implemented according to prescriptions in 

the restoration plan and have been ineffective, and others have not been implemented at all. As a result, the fishery remains in decline. 

In the last Congress, legislation entitled ‘‘Trinity River Restoration Fund Act of 

2007’’ was introduced to address this issue. H.R. 2733, 110th Cong., 1st Sess. The 

costs set out in the requested amendment above were identified by the Secretary 

of the Interior in consultation with the Hoopa Valley Tribe in February 2007 and 
79 

were included in H.R. 2733. The prior Administration subsequently opposed enactment of H.R. 2733, and supported enactment of the San Joaquin River Settlement 

that became law in April of this year. The San Joaquin settlement included provisions promoted by San Joaquin Valley contractors, among others, that undermined 

the future availability of funds for all CVPIA restoration activities, including Trinity 

River restoration. See Public Law 111-11 Title X §10007(2) and Draft Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act Program Activity Review Report at 41 (December 22, 

2008) (The report concluded that the amount available for CVPIA restoration activities will be reduced by enactment of the San Joaquin River settlement.) 

The primary beneficiaries of S. 1759 and H.R. 3750 will be some of the same CVP 

contractors who not only secured enactment of the above-mentioned reduction in 

their environmental restoration funding obligation, but also have litigated and lobbied against the Trinity River restoration program from its inception. Among them 

are west side contractors who testified against enactment of H.R. 2733, the Trinity 

restoration funding legislation, which would have offset the San Joaquin settlement’s financial impacts on environmental restoration. The San Joaquin settlement 

was negotiated behind closed doors. When the settlement was published in the fall 

of 2006, the Tribe immediately notified the Committees and the Administration that 

it would harm the Tribe’s trust resources and undermine environmental restoration 

funding. Several members of the House and Senate acknowledged our concerns and 

pledged to address Trinity River restoration while urging the Tribe to withdraw its 

opposition to the San Joaquin Settlement. Our Tribe did withdraw its opposition. 

But the pledge from Congress remains unfulfilled. As Supreme Court Justice Hugo 

Black wrote in 1960, ‘‘Great Nations, like great men, should keep their word.’’ 

Instead, CVP contractors are on the verge of being rewarded for their aggression 

with yet another special benefit in the form of S. 1759 and H.R. 3750. This is particularly offensive to our Tribe because San Joaquin Valley irrigation operations 

profit from federally subsidized water that is delivered at direct expense to our fishery. The major portion of irrigation development on the west side of the San Joaquin 

Valley was made possible by Trinity River diversions to the CVP. See Senate Rept. 

1154, 84th Cong. 1st Sess. 5 (1955). (‘‘An average of 704,000 acre-feet of Trinity 

River water would be diverted annually to the Sacramento River Basin... and 

about 525,000 acre-feet annually would be available for use on land of the west side 

of the San Joaquin Valley.’’) However, actual diversions prior to the adoption of the 

Trinity River ROD in 2000 were far in excess of that, often exceeding 1 million acrefeet annually. Trinity River Flow Evaluation-Final Report Table 4.4 (1999). 

S. 1759 and H.R. 3750 represent an opportunity to enforce the existing obligations 

of CVP contractors, meet the federal trust responsibility, and serve the goal of environmental justice. Accordingly, we urge that you not let this legislation proceed in 

the absence of the amendment we request. Your attention to this matter is appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

LEONARD E. MASTEN, JR. 

Chairman. 

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 

Los Angeles, CA, October 5, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN

U.S. Senate, SH-331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is pleased to support the legislation you are introducing related to water 

transfers for the Central Valley Project (CVP). This legislation will help provide 

good water management while providing flexibility for CVP customers. 

As a regional wholesale water provider, Metropolitan provides water for nearly 19 

million people throughout our 6-county service area in Southern California. As Metropolitan and the entire state continue to address water supply challenges throughout California, the vitality of our economy and environment has been seriously affected. Your proposed legislation will help address these critically important issues. 

Please let me know if we can be helpful in any way. 

Sincerely, 

JEFFREY KIGHTLINGER, 

General Manager. 
80 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION, 

Sacramento, CA, October 2, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: Support for Water Transfer Legislation 

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: On behalf of the Conaway Preservation Group, LLC 

(CPG), thank you for introducing legislation authorizing and establishing a permanent long-term program to promote and manage water transfers in the Central Valley of California. We support your efforts and this legislation as a means of providing greater flexibility in the management of Central Valley Project (CVP) and 

other water supplies to help meet unmet needs critical to the future of the State 

of California. 

As you are aware, the devastating impacts of diminished water deliveries to the 

CVP as a result of three years of below average precipitation have been made even 

greater by the various regulatory restrictions, including the requirements established by the recent federal biological opinions for endangered fish under the ESA. 

Your legislation will provide immediate, much needed relief in the form of a flexible 

and useful tool that will allow water to be transferred from willing parties to those 

in need within the CVP. 

NCWA was formed in 1992 to present a unified voice working to resolve California’s water issues and protect the water rights and supplies of the diverse Northern 

California region, now and into the future. NCWA represents 54 agricultural water 

districts and agencies, private water companies, and individual water rights holders 

with rights and entitlements to the surface waters and groundwater resources of the 

Sacramento Valley. Many of our members can and will actively participate in this 

water transfer program. The language in your legislation directing the Bureau of 

Reclamation to work with other federal agencies to implement the necessary longterm environmental processes addressing impacts of a water transfer program on 

the ESA-listed Giant Garter Snake will be imperative to its usefulness and success. 

We look forward to working with you and your staff in the coming months in this 

important legislative effort, and appreciate your leadership in advancing this legislation and addressing California water issues so important to our collective future. 

Sincerely, 

DONN ZEA, 

President and CEO. 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION, 

Sacramento, CA, October 2, 2009. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Re: Support for Water Transfer Legislation 

DEAR SENATOR BOXER: On behalf of the Northern California Water Association 

(NCWA), we thank you for introducing legislation authorizing and establishing a 

permanent long-term program to promote and manage water transfers in the Central Valley of California. We support your efforts and this legislation as a means 

of providing greater flexibility in the management of Central Valley Project (CVP) 

and other water supplies to help meet unmet needs critical to the future of the State 

of California. 

As you are aware, the devastating impacts of diminished water deliveries to the 

CVP as a result of three years of below average precipitation have been made even 

greater by the various regulatory restrictions, including the requirements established by the recent federal biological opinions for endangered fish under the ESA. 

Your legislation will provide immediate, much needed relief in the form of a flexible 

and useful tool that will allow water to be transferred from willing parties to those 

in need within the CVP. 

NCWA was formed in 1992 to present a unified voice working to resolve California’s water issues and protect the water rights and supplies of the diverse Northern 

California region, now and into the future. NCWA represents 54 agricultural water 

districts and agencies, private water companies, and individual water rights holders 

with rights and entitlements to the surface waters and groundwater resources of the 

Sacramento Valley. Many of our members can and will actively participate in this 

water transfer program. The language in your legislation directing the Bureau of 

Reclamation to work with other federal agencies to implement the necessary longterm environmental processes addressing impacts of a water transfer program on 

the ESA-listed Giant Garter Snake will be imperative to its usefulness and success. 
81 

1Listen to the River : An Independent Review of the CVPIA Fisheries Program’’, available 

at http://www.cvpiaindependentreview.com/FisheriesReport12l12l08.pdf 

We look forward to working with you and your staff in the coming months in this 

important legislative effort, and appreciate your leadership in advancing this legislation and addressing California water issues so important to our collective future. 

Sincerely, 

DONN ZEA, 

President and CEO. 

PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS

San Francisco, CA, November 3, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. States Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. Senate, 112 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

RE: PCFFA concerns with S. 1759 re Central Valley Project water transfer facilitation; suggested amendment 

DEAR SENATORS FEINSTEIN AND BOXER: The purpose of this letter is to bring to 

your attention the inadvertent harm that your bill S. 1759, as introduced, can bring 

to the fish and wildlife resources of the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary and to 

offer an amendment that we at the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations believe will mitigate such potential harm. 

We apologize for the lateness of communicating our S. 1759 concerns to you, but 

the ongoing wrangling in Sacramento over the future of the Bay-Delta—the ‘‘Delta 

water package’’—has been all-consuming for weeks now. 

As introduced, S. 1759 strikes at the heart of the principal purpose of the Central 

Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), PL 102-575, co-authored by then-Senator 

Bill Bradley and Congressman George Miller and signed into law 17 years ago last 

week by President George H. W. Bush. 

The principal purpose of the CVPIA was to repair the damage dealt to fish and 

wildlife resources by (then) 57 years of federal Central Valley Project (CVP) development and operation in the Central Valley and on the Trinity River. From a fisheries 

perspective the two most important provisions of the CVPIA are (1) a commitment 

to double the Central Valley salmon resource over 1960s-80s population numbers; 

and (2) the provision of 800,000 acre-feet of water from the CVP’s yield with which 

to protect and restore Project-impacted fish and wildlife resources, particularly those 

of the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary. 

We know that the CVPIA has yet to accomplish its salmon-doubling purpose. Central Valley salmon are, as you know, in dire straits. 

The Bureau of Reclamation has defied Congress. It has been gaming the CVPIA’s 

environmental water 

Last year a panel of independent scientists conducted an Office of Management 

& Budget-prescribed evaluation of the CVPIA’s Anadromous Fisheries Restoration 

Program, that which purports to implement the Act’s salmon-doubling provisions. 

That panel’s report1 sends a clear message why S. 1759, as introduced, threatens 

the health of the Bay-Delta estuary and the implementation of the CVPIA’s salmondoubling purpose. 

Section 3406(b)(2) of the CVPIA explicitly directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

dedicate and manage annually 800,000 acre-feet of Central Valley Project 

yield for the primary purpose of implementing the fish, wildlife, and habitat 

restoration purposes and measures authorized by this title; to assist the 

State of California in its efforts to protect the waters of the San Francisco 

Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary; and to help meet such obligations as may be legally imposed upon the Central Valley Project under state 

or federal law following the date of enactment of this title, including but 

not limited to additional obligations under the federal Endangered Species 

Act. 

The independent science panel literally struggled to get the Bureau of Reclamation to explain, in any straightforward manner, how it was managing that 800,000 

acre-feet of water that Congress directed it to use for salmon-doubling and for meeting the Secretary’s ESA obligations in the Bay-Delta estuary. Rather than attempt 
82 

2 Ibid. at the bottom of page 41, top of page 42 

to paraphrase what the scientists learned—and how ‘‘flabbergasted’’ they were by 

what they finally learned, we provide the text of their report here2: 

When viewed in combination with the broad directive in Section 

3406(b)(1)(B) to ‘‘modify Central Valley Project operations to provide flows 

of suitable quality, quantity, and timing to protect all life stages of anadromous fish,’’ for which the 800 kaf is one explicit tool, the panel expected 

to find that implementation of 3406(b)(2) had occurred in this way: The 

agencies identify 800 kaf of dedicated storage in the system—essentially, a 

water volume budget—and then consistent with an identified system-wide 

flow regime to improve conditions for anadromous fish, Reclamation would 

release this stored water in requested amounts at the call of the fish managers and then protect that amount of altered flow through the rivers, 

through the Delta, and into the bay. 

We were flabbergasted to learn this is not how the agencies implement 

this provision. The agencies have not identified a system-wide flow regime 

and set of system flow objectives. Worse, Reclamation does not dedicate and 

manage 800 kaf of water from headwaters storage through the Delta [our 

emphasis]. Instead, Reclamation releases approximately 400 kaf from CVP 

storage each year, aimed at supporting the needs of particular life stages 

at particular locations. These augmented amounts are then diverted out of 

the system at a later point. The 800 kaf accounting then includes approximately 400 kaf realized in pump restrictions in the Delta. This approach 

seems fundamentally at odds with the intent and language of the legislation. It is symptomatic of a program focused on local upstream watershed 

factors and not on the Delta and especially not on the problem at the system scale. 

In short, Reclamation has defied Congress’ directive to apply 800,000 acre-feet of 

water to salmon doubling and to meeting the Secretary’s ESA and Clean Water Act 

obligations in the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary. 

S. 1759 as introduced will legitimate Reclamation’s gaming of the CVPIA environmental water 

S. 1759 as introduced would explicitly waive the application of CVPIA section 

3405(a)(1), subparagraphs (A) and (I) in order to further unfetter the marketing of 

CVP water. 

CVPIA section 3405(a)(1), subparagraph (A) reads ‘‘ No transfer or combination 

of transfers authorized by this subsection shall exceed, in any year, the average annual quantity of water under contract actually delivered to the contracting district 

or agency during the last three years of normal water delivery prior to the date of 

enactment of this title.’’ 

Subparagraph (I) reads ‘‘The water subject to any transfer undertaken pursuant 

to this subsection shall be limited to water that would have been consumptively 

used or irretrievably lost to beneficial use during the year or years of the transfer.’’ 

The purpose of these subparagraphs was to assure that the water being freed up 

for sale under the then-new CVPIA policy was real water that had been used onfarm for three years prior to enactment of the CVPIA, that it was not water that 

Congress intended be used to meet the Secretary’s fish and wildlife protection and 

restoration obligations in the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary, or for that matter, 

in the Trinity River restoration program or elsewhere. 

S. 1759, as introduced, will bring CVP contractors explicitly in on the gaming of 

the CVPIA environmental water by specifically waiving the environmental water 

safeguards Congress provided in the CVPIA at section 3405(a)(1), subparagraphs (A) 

and (I). 

PCFFA’s proposed amendment to S. 1759, as introduced, will prevent gaming of 

the CVPIA environmental water 

AMENDMENT

At subsection (b) ‘‘CONDITION’’ of Section 2, following ‘‘A transfer under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the transfer not interfere with— 

’’, insert 

(I) Implementation of Section 3406(1)(2) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title 34, Public Law 102-575) , particularly with regard to 

the Secretaiy’s obligations under the Endangered Species Act as spelled out 

in that Section: 
83 

(and renumber the other sections of the subparagraphs accordingly). 

Two additional concerns that have been raised by PCFFA members in reviewing 

S. 1759 are: 

1) The need to mandate a flow study (scientific proceedings by the State 

Water Resources Control Board were abruptly halted by the State administration, first in 1988 and then again in 1993) to determine the amount of freshwater inflow to the Delta and Bay to maintain the estuarine fimetion of the 

Bay-Delta ecosystem. Without this, transfers could be occurring of water that 

may be needed for the protection and recovery of the most important estuary 

on the West Coast of the Americas; and 

2) The need to prohibit growers from transferring agricultural water for nonagricultural uses (e.g., land development in the Mojave Desert) when shortages 

of agricultural water exist.or transfers to growers who have sold their water for 

non-agricultural uses. We are sympathetic to the need for water for legitimate 

food production operations, but we cannot see placing the environment or fisheries—our livelihoods and communities—at any further risk to facilitate profiteering from water sales or accommodating new development, such as golf 

courses in the desert. 

Again, we apologize for the delay in communicating our concerns It has been a 

hectic time for those of us struggling to secure some water for salmon and other 

public trust resources. We assume that neither of you understood clearly the connection between your bill, as introduced, and the CV PIA environmental water, that 

which took us, literally, generations to secure for the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary and Central Valley river environments. 

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and the amendment to your bill 

that we offer here. 

Sincerely, 

W.F. ‘‘ZEKE’’ GRADER, JR. 

Executive Director. 

PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS, 

San Francisco, CA, November 3, 2009. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Building, U.S. 

Senate, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Building, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Hon. NICK J. RAHALL II, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 1522 Longworth Building, 

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Hon. DOC HASTINGS, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources, 1522 Longworth Building, U.S. 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

RE: S. 1759 and H.R 3750, 111th Cong., 1st Sess.—Central Valley Project water 

transfer facilitation 

DEAR CHAIRMEN AND RANKING MEMBERS: The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations represents working men and women in the West Coast commercial fishing fleet. Water policy within California and the Pacific Northwest affects 

the health and abundance of many of our region’s economically important fish species, including salmon, and some estuarine-dependent species such as Dungeness 

crab. The water transfer language within S.1759 and H.R. 3750, as introduced, 

could have an inadvertent harmful affect on Central Valley salmon stocks and other 

fish native to the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary. 

As introduced, S. 1759 and H.R 3750 threaten to undo legislation intended to protect and restore fish and wildlife resources of the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary. 

These fish and wildlife protection and restoration obligation of the Secretary of the 

Interior are found in PL 102-575, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

signed into law 17 years ago last week by President George H. W. Bush. 

We have brought our concerns to the attention of the authors and we would respectfully request the Committees’ help in assisting the authors to incorporate the 

amendment that we provide below—to make absolutely clear that the proposed legislation shall not be used to interfere with the CVPIA’s principal purpose, the repair 
84 

of damage done to fish and wildlife resources over the Central Valley Project’s (CVP) 

57 years of development and operation prior to 1992. 

We will set out our proposed amendment together with an explanation of the need 

for the amendment. We request that this letter be included in any record of hearings on these bills. 

1. Amendment 

At subsection (b) ‘‘CONDITION’’ of Section 2, following ‘‘A transfer under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the transfer not interfere 

with—‘‘, insert 

(1) Implementation of Section 3406(b)(2) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Title 34, Public Law 102-575) , particularly with regard to 

the Secretary’s obligations under the Endangered Species Act as spelled out 

in that Section; 

(and renumber the other sections of the subsection accordingly). 

2. Explanation of the need for the amendment 

As we note above, the principal purpose of Public Law 102-575, the Central 

Valley Project Improvement Act, was repair of the damage done to fish and 

wildlife populations over the years of Central Valley Project development and 

operation beginning in the mid-1930s. 

In order to gain sufficient support for passage of the CVPIA the proposed 

Act’s backers worked with California municipalities and agricultural irrigation 

interests to liberalize the use of CVP water, historically confined to designated 

places of use, or ‘‘service areas’’. The CVPIA authorized the sale of CVP water 

outside the Project’s designated service areas. 

Section 3406(b)(2) of the CVPIA explicitly directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

dedicate and manage annually 800,000 acre-feet of Central Valley Project 

yield for the primary purpose of implementing the fish, wildlife, and habitat 

restoration purposes and measures authorized by this title; to assist the 

State of California in its efforts to protect the waters of the San Francisco 

Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary; and to help meet such obligations as may be legally imposed upon the Central Valley Project under state 

or federal law following the date of enactment of this title, including but 

not limited to additional obligations under the federal Endangered Species 

Act. 

Given the uncertain nature of the CVP’s yield (in the run-up to California’s 1986- 

93 drought, Interior was preparing to sell nearly 2 million acre-feet of water it 

claimed remained uncommitted within the CVP’s yield—water that has not been 

heard from since) the CVPIA imposed a ‘‘reality check’’ on those who would market 

their CVP water into the new urban market—subparagraphs (A) and (I) of CVPIA 

section 3405(a)(1). 

Subparagraph (A) reads ‘‘No transfer or combination of transfers authorized by 

this subsection shall exceed, in any year, the average annual quantity of water 

under contract actually delivered to the contracting district or agency during the 

last three years of normal water delivery prior to the date of enactment of this title.’’ 

Subparagraph (I) reads ‘‘The water subject to any transfer undertaken pursuant 

to this subsection shall be limited to water that would have been consumptively 

used of irretrievably lost to beneficials use during the year of years of the transfer.’’ 

Again, the purpose of these subparagraphs was to assure that the water being 

freed up for sale under the new CVPIA policy was real water that had been used 

on-farm for three years prior to enactment of the CVPIA and that it was not the 

water that Congress intended be used to meet the Secretary’s fish and wildlife protection and restoration obligations in the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary, or for 

that matter, in the Trinity River restoration program or elsewhere. 

It is these CVPIA safeguards against the marketing of water needed to repair the 

damage to fish and wildlife resources caused by the CVP’s decades of development 

and operation that S. 1759 and H.R 3750 would sweep away. 

If the proponents of the present bill do not intend to deny San Francisco BayDelta fish and wildlife resources the water dedicated to them by Congress in the 

1992 CVPIA then the amendment we propose should work to make that fact even 

clearer to the Secretary. 

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and our proposed amendment. 

Sincerely, 

W.F. ‘‘ZEKE’’ GRADER, JR., 

Executive Director. 
85 

1The Warren Act (WA)—The WA (43 U.S.C. §523) of 1911 provides authorization to the Secretary of the Interior to enter into WA contracts with water purveyors to carry non-CVP water 

(i.e., water not developed as part of the CVP) through Federal facilities. Under Section 305 of 

the States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 (43 U.S.C. §2211 et seq.). ‘‘Excess Storage and 

Continued 

PANOCHE WATER DISTRICT, 

Firebaugh, CA, October 5, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. Senate, 112 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. DENNIS CARDOZA, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 1224 Longworth Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. JIM COSTA, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 1314 Longworth, House Office Building, Washington, 

DC. 

RE: Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009 

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN, SENATOR BOXER, MR. CARDOZA, AND MR. COSTA: I am 

writing on behalf of the Panache Water District express our enthusiastic support 

for your bill, the Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009, authorizing certain transfers of water in the Central Valley Project and other purposes. Water transfers are 

essential to sound water management and often are time sensitive. Your legislation 

will bring important reform to existing transfer authorization thus increasing the 

efficacy of this essential water management tool. 

As you are keenly aware, coping with California’s water crisis and, in particular, 

the chronic water supply shortages impacting the Central Valley Project demands 

utilization of various best management practices including water transfers. Moreover, the need to transfer water is often urgent and in response to climactic conditions that are frequently sporadic and ephemeral. Regrettably, bureaucratic process 

can unnecessarily thwart successful execution of a transfer and the best management of this all too precious resource. The clarity your legislation brings to existing 

authorizations will only improve the capability of water managers throughout the 

State to effectively respond to the ongoing crisis and put our scant water resources 

to use even more efficiently. 

The Westside of the great San Joaquin Valley is inarguably the most transfer dependent region of the State. Your efforts to address this important matter as well 

as your vast knowledge of and longstanding commitment to water resource issues 

vital to the State are most deeply appreciated. If there is anything I can do to be 

of further service to you in this cause, please do not hesitate to call. 

Very truly yours, 

DENNIS FALASCHI, 

General Manager. 

STATEMENT OF PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY TRANSFER LEGISLATION PROPOSAL

BACKGROUND

PCWA has extensive water transfer experience. PCWA has transferred water to 

willing buyers in nearly every dry year over the past 20 years. Most recently, in 

2009 we transferred 20,000 af to San Diego County Water Authority. In 2008 we 

transferred 20,000 af to Westlands Water District. Previously we have transferred 

water to the State Water Bank, the Environmental Water Account and the City of 

San Francisco. 

These transfers are consistent with the PCWA’s commitment to the Sacramento 

Area Water Forum to provide additional dry year flows to help sustain fisheries in 

the lower American River. 

TIME CONSUMING PROCESS

The administrative and regulatory process necessary to gain permission to complete a water transfer has become so cumbersome that it almost cannot be completed in a single year. For many potential transfer partners, these processes have 

become a huge barrier and may impede drought response and impact future opportunities for transfer transactions. One of the more time consuming administrative 

elements is the negotiation and execution of Reclamation’s Warren Act Contract1. 
86 

Carrying Capacity,’’ the Secretary is authorized to execute contracts with municipalities, public 

water districts and agencies, other Federal agencies, State agencies, and private entities pursuant to the WA. These contracts provide for the impounding, storage, and conveyance of non-CVP 

water for domestic, municipal, fish and wildlife, industrial, and other beneficial uses using any 

CVP facilities identified in the law, including Shasta Reservoir, Folsom Reservoir, Jones Pumping Plant, the Delta-Mendota Canal, San Luis Reservoir, O’Neill Forebay, the San Luis Canal. 

The process involves many steps and the execution of the contract becomes the ‘‘federal action’’ triggering NEPA compliance, all of which can take several months to 

complete. 

The WA (43 U.S.C. §523) of 1911 provides authorization to the Secretary of the 

Interior to enter into WA contracts with water purveyors to carry non-CVP water 

(i.e., water not developed as part of the CVP) through Federal facilities. Under Section 305 of the States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 (43 U.S.C. §2211 et 

seq.), ‘‘Excess Storage and Carrying Capacity,’’ the Secretary is authorized to execute contracts with municipalities, public water districts and agencies, other Federal 

agencies, State agencies, and private entities pursuant to the WA. These contracts 

provide for the impounding, storage, and conveyance of non-CVP water for domestic, 

municipal, fish and wildlife, industrial, and other beneficial uses using any CVP facilities identified in the law, including Shasta Reservoir, Folsom Reservoir, Jones 

Pumping Plant, the Delta-Mendota Canal, San Luis Reservoir, O’Neill Forebay, the 

San Luis Canal. 

PCWA CASE STUDY

PCWA owns and operates the Middle Fork American River Hydroelectric Project 

(MFP), which is above Folsom Reservoir. Any water that PCWA does not ‘‘use or 

otherwise dispose of’’ becomes CVP water once it reaches Folsom Reservoir. 

In dry years there are generally willing buyers and excess delta pumping capacity 

(currently in a very limited time ‘‘window’’) available to move the water south. 

The operation of the MFP necessary to release additional water for transfer into 

Folsom Reservoir is permitted within PCWA’s existing FERC license conditions and 

water rights. The storage and conveyance of PCWA transfer water, by Reclamation, 

to the buyer (if a CVP contractor) or to the State Water Project facilities, is within 

Reclamation’s normal operating limits and consistent with all of the water right conditions and biological opinions governing the operation of the CVP. 

In all of its previous transfers neither PCWA nor Reclamation have identified any 

adverse environmental impacts associated with these transfers. On the contrary, the 

most recent Environmental Assessment stated the impacts of releasing more water 

from MFP would likely have a positive impact to the fish habitat downstream. 

The following Steps were necessary in order to complete a one-year temporary 

transfer of 20,000 acre-feet of PCWA water to a State Water Project contractor in 

2009. 

1) State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Permit—Willing Seller prepares a comprehensive project description and transfer application, including an 

assessment of potential impacts. 

Submit application to SWRCB for permits to change the place of use of 

this water to a new area. After review of the application by SWRCB staff 

and completion of any necessary corrections or additions, publish a comprehensive notice for 30 day public review. 

Water transfers are exempted under CEQA due to the temporary nature 

of the transfer, which eliminates the need for a separate public notice and 

protest period on the subject of the impacts. However, the SWRCB must 

make an independent determination that the water transfer will not cause 

unnecessary environmental impacts. 

After public notice and review closes, SWRCB seeks any resolution for 

any public comment, or input. Willing seller/buyers respond appropriately 

as necessary. SWRCB issues an order granting the permit. 

2) Refill Agreement—In cases involving reservoir re-operations upstream of 

Central Valley Project (CVP) storage facilities, steps are taken by both Reclamation and DWR to ensure no other users are harmed by the changes in reservoir 

operation. A refill criteria agreement, setting forth limitations on future year 

upstream reservoir operations, is required between the parties to ensure the following year water supply is not impacted by the refilling of vacated storage 

space if the following year is also dry. Reclamation has recently determined the 

execution of this agreement triggered a federal action under NEPA and required 
87 

2This is stated in Chapter 1 of the Environmental Assessment document and the Finding of 

No Significant Impact -09-05 July 2009. 

an Environmental Assessment (EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI)2. 3) Warren Act Contract—If non-project water is to be moved through Central 

Valley Project facilities, a temporary Warren Act Contract between the willing 

seller/buyer and Reclamation is required. It can take several weeks to negotiate 

this agreement. 

Executing the temporary wheeling agreement is a discretionary federal 

action, which triggers the need for review under NEPA. NEPA review can 

only begin after the wheeling agreement negotiations are complete so that 

the ‘‘federal action’’ can be clearly defined. 

The preparation of a Warren Act project description and an assessment 

of the potential impact of all required changes in seller, Reclamation and 

buyer operations necessary to complete the transfer can be very time consuming. Then a 30 day public review of the Environmental Assessment is 

required. Following the public review if comments are received, they are addressed and Reclamation may then publish a record of decision and execute 

the agreement(s). 

4) SWP Conveyance Agreement—When the buyer is a SWP contractor a delivery and conveyance agreement, which sets forth SWP conditions for the transfer 

conveyance and delivery must be reached between the seller and buyer and 

DWR. Since transfers are exempt from CEQA, no additional impact analysis is 

required as a condition of the execution of this agreement. 

5) Coordinated Operations—DWR and Reclamation consult under their Coordinated Operating Agreement to ensure that the storage and conveyance of 

transfer water does not have unintended water supply consequences for SWP 

and CVP contractors. These are peer to peer discussions between SWP and CVP 

operations staff and any adjustments in operation are not subject to CEQA or 

NEPA. 

PROPOSAL

If Reclamation were given the authority to facilitate and expedite temporary 

transfers, including non-CVP water transfers, without the need to execute a temporary Warren Act Contract, one of the biggest impediments to water transfers 

throughout the state would be removed. .. 

To do this Reclamation would need authorization to acquire water from a willing 

seller, to treat that water as CVP water and then deliver that water to the party 

that provided the funding for the acquisition. We propose to give Reclamation those 

authorizations. 

We further propose to make these action(s) categorically excluded under NEPA so 

long as all parties are acting within their separate existing authorities and within 

system capacities. 

Together, the elimination of the need for a Warren Act Contract and extensive 

NEPA review would cut the processing time to facilitate these transfers by many 

months. 

REVIVE THE SAN JOAQUIN, 

Fresno, CA, December 14, 2009. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirkscn Senate Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate 

Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: Opposition to S 1759 [Senators’ Feinstein and Boxer], Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BINGAMAN, RANKING MEMBER MURKOWSKI AND MEMBERS OF THE

WATER AND POWER SUBCOMMITTEE: Revive the San Joaquin is a San Joaquin Valley 

based nonprofit working for the protection of the San Joaquin River system and a 

successful restoration of its valuable resources. For nearly 60 years the State’s second largest river system has been dried up, and with it so has the economy of the 

valley communities who now rely heavily on groundwater and surplus Delta water 

imports. The unreliability of San Joaquin Valley water supplies has led our commu-
88 

* Exhibit has been retained in subcommittee files. 

nities to experience extreme hardships and resulted in a severe over-drafting of 

groundwater supplies as well as creating entire local economies based on empty 

promises for water exports from the Delta. 

Please listen to ALL stakeholder interests in the San Joaquin Valley when reviewing this water legislation. Far too often large corporations and single-interest 

stakeholders dominate the political discussions and misrepresent the needs of San 

Joaquin Valley communities and stakeholders. As Westside farming interests increasingly weigh decisions to farm or sell water (example Dudley Ridge Water District fallows land to sell 14,000 af/yr at $5,500 to Mojave Water Agency for new 

desert developments), it is our local communities and jobs that suffer. Inequitable 

access by large agribusiness corporations to water storage infrastructure further enables sales of water destined for Valley farms to be privatized and sold for purposes 

other than irrigation to the Valley’s Westside. 

The proposed water transfer legislation does little more than add complexity and 

gut existing environmental protections for a water supply that must be made more 

sustainable if the Valley’s economy is to thrive in the future. Water quality in the 

Delta must be improved if we are to convey surplus water supplies to San Joaquin 

Valley farmers. Conservation efforts and new governance in the Delta are key elements of the long-term recovery efforts that will eventually lead to a sustainable 

water supply from the Delta. 

San Joaquin River Restoration Adds Storage and Conveyance Opportunities 

The San Joaquin River Restoration Program is probably the best short-term solution to South Delta water quality issues. Releases of a significant water supply from 

Friant Darn may improve water supply and water quality impacts by 2012 creating 

water supply benefits to both Northern San Joaquin Valley water districts and also 

Westside water districts through improved water quality and reduced salinity at the 

export pumps. New storage capacity created from the Friant releases may also provide new water supplies and reduce flood frequencies, changing the nature of fishery 

management in the South Delta. Restoration creates new conveyance opportunities 

between the Friant division and other State and Federal projects that have yet to 

be explored. New legislation is not needed to facilitate beneficial transfers. 

The State’s water crisis is real and our State legislature is seeking a comprehensive solution including increased oversight of Delta water quality, a task that can 

only be accomplished through improved oversight by the State Water Resources 

Control Board (SWRCB), and through a coordinated accounting of Delta-based water 

rights. Delta exports have seen drastic increases this decade from the years 2001– 

2006 in contrast to the SWRCB 1978 decision D-1485 which identifies the need to 

reduce exports and protect Delta water quality (See Exhibit 1).* The lack of oversight of exports from the Delta has created an unrealistic and unsustainable supply 

for Valley farmers. 

New Legislation Must Reinforce State Actions, Not Add Complexity 

Our local Congressmen have consistently looked to temporary fixes, emergency exemptions, and other agency-based ‘‘do not enforce’’ orders to remedy the concerns 

of NVestside farm interests. This has provided false hope and unrealistic expectations for water supplies out of the Delta. Federal legislation should not stand in conflict to existing State and federal governance of the Delta, but rather should support 

on-going efforts to improve water quality in the Delta. Creating a healthy environment for fish and habitat. will also create a favorable environment for continued exports. Sucking up the last drip of freshwater from the South Delta is a formula for 

immediate extinction of multiple fish species and a guarantee that continued export 

capacity will fail. 

Revive the San Joaquin opposes the current 5.1759 legislation as it is counterproductive to ongoing efforts to improve local water supplies and improve water 

quality in the South Delta. Revive the San Joaquin represents many local residents, 

farmers, and businesses who believe coordinated and unified actions by our State 

and Federal legislature is the only path to ensure economic and. environmental 

progress can be made during this water crisis. 

Sincerely, 

CHRIS ACREE, 

Executive Director. 
89 

RECLAMATION DISTRICT 2035, 

Woodland, CA, October 6, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: Support for Water Transfer Legislation 

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: On behalf of Reclamation District 2035, thank you for 

introducing legislation authorizing and establishing a permanent long-term program 

to promote and manage water transfers in the Central Valley of California. Reclamation District 2035 (RD 2035) was formed in 1919 to provide flood control and 

water delivery for approximately 22,000 acres in Yolo County, California. While 

RD2035 does not own water rights, it is responsible for the delivery of CVP water 

to its agricultural customers whose crops represent the top three agricultural commodities in Yolo County. 

As you are aware, the devastating impacts of diminished water deliveries to the 

CVP as a result of three years of below average precipitation have been made even 

greater by the various regulatory restrictions, including the requirements established by the recent federal biological opinions for endangered fish under the ESA. 

Your legislation will provide immediate, much needed relief in the form of a flexible 

and useful tool that will allow water to be transferred from willing parties to those 

in need within the CVP. Further, the language in your legislation directing the Bureau of Reclamation to work with other federal agencies to develop the necessary 

long-term environmental documentation addressing impacts of a water transfer program on the ESA-listed Giant Garter Snake is a critical and necessary near-term 

next step. 

We look forward to working with you and your staff on this important legislative 

effort. 

Sincerely, 

REGINA J. CHEROVSKY, 

Chairperson. 

RECLAMATION DISTRICT 2035, 

Woodland, CA, October 6, 2009. 

Hon. DENNIS CARDOZA, 

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Re: Support for Water Transfer Legislation 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN CARDOZA: On behalf of Reclamation District 2035, thank you 

for introducing legislation authorizing and establishing a permanent long-term program to promote and manage water transfers in the Central Valley of California. 

Reclamation District 2035 (RD 2035) was formed in 1919 to provide flood control 

and water delivery for approximately 22,000 acres in Yolo County, California. While 

RD2035 does not own water rights, it is responsible for the delivery of CVP water 

to its agricultural customers whose crops represent the top three agricultural commodities in Yolo County. 

As you are aware, the devastating impacts of diminished water deliveries to the 

CVP as a result of three years of below average precipitation have been made even 

greater by the various regulatory restrictions, including the requirements established by the recent federal biological opinions for endangered fish under the ESA. 

Your legislation will provide immediate, much needed relief in the form of a flexible 

and useful tool that will allow water to be transferred from willing parties to those 

in need within the CVP. Further, the language in your legislation directing the Bureau of Reclamation to work with other federal agencies to develop the necessary 

long-term environmental documentation addressing impacts of a water transfer program on the ESA-listed Giant Garter Snake is a critical and necessary near-term 

next step. 

We look forward to working with you and your staff on this important legislative 

effort. 

Sincerely, 

REGINA J. CHEROVSKY, 

Chairperson. 
90 

RECLAMATION DISTRICT 2035, 

Woodland, CA, October 6, 2009. 

Hon. JIM COSTA, 

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Re: Support for Water Transfer Legislation 

DEAR CONGRESSMAN COSTA: On behalf of Reclamation District 2035, thank you 

for introducing legislation authorizing and establishing a permanent long-term program to promote and manage water transfers in the Central Valley of California. 

Reclamation District 2035 (RD 2035) was formed in 1919 to provide flood control 

and water delivery for approximately 22,000 acres in Yolo County, California. While 

RD2035 does not own water rights, it is responsible for the delivery of CVP water 

to its agricultural customers whose crops represent the top three agricultural commodities in Yolo County. 

As you are aware, the devastating impacts of diminished water deliveries to the 

CVP as a result of three years of below average precipitation have been made even 

greater by the various regulatory restrictions, including the requirements established by the recent federal biological opinions for endangered fish under the ESA. 

Your legislation will provide immediate, much needed relief in the form of a flexible 

and useful tool that will allow water to be transferred from willing parties to those 

in need within the CVP. Further, the language in your legislation directing the Bureau of Reclamation to work with other federal agencies to develop the necessary 

long-term environmental documentation addressing impacts of a water transfer program on the ESA-listed Giant Garter Snake is a critical and necessary near-term 

next step. 

We look forward to working with you and your staff on this important legislative 

effort. 

Sincerely, 

REGINA J. CHEROVSKY, 

Chairperson. 

RECLAMATION DISTRICT 2035, 

Woodland, CA, October 6, 2009. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Re: Support for Water Transfer Legislation 

DEAR SENATOR BOXER: On behalf of Reclamation District 2035, thank you for introducing legislation authorizing and establishing a permanent long-term program 

to promote and manage water transfers in the Central Valley of California. Reclamation District 2035 (RD 2035) was formed in 1919 to provide flood control and 

water delivery for approximately 22,000 acres in Yolo County, California. While 

RD2035 does not own water rights, it is responsible for the delivery of CVP water 

to its agricultural customers whose crops represent the top three agricultural commodities in Yolo County. 

As you are aware, the devastating impacts of diminished water deliveries to the 

CVP as a result of three years of below average precipitation have been made even 

greater by the various regulatory restrictions, including the requirements established by the recent federal biological opinions for endangered fish under the ESA. 

Your legislation will provide immediate, much needed relief in the form of a flexible 

and useful tool that will allow water to be transferred from willing parties to those 

in need within the CVP. Further, the language in your legislation directing the Bureau of Reclamation to work with other federal agencies to develop the necessary 

long-term environmental documentation addressing impacts of a water transfer program on the ESA-listed Giant Garter Snake is a critical and necessary near-term 

next step. 

We look forward to working with you and your staff on this important legislative 

effort. 

Sincerely, 

REGINA J. CHEROVSKY, 

Chairperson. 
91 

FRIENDS OF THE RIVER, 

SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA, 

December 14, 2009. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate 

Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BINGAMAN, RANKING MEMBER MURKOWSKI AND MEMBERS OF THE

WATER AND POWER SUBCOMMITTEE: The undersigned oppose S 1750. As representatives of California fishing, river and environmental organizations we have worked 

for decades to achieve, in the words of the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement 

Act [CVPIA] Public Law 102-575 Section 3401(f), ‘‘a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of Central Valley Project (CVP) water, including the requirements of fish and wildlife, agricultural, municipal and industrial and power contractors.’’ 

The stated intention of Senator’s Boxer and Feinstein S 1759 is purportedly to 

smooth the transfer sale of water among irrigation districts south of the Delta by 

directing Interior Department officials to complete under ‘‘the most expedited basis 

practicable’’ all necessary environmental reviews and by lifting several safeguards 

that assure fish and wildlife protections that the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act [CVPIA], PL 102-575 imposed on the water that a CVP contractor 

can transfer. The unfortunate effect will be a free pass for the Bureau of Reclamation and CVP contractors to resell taxpayer funded water and by-pass present laws 

designed to protect the environment and repair some of the environmental damage 

caused by the project. 

According to BOR testimony, over 600,000 acre feet of water was approved under 

existing law this year for sale and transfer of water by CVP irrigators. For 57 years, 

the taxpayer-subsidized CVP has damaged fish, wildlife, natural river resources and 

damaged the economic livelihood of Indians, farmers, commercial and sport fishing 

in the San Francisco Bay-Delta and in rivers throughout California. The 1992 

CVPIA protections still have not been implemented nor followed by the Bureau of 

Reclamation and now this legislation will undo even these modest provisions by allowing these taxpayer subsidized agricultural interests to profit from this public 

funded largesse at the further expense of our fishery resources. 

We oppose the passage of S 1759. It strikes at the heart of the principal purpose 

of the CVPIA, co-authored by Senator Bill Bradley and Congressman George Miller, 

and signed into law 17 years ago by President George H. W. Bush. There is no evidence to support the purported problem that the legislation attempts to solve—unless the intent is to by-pass environmental protections that are part of the CVPIA. 

We also are concerned about the unintended harm this legislation, if passed, can 

bring to the fish and wildlife resources of the San Francisco Bay-Delta and its estuary. We urge the bill be remanded to the Water and Power Subcommittee so the 

full effects and potential unintended consequences of the legislation can be analyzed. We are concerned that this legislation, if it should pass, will be contrary to 

its intended purpose, for three main reasons outlined below: 

There is little or no evidence that the bill is needed, unless the purpose of the legislation is to get around existing safeguards 

If, as is asserted, this legislation is to benefit agriculture by reallocation of water 

resources through the sale of water only south of the Delta, then the authors should 

not object to inserting language that would require any such transfer sale be entirely and exclusively water that originates south of the Delta in the San Joaquin 

Valley. The authors have refused this simple change. Agricultural interests indicate 

there are insufficient water resources south of the Delta to ‘‘solve’’ their need for 

water. And yet these same taxpayer-subsidized corporate agricultural interests have 

yet to provide evidence to support how removing the safeguards enacted under the 

CVPIA will solve their water supply problems by allowing them to sell water to one 

another—unless they intend to further deplete water that Congress intended be 

used to remedy over 57 years of damage to the fisheries of the state. 

Under the CVPIA legislation only real water that had been used on-farm for three 

years prior to enactment of the CVPIA is allowed to be sold for a profit outside of 

the congressionally designated service areas. [Section 3405(a) (1), subparagraph (A)] 

The purpose of these safeguards was to assure water being freed up for sale was 

‘‘real water’’, water beyond that which Congress intended to be used to meet the 
92 

Secretary of Interior’s legal obligations to fish and wildlife protection and restoration of the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary or to the Trinity River, its communities 

and the Secretary’s Tribal trust responsibilities. 

Removing the Congressionally adopted safeguards will adversely impact the San 

Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, Tribal trust responsibilities and the economic health of the State of California 

Congress allowed Central Valley irrigators to profit from taxpayer funded water 

supplies by selling their water provided that they followed federal obligations as 

outlined above. Also they could not use water that was intended to meet the Secretary’s obligation under federal law to remedy and restore damage to fish and wildlife. Water diversions under the federal Central Valley Project have decimated salmon, steelhead and trout populations causing huge economic dislocations and putting 

many thousands of people out of work. 

One of the CVPIA’s major intended purposes was to rebuild the salmon population 

devastated by the water diversions by the Central Valley project contractors. To do 

this Congress required the Bureau of Reclamation to dedicated and manage 800,000 

acre feet of water from the project annually to fish and wildlife populations damaged by operations of the Central Valley Project. Further Congress set a numeric 

goal for the Secretary of Interior to meet—a doubling of the salmon populations. 

Neither of these objectives has been met. Removing the CVPIA safeguards to allow 

these contractors to profit from the sale of this taxpayer subsidized water allows 

these federal contractors to undercut Congress’s intent and mandates. 

The Bureau of Reclamation has consistently failed to carry out Congressional directives 

Congressional action until now has been clear. The Secretary of Interior and the 

Bureau of Reclamation are not exempt from the Clean Water Act, the Endangered 

Species Act, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and various other provisions of federal and state law. And yet the history of the Central Valley Project is 

replete with examples of how the project is operated in violation of the law and the 

intent of Congress. Court case after court case has found the Bureau of Reclamation 

in violation of the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Environmental Policy Act and in a landmark Supreme Court case, California water rights 

law. Only expensive, time-consuming legal effort has resulted in compliance and at 

times only additional court action has brought compliance with court orders. 

And now under S 1759, the Bureau of Reclamation and these subsidized irrigators 

are asking Congress to change the law because they do not want to comply with 

the existing laws that would safeguard the environment if they were followed. We 

urge that this legislation be remanded to the Water and Power Subcommittee to 

analyze the impacts of the legislation on the environment, groundwater aquifers, 

refuges, fisheries and water quality and to consider amendments to safeguard taxpayer funds that have provided this water that will profit irrigators. Absent this action we urge the full committee not to pass this legislation. 

Sincerely, 

JIM METROPULOS, 

Senior Advocate, Sierra Club California. 

STEVE EVANS, 

Conservation Director, Friends of the River. 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER WATER AUTHORITY, 

San Joaquin Valley, CA, October 5, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

RE: SUPPORT for Transfer Legislation for the Central Valley Project 

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: On behalf of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority (Exchange Contractors), we thank you for introducing transfer 

legislation for the Central Valley Project (CVP) and we support your efforts and this 

legislation as a means of providing greater flexibility for management of CVP water 

supplies. 

The diminished water deliveries to the CVP as a result of various regulatory restrictions, including the most recent delta smelt and salmon Biological Opinions and 

three years of below average precipitation statewide, have, as you know, created a 

desperate situation in the San Joaquin Valley. 
93 

While long-term solutions are being sought, numerous short term efforts are needed to help bridge the water supply gap and great flexibility, as provided in your legislation, to move water supplies within the San Joaquin Valley would be a useful 

tool. 

The Exchange Contractors consist of 4 member agencies serving over 240,000 

acres in the San Joaquin Valley in Fresno, Madera, Merced, and Stanislaus Counties. 

We look forward to engaging in this effort and working closely with you and your 

staff in advancing this legislation and addressing California water issues. 

Sincerely, 

STEVE CHEDESTER, 

Executive Director. 

SAN LUIS & DELTA-MENDOTA WATER AUTHORITY, 

Los Banos, CA, October 5, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN

U.S. Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington DC. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. Senate, 112 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. DENNIS CARDOZA, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 1224 Longworth Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. JIM COSTA, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 1314 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, 

DC. 

RE: Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009 

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN, SENATOR BOXER, MR. CARDOZA, AND MR. COSTA: I am 

writing on behalf of the Panache Water District express our enthusiastic support 

for your bill, the Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009, authorizing certain transfers of water in the Central Valley Project and other purposes. Water transfers are 

essential to sound water management and often are time sensitive. Your legislation 

will bring important reform to existing transfer authorization thus increasing the 

efficacy of this essential water management tool. 

As you are keenly aware, coping with California’s water crisis and, in particular, 

the chronic water supply shortages impacting the Central Valley Project demands 

utilization of various best management practices including water transfers. Moreover, the need to transfer water is often urgent and in response to climactic conditions that are frequently sporadic and ephemeral. Regrettably, bureaucratic process 

can unnecessarily thwart successful execution of a transfer and the best management of this all too precious resource. The clarity your legislation brings to existing 

authorizations will only improve the capability of water managers throughout the 

State to effectively respond to the ongoing crisis and put our scant water resources 

to use even more efficiently. 

The Westside of the great San Joaquin Valley is inarguably the most transfer dependent region of the State. Your efforts to address this important matter as well 

as your vast knowledge of and longstanding commitment to water resource issues 

vital to the State are most deeply appreciated. If there is anything I can do to be 

of further service to you in this cause, please do not hesitate to call. 

Very truly yours, 

DANIEL G. NELSON, 

Executive Director. 
94 

SAN LUIS WATER DISTRICT, 

Los Banos, CA, October 5, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. Senate, 112 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. DENNIS CARDOZA, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 1224 Longworth Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. JIM COSTA, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 1314 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, 

DC. 

RE: Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009 

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN, SENATOR BOXER, MR. CARDOZA, AND MR. COSTA: I am 

writing on behalf of the San Luis Water District and its Board of Directors. We 

strongly support the Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009. Given the regulatory 

impacts of recent Biologic Opinions, the survival of our commercial, residential and 

agricultural water users is increasingly dependent on supplemental water transfers. 

Your legislation will bring important. reform to existing transfer authorization and 

this essential water management tool. 

Coping with chronic water supply shortages impacting the Central Valley Project 

requires implementation of best management practices including water transfers. 

The need to transfer water is often urgent. Regrettably, bureaucratic process can 

unnecessarily thwart successful execution of a transfer. Your legislation will improve the capability of water managers throughout the State to effectively and efficiently respond to the ongoing crisis. 

Your continuing efforts to address these important matters are critical and deeply 

appreciated. 

Sincerely, 

MARTIN R. MCINTYRE, 

General Manager. 

SOUTH DELTA WATER AGENCY, 

Stockton, CA, October 14, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA. 

Re: Draft Water Transfer Facilitation Act of 2009 

DEAR DIANNE FEINSTEIN: I am counsel and manager of the South Delta Water 

Agency. The diverters in our area are directly affected by operation of the state and 

federal projects (SWP and CVP, respectively), especially their export pumps. Because water transfers oft times are routed through the state and federal Delta export facilities, we try to comment on all proposals affecting exports and the operation of the SWP and CVP in general. I have reviewed an undated draft of the 

above referenced bill and would like to comment. 

As you know, CVPIA (Public Law 102-575) attempted to do a number of things, 

one of which was to ease/allow transfers among CVP users, At the time, the notion 

of transfers was believed by many to be a means by which supply inconsistencies 

and unanticipated export limitations might be addressed, at least to some extent. 

This idea was controversial as it resulted in Federal project water becoming more 

of a commodity than a subsidy to agriculture. 

One of the discussions at the time CVPIA was being contemplated dealt with the 

impacts that transfers had on the water demand and consumption in the state. Any 

new transfer had the very real potential of increasing demand on the entire system 

as the buyer became reliant on the same supply to which the seller was reliant. Although the seller might be satisfied with the money instead of the water, more likely he/she would try to make up for the sold water. The net result was either both 

buyer and seller becoming dependent on the same supply, or the seller becoming dependent (or partially dependent) on a new supply (his/her alternate supply). This 

would not only increased or finned up overall demand, it also resulted in a net increase in the consumptive use without increasing the supply at all. 

Two of the provisions of CVPIA which dealt with this demand/supply issue are 

at the core of the new bill, and are proposed to be changed. Section 3405 (a) 1 (A) 

precluded transfers of more water than the seller receives each year (or received on 

average). The specific purpose of this was to make sure that the seller was not ‘‘mining’’ or turning to alternate supplies of water, but was rather transferring only the 
95 

water he/she received from the CVP, Section 3405 (a)(1)(I) precluded transfers of 

water which was not previously consumed or previously lost to beneficial use. This 

provision attempted to make sure that the seller sold only water that he would have 

used in the absence of the transfer, or water that was previously lost somehow from 

the system (e.g., drains to a salt sink). The idea was that he/she sold X amount of 

water, and decreased his/her use by X amount of water. 

These two provisions were to make sure that transfers did not result in a net increase in demand or consumption, or otherwise affect other beneficial users and 

uses. State law has similar provisions (see for example Water Code sections 1707(b), 

1725, and 1727). Unfortunately, both the federal CVPIA limitations and the California Water Code restrictions have been generally ignored in practice. 

The proposed changes do not so much further facilitate transfers, as they undo 

the well thought-out protections of CVPIA. The bill’s language makes virtually any 

and all transfers of CVP water legally consistent with the restrictions in CVPIA 

even though they may be directly inconsistent with them. By ignoring the specific 

restrictions of CVPIA or pretending they are met, the demand (especially the dry 

year demand) for water will increase and the net consumptive use will undoubtably 

increase. Although we sympathize with those who are experiencing shortages in this 

time of drought, it would seem to be bad policy to encourage increased demand and 

increased consumption (above that which would have occurred in the absence of the 

transfer). Unless the system ‘‘learns’’ to live within the current supply shortages, or 

actually develops a greater supply, things will only get worse under the proposed 

changes. Sellers will sell to those without a reliable supply and then seek alternate 

supplies to make up for that which they sold. The necessary result will be an increased demand, a worsening of the over drafted groundwater basins, greater diversions and use from other streams, etc., all of which hurts other users and uses and 

predetermines a greater crisis during the next drought. 

There is another problem I see with the bill.Section 3 therein directs the Secretary of the Interior to expedite environmental review of the transfers. This language appears to he an attempt to create federal law to facilitate the Bay Delta 

Conservation Plan (BDCP) process and a peripheral canal (PC). This is because the 

PC is largely dependent on transfers to make it cost effective. 

Let me explain further. Current BDCP modeling indicates that use of the massive 

PC is severely limited in many years during many times. This is because in drier 

times there is little or no ‘‘excess’’ or ‘‘surplus’’ water in the system to export. In 

addition and as we have seen this year, at some times there is no stored water 

available for exports either, [This past February the USSR notified the Exchange 

Contractors they would likely receive San Joaquin River water instead of (or in addition to) Delta-Mendota Canal water. When the Exchange Contractors cannot get 

their full contract amount from the Delta-Mendota Canal, it means there is no 

stored water available for export, it all being needed for instrean-i uses, upstream 

right holders and fishery requirements.] Hence, the $20 Billion plus PC would be 

empty in many years. Since the BDCP does not proposed to increase the available 

supply (and in fact will decrease it by replacing agricultural use with habitat/wetland use) the only method by which the PC would have water at certain times 

would be via transfers. This reliance on purchasing water to meet export needs 

rather than increasing the supply available for exports is central to the BDCP process. I note that the use of the PC for transfers in dry times deprives the Delta of 

the benefit of the transfer water going through the Delta channels; an apparent violation of Water Code section 12205. 

With that said, you can see that any new federal law which directs an expedited 

environmental process to facilitate transfers would of course be used to expedite the 

BDCP process and a PC. Although we are opposed to any PC as a violation of existing priority rights and an avoidance of project mitigation and other obligations, I 

am sure everyone would agree that the process analyzing massive changes to the 

Delta should go through a deliberate and comprehensive process; not an expedited 

one. We are after all, facing the extinction of some fisheries and a collapse of the 

Delta ecosystem. 

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 

Very truly yours, 

JOHN HERRICK, 

Counsel & Manager. 
96 

TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL AUTHORITY, 

Willows, CA, October 5, 2009. 

Hon. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, 

U.S. Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: Support for Central Valley Project Water Transfer Legislation 

DEAR SENATOR FEINSTEIN: On behalf of the Tehama Colusa Canal Authority 

(TCCA), we thank you for introducing legislation authorizing and establishing a programmatic program to promote and manage water transfers in California, including 

the Sacramento Valley. We support your efforts and this legislation as a means of 

providing greater regulatory certainty for the management of Central Valley Project 

(CVP) water supplies for water users. 

As you are aware, the TCCA is intimately aware of the impacts of diminished 

water deliveries to the CVP as a result of below average precipitation and regulatory requirements placed upon the CVP and its water users through the requirements established by the recent National Marine Fisheries Service biological opinions for endangered salmon. Your legislation will provide much needed relief in the 

form of a flexible and useful tool that will allow water to be transferred from willing 

parties to those in need within the CVP. 

Many of our members have participated in water transfer programs in the past 

and would continue under this legislation in a more flexible manner. Also, the language in your legislation directing the Bureau of Reclamation to work with other 

federal agencies to implement the necessary long-term environmental processes addressing impacts of a water transfer program on the ESA-listed Giant Garter Snake 

will be imperative to its usefulness and success. 

We look forward to working with you and your staff in the coming months in this 

important legislative effort, and appreciate your leadership in advancing this legislation and addressing California water issues so important to our collective future. 

Sincerely, 

JEFFREY SUTTON, 

General Manager. 

Æ