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

54-619 PDF 2010

PERSPECTIVES ON CALIFORNIA 

WATER SUPPLY: CHALLENGES 

AND OPPORTUNITIES 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Monday, January 25, 2010, in Los Angeles, California 

Serial No. 111-43 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Diana DeGette, Colorado 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Joe Baca, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Don Young, Alaska 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Paul C. Broun, Georgia 

John Fleming, Louisiana 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Jason Chaffetz, Utah 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Tom McClintock, California 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chairwoman 

TOM McCLINTOCK, California, Ranking Republican Member 

George Miller, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Jim Costa, California 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Joe Baca, California 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington, 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Doc Hastings, Washington, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Monday, January 25, 2010 ......................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

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

California ....................................................................................................... 9 

Chu, Hon. Judy, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 11 

Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 7 

McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 6 

Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Congressional Research Service report entitled ‘‘California Drought: 

Hydrological and Regulatory Water Supply Issues’’ ........................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Brady, Brian J., General Manager, Imperial Irrigation District, Imperial, 

California ....................................................................................................... 38 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39 

Caballero, Hon. Anna, Assembly Member of the California State 

Legislature, Representing the 28th Assembly District, Sacramento, 

California ....................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

Collins, Larry, Vice President, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s 

Associations, San Francisco, California ...................................................... 83 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 84 

Connor, Hon. Michael, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. ........................................... 12 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15 

Del Bosque, Joe L., Owner, Empresas Del Bosque Inc., Los Banos, 

California ....................................................................................................... 89 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 90 

Dunn, Lucy, President and Chief Executive Officer, Orange County 

Business Council, Irvine, California ............................................................ 80 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 81 

Famiglietti, Professor Jay, Ph.D., Department of Earth System Science, 

University of California at Irvine, Irvine, California ................................. 65 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 67 

Gleick, Dr. Peter H., President, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California ....... 59 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 61 

Kightlinger, Jeffery, General Manager, Metropolitan Water District of 

Southern California, Los Angeles, California ............................................. 35 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 37 

Luna, Miguel A., Executive Director, Urban Semillas, Los Angeles, 

California ....................................................................................................... 71 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 72 

Parks, Dan, Assistant General Manager, Coachella Valley Water District, 

Coachella, California .................................................................................... 50 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 51 

Snow, Hon. Lester A., Director, California Department of Water 

Resources, Sacramento, California .............................................................. 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Stapleton, Maureen A., General Manager, San Diego County Water 

Authority, San Diego, California ................................................................. 41 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 43 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON ‘‘PERSPECTIVES ON CALIFORNIA WATER SUPPLY: 

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES.’’ 

Monday, January 25, 2010 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Los Angeles, California 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in the 

Boardroom, The Metropolitan Water District, Los Angeles, 

California, Hon. Grace Napolitano [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Napolitano, Costa, and McClintock. 

Also Present: Representatives Chu and Calvert. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and 

welcome to the Subcommittee on Water and Power’s hearing. I now 

will call it to order. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to hold an oversight hearing on 

‘‘Perspectives on California Water Supply: Challenges and Opportunities,’’ in Southern California. 

I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Ken Calvert and 

Congresswoman Judy Chu be allowed to sit on the dais and participate in the Subcommittee proceedings today, and without objection, 

I so order. 

Congressman Costa will be joining us shortly. 

After my opening statement, I will recognize all other Members 

of Congress and the Subcommittee for any statement they may 

have, or they can submit it for the record, as they choose. Any 

Member of Congress who desires to be heard will be heard. 

Additional material may be submitted for the record by Members 

of Congress, by any witness or by any interested party. The record 

will be kept open for 10 business days following today’s hearing, 

and a five-minute rule, with a timer, will be enforced. Green means 

go, yellow indicates you have one minute, and the red means stop 

or I will gavel. 

I certainly want to extend my thanks to Metropolitan Water for 

allowing us to use this beautiful facility and for the hospitality for 

the witnesses and for us in hosting today’s hearing. It means a lot. 

2 

It is convenient and central. I also wanted to thank the Board 

members who are here. Board members, would you please stand 

up. I don’t want to miss anybody. Members? 

Water, ladies and gentlemen, is California’s gold. Either we have 

too little or too much recently, and this past week we saw almost 

a year’s worth of rain. Yet we are nowhere near filling our dams, 

our rivers, our lakes or aquifers. It does not mean that our concerns over drought and how water is managed in California are 

over; far from it. 

We are in the midst of a real challenge: Increasing population, 

aging infrastructure, water supply restrictions, water quality concerns, environmental concerns, etcetera. The list goes on. It continues to grow with each year. 

We are here today to continue a discussion, and this will not be 

the last of our hearings in Southern California, in an attempt to 

clarify California’s water status, the water situation that over the 

past three years has been intensifying and reaching a dangerous 

and critical point. The dilemma we face in Washington is how can 

we work together to meet the challenge cooperatively and in a civil 

manner; that is, without litigation. 

Management of water in California is a cooperative effort, balancing between State, Federal and local suppliers. The resulting 

plumbing system is managed to meet the needs of over 30 million 

citizens who expect and are used to having a good quality product 

to be delivered to them at a reasonable price. 

Our desire today is to have a dialogue about how the water situation in Southern California factors into the state’s wide approach 

to addressing the whole state’s drought issues and concerns. Everyone here today has a story to tell, and many of you have asked to 

be heard, and we are asking that you submit something for the 

record. Likely, all of you have suggestions for some of those solutions. It is that dialogue about ideas and suggestions on how we 

can most effectively work together that we would like to have from 

you today. 

The importance of this discussion and why we are in Southern 

California is that the issue of water requires us to hear from all 

parties and constituencies. Developing a logical and doable approach to addressing the California water crisis requires a statewide coordinated approach. 

I believe we are seeing the manifestation of this in California’s 

legislative efforts in November, the December Interim Federal 

Action Plan and last September’s Memorandum of Understanding 

between the State and the six Federal agencies, or maybe it is 

seven. These are all good efforts to bring direction, and now we 

need consistent and dedicated leadership to be successful. Independent actions taken without commitment will not result in a 

long-term solution. 

There is not one answer that will solve the hurt that many have 

felt and continue to feel under current water conditions. A couple 

of storms are of some relief, but they are a reflection of weather 

impact by variable ocean conditions. They are not the long-term 

solutions to address the issues that underlie our whole water 

dilemma. 

3 

There has been a great deal of conjecture and a lot of one-way 

dialogue that the current water problems are due to the current 

regulatory environment, and a lot of finger pointing in the past. 

While making interesting theatre, they do not provide action nor 

resolve the underlying problems. 

In a December 2009 Congressional Research Service report, they 

concluded that, and I quote, ‘‘the current drought has created a 

fundamental shortage of supply. Regulatory or court-imposed restrictions, as well as the long-established state water rights system, 

exacerbate the effects of the drought for agricultural and urban 

water users.’’ 

The combined effect of drought, the state water rights system, 

the physical constraints of hydrologic plumbing system, carryover 

surface and groundwater supplies, changing dynamics of climate, 

and legally mandated regulations for water quality and the environment all affect the delivery of water to agricultural, urban and 

environmental systems of California. 

It is very evident today, our water management in California is 

supply limited. The challenge of all water users is how to adapt 

and mitigate to live within our water means, and not to have a 

reduction in service or quality and have a loss in the critical environmental services for that water quality. 

Some have questioned why we are having this discussion in 

Southern California rather than in the north. That is where the 

drought is hitting the hardest. The answer is simple. The drought 

is a statewide concern and demands that all portions of the state 

be heard from, especially when two-thirds of California’s population 

is in Southern California. 

When looking at the issue of water debate in California over the 

last few years—I would say three or more—there have been numerous meetings, hearings, and discussions in Northern California and 

in the Central Valley. Curiously missing was hearing from the 

people and the issues facing the citizens of Southern California. 

Citizens in this area feel the drought from both imports from the 

Colorado River Basin and from Northern California. In Southern 

California, we are experiencing the near-perfect storm of reduced 

supplies, increased demand from rising populations, and the steadily increasing complexity of legal, environmental and administrative requirements. The recent court decisions regarding the management of the Colorado River and the Quantification Settlement 

Agreement potentially throws years of negotiations and cooperation 

in jeopardy, and with it water supplies for Southern California. 

Water is a basic human right. How many of us think about the 

water source when we turn on the tap in the morning to make our 

coffee or drink our tea? How many of us think about the journey 

that the drop of water has taken as it moves from the Sierras or 

the Rocky Mountains to the reservoirs, the canals, the water treatment plants, the pipes in our houses or apartments? We all take 

it for granted. The reality is, as we are finding out, that quantity, 

quality, and real-time supply of water is critical to our health and 

well-being and to our basic economy. Every citizen in California 

deserves a clean and dependable source of water. 

Today we are going to have three panels discuss three different 

aspects of the water issues in California. The first panel will 

4 

discuss the Federal and State approach to the current water solution. This will include a discussion of the State of California’s state 

water plan, followed by a discussion of the November historic water 

legislation. 

Last, we have asked the Department of the Interior to discuss 

the Federal-Delta water plan, the impacts of the recent QSA decision on the Colorado River water supply, and the role of water reclamation and reuse to supplies here in Southern California, and 

maybe even the support of the Administration’s 2012 increase to 

$200 million to alleviate the $600 million backlog of Title XVI 

recycling projects. 

I would appreciate it if the people behind you can see. Thank you 

so very much. Thank you for being here. 

The second panel will focus on the issues associated with water 

delivery to the citizens of Southern California. This will include 

discussions associated with the water delivery reductions from the 

two primary water supply sources of Southern California, imports 

from Northern California and water supplied from the Colorado 

River system, and the impacts associated with recent court decisions and what constraints this puts on supplying water to the citizens of the southland. 

The last panel will address the science and information needs 

that can help Federal, State and local water managers make better 

decisions, and identify specific local and regional impacts to the 

urban water users, to the fishermen, and to the farmers. 

We will use today’s hearing to discuss, listen and, hopefully, 

learn more about the water crisis in all of California, and the 

coordinated efforts to address it. This discussion needs to begin 

now, if we are to work together to implement real solutions and 

real change, not just talk. We have a challenge in front of us, and 

together I am positive we can begin to identify those solutions. 

With that, I would like to now yield to the Ranking Member, to 

my right, of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Congressman 

Tom McClintock, for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Napolitano follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Water in California—either we have too little of it or too much. This past week 

has resulted in almost a year’s worth of rain. While the increase in our water supply 

is appreciated, it does not mean that our concerns over drought and how water is 

managed in California are over. Far from it. We are in the midst of a real challenge—increasing population, aging infrastructure, water supply restrictions, water 

quality concerns, environmental concerns ‘‘. the list goes on and continues to grow 

with each year. We are here today to continue a discussion about the California 

water situation. A water situation that over the past three years has been intensifying and reaching a boiling point. The dilemma we face in Washington is how 

can we work together to meet the challenge cooperatively and in a civil manner. 

Management of water conditions in California is a cooperative effort—balancing 

between State, Federal and local suppliers. The resulting plumbing system is managed to meet the needs of over 30 million citizens who expect a good quality product 

to be delivered to them. Our desire here is to have a dialogue about how the water 

situation in Southern California factors into the states-wide approach to addressing 

the larger drought issues and concerns. Everyone here today has a story to tell 

about how the drought has affected them or their constituents and likely all of you 

have suggestions for solutions. It is that dialogue about ideas and suggestions on 

how we can most effectively work together that we want to have today. 

5 

The importance of this discussion and why we are here in Southern California is 

that the issue of water requires that we hear from all parts and constituencies. Developing a logical and doable approach to addressing the California water crisis requires a statewide coordinate approach. I believe we are seeing the manifestation 

of this in the California Legislatures efforts in November, the December Interim 

Federal Action Plan and last September’s Memorandum of Understanding between 

the State and Federal agencies. These are all good efforts to bring direction and now 

need consistent and dedicated leadership to be successful. Independent actions 

taken without commitment will not result in long-term solutions. 

There is no one silver bullet that will solve the hurt that many are feeling with 

the current water conditions. A couple of days of rain are certainly a nice relief but 

they are a reflection of weather impacted by variable ocean conditions and are not 

the long-term solutions to addressing the issues that underlie our water dilemma. 

There has been a great deal of conjecture and a lot of one-way dialogue that the 

current water problems are due to the current regulatory environment. While making for interesting theatre they do not help in resolving the underlying problems. 

In a December 2009 Congressional Research Service report, CRS concluded that 

‘‘the current drought has created a fundamental shortage of supply. Regulatory or 

court-imposed restrictions, as well as the long-established state water rights system, 

exacerbate the effects of the drought for agricultural and urban water users’’. 

The combined effect of the drought, the state water rights system, physical constraints of the hydrologic plumbing system, carryover surface and groundwater supplies, changing dynamics of climate, and legally mandated regulations for water 

quality and the environment all affect the delivery of water to the agricultural, 

urban and environmental systems of California. The issue is very simple—today our 

water management in California is supply limited. The challenge to all water users 

is how to adapt and mitigate to live within our water means and not have a reduction in service or have a loss in critical environmental services and water quality. 

Some have questioned why we are having this discussion in Southern California 

rather than further north. The answer is simple—the drought is a statewide concern 

and demands that all portions of the state be heard from. When looking at the issue 

of water debate in California over the last 3 years, there have been numerous meetings, hearings, and discussions in northern California and the Central Valley. Curiously missing was hearing from the people and issues facing the citizens of Southern California. 

Citizens in Southern California feel the drought from both imports from the Colorado River Basin and from northern California. In Southern California we are experiencing the near perfect storm of reduced supplies, increased demand from rising 

populations, and a steadily increasing complexity of legal, environmental and administrative requirements. The recent court decisions regarding the management of 

Colorado River water and the Quantification Settlement Agreement potentially 

throws years of negotiations and cooperation in jeopardy and with it water supplies 

for Southern California. 

Water is a basic human right. How many of us think about it the waters source 

when we turn on the tap in the morning to fill that coffee or tea pot? How many 

of us think about the journey that the drop of water takes as it moves from the 

Sierras or the Rocky Mountains to the reservoirs, the canals, the water treatment 

plants and the pipes in our houses or apartments? We take it for granted. The reality is as we are finding out is that quantity, quality and real-time supply of water 

is critical to our health and well being. Every citizen in California deserves a clean 

and dependable source of water. 

Today we are going to have three panels discuss three different aspects of the 

water issues in California. The first panel will discuss the federal and state approach to the current California water situation. This will include a discussion of 

California’s state water plan, followed by a discussion of the November historic state 

water legislation. Lastly we have asked the Department of the Interior to discuss 

the Federal-Delta water plan, the impacts of the recent QSA decision on Colorado 

River water supply and the role of water reclamation and reuse to supplies here in 

Southern California. 

The second panel will focus on the issues associated with water delivery to the 

citizens of Southern California. This will include discussions about impacts associated with water delivery reductions from the two primary water supply sources of 

Southern California, imports from northern California and water supplied from the 

Colorado River system and the impacts associated with recent state court decisions 

and what constraints this puts on supplying water to the citizens of the southland. 

The last panel will address the science and information needs that can help Federal, State and local water managers make better decisions, as well as help to idenVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:03 May 03, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\54619.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
6 

tify specific ‘‘local and regional ‘‘impacts to urban water users, fishermen and farmers. 

We will use today’s hearing to discuss, listen, and hopefully learn about the water 

crisis in California and the efforts being made to address it. This discussion needs 

to occur now if we are to work together to implement real solutions. We have a challenge in front of us, and together I am positive we can figure out solutions. 

With that said, I am pleased to now yield to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Congressman Tom McClintock, for his opening 

statement. 

[NOTE: The Congressional Research Service report entitled ‘‘California Drought: Hydrological and Regulatory 

Water Supply Issues’’ dated December 7, 2009, has been retained in the Committee’s official files. It can also be found 

at: http://www.crs.gov/Pages/Reports.aspx?ProdCode=R40979 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

First, I would like to express our appreciation for putting the Central Valley into its busy schedule so that it can hear firsthand of 

the economic damage and human misery that has been caused by 

the Federal Government’s decision to shut off 200 trillion gallons 

of water to Central Valley farms in order to indulge the environmentalist tech project, the Delta Smelts. 

In the absence of the Committee’s cooperation, the Minority 

Republicans just held such a hearing under our own auspices this 

morning in Fresno. I can tell you that Secretary Salazar’s statement to the Committee last year in which he admitted the government had the discretion to turn the pumps back on but would not 

do so because, quote, ‘‘that would be like admitting failure,’’ did not 

sit well with the people there, and the Administration’s absence 

was also noted. 

This disastrous folly has destroyed a half-million acres of the 

most fertile farmland in America and destroyed the livelihoods that 

supported 30,000 struggling families. The prices on grocery shelves 

here in Southern California are directly affected by the loss of 

500,000 acres of Valley agriculture due to this decision, and on behalf of the people of the Central Valley, from whom I have just 

heard this morning, I again renew the Minority’s urgent plea that 

this Committee come to the Central Valley to see firsthand the 

suffering that this policy has caused. 

Today’s hearing is about challenges and opportunities on 

California’s water supply. I found the questions raised in the witnesses’ invitations indicative of a concern that this Congress has 

lost perspective on creating abundant water supplies. Today, this 

Congress and this Administration seem to have adopted the position that government’s principal objective should not be to create 

abundance, but rather to ration shortages. 

The Majority’s questions to witnesses failed to mention the need 

for more water storage or the costs and benefits of all water supply 

infrastructure options. I must again remind the Subcommittee of 

the obvious reality, that managing a water shortage is not the 

same as solving a water shortage. 

7 

Having read some of the testimony presented to the Committee 

today, I believe that we need to measure all water proposals 

against the simple and obvious alternative of renewing our commitment to the construction of new dams and reservoirs. One of the 

last great dams was the Oroville Dam which cost roughly $600 million to construct in 1968. Due to the inflation adjustment, that is 

about $3.5 billion in today’s money. That dam produces 3.5 million 

acre-feet of water. 

In other words, the modern-day, inflation-adjusted cost of the 

Oroville Dam, including its massive power plant, comes to about 

$1,000 per acre-foot, and yet this Committee has ignored new dam 

construction in favor of such things as water recycling projects that 

cost upwards of $18,000 per acre-foot. That is insane. 

In my district, it is the site of the Auburn Dam which began construction some 40 years ago. The most complex part of that dam, 

the giant footings cut into the surrounding bedrock, were completed 

in the early 1970s, but then the objections of the environmental left 

brought the project to a halt. That dam today could be providing 

2.3 million additional acre-feet of water storage, 800 megawatts of 

the cheapest and cleanest electricity available, and 400-year flood 

protection for the Sacramento Delta, and all that is lacking is the 

political will to proceed. 

I think that this Congress has forgotten the policies of the Pat 

Brown generation of builders, the visionaries who created the Central Valley and state water projects. Instead, we now write off any 

ideas of new storage and ignore the plight of our nation’s bread 

basket in the San Joaquin Valley. So while valley communities— 

again, the bread basket of the nation—run food lines with food 

imported from China, we seem content to accept rationing as the 

way to resolve our water crisis. I believe we can do a lot better 

than that. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am sorry, but the audience will please 

refrain from any emotion of any kind. This is a hearing. No, I am 

serious. We will ask you to be escorted out. Simply, we need to proceed. We need to move forward and, yes, we agree with a lot of 

things. So please, please, bear with us. 

Mr. Costa. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson, for this 

hearing this afternoon. I think it is important that Southern 

California clearly understand, as the people do in the San Joaquin 

Valley that I represent, that their water supply is at risk as well. 

I represent Ground Zero where the worst impacts of the drought 

have been felt over the last three years—not just because of belowaverage rainfall, but because of regulatory constraints that make 

it extremely difficult for the Federal and state water projects to 

provide water for the intended purposes for which they were 

created. 

The fact of the matter is that last year, while the Governor and 

the Legislature were able to—and I want to commend them for 

passing a very important water package that we hope the voters 

will approve this November—those are longer-term solutions, and 

8 

they are far from being achieved. We hope that they will be implemented but, in the meantime, California is living on borrowed time. 

Our water system is broken. The plumbing system and the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta system is broken. Initially developed to provide water supply for the entire state, approximately 

20 million people. Today, we have 38 million people living in California, with the prospect that in the year 2030 we will have maybe 

50 million people—another 12 million people. The water supply 

that we have today is already being maxed out with all of the 

demands that are being placed upon it. 

The projects, when they were created in the Thirties, Forties and 

Fifties, were intended to provide a sustainable water supply for 

every region of California, but in 1992 we passed the Central Valley Improvement Act. Good, bad or indifferent, we now require 

those same projects not only to provide a sustainable water supply 

for every region of California, but we now ask them to restore fisheries and water quality, primarily an ecosystem, which is commendable, to a level that existed in the 19th Century. 

The problem is, as you know, people point fingers, and they are 

accusatory about what people shouldn’t farm here. Well, I take umbrage with that. Everybody likes to eat, and frankly, we take for 

granted the food supply in this state and the food supply that is 

provided in the most productive region in the entire country, in the 

San Joaquin Valley that I represent, that has been the hardest hit 

by this drought. 

God forbid that Southern California faces the impacts that we 

are feeling in communities like Firebaugh and Mendota and down 

to Delano where you have unemployment levels from 41 percent to 

36 percent to 32 percent, and they have food lines with some of the 

hardest working people you will ever meet in your lives, that normally would be working to put food on America’s dinner table, in 

food lines, in the richest country in the world. Unacceptable. 

So, ladies and gentlemen, this hearing in Southern California is 

important, because the water supply for our entire state is at risk, 

and what we are feeling today in the San Joaquin Valley, if we 

don’t correct and fix these problems, will be felt in Southern California, and the boon of California, the golden dream of California 

for a bright prosperity, economic prosperity in the 21st Century, 

will be erased. That is how serious this crisis is today. 

So let’s be clear. While the Administration has attempted to provide some solutions in the last year, much more needs to be done. 

We cannot have another year of a 10 percent water allocation to 

the San Luis Unit. It simply will not work, and the Administration 

needs to wake up and understand this. 

We need to do everything we can to think out of the box. We 

have a unique situation, and I will close on this point. As a result 

of the biological opinion which went into effect yesterday or today, 

we now—even though we had record rainfalls last week, as you 

noted, Madam Chairwoman—we can’t pump because of the turbidity. We don’t have enough water. We can’t pump because of the 

impacts on the species. We have too much water; we can’t pump 

because of the impact on the species. 

Ladies and gentlemen, when are we going to use common sense, 

and when will we be able to pump water to provide for the San 

9 

Joaquin Valley and for Southern California? That is what we are 

talking about. So I, Madam Chairwoman, appreciate this hearing. 

We have a lot of work that we have to do, and we have to do it 

through cooperation. Politicizing the issue of water, as we have 

noted for over a century, is not going to solve these crises. 

We have been fighting over water resources in the West and in 

California all the way back to the days of Mark Twain when he 

noted whiskey is made for drinking, and water is made for fighting. 

Let us put the fighting behind us. Let us get some practical solutions this year. My constituents cannot live without some solutions 

this year. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Congressman Costa, and we agree 

with a lot of what is being said, and this is the first hearing in 

Southern California. There have been at least 16 hearings in Central and Northern California in the last few years since I have been 

in Congress. So allow us to be able to hear what is going on. 

May I add to your comments, Congressman Costa, that L.A. 

County has, what, almost 14 million people. That is more than a 

third of the state’s population. L.A. City alone has almost 4 million. 

So, you understand, we recognize many of our water agencies have 

done what they needed to do to address the water shortage before 

we reached the proportions that some of the other cities that don’t 

have water meters in Northern California. 

Mr. Calvert? 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 

for allowing me to sit on the dais with the Committee, and Mr. 

McClintock for giving me this honor to do that. Typically, I am 

happy to have a hearing focusing on important water challenges in 

Southern California but today, I must admit, I have mixed 

emotions. 

The reason that I am conflicted is because, as I understand it 

from Mr. McClintock and other leaders in the water world, this 

group has been trying to get a hearing in the Central Valley for 

folks there to talk about the suffering of what is going on with 

this—one of the most devastating water shortages of our lifetime. 

The Minority Members of this Committee, as I understand it, 

repeatedly request field hearings in the Central Valley to hear from 

these folks. I would recommend that we do that soon, and I would 

be happy to join in that hearing to listen to the people who are 

suffering in the central part of our state. 

Last year, Senator Feinstein said, quote, ‘‘Our state’s water crisis 

is seriously impacting the San Joaquin Valley and its communities, 

which depend on agriculture for their economic survival. A lack of 

water threatens to decimate the Valley economy, and some cities 

are already struggling with unemployment rates between 25 and 

45 percent. This crisis is something that requires action and 

decisiveness.’’ 

That was several months ago and, obviously, the problem has 

only grown worse. Unfortunately, it appears to the people that we 

continue not to acknowledge the crisis in the Valley. With the current economic conditions throughout our state, we cannot afford to 

10 

ignore the water challenges before us. In addressing the challenges, 

I believe there are some areas where increased Federal involvement can be helpful. However, I also believe there are other areas 

where California would be better off if the Federal Government just 

simply got out of the way. 

One matter that has emerged is a good example where Federal 

involvement can be helpful. The uncertainty caused by the recent 

judicial decision affecting the Quantification Settlement Agreement, the QSA, is something, I believe, the Department of the 

Interior must take an active role in dealing with. An active participant in the QSA negotiations, as I was, I can testify to the immense challenges and tough decisions involved in that agreement. 

Strong leadership by the Department of the Interior will be needed 

to ensure that the stakeholders are able to maintain the stability 

and certainty that is currently provided by the Quantification 

Settlement Agreement. 

In Congress, the Water and Power Subcommittee has, on a bipartisan basis, even if they are expensive, Tom, authorized Federal 

funding for water recycling, other important water projects that 

have helped California water districts stretch the most out of our 

limited water supply. 

The Federal Government should also play a role in the development and exchange of technological advancements in water supply 

infrastructure. However, as we are aware, Federal assistance will 

continue to be limited due to our poor financial condition. That 

being said, there are a number of things that we can do on the 

Committee and through the Administration and Congress to improve water in California and the economic conditions that will not 

cost the American taxpayers a single dime. 

I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of this Committee and 

Congress to exempt the Delta pumping operations from the failed 

Endangered Species Act restrictions until the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan is complete, and a comprehensive solution for managing 

the Bay-Delta is in place. 

The smelt population this past summer fell back to a historic low 

set in 2005, and now is well below the high points recorded in the 

late 1970s. Given these findings, I don’t know how anyone can say 

the Delta pumping restrictions are benefitting the Delta Smelt. 

Meanwhile, the devastating economic impacts are undeniable. As 

Mr. Costa pointed out, even if we have significant rainfall and 

snow pack in the Sierras, because of the interpretation of the biological opinions, pumping can’t take place. That is, I think, 

ridiculous. 

Looking beyond the Delta, there are steps Congress should take 

to reduce the regulatory load placed on water districts constructing 

new water supply projects. If water districts are going to invest 

local rate funds to reduce their dependence on Federal water 

projects and other resources, we should not artificially inflate the 

cost of these projects by imposing unnecessary requirements. In 

other words, let us get the Federal Government out of the way, and 

make it easier for districts to provide an affordable and reliable 

water supply in California for small businesses. 

Then one last thing, Madam Chairwoman. I would be remiss if 

I failed to express my condolences on the passing of two legends 

11 

in the California water world, former ACWA Executive Director 

Steve Hall, and former Orange County Water District Director and 

MWD Board member Wes Bannister. 

Like many of you here, I had the pleasure of working with both 

Steve and Wes to address major challenges to our local area and 

state, like CALFED and the Quantification Settlement Agreement. 

Steve and Wes were true leaders, consensus builders who worked 

tirelessly to improve our state. To say they will be missed is an understatement, not only as leaders but as friends. Thank you, 

Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Calvert, and I now will call 

on Ms. Chu. 

Mr. COSTA. Madam Chairwoman. I would just like to join with 

Mr. Calvert. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. All of us, I think, would like to join with that. 

Mr. COSTA. They were both wonderful individuals. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, I knew them both. 

Mr. COSTA. Steve’s service is going to be on Friday in 

Sacramento. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Ms. Chu? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JUDY CHU, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. CHU. Well, thank you, Madam Chair Napolitano and Ranking Member McClintock, my colleagues on the Water and Power 

Subcommittee. Thank you for allowing me to participate and provide this statement at today’s very important hearing on California’s fragile water supply. 

Two great issues face our state. First, many of our districts have 

been so hard hit by the economy and double digit job loss. Second, 

California faces such a dire water supply shortage, we are approaching our third year of an ongoing drought, and our economy 

is made up of many different sectors which are impacted either directly or indirectly by the availability of water. With the economy 

and water supply so inextricably dependent on each other, it is imperative that we start working together with a shared regional 

strategy to look for solutions to help adapt and mitigate our state’s 

water supply. 

I am proud to have a number of local and municipal water districts in my district of the San Gabriel Valley who have not only 

worked toward innovative water systems for clean-up, reuse, recycling and storage, but have also waged a campaign to raise awareness and educate businesses and residents about the importance of 

water conservation. As a result, there has been a significant reduction of water usage. 

My hope is that we no longer look at our fragile water 

aquasystem and supply as an issue of Southern California versus 

Northern California, but that we come together as one state to 

work together to ensure that we have a quality and dependable 

water supply for our businesses, our farmers, our fisheries, and our 

communities for many generations to come. 

In Southern California alone, we have been able to use Title XVI 

funds to help develop local water supplies and augment and replace 

imported water. Consequently, we have been able to reduce our 

12 

water usage in Southern California by 18 percent, even in light of 

an increasing population. Imagine what we would be able to do is 

we could come together and deal with this crisis with a statewide 

approach and, of course, include the important piece, which is active and engaged participation from our Federal agencies. 

We in Congress must be fully engaged, and with the leadership 

of Chairwoman Napolitano, I look forward to working together with 

my colleagues and our delegation on how Congress can continue to 

stay engaged and bring better resources to deal with this ongoing 

water supply source that our state is facing. 

I thank the witnesses who have traveled from near and far to 

provide their expert testimony, and I look forward to hearing your 

perspectives on the challenges and opportunities of California’s 

water supply. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Congresswoman Chu. Thank you 

for being with us and being part of this, because it affects everybody in Southern California as well as those in Northern California. 

We move on to our witnesses. We have three panels, as stated 

before, and witnesses will be introduced before they testify. After 

we hear from a panel, we will have a question and answer period. 

All your submitted prepared statements will be entered into the 

record, and all witnesses are asked to kindly, please, summarize 

the high points of your testimony, because they will be on the 

record, and limit your remarks to five minutes, and the timer before you that will be used to enforce the rule. 

It also applies to the question and answer period, a total of five 

minutes for questions, including responses, applies to our Members 

of Congress. If there are any additional questions, if time permits, 

we may have a third round, but don’t bank on it. We have 13 witnesses. 

The first panel, we have The Honorable Michael Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, from 

Washington, D.C. The second witness is Honorable Anna Caballero, 

Assembly Member of the California State Legislature, representing 

the 28th Assembly District in Sacramento, and the third panelist 

is The Honorable Lester A. Snow—congratulations, sir, on your recent appointment as the new Director of the California Department 

of Water Resources in Sacramento. 

We are very thankful that you were able to find the time to be 

with us today. So we will begin with The Honorable Mike Connor. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of 

the Subcommittee. I am Mike Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau 

of Reclamation. I am pleased to summarize my written statement 

and give the Department’s perspective on California’s water supply. 

Again, I am here with guarded optimism that the recent storms, 

which I do understand have brought some local flooding here in 

Southern California, have at least on the positive side brought 

water supply improvements for reclamations in major reservoirs in 

California, but this recent storm between January 15th up to JanuVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:03 May 03, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\54619.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
13 

ary 20th started at Shasta, Folsom and Trinity and New Melones 

Reservoirs improved by about 361,000 acre-feet in total. 

More rain followed this past weekend. A week of rain, however, 

does not make up for three years of drought. Notwithstanding improvements, the major CVP reservoirs still only range from 60 percent to 77 percent of average storage for this time of year. Nonetheless, we are hopeful that, as we move through the rainy season, 

the positive trend will continue. 

I should note for the record, though, in response to the initial 

statements, that right now we are pumping from the Federal facilities, the Jones Pumping Plant. In total, the combined state and 

Federal pumps are pumping approximately 6,000 CFS. The Smelt 

Working Group did meet this morning, and there were no recommendations to restrict the pumping at this point in time. So that 

is where we are currently. There is a restriction in place as a result 

of the NOAA Biological Opinion that is currently the basis for the 

6,000 CFS but, nonetheless, there is substantial—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Commissioner, would you restate that? We 

have Mr. Costa who wants to hear you. You are not coming in loud 

enough. 

Mr. CONNOR. Oh, I am sorry. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The last statement that you just made. 

Mr. CONNOR. So in response to the comments earlier, with respect, I just wanted to provide the Subcommittee a status update 

on where we are with respect to pumping from the combined state 

and Federal water projects. We are presently pumping about 6,000 

CFS from those facilities. The Smelt Working Group did meet this 

morning to review the conditions. There were no recommendations 

for any restrictions on the pumps. Currently, there is a limitation 

provided by the NOAA Biological Opinion that limits the negative 

flow in the Owens and Middle Rivers to -5000 CFS. So currently 

that is what is operationally keeping the pumping at 6000 CFS. 

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairwoman, just a technical—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Can you wait until the questions later. 

Mr. CALVERT. All right. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Please continue. 

Mr. CONNOR. I should also note that recent rains have helped 

storage in the Lower Basin of the Colorado River watershed. Fortunately, Lake Mead has gained a little bit of elevation this past 

week as less water was being used downstream as a result of the 

wet weather. Overall, the current trend is one of improvement from 

the water supply’s perspective. 

It goes without saying, though, that drought impacts California 

uniquely due to its large population, reliance on imported supplies, 

and the intense competition for the use of limited supplies. 

At the end of the last California drought, which lasted from 1987 

to ’92, California’s population was just over 31 million. Today, there 

are roughly 7 million more Californians, all of whom need water, 

and the agricultural production and other economic activities supported by water. In this setting, the Subcommittee’s focus on water 

conservation is right on point. Other means of enhancing supply 

are also appropriate to consider. 

One of the most successful Federal programs for water conservation is the Reclamation’s Title XVI program. In Southern California 

14 

this program has enabled reclamation to support 26 water recycling or groundwater projects which at full build-out will provide 

over 392,000 acre-feet of water per year to communities in Southern California. 

Last year, President Obama signed the American Recovery and 

Investment Act, and this has provided an opportunity to make 

meaningful progress in addressing the backlog of Title XVI 

projects, and it will help reduce dependence on the increasingly 

fragile Bay-Delta in the long term. All told, more than 400 million, 

roughly 40 percent of Reclamation’s Recovery Act funding, has gone 

to California projects, significantly more than any other reclamation state. 

We are applying this funding to a mix of projects to promote not 

just traditional water supplies but also restoration efforts to improve the ecosystem and stabilize Reclamation’s own ability to delivery water. Still, concerted efforts of water conservation cannot 

erase the fact that Southern California depends on imported water 

for the majority of its total annual water supply. Using 2004 as a 

reference, within the Metropolitan Water District Service Area 

where we are today, 1.8 million acre-feet came from the state water 

project from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Another 700,000 

acre-feet came from the Colorado River to the east. The remainder 

of that imported supply, roughly 200,000 acre-feet, comes from the 

Owens Valley. 

As California continues to diversify its water supply and promote 

conservation and efficiency, it is imperative that we continue to improve conditions in the Colorado River Basin and the Bay-Delta region. Notwithstanding drought, the Colorado River apportionment 

to California this year will be the full 4.4 million acre-feet. Reclamation in the seven Basin states and a number of partners have 

made great progress in the last 10 to 15 years in adjusting operational issues in the Colorado River Basin and preparing for the 

day when demand exceeds available water. This effort continues to 

be a work in progress—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Please continue. You have a minute left. 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And we look forward to continuing our efforts to use water more efficiently and to 

conserve storage, wherever possible. 

With respect to the QSA, that is a matter that is currently in litigation, but I will say that the Federal Government believes it has 

valid agreements with the parties to the QSA, and we intend to 

stand by those agreements. 

Parts of the Bay-Delta are less certain at this time. The importance of the Bay-Delta to Southern California’s water supply was 

starkly evident in 2009. 

To address the issues associated with restricted water supply 

and environmental conditions in the Delta, the Department released an Interim Federal Action Plan for the California Bay-Delta 

on December 22, 2009. In this document we have detailed plans for 

a new path forward in the Bay-Delta region. 

Specifically, the Federal Government reaffirmed its partnership 

with the State of California and its commitment to coordinate a 

range of important actions with those of the state. Most important 

is our joint work to produce the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. The 

15 

BDCP is the most significant effort underway to address long-term 

water issues in California generally and in the Bay-Delta specifically. The Federal Government is fully committed to the BDCP 

process and is now more fully engaged than ever before. 

We will ensure that Federal actions in this area complement recently enacted California water legislation, with the ultimate goal 

of being able to deliver water on a reliable basis without continued 

harm to the Bay-Delta ecosystem. 

In the meantime, we will continue to implement actions in the 

near term to shore up water supplies for those water users suffering significant shortage. In 2010 we will facilitate final permitting construction of the Delta-Mendota and California Aqueduct 

Intertie, which will allow greater flexibility in operating the state 

and Federal pumps and allow for recovery of water between the 

two systems. We expect to initiate construction in June of this year 

and to complete that in the fall of 2011. 

Ultimately, the project is anticipated to restore approximately 

35,000 acre-feet annually of project water to the CVP. We will also 

continue to work closely with the state to facilitate voluntary water 

transfers, building on the 600,000 acre-feet of transfers that occurred in 2009. Maximum operational flexibility will also be pursued in the scheduling guidelines and water contracts. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this important 

subject. I will be happy to answer the questions at the appropriate 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:] 

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

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Mike Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the perspectives of the Department of the Interior (Department) on the California water 

supply as we move into what may prove to be a fourth year of drought in California. 

I will also address some of the subcommittee’s specific interests in water conservation, reuse and recycling. 

Last year, the water supply conditions confronting the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) and its customers in California, particularly south of the Delta, 

brought about one of the most difficult years in our history. This year may prove 

to be no less severe. Next month, Reclamation’s Mid-Pacific Region will announce 

its initial forecast of agricultural, municipal and industrial water supplies from the 

Central Valley Project (CVP), which will likely feature very low water allocations. 

The actual numbers are still being determined by our Central Valley Operations office using the latest snowpack and streamflow data. Here in the Lower Colorado Region, a drought persists on the Colorado River, but all states in the Lower Basin 

will receive their full apportionments under the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) for 

the Colorado River which was published by the Department on January 5th. 

While there have been more severe droughts, never before has drought fallen 

upon a state with so large a population, and so many competing uses for its water. 

At the end of the last California drought, which lasted from 1987 to 1992, California’s population was just over 31 million. Today, there are roughly seven million 

more Californians, all of whom need water and the agricultural production and 

other economic activities supported by water. 

Here in southern California, local governments and agencies like the Metropolitan 

Water District of Southern California (MWD) have responded by partnering with 

state and Federal agencies to achieve tremendous reductions in per capita urban 

water use. For example, the City of Long Beach has reduced its per capita water 

use from 138 gallons per day in 2000 to 103 gallons per day in September 2009. 

In addition to this tremendous reduction in water use through conservation, the 

City of Long Beach announced in September 2009 that water demand was 21 percent below the 10-year average water demand. While market forces and the price 

of water play a role in this dynamic, the region’s inherently dry hydrology has inVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:03 May 03, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\54619.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
16 

1 All figures in this paragraph derived from the November 2005 Regional Urban Water Management Plan of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, pgs. A2-1, and table 

A.2-1 http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/RUWMP/RUWMP—2005.pdf 

stilled an acute awareness of the value of water and its conservation in an arid region. 

One of the Federal programs for water conservation is the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, Title XVI of Public Law 102-575. 

In southern California, this program has enabled Reclamation to help fund the planning or construction of 26 water recycling or groundwater projects which at full 

build out will provide over 391,650 acre-feet of water per year to communities in 

the greater Southern California coastal areas of Los Angeles, Orange County, San 

Diego and the Inland Empire. This amount of water is enough to serve the needs 

of approximately 391,650 five-person households, or approximately 1.96 million 

people. Before the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

(ARRA), Federal investments in Title XVI overall totaled about $389 million 

through FY 2009 and resulted in an estimated 245,000 acre-feet of water made 

available in 2009. 

The Title XVI program was established by Congress in 1992 to provide Federal 

funding of up to 25% of a project’s construction costs, with all operations and maintenance funding provided by project sponsors. While the program has provided more 

than $392 million in funding for these southern California projects since its inception through Fiscal Year 2009, including ARRA, the number of Title XVI projects 

submitted to Reclamation for study and to this subcommittee for authorization continues to expand. 

In view of this and the serious water issues facing California, the Obama Administration is taking actions that have brought and continue to bring substantial Federal investment in California’s water infrastructure. As referenced above, last year 

President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). 

This law has provided an opportunity to fund many of California’s water challenges 

and projects, will help maximize the continued and future delivery of water, and 

may reduce some of the demand placed on the Bay-Delta. All told, more than $400 

million, roughly 40 percent of Reclamation’s ARRA funding, has gone to California 

projects, significantly more than any other Reclamation state. We are applying this 

funding to a mix of projects to promote not just traditional water supplies, but also 

healthy fisheries and habitat projects to recover, sustain, and protect species’ ability 

to reproduce and thrive. We understand our obligation to protect aquatic resources 

in California together with our state and Federal partners, and we know that the 

economic impacts of fishing season closures on salmon fishing communities are felt 

no less severely than in other sectors of the economy. 

The Department effectively maximizes the value of its scarce resources for Title 

XVI projects and complementary programs like Water Conservation Initiative Challenge Grants. Challenge Grants, like Title XVI, leverage non-Federal dollars to effectively and efficiently manage water in communities where the need exists. 

Whereas Title XVI recycles and reuses otherwise unusable water supplies, Challenge Grants provide incentives for water users to actually use less water than 

would otherwise be the case. The Department’s Water Conservation Initiative, 

which incorporates Title XVI and Challenge Grants, was a centerpiece of our 2010 

budget request, and will be a continuing priority of this Administration going forward. In addition, last summer Reclamation announced 16 awards totaling $5.6 million as part of the 2009 CALFED Water Use Efficiency Grant Program. Even before 

the drought struck, Reclamation had been putting significant effort and resources 

into various initiatives intended to minimize the serious impacts from periods of dry 

hydrology. Since 2004, Reclamation has awarded over $40 million in cost-shared financial assistance for 67 projects in California under the competitive Challenge 

Grant Program referenced above. The improvements resulting from these grants are 

projected to create or conserve 177,000 acre-feet of water annually for agricultural 

and urban uses. 

Still, concerted efforts at water conservation cannot erase the fact that southern 

California depends on imported water for the majority of its total annual water supply. 1 The amounts vary depending on the water year type. Using 2004 as a reference, within the MWD service area where we are today, 1.8 million acre-feet came 

from the State Water Project from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Bay-Delta in the 

north. Another 700,000 acre feet in 2004 came from the Colorado River to the east. 

The remainder of the imported supply, roughly 200,000 acre-feet, comes from the 

Owens Valley. About 1.6 million acre feet, or 38 percent of MWD’s overall supply 

17 

in 2004, came from local supplies, according to MWD’s most recent Regional Urban 

Water Management Plan. 

Notwithstanding drought, the Colorado River apportionment to California this 

year will be the full 4.4 million acre feet, with the potential for some surplus under 

the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) for the Colorado River. The Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), executed by the Secretary of the Interior and other parties 

in October 2003, was a major milestone on the Colorado River and is important to 

all who rely on the Colorado River. In short, the numerous Federal and non-Federal 

agreements reached in 2003 result in a more efficient management of the beneficial 

use of water in California under the Consolidated Decree in Arizona vs. California 

and other authorities. The QSA agreements help to ensure that California’s long 

term use of the river is within the State’s 4.4 million acre-feet annual apportionment under Federal law. 

Validation proceedings relating to certain of the agreements reached in 2003 are 

currently pending in California state court. These are contested proceedings to 

which the United States is not a party. The litigation is ongoing in 2010, and the 

Department does not intend to comment on those proceedings. The Department has 

valid and binding agreements with the California agencies that are parties to the 

2003 Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement and we intend to stand by that 

agreement. 

The importance of the Bay-Delta to Southern California’s water supply was starkly evident in 2009. To address the issues associated with restricted water supply 

and the environmental collapse in the Delta, the Department released an Interim 

Federal Action Plan (Action Plan) for the California Bay-Delta on December 22, 

2009. In this document, this Administration has detailed its plans for a new path 

forward in the Bay-Delta. Specifically, the Federal government reaffirmed its partnership with the state of California and its commitment to coordinate actions with 

those of the state. Most important is that Federal agencies are working in concert 

with the State of California and local authorities in producing the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The BDCP is the most significant effort currently underway 

to address critical long-term water issues in California generally and in the BayDelta specifically. Consistent with the Action Plan released in December 2009, Federal agencies are bolstering their active participation in partnership with the State 

and local authorities in the collaborative, long-term Bay-Delta Conservation Plan 

(BDCP) process. 

Simply put, we are committed to work closely with the state of California, our 

Federal partners, water contractors, and all interested parties to encourage the 

smarter supply and use of Bay-Delta water. In 2010, we will facilitate final permitting and construction of the Delta-Mendota and California Aqueduct Intertie. The 

Intertie will be a pipeline and pump station connection between the Federal DeltaMendota Canal and California Aqueduct. Connecting these two facilities will allow 

greater flexibility in operating pumping systems which each have their own export 

constraints, and allow for recovery of water between the state and Federal systems. 

The Intertie’s operations are included in the new biological opinions from the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service for the Delta. 

Intertie construction effects on terrestrial species were addressed in a project-specific biological assessment in August 2009. We expect to initiate construction in 

June of this year, and complete construction in 2011. 

Under the Action Plan released in December 2009, we will continue to foster 

water transfers between willing buyers and willing sellers, improve scientific knowledge of turbidity and Delta smelt, and use results from a pending National Academy 

of Science study on how to best balance water delivery needs with those of threatened and endangered species. The Federal agencies also will work closely with the 

state in developing mid and longer-term infrastructure options that can potentially 

address the chronic conflicts that led the Delta Vision report commissioned by Governor Schwarzenegger to conclude that current water supply strategies are 

unsustainable in the face of the Bay-Delta ecosystem collapse, climate change impacts and seismic risks. 

Finally, we will work together to continue to deliver drought relief funding and 

ensure integrated flood risk management, including the prioritization of projects 

and activities for flood risk management and related levee stabilization projects and 

navigation. The Action Plan features participation from the Department, the Army 

Corps of Engineers, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection 

Agency, the Department of Commerce, and the Council on Environmental Quality. 

Of course, groundwater will continue to be an essential water supply for many 

of California’s coastal and inland communities. With the combined impact of the 

drought and environmental needs, existing groundwater sources are being significantly stressed. Within the Department, the U.S. Geological Survey is actively enVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:03 May 03, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\54619.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
18 

gaged in expanding the range of information available to water users and policymakers regarding groundwater. The USGS developed the Central Valley Hydrologic 

Model to assess water resources in the Central Valley, which is an important tool 

to evaluate the impacts of drought on groundwater conditions. Reclamation has 

helped fund new USGS work to combine use of the Central Valley Hydrologic Model 

with new data collection to look specifically at potential subsidence impacts on 

water-delivery canals. This new hydrologic model can also be used by water managers to address water issues related to conjunctive water use, recognizing the interdependence of surface water supplies and groundwater. 

According to the USGS, the San Joaquin Valley, which includes the San Joaquin 

and Tulare Basins, has experienced large changes in groundwater storage. In the 

early 1960s, groundwater pumping caused water levels to decline to historic lows 

on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, which resulted in large amounts of surface subsidence. In the late 1960s, the surface-water delivery system began to route 

water from the wetter Sacramento Valley and Delta regions to the drier, more heavily pumped San Joaquin Valley. The surface-water delivery system was fully functional by the early 1970s, resulting in groundwater-level recovery in the northern 

and western parts of the San Joaquin Valley. Overall, the Tulare Basin portion of 

the San Joaquin Valley, the hottest and driest part of the Central Valley, is still 

showing declines in groundwater levels and accompanying depletion of groundwater 

storage. This fact will affect the overall water supply available to agriculture water 

users. 

Reclamation remains focused on managing, developing, and protecting water and 

related resources in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner in the 

best interest of the American public. We know that an emphasis on water conservation is key to the sustainability of the state of California. I am committed to doing 

all I can to further this mission and, to the best extent possible, meeting the needs 

of our customers. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on this important topic. I would 

be happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may have. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Now we will hear from Assemblywoman Anna Caballero. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA CABALLERO, ASSEMBLY MEMBER 

OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE, REPRESENTING 

THE 28TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. CABALLERO. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. It 

is quite good to be here today. Thank you for the invitation. 

As you heard, I represent the 28th Assembly District, which is 

primarily an agricultural community representing the Salinas Valley, San Benito County, Watsonville and Delroy. It is a major area 

where fruit and vegetables are produced, and I am here today because we really have an opportunity to work in partnership, and 

it is going to be absolutely critical. 

I do apologize. I will make my comments very brief. I had expected to have 15 minutes to speak. I was prepared to talk about 

the recent legislation that was passed in Sacramento. I will refer 

you to the documents that have been prepared by the Water Resources Board to have detailed information, and so I won’t go into 

that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Ms. Caballero, would you just mention where 

they are so that the public and Members of Congress would know. 

Ms. CABALLERO. Yes. The documents, Madam? The documents 

are the Safe and Clean Reliable Drinking Water Act of 2010, which 

is the water bond document, and then a Comprehensive Water 

Package, which is four bills that we adopted at the same time. You 

will see the Water Bond on the ballot, or you should, in November 

2010. 

19 

I wanted to take a minute today to reemphasize the issue of the 

lack of water for the Central Valley, because it also impacts the 

28th Assembly District, which is San Benito County. I apologize for 

reiterating the facts, but I think they absolutely have to be discussed here today, because the fact that we are not able to take 

care of the ecosystem and export water at the same time has had 

a tremendous impact, negative impact, on the Central Valley and 

San Benito County. 

It is carving a huge depletion of groundwater reserves in that 

area, and it is anticipated to create a significant loss of land as the 

property starts to subside and you lose the opportunity to store 

groundwater. But more importantly, 500,000 acres of farmland has 

been idled due to the lack of water. Over 21,000 jobs have been lost 

at a time when we can least afford to lose those jobs, $1 billion in 

economic loss in the agricultural sector. 

Small businesses are at risk, and there are long food lines, and 

you will hear today that many farmers are at risk of losing their 

property. I have recently heard of farmers that have been multigeneration farming that have lost their property, absolutely unacceptable in one of the richest agricultural valleys in the world and 

in our country. 

You have heard that small communities in the west side of the 

Valley, Mendota and Firebaugh, have faced 40 percent unemployment and that people are standing in long food lines. These communities can’t survive another year with minimal allocations, and 

we have heard this year that the allocation will be five percent. 

While we are hoping that the region range will change that. Five 

percent allocation means that there will be no farming. 

It is absolutely imperative that we work together, the state 

government and the Federal Government, to do everything we can 

to work collaboratively, and let me give you an example of one of 

the frustrations. As we were negotiating the package of bills, the 

water bills, in the fall, I had an opportunity to travel to Washington, D.C., where we discussed with the Administration the opportunity to invest in the Two Gates Project, which would provide 

an opportunity for us to see if we could separate the Delta-Smelt 

from the turbid pumps in the Delta. 

We understood that that was a high priority for the Administration. We, therefore, put into our package of bills $28 million in 

state funding and moved ahead very quickly on that, because we 

wanted to see that project come to life. We understood that the 

Federal Government had put up $10 million, and recently learned 

last week that that project is off the table. 

It is very frustrating to have worked so hard to create an opportunity to create a solution and then have it eliminated without any 

discussion about why that happened and what our next plan is. 

So to wrap up, it is absolutely imperative that we come up with 

some vigorous discussion about how we can solve this water problem, how we can get water immediately to the Central Valley at 

a time when we have such high unemployment here in the state 

to put people back to work, which could make a big difference and 

could show that, in fact, we are working together, the state government with the Federal Government, to try to solve a problem that 

has been created. 

20 

So I thank you for the opportunity to be here today and look forward to continued discussions, and I want to recognize the Chair. 

She has really been an advocate of a water solution, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so very much for being here and 

for your kind words. It is my understanding that Two Gates is not 

off the table. It is just delayed because of certain issues. So we look 

forward to hearing more on that. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Caballero follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Anna Caballero, Assemblywoman, 

California State Legislature 

Madame Chair Napolitano, my name is Anna Caballero and I represent the 28th 

District in the California State Assembly. Thank you for convening this hearing 

here in California on our water supply challenges. We appreciate your drawing the 

attention of the Congress to some of the difficulties we have experienced—and continue to confront—on ensuring reliable water supplies for our state’s agricultural, 

urban and environmental needs. 

While we benefited from a good amount of rain all over California last week, our 

water challenges remain. This year’s State Water Project initial water delivery allocation was 5% of contract entitlements—the lowest in history. Last week’s rain and 

snow helped, but we will need a substantial amount more than average to refill our 

water storage reservoirs. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta remains in crisis, for 

both its ecosystem and water exports. The recent drought has led to depletion of 

our groundwater reserves. We have many challenges ahead and, hopefully, with the 

State and the Federal Government working together, we will take advantage of the 

opportunities that arise. 

Last year, the Legislature stepped up to address some of the critical water challenges California faces. We took important first steps on several issues, but they are 

only the first. We need all agencies, stakeholders and communities to step forward 

to make some difficult decisions in the years ahead. The Legislature has set some 

new directions, a path forward, but we need all critical players to move forward on 

that path. 

The Federal Government is one of the most important players in California water. 

It holds the largest block of water rights in California—about 7 million acre-feet. 

It has broad authority—and responsibility—to address water and aquatic ecosystem 

problems, particularly in the Delta. While the Congress has shown a ‘‘consistent 

thread of purposeful and continued deference to state water law,’’ the Federal Government has a long history of leadership in California water issues. We need the 

Congress and the Obama Administration to step forward to contribute to resolving 

some of our most pressing water issues. 

In last year’s Delta/Water Legislation, we invited the Federal Government to participate and offered contributions to facilitate that participation. The best way to 

start the discussion of how we might work together is a summary of the legislative 

package: 

• SB 1 (Simitian)/Delta Legislation: Reforms state policies, programs and governance for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta), and establishes guidelines for developing a new Delta Plan. Appropriates $28 million for the federal 

‘‘Two Gates’’ project in the Delta. 

• SB 2 (Cogdill)/Water Bond: Authorizes an $11.14 billion water infrastructure 

bond for the November 2010 ballot. Funding categories include drought relief, 

the Delta, water storage, integrated regional water management, watershed 

conservation, groundwater quality, and water recycling. 

• SB 6 (Steinberg)/Groundwater Monitoring: Creates a statewide groundwater elevation monitoring system, relying on local agencies in all basins to report the depth to groundwater. 

• SB 7 (Steinberg)/Water Conservation: Establishes a statewide water conservation program, in a new ‘‘Sustainable Water Use and Demand Reduction’’ 

part in the Water Code (Part) and reauthorizes the Agricultural Water Management Planning Act. Sets an urban water conservation target of 20% reduction 

in per capita water use by 2020, allowing flexibility for local agencies to determine how best to accomplish that reduction. 

• SB 8 (Steinberg)/Water Reporting & Appropriations: Deletes water diversion reporting exemptions for diverters in the Delta. Appropriates funding from 

21 

bonds and a special fund for increased State Water Resources Control Board enforcement staff and other Delta/water projects. 

As a package, these bills address several of California’s water challenges, but I 

wish to draw your attention, in a bit more detail, to the Delta bill—Senate Bill 1 

by Senator Joe Simitian. The Delta is where we need the Congress and the Federal 

Government to engage the most. The operation of the federal Central Valley Project 

translates into several federal agencies taking action in the Delta—the Bureau of 

Reclamation, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—and federal courts intervening in those activities. 

We structured the Delta bill to invite the Federal Government to engage with us 

in setting a new direction for Delta policy. In enacting this legislation, we exercised 

the State’s authority over the control, appropriation, use, and distribution of water 

generally. In structuring the development of a new Delta Plan, we required state 

agencies to take actions that would engage the Federal Government, including requiring: 

• Delta Stewardship Council to consult with federal agencies in developing the 

Plan. 

• Development of the Delta Plan consistent with federal laws, including the 

Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Water Act and the Reclamation Act 

of 1902. 

• Delta Stewardship Council to submit the Delta Plan to federal agencies for approval, if the Delta Plan is adopted pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. 

This last requirement, in particular, invites the Congress to engage in thinking 

about a new federal law to improve federal and state agency cooperation in the 

Delta. Section 85300(d) of the California Water Code allows submission of the Delta 

Plan to any federal official assigned responsibility for the Delta pursuant to a new 

federal statute, anticipating that Congress may enact a new law in response to the 

State’s new statutory framework for the Delta. 

Let me be clear: We invite you to work with us in the Legislature in crafting a 

new legal relationship between the state and federal governments in the Delta. Our 

legislation sets a new course, but requires many decisions in the years ahead. It establishes a framework for structuring the federal-state relationship, but only Congress can enact laws to require federal agencies to work with us and follow our 

State’s leadership. We hope to have the opportunity to work closely with you on the 

challenges we all face in the Delta 

We need to craft an enduring relationship that ensures federal engagement regardless of who sits in the White House. For eight long years, the Bush Administration ignored its responsibilities in the Delta. When Secretary Salazar showed up for 

a Delta helicopter tour last year, we were delighted to welcome him to one of our 

greatest water debates—the first time a Secretary of the Interior had visited the 

Delta since Secretary Bruce Babbitt visited several times in 2000, during development of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner 

Mike Connor also has visited our state on several occasions. We need to find a way 

to institutionalize that level of federal engagement in protecting the Delta to achieve 

the co-equal goals of ‘‘providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem.’’ 

Our two legislative bodies working together to fashion that enduring relationship 

between our governments offers the best opportunity for our State of California to 

overcome the challenges it faces in water policy. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The Honorable Lester Snow. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE LESTER A. SNOW, DIRECTOR, 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA. 

Mr. SNOW. thank you, Madam Chair and members. I appreciate 

the opportunity to talk about California’s water issues. I submitted 

a statement, but I will hit a few other points, not directly within 

that statement. 

I first want to indicate that both documents that Assembly Member Caballero brought in are available on the Department of Water 

Resources website for anybody who would want to access them. 

22 

First, let me put a finer point on what I will call the water supply update. As has already been mentioned, in 2009 we finished 

that. That was the third drought year in California. Last year, the 

State Water Project stood at a 40 percent allocation. The West Side 

CVP was at a 10 percent allocation. Water Resources started this 

year with a preliminary allocation for our contractors of five percent. That is the lowest in the history of the State Water Project. 

Fortunately, the storm track that has already been referenced— 

our snow pack is about 115 percent of normal to this date. The reason I stress this date is, if this is the snow pack we had at the end 

of the season, it would only be a 64 percent of average supply. We 

will do the snow survey on Friday, and new updated appropriations 

on the 20th of February. 

If the storm track holds, we will do a little bit better, but actually, the fact that we are talking about a storm track and whether 

it will bail us out is actually a symptom of the problem that we 

have, and that problem is a water management system that is no 

longer keeping up with our needs. As a result of climate change, 

environmental degradation, and lack of sustained investment in 

the system, our water system can no longer meet the needs of the 

state. 

We need a long-term, comprehensive solution. In order to have 

a sustainable water resource system, our water management system must permanently change to a diversified approach. That 

means we have to look at energy, water and environmental issues. 

The Governor has consistently promoted the comprehensive approach that ranges from conservation, recycling, habitat restoration, to new reservoirs and new conveyance facilities in the state. 

We are long past the point that a single project or strategy can bail 

us out. Some might like to say, all we need to do is more conservation. Some might like to say, all we need to do is build one more 

reservoir. The fact of the matter is we have to implement all of 

those options. The Governor has consistently proposed an infrastructure investment strategy that attempts to fund all of those activities, a diversified approach. 

Let me hit just a few points along those lines. Our entire system 

is based around development and use of surface water and the development of groundwater supplies. It is the stable foundation of 

our water system. If we are conserving water, we are conserving 

surface and groundwater that has been developed. Therefore, recycling water, it is dependent on surface and water supplies. We 

must reinvest in our surface and groundwater systems in order to 

make it through this problem and deal with the century to come. 

Conservation is a great opportunity. There is much to be saved 

and provided in terms of stability through our conservation efforts. 

In terms of urban areas of California, there is approximately 9 million acre-feet that is used in urban California. Well over half of 

that is used outdoors. There is great conservation potential to save 

outdoor water use in urban areas, with little, if any, impact to lifestyle in the state. 

We estimate that somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million 

acre-feet of additional conservation savings is available in urban 

areas without affecting lifestyle. The Governor has pushed and 

committed to achieving 20 percent reduction in use by 2020, and 

23 

the Legislature passed for the first time ever a conservation bill. 

Implementing that conservation bill not only will save water, but 

will actually reduce CO2 by 1.4 million metric tons. 

Recycling water use: Today we recycle about 250,000 acre-feet. 

There is a potential for as much as 2 million acre-feet. Today we 

have about 160,000 acre-feet of desalination capacity, with another 

400,000 on drawing boards. 

Now let me close very quickly with a couple of fundamental 

points. Our future lies in fixing the Delta. That means restoring 

habitat, changing conveyance, and addressing the other stresses 

that are affecting the species beyond the water system. It means 

passing the water bond. The water bond funds new storage, conservation, recycling, local conveyance, and habitat. We need to reinvest in our water future. 

Finally, let me reiterate the point that the Commissioner has already mentioned, the state’s commitment to QSA. No matter what 

the Judge has done, whether through appeal or whether through 

a change in the contract, QSA will stay together, and we will meet 

the needs of those agreements. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Director Snow. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Snow follows:] 

Statement of Lester A. Snow, Director, 

California Department of Water Resources 

Introduction 

Chairwoman Napolitano, and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the challenges and opportunities facing California’s water supply. 

Recognizing the critical importance of a reliable water supply to our economy and 

our environment, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration has focused unprecedented resources and leadership to address the state’s water issues. Those efforts culminated this past November with the passage of a comprehensive water 

package and bond proposal that will reform, rebuild and restore California’s water 

system. At the federal level, focus and support from our California Congressional 

delegation and the Obama Administration has been vitally important in dealing not 

only with our current water crisis but also the steps necessary for our long-term 

water reliability and security. 

There is no single approach to managing California’s water resources or the entirety of our state’s natural resources in the face of ecosystem needs, the needs of 

a struggling economy, and the impacts of climate change. However we have the opportunity to implement programs and make management decisions based on strong 

science that achieves a new level of sustainable and integrated resource management. This may not be easy, but a sustainable resource management approach is 

the only way we can move forward in the 21st century. 

Today I would like to discuss current water conditions and how that relates to 

Southern California’s water supply. I would also like to provide the Subcommittee 

with an overview of the comprehensive legislative package I just mentioned, and finally discuss the importance of a strong federal-state partnership to address the 

Delta and other statewide water issues. 

Water Supply Conditions 

As you know, 2009 was a third straight year of drought in California. We saw 

500,000 acres of farm land fallowed or pulled out of service. There are more than 

60 water agencies with mandatory conservation requirements. We have seen significant and alarming over drafting of groundwater basins. Going into this winter, the 

carryover in the state’s major reservoirs was one-third to one-half below normal. 

The latest Fall Midwater Trawl by the California Department of Fish and Game, 

which measures fish populations, has the lowest indices on record for delta smelt 

and longfin smelt. This is further evidence that the Delta, through which much of 

the water supply for Central and Southern California is conveyed, is an ecosystem 

in peril and in desperate need of restoration. 

24 

Last month, the Department of Water Resources announced the lowest initial allocation on record for the State Water Project—just 5% of contractor requested 

amounts. The initial allocation is a very conservative estimate of what we expect 

to deliver in 2010 as a percentage of SWP contractors’ initial requests for water deliveries. At that time, our Sierra snowpack levels were well below normal. Over the 

past 10 days, we have seen a marked improvement in conditions. But even if we 

end this year with normal levels of snow and runoff, our water supply outlook will 

not improve significantly. Regulatory restrictions on Delta exports in the spring and 

early summer will make it difficult to deliver water to Southern California, the Central Valley, the Bay Area and coastal cities, even if it is available in our reservoirs. 

Hopefully the current ‘‘El Nin ̃ o’’ track of storms will improve our water supply conditions without causing significant flood damage. 

Climate Change 

Many factors contribute to our current water crisis. From recent regulatory ecosystem protection measures to a multi-year drought, combined with an overlay of 

climate change that is not only affecting current conditions but will increasingly impact our water systems. Climate change impacts, including less snowpack, higher 

flood peaks, and sea level rise, create new uncertainties. By 2050, scientists project 

a loss of at least 25 percent of the Sierra snowpack with more of our precipitation 

occurring in the form of rain because of warmer temperatures, increasing the risk 

of flooding. More variable weather patterns may also result in increased dryness in 

the southern regions of the state. 

Many of the effects that could occur due to climate change can be mitigated, in 

part, with the same water management strategies one would employ when dealing 

with an extended drought. 

DWR’s strategy to mitigate the combined effects of climate change and a decrease 

in the snowpack is multi-pronged and diverse. We are building a diverse and comprehensive ‘‘portfolio’’ of water management strategies that are effective in combination with each other, both in the short-term and long-term. 

In the short-term, DWR is promoting and financing programs which increase public education and awareness about water use and improve and increase water conservation and water recycling throughout California. We are striving to improve our 

emergency response to both flood and drought conditions. Of particular note, we activated our Drought Water Bank program last year, and a Water Transfers Program 

for this year to help alleviate statewide drought conditions. The Drought Water 

Bank serves as the ‘‘broker’’ between parties seeking to market or sell some or all 

of their legal water supplies to buyers who have critical water needs such as orchard 

growers. DWR staff responsible for the day-to-day operations of the State Water 

Project work closely with operators of the Central Valley Project and staff of the National Weather Service to optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of joint water 

project operations in tandem with forecasted weather conditions. 

Regional Planning, Research and Technological Advances 

For the longer-term, DWR continues to be involved in funding research and advising on the development and advancement of new technologies such as desalination 

and water recycling, developing better climate change modeling capabilities and the 

administration of regional water use efficiency programs such as the Integrated Regional Water Management Program. 

DWR utilizes and continues to develop a variety of tools to forecast water supply 

dynamics. One of our significant efforts involves collaboration with NASA (National 

Aeronautical and Space Administration) to incorporate satellite imagery data into 

our assessments of snowpack extent and depth using different radar technologies. 

We are also developing detailed models of individual watersheds, within the larger 

Bay-Delta watershed, which can predict amounts and timing of snowmelt runoff, as 

well as runoff temperature. 

In an effort to better balance the needs for protection of potentially catastrophic 

flooding and a dwindling water supply in Central Valley reservoirs, new ForecastCoordinated Operation partnerships are being developed among the reservoir operators and hydrologic forecasting agencies to improve decision support systems and to 

take advantage of improved meteorological forecasting to better optimize real-time 

reservoir management. 

Colorado River 

Another major source of water supply for Southern California is the Colorado 

River. The Quantification Settlement Agreement—or QSA—is particularly important to ensure California preserves stability in its Colorado River supplies. The 

State Superior Court’s recent tentative ruling invalidating key elements of the QSA 

agreements threatens California’s water supply reliability; however, it is important 

25 

to stress that the QSA parties, including the State of California, intend to work together to deal with issues raised in the court’s ruling and jointly, will preserve this 

important agreement. 

Policy Priorities and Funding 

We have a serious and complex water crisis looming in California, but this is also 

a time of great opportunity. It is a time for creativity, a time for new ideas, and 

most importantly, a time for action to ensure that future generations have a clean, 

reliable water supply that we’ve enjoyed for decades in this state. 

The legislative package that was passed in November with bipartisan support, 

and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, recognizes the importance of solving California’s complex water problems. It signals a commitment to the co-equal goals of 

water supply reliability and ecosystem restoration, a workable Delta governance 

structure and a clear path for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. And it includes, 

for the first time, statewide conservation requirements for urban and agricultural 

water users as well as groundwater monitoring. 

We now have a policy framework for moving forward and a proposed $11 billion 

bond that will be on the November ballot. The bond is essential, providing funding 

for virtually every water management project that we can conceive of. This includes 

funding for water supply reliability, drought relief, surface and groundwater storage, Delta restoration, water recycling, conservation, watershed restoration, and 

groundwater protection and cleanup. Every region in the state will benefit from 

these funds. A portion of funding is guaranteed to each of the hydrologic regions, 

and all regions are eligible to compete for additional funding to help finance water 

management projects and programs with local, regional and statewide benefits. 

The South Coast region, which includes parts of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, 

San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura counties would receive $856 million for 

water supply reliability projects and be able to tap into a share of $6.3 billion in 

other regional and statewide funding from the bond. 

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta 

The Delta is not just the hub of California’s water supply system, but a dramatic 

and critical manifestation of complex resource conflicts. It is, in many respects, the 

canary in the coal mine and the mine in this case is, ‘‘How will society deal with 

complex resource conflicts at a statewide and national level?’’ How do we find that 

balance between our economy and our environment as we move forward? 

The answer to that question lies to a large degree in a process we and numerous 

other government and non-government entities are currently engaged in known as 

the Bay Delta Conservation Plan or BDCP. BDCP represents a completely different 

approach to dealing with water problems. In the past, we would propose a project, 

and commit to mitigation of that project. In the case of BDCP, we’ve actually proposed developing recovery plans, a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under federal 

law and a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) under state law, and we 

are looking at conveyance as a component of that strategy. It is a different approach 

but it is essential to moving forward and dealing effectively with California’s future 

water needs. It is imperative that we continue on that path and it is imperative that 

we meet critical deadlines before the end of this year. 

That leads to the importance of the state-federal partnership. Active and committed federal involvement to solving California’s water issues is essential. Having 

the high-level commitment from Secretary of the Interior Salazar and Secretary of 

Commerce Locke is essential to us carving out this new frontier on how we are 

going to resolve problems. Everything that we are trying to do and every approach 

that we are trying to make in terms of achieving co-equal goals and a balance in 

the Delta is dependent on federal decisions and the federal agencies being part of 

the solution. We cannot do it on our own. 

Fixing the Delta means real-time commitment and real-time decision making over 

the next 11 months. We have to make major accomplishments on flows, on conveyance, on extent of habitat, and a failure of us to make progress in 2010 prior to 

a transition to a new Governor taking office means, in the best case, delays. In the 

worst case, it means starting over. We cannot afford that either—for the economy 

or the environment. 

In December, the federal agencies issued an Interim Federal Action Plan for the 

Delta. In that document, federal officials strongly commit to work with California 

on a coordinated plan by February. That plan will identify our most important initiatives and near term action items deserving progress during 2010. Many forces— 

including old challenges and new leadership—converged to make this new state-federal partnership both necessary and possible. It represents a new era of unprecedented, close collaboration—a federal-state partnership that is absolutely essential 

26 

to fixing the Delta and will represent a new frontier of problem-solving complex resource conflicts. 

The work plan provides an overview of key activities needed to make progress in 

the Delta and on wider water challenges in California. Among the major issues are 

development of a public draft of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, action on water 

transfers for drought response, and coordination of state and federal Delta monitoring and research facilities. On water project operations, the plan calls for providing scientific information and working with the National Academy of Sciences on 

its current review of smelt and salmon biological opinions. Expedited action is contemplated on infrastructure projects including an Intertie linking the Delta-Mendota 

Canal and the California Aqueduct, providing more flexibility for state and federal 

water system operations and deliveries. Habitat restoration is also a major priority 

including a project to achieve flood control and ecosystem restoration benefits in the 

North Delta. 

Making it work probably means pushing harder than we have in the past, including tough calls and going outside our comfort zone. But there is no doubt that we 

need a collaborative approach to take advantage of the window of opportunity we 

have to change the way that we manage natural resources in California. 

Conclusion 

We stand at a critical juncture in dealing with California’s water issues. Our new 

reality is that we must manage a resource that is characterized by uncertainty and 

vulnerability due to climate change and changing ecosystem needs. The past is no 

longer an accurate indicator of the future. 

What we need is a roadmap of strategies for sustainable water use in California. 

We hope that the Congress and the federal government will continue to recognize 

the severity of this issue to our state and our nation, and work with us to make 

the changes and investments necessary to improve our water future. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee. I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I will now start with the questions and answers. I have many questions, and it would take the whole day for 

me to pose them, because there are so many issues, as we all know. 

Part of it is, Director Snow, have you thought of using the California Channel to educate the public on conservation, on the issue 

on—all those—the California Channel could be a perfect vehicle, if 

it is used. Then you have all the cities that have public access and 

government access channels that are free channels. 

Mr. SNOW. Yes. You are talking about the public education. there 

have been different efforts to try to get that message out, both in 

the schools as well as advertising campaigns. Metropolitan Water 

District has been a leader here in Southern California, trying to get 

that message out. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. No, I am talking about utilization of California Television Channel out of Sacramento that usually tapes— 

or actually runs the hearings in Sacramento, and it gives that information and all of that, but it is a perfect channel. It goes to 

many TV viewers. You need to think out of the box here, and that 

is what I am alluding to, is that have we done everything we possibly can to educate our general public. I am afraid the answer for 

me is no. 

Also, you mentioned the drought water bank in your testimony 

is a potential short term goal. What challenges did you face in facilitating the water transfers, and are east to west transfers possible under the current statute? 

Mr. SNOW. Two parts to that. One, probably the single biggest 

issue we had with the drought water bank last year was the ability 

to move water across the Delta. Traditionally, in California the 

greatest source of water to move in drought situations is in the 

27 

Sacramento Valley, typically with some of the rice growers up 

there. That means the water has to move across the Delta, meaning you have to have pumping capacity. 

So at different periods of time, we did not have the capacity because of restrictions, regulatory restrictions, to move the water 

across the Delta during certain periods of time, which increased the 

cost of water. There is the opportunity to move water from the east 

side of the valley, the San Joaquin Valley, to the west side of the 

San Joaquin Valley. Some of that actually has to flow through the 

pumping plant, because there is limited conveyance capacity across 

the Valley. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, there are many other areas that I would 

like to question, but I want to give my colleagues a chance. But, 

Commissioner Connor, thank you for being with us today. I told 

you, you would be on the hot seat today. 

There’s a lot of questions that cross our mind, and I want to convey the thanks to Secretary Salazar, because you have been able 

to put—what?—seven agencies to work on the issue on Northern 

California. He visited it, the first time that the Secretary of the Interior has visited Northern California and talked, listened, maybe 

not acted to the extent that people want him to immediately, but 

you have only been here how many months? 

Mr. CONNOR. Personally, I have been on—it seems longer than 

it actually has, but I think it is about seven months. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Seven months, and we are trying to write 

eight years of policy that has been ignored in Washington. So I am 

sorry, but I am very, very concerned about the direction. Some 

people want to point fingers, and that just really irks me, because 

I know that you have been trying. I know we have dialogued with 

you. I know you have been responsive to a lot of Members, and we 

hope to continue to move on that. 

In August we provided Secretary Salazar suggestions on how to 

create 1 million acre-feet of water through water reuse, reclamation, conservation. Not only has the prior administration not wanted to consider Title XVI, which it only wanted in the toolbox to addressing water shortages in Southern California and, hopefully, in 

Northern California, also, but what has the Department done to 

address this, and will the Department address supporting our request for 200 million to address the 600 million backlog that the 

Bureau has on Title XVI? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, thank you for your comments, Madam Chairwoman. First of all, I would be the first to acknowledge that, although I think we have done a lot—I have personally been out to 

the Valley and met the farmers on three occasions; twice, I have 

been out there with the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Salazar—I think we would be the first to acknowledge that we need to 

do more, absolutely. 

The situation calls for action at the highest levels. We have tried 

to coordinate the Federal Government’s activities through the Interim Federal Plan, and implementation of that plan and building 

on that plan are the highest priorities for this Administration. 

With respect to the notion of creating the 1 million acre-feet of 

additional supply through Title XVI and other conservation efforts, 

I think we have also done a lot in that area. I think we have made 

28 

effective use of the Recovery Act funds that the Bureau of Reclamation received. 

Approximately $950 million was provided Bureau of Reclamation, of which we have allocated approximately $405 million of that 

funding to California. Of that, $134 million has gone to Title XVI 

recycling projects in California, and that is a good start in addressing the backlog, but even after that $134 million investment, we 

still have a $646 million backlog. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But you have reduced my budget. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes. Well, I think on the positive—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And I didn’t take kindly to that. 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, we will be—I think you can expect that there 

will be more support for Title XVI from this Administration, in addition to moving forward, getting those funds out of the gate and 

getting those projects—that money onto the economy to do its intended effect of providing jobs, as well as providing water. I think 

you will see a follow-up support for the Title XVI program. 

We are also looking at other aspects of the water conservation 

initiative, those being the challenge grant funding that we have. 

We allocated $40 million of Recovery Act money for water conservation efficiency activities, and $24 million of that funding went to 

the State of California to facilitate conservation projects, some of 

that—I think, a majority of that in the San Joaquin Valley. That 

was on top of another $6 million in CALFED water efficiency 

grants. 

So we are building up to the level that you suggested in your letter last fall. We are not quite there, but we will continue to follow 

up those efforts with the resources we have this year, in 2010, as 

well as 2011 and beyond. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you, and I hope that you can help 

us convince the Administration that this current thrust into jobs, 

of development, recycled water and some of the other water 

projects can be exceedingly beneficial in providing those job development and putting people back to work. 

Mr. CONNOR. Absolutely. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

First, Mr. Connor, in your testimony you point out that at the 

end of the last California drought, which lasted for five years, California’s population was just over 31 million. Today there are roughly 7 million more Californians, all of whom need water in the agricultural production and other economic activities supported by 

water. 

My question is: With that increase in need, why in the world are 

we still dumping 200 billion gallons of fresh water into the Pacific 

Ocean for the enjoyment and amusement of the Delta Smelt, a population which, as Mr. Calvert pointed out, continues to decline even 

with these massive water diversions? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, we have limitations based on two biological 

opinions, one involving the Delta Smelt and one involving a number of salmon species, and there have been restrictions in place at 

some level for sometime. Those restrictions were enhanced this last 

year with the new Biological—— 

29 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK.——Restrictions, which the Secretary of the Interior himself admitted to this Committee last year that they could 

suspend because of the severe economic damage being done to the 

Central Valley. However, they chose not to do so because that 

would be like admitting failure. But I put to you the question 

again. Given the dire need of this state for additional water, why 

in the world are we continuing the diversion of that enormous volume of water into the Pacific Ocean? 

Mr. CONNOR. I am not aware that that statement was made, and 

I don’t understand, given the obligation to follow the Endangered 

Species Act—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The statement was made. In fact, I played a 

video tape of it this morning in Fresno. It did not go over well. 

Let me continue. You also say, notwithstanding drought, the Colorado River apportionment to California this year will be the full 

4.4 million acre-feet, and there is a chance for some surplus under 

the annual operating plan for the Colorado River. It seems to me, 

if this is the third year of the severe drought and they are still able 

to deliver the full 4.4 million acre-feet on the Colorado, not that 

much of a drought. 

Mr. CONNOR. The Colorado River has had the benefit of 15 years 

of cooperation and negotiation amongst the seven Basin states the 

Federal Government and a number of water management agencies 

that have restructured the management of that system, that have 

led to a lot of cooperation in dealing with the Endangered Species 

Act issues that exist in the Upper Basin as well as the Lower 

Basin, and upon those cooperative efforts and the agreement to coordinate management operation of the reservoirs in that system, 

we have been able to maintain deliveries consistent with the Colorado River Compact. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Because we are not dumping 200 billion gallons of water from the Colorado River into the Pacific Ocean. We 

are only doing that on the Sacramento, which directly impacts the 

Central Valley and the agricultural heart of this state. 

Mr. CONNOR. We are not releasing water at that level, but there 

is certainly water being provided in the Upper Basin and the 

Lower Basin for environmental purposes to help mitigate the impacts of the Endangered Species. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Oh, so the difference between the drought, 

which on the Colorado River allows full delivery of the water plus 

maybe some surplus on top of that, and the Sacramento is the 

water diversions of the Sacramento. 

Let me go to Mr. Snow. What is the percentage of annual precipitation that we have seen in the past year compared to a normal 

year on the Sierra? 

Mr. SNOW. Well, from memory I believe last year we ended up 

with about 67-68 percent of normal. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Of normal precipitation? 

Mr. SNOW. For normal runoff. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Normal runoff? 

Mr. SNOW. Right. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What about precipitation, because the figures 

I saw were 90 to 96 percent of normal, and you have just testified 

that we’ve got 115 percent of normal for this point in the season. 

30 

Mr. SNOW. Normal precipitation to this point: Precipitation and 

runoff. When you have drought, you have a drier watershed, your 

precipitation percentage does not result in the same level of runoff 

because of a dry watershed. 

So for the last three years we have had a slightly higher precipitation from a percentage of normal than runoff, because the watershed takes up so much of the water. So in a year like this, if we 

ended up with normal precipitation, it would be slightly below normal runoff. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. My point is in far more severe droughts than 

the one that we have experienced over these past three years, we 

have made far greater water deliveries to the San Joaquin Valley, 

the difference being we weren’t dumping all of that water into the 

Pacific Ocean, the way we are today. 

Mr. SNOW. There’s two things that are responsible for where we 

are right now. One, there is a fundamental shift in the weather 

patterns, and so we have drought that is providing water in a different pattern, but we have—and I think this is, obviously, your 

point—much more strict regulatory standards that we have to meet 

in terms of when we can pump water. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. On that 

point, on the restrictions, Mr. Snow, give me your take on it as the 

person who ran the state water project. Last year, it was my understanding, even with the constraints of the Biological Opinion, 

and it gets into a complicated mathematical formula, that the 10 

percent allocation that was left available while other regions for 

100 percent, could have been as much as 30 percent allocation and 

still been with the Biological framework. Is that your view? 

Mr. SNOW. I am not sure I followed that. 

Mr. COSTA. The allocation to the San Luis Unit, by the x2 factor 

in terms of how much water could be made available and still be 

within the framework of the Biological Opinion on smelt, that additional water could have been made available last year. Do you support that view? 

Mr. SNOW. Not within the restrictions, no. 

Mr. COSTA. You don’t? Because some estimates are as much as 

if they had been using the criteria, that additional water could 

have been provided. Let us move on then. 

As it relates to the issue of the other stress factors involving the 

Delta, 120,000 gallons of ammonia by tertiary treatments in Sacramento and Stockton, 2000 pumps that have riparian lights to 

water that are unscreened and sometimes pump as much water as 

is exported, the quadrupling of the population at Pittsburgh, the 

Antioch, Lodi, all those areas that have runoff of the streets and 

fertilize their lawn and garden, all of those impacts, including predatory species that are non-native, why are they not taken into account in terms of how we manage the two water projects? 

Mr. SNOW. Well, one of the—I would call it—limitations of the 

Endangered Species Act is that it has to focus on the permit that 

is in front of them, and so one of the problems that we have is, despite the fact we might say that our diversions are not as significant—are not the sole cause of the problem, it doesn’t help that we 

31 

point out that it may be the discharges that is a bigger problem 

than the pumps. We are still regulated on that. 

Mr. COSTA. So you are saying that the other factors cause stress? 

Mr. SNOW. Absolutely, and that is—— 

Mr. COSTA. The refineries, the discharges? 

Mr. SNOW. That is the reason we have attempted to move from 

a fairly narrow Section 7 type of permit to a habitat conservation 

plan that allows you to look at those other stresses. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, sooner rather than later, Mr. Snow. It is unfair 

that we put the entire burden of the fishery and the water quality 

on certain regions of California, when we don’t impact the water 

supply, for example, in the City and County of San Francisco that 

normally would provide water that would go through the Delta. 

Mr. Connor, are you familiar with ‘‘Listen to the River?’’ 

Mr. CONNOR. Of the CVPIA? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, the report that was done in 2008 by the Department of the Interior. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. And to your knowledge, has the Department and the 

Bureau implemented any of these recommendations? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, we are certainly looking at a number of the 

recommendations right now, particularly the notion that we have 

to have a more integrated approach to managing some of the environmental issues, the fisheries issues, etcetera. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, it is unfortunate that we have to have the second round with the National Academy of Science, because they 

clearly indicated here the problems that exist within the efforts to 

implement CVPIA 16 years after it was implemented. This is 2008. 

It said problems of determining how salmon and steelhead may 

benefit from the management actions and search for solutions 

aren’t peculiar to the Central Valley. The Pacific Northwest and 

elsewhere have also learned that the complex life cycle of these fish 

and of the range are poorly understood. The potential environmental concern includes that these fish make it almost nearly impossible to assign the casualty to specified protection or mitigation 

action. 

Then it goes on to talk about the other information, the lack of 

trustworthy population estimates. It goes on to the inability to separate the effects of both natural and anthropodic confounding influences. It talks about the minimum CVPIA monitoring and evaluation, precisely the questions that you are trying to derive. It talks 

about few qualitatively rigorous evaluations in your program. It 

talks about a more formal assessment hypothesis is required. 

It goes on and talks about the problems with monitoring and 

evaluation. To our knowledge, no integrated database or management system exists to how to manage environment in biological 

and monitoring opinions. 

Mr. CONNOR. I agree with you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would like to point out, that was under the 

prior administration. 

Mr. COSTA. Oh, no, no, no. They have had a chance. There is no 

response to this. 

Mr. CONNOR. The response is that we have—— 

32 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Can we please move on? I would like to move 

on. Your time is up. 

VOICE. We need to have it. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You can have a copy of it from them. OK? 

Please, we need to move on. I think all of us need to be able to 

be part of the solution, not the problem. One of the things that the 

state assemblywoman—we didn’t ask any questions of you, and I 

don’t want you to go away feeling neglected. Does the state have 

a Plan B, if the water bond does not pass? 

Ms. CABALLERO. Well, with all due respect, Madam Chair, I 

think part of the challenge is that that water bond discussion was 

really a negotiation that took a great amount of time. If you are 

asking me, if it doesn’t pass, will we be back at it, looking at another alternative, absolutely. There is no question, we need to invest in our infrastructure, and we will do whatever we need to do. 

The real key about that bond is that it provides the opportunity 

to do the conservation we have been talking about, to do the reclamation projects that we have been talking about, to recycle 

water, to be able to really build the infrastructure to be able to 

take water from one side of the Valley to the other side of the Valley, to do the inter-connectivity. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I understand. 

Ms. CABALLERO. Without that, we are going to be stuck with a 

system that continues to service—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. I just wanted to introduce that. I 

need to let Mr. Calvert have his comments, but I want to be sure 

that I thank the state for finally getting involved, because I have 

heard from a lot of my water agencies that they are totally dependent on other solutions instead of form the state, and I think the 

state finally stepped up to the plate. Mr. Calvert? 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. by 

the way, we can’t blame the last three years of drought on the last 

eight years’ problems, in spite of the politics here. 

VOICE. That is right. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. One more outbreak, and you are out. 

Mr. CALVERT. And the purpose of the political comment—you owe 

one minute to Mr. Costa to get an answer to his question. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, my colleague. Mr. Connor, 

could you respond, because this is very troubling in terms of what 

has or has not happened as a result of this. 

Mr. CONNOR. I agree, it is troubling. I think there is a lot of work 

in implementing the provisions of the CVPIA as they were originally intended, and had they been implemented in that way with 

coordinated monitoring, understanding the fisheries’ needs better, 

diversifying refuge supplies, that may, in fact, have alleviated some 

of the situation that exists today. 

So a lot of the things that you have mentioned are part of the 

interim Federal work plan, and we understand that we need more 

aggressive implementation actions. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, let me just make one final comment here, because it is critical to this whole report. It says, to increase the probability of success, the agencies need to redesign and implement an 

integrated program to improve the status of the Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act, and I don’t know that you are doing that. 

33 

Mr. CONNOR. I think that is the whole point of the Federal work 

plan, the coordination that we are doing amongst several agencies 

and the aggressive science action that we have and the resources 

we are trying to apply. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Does that include the state participation? I 

will give you extra time. Does that include state participation, Ms. 

Caballero? Mr. Snow? 

Mr. SNOW. Of course. We have been working very closely on this, 

and expect to have a joint Federal Work Program, but fixing the 

Delta cannot be done, either by the Feds or the state alone. We 

both have to be working on it, and the same with building storage. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you be kind enough to allow the 

general public to understand what programs you are working on to 

help them, because apparently, a lot of people don’t know that you 

are working to be able to find the solutions, and they are getting 

very upset. They feel the Federal Government nor the state is acting toward helping them out during this crisis, and I don’t know 

what all you are going to do. But you need to tell them. All these 

agencies that are working to be able to reach consensus to move 

ahead, and not just talk about it, but formulate that action, and 

then put it into play. I am sorry. Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Snow, obviously, you are very familiar with what is going on in the Central 

Valley and the impact that it has with the farming community. If 

this goes on another year because of the stress on the permanent 

crops in that area, will a significant amount of that production go 

out permanently? 

Mr. SNOW. Well, I think, in talking with a lot of the members 

of the agricultural community, that is exactly what is happening. 

Mr. CALVERT. So saying that, I met with Mr. Hayes, I think, a 

year ago, and we were talking about the Two Gates and the necessity of immediately putting the permitting on Two Gates where we 

could build it and, hopefully, had it built by now; because, as I understand it, Dennis Majors was ready to build that project on site 

and rapidly get it going. But as I understand it, the Administration 

has indefinitely delayed the Two Gates project. As I understand it, 

there is a letter from the San Luis Delta-Mendota Water Authority 

that accuses the Administration, and Mr. Connor maybe can answer this, of a scientific double standard, and apparently indefinitely delaying this project, which was some way to help mitigate 

this smelt issue and to get some additional pumping going on. 

Are you aware of this letter? Are you aware of that issue, and 

why the Two Gates Project is not being able to be permitted? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, sir, I am well aware of that letter and well 

aware of all the actions that have been taken with respect to Two 

Gates. Two Gates has been a priority from a permitting standard, 

absolutely. We have spent hours and hours trying to move forward—— 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, reclaiming my time from the gentleman, if 

it is a priority, why hasn’t it been done? Right now, we are running 

out of time. We are talking about this water bond. Even if it does 

pass, and there is a question whether it will pass, quite frankly, 

because of the cost and the political climate that we are in, none 

34 

of these projects will be built for years. So we need to move on with 

some interim projects today in order to save the Central Valley. 

We just heard testimony from Mr. Snow saying that in another 

year, much of the production in the Central Valley will be permanently out. They are not going to replant those trees. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would the gentleman yield for a moment? 

Mr. CALVERT. Happy to. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. There will be additional time. The question 

then leads to: We know that there are farmers losing their land, 

their crops, going bankrupt, fallowing the farmland. Mr. Connor, 

have we worked with USDA, with Commerce, with all the agencies, 

SBA, to be able to help these individuals stay in the industry until 

the times get better, until—as he is pointing out—those projects 

come on line to be able to do the water delivery. Are we doing that? 

Thanks. 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, the problem there, Madam Chairwoman, is 

that the trees will be dead. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes. The answer to your question, the Federal 

Work Plan identifies a range of actions, and I realize it is not popular to talk about the relief that we can provide financially, given 

the lack of water, but we do think it is appropriate, and we have 

worked closely with the Department of Agriculture who declared 57 

or 58 counties a disaster last year. That made emergency loans 

available. That made other types of assistance available. 

I know that is not a substitute for water. I know people want 

water, and they want to produce products, but that is one interim 

step, as well as figuring out the right projects that we can do in 

the short term that will help yield the water. 

The fundamental problem with Two Gates, and I will be succinct, 

is not the bill reclamation, not the Fish and Wildlife Service, but 

the CALFED independent Science Panel found fundamental scientific flaws with the basis for the Two Gates Project which needed 

further investigation. That was one issue. The second issue, costs escalated from somewhere in the $20 million range to $80 million, when all was said and done. That included some O&M costs. So the resources weren’t immediately 

available for the project. 

Third, there were over 1400 comments in the environmental assessment projects expressing strong concerns about the Two Gates 

Project from the citizens of California, not from the Federal agencies, that need to be evaluated and looked at as part of our environmental complaint activity. 

Fourth, we did a design and did a construction view of Two 

Gates, and it raised nine significant issues about the technical 

foundation for the project. We have not shelved Two Gates. We are 

actively working on Two Gates, but those questions need to be answered to figure out if it is worth the investment of that kind of 

money and whether it really yields additional water. 

In the interim, we are going to do projects like the Intertie, 

which we know is a good project, which we know has the capacity 

to generate additional water. We are going to move forward with 

conservation projects. We are going to diversify water supplies to 

refugees. Those, we know, will have some added benefit for the 

water supply for the Central Valley Project. 

35 

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chairwoman, I have one question. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Last question. 

Mr. CALVERT. During your opening testimony, you mentioned you 

are delivering 6,000 CFS a day into the Central Valley. If it wasn’t 

for the biological opinion, the existing biological opinions, I should 

state, on the smelt and the salmon, what would be the delivery per 

day? 

Mr. CONNOR. That is an excellent question, and I don’t have the 

exact answer. 

Mr. CALVERT. Could you supply that answer for the Committee 

at some point? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes. I will be candid. It is about 6,000 CFS, but I 

don’t know the exact number, and we will provide that information 

as soon as possible. 

Mr. CALVERT. Excuse me. Mr. Snow, do you know the answer to 

that question? 

Mr. SNOW. I probably should say no instead of guessing. So we 

will follow up, but it is probably on the order of 10,000 CFS, given 

the storms that we have had. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. I would like to reiterate to Commissioner Connor that this Committee sent a letter to you in regard to the question that Congressman Costa sent, and we still 

don’t have an answer. I would really appreciate an answer to all 

this Committee. Thanks. 

Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, may I follow up? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We are moving on. We have already spent 

over an hour and 20 minutes. 

Mr. CALVERT. Well, you took quite a bit of liberties here. I would 

like—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am the Chair. 

Mr. CALVERT. I would like to extend—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We are moving on to the next panel. We will 

continue to work on the different issues together and look forward 

to a lot more cooperation. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would like to bring Mr. Jeffrey Kightlinger, 

General Manager of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles. Again, thank you, Met, for hosting us in this 

fine facility; Mr. Brian Brady, General Manager, Imperial Irrigation District, Imperial California; Ms. Maureen Stapleton, General 

Manager, San Diego County Water Authority in San Diego; and 

Mr. Dan Parks, Assistant General Manager of the Coachella Valley 

Water District in Coachella. 

Mr. Kightlinger, if you would be so kind, you have five minutes. 

Thank you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY KIGHTLINGER, GENERAL MANAGER, 

METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, 

Members of Congress. I really want to thank you for coming to 

Southern California and getting an urban Southern California perspective on the issues and the drought we are facing and, certainly, 

welcome you to Metropolitan and appreciate your use of our facilities here, and glad we could play host. 

36 

I particularly want to thank the Chairwoman for all the tremendous work she has done and the support she has given for urban 

water over the years, and we appreciate this opportunity to speak 

here. 

This has been a very challenging time. Metropolitan does straddle the area of California in the sense that we get our water supply—our imported water supply for Southern California comes from 

both the Colorado River, as my friends here and our partners, as 

well as the State Water Project in Northern California. This has 

been a very challenging time in that we have been hit on both supplies. 

From 2000 to 2008, the Colorado River has gone through an unprecedented drought, and in 2003 when Secretary Gail Norton, Interior Secretary Gail Norton, cut back California from 5 million 

acre-feet of deliveries to 4.4, that hit fell on Metropolitan. Our Colorado River aqueduct which holds 1.2 million acre-feet and had 

been full for several decades was immediately cut in half to 

600,000 acre-feet, and we had to make up those supplies elsewhere. 

Then, certainly, as you are well aware, in much of the testimony 

in the last committee and the last panel, our State Water Project 

supplies have been severely impacted. So we have been dealing 

with loss of supply both on the Colorado River side and the State 

Water Project side. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Excuse me just a second. Commissioner Connor, I would like for you to hear the testimony, please. Thank you. 

I am sorry. Go ahead. 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. Thank you, Madam Chair. In addition to the 

drought in California for the last three years and the drought on 

the Colorado River, we have had to deal with the legal rulings on 

the QSA as well as the restrictions, the fishery restrictions that 

Commissioner Connor talked about. These are the most restrictive 

fishery restrictions ever seen in the Endangered Species Act that 

have cost Metropolitan over half a million acre-feet of supplies that 

we would have received over the last two years. That is the equivalent to the hole that we currently have in our Diamond Valley Lake 

reservoir that we would have filled if we had been able to access 

our State Water Project supplies. 

So how have we survived these last couple of years here in 

Southern California? Two main areas: One is the Colorado River. 

Through good work and cooperation, after the passage of the QSA, 

after the enactment of that, as well as the Federal guidelines in 

2007, we have managed to rebuild our Colorado River supply from 

600,000 acre-feet in 2002 to over a million acre-feet last year, the 

first time we have passed the million acre-foot mark since 2002. So 

2009 we delivered 1.1 million acre-feet of Colorado River water 

through cooperation with Nevada and Arizona as well as Imperial 

Irrigation District, Palo Verde Irrigation District and Coachella 

Valley Water District. 

That has been a tremendous success, and it really is a sign of 

cooperation among the Basin states and the partners on the river. 

The second main area we had to work on last year was conservation. Metropolitan, very reluctantly but had to do so—we put out 

mandatory conservation for 19 million people in Southern California, and we implemented 10 percent mandatory cutback across 

37 

the board, and the region responded with over 15 percent as a region. So it was a real success. But where do we go from here? How 

do we solve these issues going forward? 

There are three main areas that we would like to focus on, working with our delegation, working with Congress, and working with 

this Administration. First is continued cooperation on the Colorado 

River. We continue to need that support of the three Basin states, 

the Lower Basin states, Arizona, Nevada, California, working together to ensure continued supplies throughout the Colorado River 

Basin, and we certainly appreciate your support of the Hoover 

Power bill, and we are going to need more legislation and more 

help on the river to continue the progress we have made. 

Second, on the State Water Project, it is absolutely essential we 

have a Delta fix implemented as expeditiously as possible to get 

ecosystem restoration and new conveyance across the Delta. These 

are absolutely critical, and we need to move this as quickly as we 

possibly can. 

Third and finally, we always appreciate the support for our recycling and our reclamation, our conservation programs. These are 

going to be absolutely critical as we diversify our water supply for 

Southern California, and enable California to continue to grow and 

prosper. 

With that, I will take any questions when the time is appropriate. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kightlinger follows:] 

Statement of Jeffrey Kightlinger, General Manager, 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 

Chairwoman Napolitano: 

On behalf of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, thank you 

for convening this hearing to explore and address the water supply challenges facing 

this region and to share Metropolitan’s action plan for addressing a worsening problem that threatens communities, businesses and farms throughout this state. 

Southern California has experienced its first year of region-wide mandatory conservation since 1991 because of Metropolitan’s decision last year to reduce deliveries 

to its 26 member agencies in six counties. 

Metropolitan imports supplies from the Colorado River and from Northern California via the State Water Project. Three years of below-average rainfall throughout 

the state, combined with new restrictions on State Water Project supplies because 

of the deterioration and collapse of the ecosystem in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta, has resulted in the need to reduce supplies for 19 million Southern Californians and for residents throughout the state. 

Because of aggressive efforts and outreach by Metropolitan and our member public agencies there is widespread awareness about California’s water problems and 

our residents and businesses have risen to the challenge and significantly reduced 

their water use. For example, water use has been reduced in Southern California 

by over 15% throughout the region; some areas are even quite higher. But despite 

the welcome recent rains and the good effort on local conservation, the underlying 

crisis remains and will be readily apparent in the months and years ahead. 

Southern California like much of the state faces ongoing shortage or near-shortage conditions because of the problems in the Delta. Metropolitan’s initial allocation 

of supplies from the State Water Project for the coming year is 5 percent of a full 

delivery. That is the lowest initial allocation in the history of the Project. We hope 

and anticipate this allocation to increase in the weeks ahead, but the question is: 

by how much? Metropolitan’s board of directors is scheduled to discuss and make 

a decision at its meeting in April to determine the amount of water it can deliver 

to its member agencies this year. The recent rains did not wash away our water 

problems—or, the state’s problems, and the possibility of continued shortage conditions is quite real. 

38 

Many of us who have been following water issues for decades have been accustomed to a quick bounce-back in deliveries from the State Water Project when the 

drought cycle ends and the rains return. But this pattern will no longer hold true. 

New water supply restrictions because of deteriorating environmental conditions in 

the Delta will have their greatest impact in wet and average years. Metropolitan 

will lose the ability to capture as much as 600,000 acre-feet of water in above-average and wet years because of these restrictions. This is water that normally would 

replenish the groundwater basins in Los Angeles, the San Gabriel Valley and Orange County that desperately need replenishment. Some of these aquifers are at or 

near their lowest groundwater elevations in recorded history. That is unacceptable. 

As a region and a state, we must find a way to capture adequate supplies in wet 

years in order to withstand the inevitable dry cycles. The key to this solution lies 

in addressing the crisis in the Delta. 

In the short term, all water supply restrictions must be based on sound science, 

while every effort is made to find the means to ease these environmental restrictions without harming fish populations. Three years of reduced water deliveries 

from the State Water Project have not reversed the collapse of the ecosystem, a compelling sign that ecosystem restoration and a strategy to address other stressors is 

essential. 

For the longer term, the key to the Delta challenge relies in combining ecosystem 

improvements with water conveyance improvements. This strategy is now emerging 

through the state-federal effort known as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. It is absolutely essential that the Interior Department stay on track and produce a draft 

environmental impact statement for the BDCP this year. 

For Metropolitan, it will be vital to maintain our ongoing efforts to maximize the 

available supplies from the Colorado River, which faces its own challenges as it recovers from record drought. The conservation ethic of our residents will have to continue now and into the future and we will have to look for new and innovative ways 

to treat, manage and increase the use of recycled water to ensure the most efficient 

use of our limited supplies. Title XVI projects will be pivotal in bridging the gap 

between the problems we have today and the implementation of a long-term Delta 

solution. Equally important is the acceptance that improving the quality and reliability of our water, from improving treatment to addressing the crisis in the Delta, 

comes at a cost that will result in higher rates. Even so, our supplies remain well 

under a penny a gallon for some of the highest quality water for any major metropolitan region on earth. We have major challenges ahead of us. But we do have 

ways to solve them. Thank you Chairwoman Napolitano for your continued leadership on water issues on behalf of this region. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Brian Brady, General Manager, Imperial 

Irrigation District. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN J. BRADY, GENERAL MANAGER, 

IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. There is a 

common misconception in the Imperial Valley that the Imperial Irrigation District is transferring conserved water to urban Southern 

California, because it isn’t needed in the Valley and there is money 

to be made. In fact, IID is a party to the QSA, and water transfer 

is authorized for precisely the opposite reason, to protect the Imperial Valley’s water rights that would otherwise be subject to legal 

challenge under the reasonable and beneficial consumptive use 

standard that applies to all Colorado River contractors. 

In other words, IID is voluntarily transferring conserved water 

as a means of preserving its historical rights and eliminating the 

threat of a forced taking of water from the Imperial Valley. Now 

without going into all the history, throughout the last six years 

IID’s position has been the same. Water transfer agreements authorized by the QSA are far from perfect. I think we would all 

agree with that, but they are needed to afford the District and its 

39 

water users both a revenue stream to pay for conservation and sufficient time to stave off any future legal challenge. 

I think, as we all know, the QSA is a product of decades of conflict resolution, compromise, consensus, and if we were allowed to 

unravel it, the result would be chaos. Some would say, why don’t 

we start all over again. Our answer to that is that it is what would 

be walking away from as IID. 

Number one would be an annual cap of 3.1 million acre feed from 

the Colorado River and certain procedures where we can go over 

that cap for particular reasons; a revenue stream to fund needed 

system and on-farm water conservation improvements vital to protecting the Valley’s water rights and forestalling future challenges 

on beneficial use; a nearly finalized habitat conservation and natural community conservation plan to mitigate not only the transfer’s impact on the Salton Sea but also to the District’s strain on 

agricultural field habitats, and also early start habit and air impacts, mitigation efforts that are already underway in the Salton 

Sea. 

It is this last point having to do with the Salton Sea that warrants careful consideration in the Valley. That is because the basis 

of Judge Candee’s decision to invalidate the QSA, the joint powers 

authority with the science financial responsibility for the transfer’s 

impact among participating water agencies in the State of 

California could stand as an impediment to any water sharing 

agreement going forward now or in the future. 

The existing agreement again, even though it has been ruled invalid, offers the most viable framework and the least risk to the 

district in reaching accord on the Salton Sea mitigation question. 

That doesn’t mean we will necessarily succeed. It is only that we 

have the greatest chance of success with that. 

The promise for a better deal, as some would call for, must be 

measured against the prospect of no deal, and for this reason, 

above all others, abandoning the QSA and starting all over again 

just would be bad public policy, and more importantly to us, in a 

very parochial manner, bad for the Valley. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brady follows:] 

Statement of Brian J. Brady, General Manager, 

Imperial Irrigation District 

There is a common misperception in the Imperial Valley that the Imperial Irrigation District is transferring conserved water to urban Southern California because 

it isn’t needed here and there is money to be made in sending it elsewhere. 

In fact, IID is a signatory to the Quantification Settlement Agreement and the 

water transfers it authorized for precisely the opposite reason: to protect the Imperial Valley’s water rights that would otherwise be subject to legal challenge under 

the reasonable and beneficial consumptive use standard that applies to all Colorado 

River contractors. In other words, IID is voluntarily transferring conserved water 

as a means of preserving its historical rights and eliminating the threat of a forced 

taking of water from the Imperial Valley. 

The reason this myth of ‘‘selling water’’ has taken hold locally, I believe, is because the internal debate over the valley’s water rights has been raging for so long 

that fatigue has set in and only a few people are still around who can recall the 

chain of events leading up to the 2003 signing of the agreement, which, in turn, set 

into motion the nation’s largest agricultural-to-urban water transfer. 

The makeup of the IID Board of Directors, and of the Imperial Valley, has 

changed in the last six years, but the drought conditions that culminated in the decision to transfer up to 300,000 acre-feet of the area’s water per year to the district’s 

40 

urban partners have, if anything, become more intractable since the QSA went into 

effect. 

IID is transferring water to the San Diego County Water Authority and the 

Coachella Valley Water District because of a ruling in 1982 by the State Water Resources Control Board that the district was failing to put its water to reasonable 

and beneficial use. IID has always maintained that its water use is as efficient as 

any district’s in the West, but a determination was made that the costs of future 

legal fights were outweighed by the safety and certainty of a water transfer agreement that would pay for greater efficiency and shore up the district’s exposure to 

reasonable and beneficial use challenges. 

In 1989, IID entered in to a water transfer agreement with the Metropolitan 

Water District of Southern California to perform system improvements that would 

conserve 105,000 acre-feet annually, a water-sharing pact that remains in place 

today. Then, in 1995, the district began negotiations with the San Diego County 

Water Authority to conserve and transfer up to 200,000 acre-feet a year through a 

combination of system and on-farm water conservation measures that would create 

an economic stimulus in the Imperial Valley. 

Those talks produced a signed agreement in 1998, but its implementation was put 

on hold by a larger effort on the part of the federal government to quantify water 

use in the lower basin of the Colorado River and to bring California into conformity 

with its annual entitlement of 4.4 million acre-feet from the river. The purpose of 

this overarching Quantification Settlement Agreement was to resolve longstanding 

disputes between water agencies and arrive at a compromise among California, Arizona and Nevada that would, according to then-Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, ‘‘usher in an era of limits’’ on the Colorado River. 

But achieving ‘‘peace on the river’’ was easier to do in a proclamation than it 

turned out to be in practice. The next four years would be taken up with crafting 

agreements that would not only pass muster with the seven Western states that 

rely on the Colorado River but would also find support on the IID board. The 

linchpin of this agreement was always the water transfer between IID and San 

Diego, but the priority system among Colorado River contractors as well as the 

state’s interest in addressing impacts caused by the transfer on the Salton Sea introduced two new aspects to the discussion. 

One was that the Coachella Valley Water District, which had subordinated its 

water right to that of the district’s in 1934, threatened to block the transfer of water 

from going forward unless it could obtain additional water as part of any final 

agreement. The other was the Salton Sea, a troubled body of water that would be 

adversely impacted from any reduction in inflows caused by the water transfer. In 

both instances, an accommodation was made. The first was to allow CVWD into the 

transfer agreement for an additional 100,000 acre-feet a year; the second was to 

adopt fallowing as the sole means of generating water for the transfer during the 

first 15 years of the deal to mitigate its effects on the Salton Sea. 

Neither of these changes was well-received by IID or, for that matter, within the 

Imperial Valley, but it remained constructively engaged in the process because the 

alternative, the summary taking of a quantity of its water by the federal government for no compensation, was considered too great a risk for the district and its 

water users. 

And that is exactly what happened in January 2003, following a New Year’s Eve 

vote to approve the QSA by the IID board that failed 3-2. Within a matter of days, 

the district saw its annual water order cut by 327,000 acre-feet and only got it back 

by winning an injunction in U.S. District Court. But this victory was only temporary, as the Bureau of Reclamation was allowed to prepare its case for a part 417 

investigation into the reasonable and beneficial use of water in the Imperial Valley 

and there was no doubt that if IID did not find a way to re-engage in the QSA process it would be back in court, with no guarantee of a favorable outcome and an unspecified quantity of water hanging in the balance. 

This proved to be sufficient motivation for the board to try again, which it did 

on October 3, 2003, passing the landmark agreement by a 3-2 vote that was as 

controversial then as it is today. IID went to court to validate the agreement, a legal 

process that would join all of the litigation that was bound to ensue, and the QSA 

coordinated cases were taken up before Judge Roland Candee in Sacramento Superior Court. In the meantime, water to meet the district’s obligations to the urban 

water agencies and to mitigate the transfer’s impacts on the Salton Sea would be 

produced primarily through fallowing. 

Throughout this six-year period, IID’s position has been the same: the water 

transfer agreements authorized by the QSA are far from perfect but they are needed 

to afford the district and its water users both a revenue stream to pay for conservation and sufficient time to stave off any future legal challenge to its reasonable and 

41 

beneficial consumptive use. The QSA is the product of decades of conflict resolution, 

compromise and consensus and if it is allowed to unravel, the result will be chaos. 

This isn’t a scare tactic but a stark fact: remove the basic protections provided to 

IID under the QSA from hostile legal action by either the state or the federal government, and the vacuum created in its wake will become a vortex of legal uncertainty and political vulnerability. 

The public has a right to know—and to comprehend—why the IID, in light of 

Judge Candee’s recent decision to invalidate the QSA over its perceived deficiency 

in parceling out responsibility for the mitigation of the transfer’s effects on the 

Salton Sea, would seek a stay of this ruling and to appeal it so that the transfer 

of water can continue indefinitely. Why, our critics ask, hasn’t the district just 

walked away from the QSA and announced to the world that it now wants a better 

and more lucrative water transfer agreement than the one found to be invalid by 

a state court? 

Perhaps the best way to understand it is to consider what IID would be walking 

away from: 

• An annual cap of 3.1 million acre-feet from the Colorado River and an inadvertent overrun and payback policy that allows the district, under certain circumstances, to exceed that cap. 

• A revenue stream to fund needed system and on-farm water conservation improvements vital to protecting the Imperial Valley’s water rights and forestalling the possibility of future reasonable and beneficial consumptive use challenges. 

• Nearly finalized habitat conservation and natural community conservation 

plans to mitigate not only the transfer’s impacts on the Salton Sea but also to 

the district’s drain and agricultural field forage habitats. 

• Early-start habitat and air impacts mitigation efforts that are already under 

way at the Salton Sea and would cease to exist without the QSA in place. 

It is this last point having to do with the Salton Sea that warrants careful consideration in the Imperial Valley. That’s because the basis of Judge Candee’s decision 

to invalidate the QSA, the joint powers authority that assigns financial responsibility for the transfer’s impacts among the participating water agencies and the 

state of California, could stand as an impediment to any water-sharing agreement 

going forward, now or in the future. 

The existing agreement, even though it has been ruled invalid, offers the most 

viable framework and least risk to the district in reaching accord on the Salton Sea 

mitigation question. That doesn’t mean we will necessarily succeed, only that we 

have the greatest chance of success in pursuing, and attempting to fix, the plan that 

is already on the table. 

The promise of a better deal must be measured against the prospect of no deal. 

For this reason, above all others, abandoning the QSA and starting over again 

wouldn’t just be bad public policy. 

It would be bad for the Imperial Valley. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We will move on to Ms. Maureen Stapleton, 

General Manager, San Diego County Water Authority in San 

Diego. 

STATEMENT OF MAUREEN A. STAPLETON, GENERAL 

MANAGER, SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 

Ms. STAPLETON. Good afternoon, Chairwoman and Members of 

Congress. The Water Authority provides imported water to San 

Diego County and our $170 billion economy and 3.1 million people. 

The Water Authority, like Metropolitan Water District, gets our 

water from both the Bay-Delta and the Colorado River. 

The Colorado River water is purchased both via Metropolitan 

Water District and through our water transfers with Imperial Irrigation District and Coachella through the canal linings. On the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta, we purchase our supplies 

through Metropolitan Water District as well as some additional dry 

year supplies that we have gotten during this drought period. 

42 

We feel like we have hit the perfect storm in many regards. You 

heard today about the drought, both on the Bay-Delta and on the 

Colorado River. If that was the only challenge we had to deal with, 

we would be able to handle it. Water districts plan for multi-year 

droughts. We have invested billions of dollars improving our water 

supply reliability and additional billions of dollars in water infrastructure improvements to address droughts on the river and in 

the Bay-Delta, but our drought challenges are really compounded 

by court decisions and regulatory actions. 

So that is why we talk about the perfect storm. It isn’t just one 

issue that we are struggling with. It is multiple issues. On the Colorado River front, the recent decision by the Sacramento Superior 

Court Judge that invalidated dozens of agreements that comprised 

the Quantification Settlement Agreement has really added to the 

challenges for the Water Authority, for Imperial, Coachella and 

Metropolitan Water District. 

Our agencies are working cooperatively together with the State 

of California and the Federal Government to resolve this latest 

challenge, and we expect that we will do so. We need the Federal 

Government to assist and support in these efforts to ensure the 

continuity of the QSA. 

Adding to the perfect storm also is the climate change issue and 

the long-term impacts on precipitation and snow packs for our 

water agencies, and ultimately water reliability. It is clear that 

water planning in the 21st Century will look much different than 

water planning that we have historically done in previous decades. 

For the San Diego County Water Authority, really, what is important to us is implementing our region’s fully diversified portfolio. Over the course of two decades, we have invested billions of 

dollars in highly reliable and long-term water supplies and billions 

of dollars in our water infrastructure improvements, including reservoirs and dams, pipelines, water treatment plants. 

I brought a slide today, and I don’t know if it can go up. Nothing 

tells San Diego’s story better than the graphic up on the screen. In 

the upper lefthand corner is a pie chart depicting the water supply 

portfolio in ’91 where we were 95 percent dependent on a single 

supplier, and only five percent of our supplies were local yield. 

You can see, by 2010 we have begun that diversification program 

through the QSA, through improved improvements in conservation, 

recycling, brackish groundwater recovery, and by 2020 we will be 

adding ocean desalination. You can see that it’s really an investment in our water supply and in our infrastructure that will ultimately bring water reliability to our region. 

I think Lester Snow said earlier, there is no silver bullet that 

will solve water supply reliability for California. It is going to be— 

someone said to me once it was really the silver buckshot. You 

need it all. You need all of the components to really make this happen. 

I would like to, in a final minute, really talk about the Federal 

Government and a critical partner that we need out of you in improving California’s water supply reliability. Specifically, on the 

Bay-Delta, you need to support the completion of the Bay-Delta 

Conservation Plan and consider actions to help us implement that 

plan. In addition, you need to make sure that the co-equal goals 

43 

of environment and water supply reliability are there and that one 

does not overshadow the other. 

Congress has also played an important role of improving our selfreliance through Title XVI, water recycling projects or groundwater 

recovery. That self-sufficiency is truly important. Then on climate 

change, we believe Congress should focus its Federal efforts on improving climate modeling, including regional downsizing, and we 

seek your assistance and your funding in achieving that as well. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Ms. Stapleton. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stapleton follows:] 

Statement of Maureen A. Stapleton, General Manager, 

San Diego County Water Authority 

About the San Diego County Water Authority 

The San Diego County Water Authority is a public agency (special act district) 

that provides imported water supplies that amount to approximately 80% of all 

water used in San Diego County to support the region’s $170 billion economy and 

3.1 million people. The Water Authority is comprised of 24 member retail water 

providers—water districts and cities—and is governed by a 36-member board of 

directors. 

The Water Authority owns, operates and maintains one of California’s largest regional water distribution systems, with more than 300 miles of large-diameter pipelines, pump stations, reservoirs, and water treatment facilities. 

The Water Authority imports water from two principal sources: 1) the Colorado 

River, via supplies purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California (MWD) and through long-term water conservation and transfer agreements with the Imperial Irrigation District; and 2) the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Bay-Delta, through supplies purchased from MWD and additional short-term, dryyear water transfers from sellers located upstream of the Bay-Delta. 

Colorado River Supply 

What is the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and how does its 

implementation affect California’s overall water supply? 

The Colorado River Quantification Settlement Agreement, signed in 2003, along 

with 34 related agreements (collectively referred to as the QSA), settled more than 

seven decades of disputes over the use of Colorado River water within California. 

The QSA parties include the Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water 

District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San Diego County 

Water Authority, the State of California, the Federal Government, five Bands of 

Mission Indians, and other parties. The QSA quantifies California’s entitlement to 

Colorado River water, provides mechanisms for transfer of conserved water, establishes obligations for funding and implementation of environmental mitigation and 

restoration programs, implements federal law providing for the lining of the All 

American and Coachella Canals, and settles various lawsuits and legal proceedings. 

The QSA permitted the implementation of the California 4.4 Plan, in compliance 

with United States Supreme Court order, as well as an array of water conservation 

and transfer agreements that provide significant water supply certainty and reliability throughout Southern California. The QSA is critical to the State’s water supply reliability and helps reduce pressures on the ecologically sensitive SacramentoSan Joaquin Bay-Delta. A reliable water supply from the Colorado River is vitally 

important for Southern California water agencies as they manage water supply 

shortages from drought and regulatory restrictions on pumping of water from the 

Bay-Delta. 

In 2010, the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and its water transfers 

and other programs are entering their seventh year of implementation. When the 

QSA is fully implemented, it will facilitate more than 765,000 acre-feet of transfer 

water annually to millions of Californians. Nearly half of all Californians receive at 

least a portion of their water supply from water transfers and other supply programs made possible by the QSA. 

44 

1 In the U.S., seven western states—Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona 

and California—share water supplies from the Colorado River. Under a U.S.-Mexico treaty, the 

Republic of Mexico also receives supply from the Colorado River. 2 A validation action is a special kind of lawsuit under which a government agency can 

proactively seek a court’s determination—or validation—that its actions or contracts are consistent with California law. 

Before the QSA was signed in 2003, disputes among the ‘‘Seven States’’ 1 over use of the Colorado River were commonplace. Because of its large share of Colorado 

River supplies, California was at the center of most of those disputes. By quantifying the entitlement of the Imperial Irrigation District (the largest user of Colorado 

River water), and the Coachella Valley Water District, and settling disputes among 

competing California users, the State of California and the United States, the QSA 

provided the basis for conserved water transfer program and provided all Colorado 

River users with greater certainty over their rights to, and reliability of Colorado 

River water. 

The QSA implements the Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines approved in 

January 2001, and includes the Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement: Federal 

Quantification Settlement Agreement, providing a clear framework for management 

of California’s deliveries of Colorado River water. It also paved the way for more 

recent and equally historic multi-state accords involving the Colorado River, including the agreements implementing the Record of Decision for the Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operation of Lake 

Powell and Lake Mead, adopted in December 2007. The 2007 Interim Guidelines, 

amended and extended the 2001 Interim Surplus Guidelines, and provides a framework for additional conservation, storage, and delivery of Colorado River water. The 

agreements adopted pursuant to the 2007 Interim Guidelines provide additional 

water for Nevada, Arizona, and California. Under these agreements, California 

agencies are entitled to store conserved water year in Lake Mead under the agreement’s Intentionally Created Surplus provisions. 

What happens (i.e., what would be the water supply) if the QSA is not 

implemented as negotiated? 

The certainty in water supply reliability that the QSA provides has been called 

into question by a recent ruling by the Sacramento Superior Court. Soon after the 

QSA was finalized in 2003, the Imperial Irrigation District filed a validation action 2

to obtain a judicial determination of the validity of its actions regarding 13 of the 

QSA agreements. The Coachella Valley Water District, Metropolitan Water District, 

San Diego County Water Authority, State of California, Vista Irrigation District, 

and City of Escondido joined the lawsuit in support of IID’s validation effort. Individual land owners, the County of Imperial, and the Imperial County Air Pollution 

Control District opposed validation of the agreements. In addition, several parties 

filed separate lawsuits challenging various aspects of the QSA. The lawsuits, several 

of which have been dismissed by the court, were coordinated in a single proceeding 

in the Sacramento Superior Court. Superior Court Judge Roland Candee was assigned the case as the trial judge. 

On December 10, 2009, Judge Candee issued a tentative ruling that found that 

the agreement creating the Quantification Settlement Agreement Joint Powers Authority (QSA JPA Agreement) violated a provision of the California Constitution 

governing financial obligations and appropriation of money by the State. On 

Jan. 14, 2010, Judge Candee issued a Statement of Decision affirming his tentative 

ruling and granting an initial 30-day stay from the date of the final ruling while 

the parties contemplate an appeal. Once Judge Candee issues a final judgment in 

the case, an appeal will be filed. Because Judge Candee found that 12 of the agreements were interdependent, he invalidated 11 other QSA agreements affecting longterm QSA transfers. As to the balance of the QSA agreements not before Judge 

Candee and already validated as a matter of law, Judge Candee ruled that they remained valid. In all, agreements that govern the conservation and transfer of more 

than 765,000 acre-feet annually may be affected by the ruling. 

The Colorado River Basin is also experiencing drought conditions. What effects will continued drought conditions in the Colorado Basin have on 

overall California water supplies? 

California’s share of the Colorado River under shortage conditions is governed by 

the shortage guidelines that the Bureau of Reclamation implemented in December 

2007 (Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and the Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead). These guidelines detail the conditions under which water shortages are declared on the river, and the agencies that 

are responsible for absorbing the shortages. A shortage condition exists when the 

45 

3The Upper Basin states are comprised of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico. 

Secretary of Interior determines that insufficient water is available to satisfy the 

normal 7.5 million acre-feet (maf) of demand for the Lower Basin states (Arizona, 

California, and Nevada) 3 in a given calendar year. During a normal year, the Lower 

Basin states receive this water in the following proportion: 

• Arizona: 2.8 maf 

• California: 4.4 maf 

• Nevada: 0.30 maf 

Under provisions of the shortage guidelines, Reclamation would declare varying 

levels of shortage that depend upon projected elevations of water in Lake Mead. The 

supplies to Arizona and Nevada would be progressively reduced under an increasingly severe shortage, but California would retain its 4.4 maf normal year apportionment. The following table shows how shortages would be implemented depending upon projected Lake Mead elevations. As of Jan. 11, 2010, the Lake Mead’s elevation was 1,097 feet. 

Groundwater Supply 

What role does groundwater play in overall water supply management and allocation? What is the status of groundwater supplies in Southern California? How can 

groundwater basins be recharged efficiently to maintain levels and minimize the impact of saltwater intrusion? 

San Diego County has very limited groundwater resources, but we are working 

to make the most of what we do have. While San Diego County does not have the 

large basins that exist in parts of Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside and San 

Bernardino counties, it does have groundwater capabilities in the sandy alluvial basins along some of the local rivers and streams. 

Most of the groundwater in the Water Authority’s service area is brackish and 

many of the plans to use that water involve removing the salt through the use of 

desalination technology. Because of the advances in reverse osmosis membrane 

treatment and energy recovery technology, brackish groundwater recovery has become cost effective. Brackish groundwater and pumped groundwater currently meet 

3% of our region’s need for water. The Water Authority’s member retail water agencies have plans to double that number to 6% by 2020 through brackish groundwater 

recovery and conjunctive use projects that would recharge a basin with local or imported water. Two of our member agencies—the Fallbrook Public Utilities District 

and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton—are working together on a conjunctive use 

project that will recharge a basin using local surface water runoff that will serve 

both Fallbrook and Camp Pendleton. 

Other local agencies are exploring the idea of recharging a groundwater basin 

with highly treated recycled water using the same technology used to desalt brackish groundwater and ocean water. 

While groundwater does not provide a very significant amount of supply to the 

region overall, for some retail water agencies it can be substantial and a key element of their overall water supply reliability. Two of our local retail agencies—the 

City of Oceanside and the Sweetwater Authority—operate brackish groundwater 

desalters that when fully expanded will make up 18% and 27% of their water supply 

by 2020. 

Other agencies are exploring brackish groundwater recovery, but one of the limitations on the size of these projects is balancing the extraction of water from the 

basin with impacts to vegetation and habitat that rely on the groundwater. Cost effective recharge opportunities to maintain water groundwater level are limited because of our geology and most of these projects operate on a safe yield basis. 

Although we don’t have the local geology to develop large scale recharge projects 

in San Diego County, we still believe that groundwater is an important part of the 

region’s water supply portfolio. 


54619.001.eps
46 

As an alternative to local groundwater storage, having water in storage south of 

the Delta is a key strategy to lessen the impacts of reduced Delta exports and a 

strategy that the Water Authority has embraced. Our agency has entered into two 

35-year agreements for groundwater banking south of the Delta in Kern and San 

Bernardino Counties. Those agreements will provide our region with 70,000 AF of 

storage capacity with guaranteed annual put and take capacity. This provides San 

Diego County with additional drought protection in times like these, as well as allowing us to have a place to store water in wetter years when imported supplies 

may be available. 

Water Supply Forecasting 

What do you see a the cumulative effect of the decrease in snowpack in the 

Sierra Nevada and the Rocky Mountains and what can be done in the short 

term and long term to mediate the effects? What tools are you using to forecast water supply demands? 

Scientists have established that the early signs of climate change are already 

being felt in California. We have seen increased average temperatures, changes in 

temperature extremes, reduction in snowpack in the Sierras and snowmelt occurring 

earlier. 

Sierra Nevada 

The California Climate Adaptation Strategy issued in late 2009 includes projections for 2050 of: a 2—5 degree F rise in temperature, a 12—35% reduction in precipitation, and a 12-18 inch sea level rise. This strategy further concludes that more 

precipitation will fall as rain. With increased rainfall and earlier runoff from 

snowmelt, the state will face increasing challenges of water storage for the dry season and protection from floodwaters during the wet season. Sea level rise may increase salt water intrusion into the Delta. 

Colorado River 

IPCC Working Group II concludes that there will be a 10%-30% runoff reduction 

over some dry regions at mid-latitudes during the next 50 years. Studies of the impacts of climate change on Colorado River streamflows have been going on for several decades, including statistical studies by U.S. Scientists from the 1980s and 

early 1990s, plus climate model studies from the last few years. These studies reflect a range of projections from a 5% reduction to a 45% reduction. Studies are currently under way to narrow the range of uncertainty of the reduction in flow on the 

Colorado River resulting from climate change. 

Water supply planning is facing new uncertainties that challenge the use of conventional planning methods. Supply planning has traditionally used historical data 

based on a set of predictable patterns, such as recorded weather and hydrologic time 

series, to determine and shape future projections. This has served water utilities 

well in the past; however planning methods will need to change with the introduction of new uncertainties such as climate change and the greater weather variability 

that comes with it. To better guide the incorporation of uncertainty information into 

its water supply planning, the Water Authority will utilize a decision assessment 

framework as part of its 2010 Urban Water Management Plan update. 

As a start to this process, the Water Authority is currently performing a water 

demand and supply mix vulnerability assessment. Once the vulnerabilities have 

been identified, the Water Authority will utilize a decision support planning 

method—‘‘scenario planning’’—which develops a small but wide-ranging set of future scenarios to test and make planning decisions more robust. Common strategies, 

or ‘‘No & Low Regrets’’ strategies, will be identified that can address a wide range 

of uncertainties. These No & Low Regrets solutions are adaptive and flexible, and 

can ramp up or ramp down, depending on how the future scenarios progress. 

The Water Authority plans to revisit the scenario planning process every five 

years, as required under California law, to update its Urban Water Management 

Plan. The UWMP update will be the long-range planning assessment of the water 

supply mix reliability. As part of the shorter-term planning process, the Water Authority will evaluate the water supply mix reliability on an annual basis in its Annual Water Supply Report. Through this annual assessment process, the No & Low 

Regrets strategies can be revisited and their implementation adjusted, if needed, 

should changes to the scenario outcomes occur. 

The end result is a more robust water supply mix with the highest level of reliability to respond to future uncertainties. 

47 

Near-Term and Long-Term Planning 

The San Diego County Water Authority and nine other large urban water agencies formed the Water Utility Climate Alliance (WUCA) dedicated to providing leadership and collaboration on climate change issues affecting drinking water utilities 

by improving research, developing adaptation strategies and creating mitigation approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A key priority of WUCA has been federally-supported climate research, this stems from our need to better understand 

the potential impacts of climate change on the water systems we manage. Recently 

WUCA released a white paper on the state of the science on climate modeling and 

downscaling and how these tools can be improved to meet our needs. We hope that 

this white paper will be a catalyst for a continued dialogue between water utilities, 

the climate modelers, the research community and federal agencies. 

A key finding of the paper is that for the next few years, significant uncertainties 

will remain at the scale and in the timeframe that utilities make decisions. In the 

meantime, water utilities will have substantial decisions to make with the potential 

for significant impacts. Although water utility planning is usually based on static 

climate projections and historical data, new approaches are needed to incorporate 

the wide range of climate projections into water utility planning. 

As a result of this need WUCA will release a second white paper at the end of 

the month to provide guidance to water utilities, which may be conducting vulnerability assessments and want to move forward with adaptation strategies. The report documents five decision support planning methods that utilities can use to assist in characterizing and comprehending multiple uncertainties while minimizing 

the risks associated with these decisions. 

Although the Water Authority and the members of the Water Utility Climate Alliance have made significant efforts to comprehend the impacts of climate change on 

water utilities, we encourage the federal government to: 

• Focus on improving climate modeling, including regional downscaling, to better 

meet the needs of water utility managers 

• Provide support for climate adaptation projects, including infrastructure enhancements for large urban water utilities, that may be needed to reduce the 

regional impacts of climate change. 

Conservation, Water Reuse, and Water Reclamation 

What is the role of conservation, water recycling, and water efficiency in 

meeting future demands? What lessons can we learn from the city of Los 

Angeles cutting their water use by 17% in five months? 

After the drought of the late 1980s and early 1990s, San Diego County learned 

the vitally important lesson of the consequences of overreliance on a single source 

of imported water. We emerged from that experience with a strategy to achieve 

greater reliability through development of a diversified water supply portfolio. Since 

1991, the Water Authority and its 24 member agencies have been singularly focused 

on achieving diversification of both our imported and local water supplies. The following pie charts compare San Diego County’s water supply portfolio in 1991, Fiscal 

Year 2010 and the projected supply mix in 2020. 

48 

Conservation, water recycling and reuse and the development of ocean water desalination are critical elements to our diversification strategy and successfully 

achieving supply reliability. 

We have dedicated significant funds in the last 18 years to implement conservation and are an original signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding for Urban 

Water Conservation. Conservation programs and water efficiencies implemented 

since 1991 have reduced our service area’s demand for water by 8% ‘‘enough water 

to meet the total annual water needs of 100,000 households of four. When coupled 

with the water use restrictions and aggressive outreach put in place to address the 

current supply situation, San Diego County used the same amount of water in 2009 

that we last used in 1996 although we have added 400,000 people to our region. 

Our goals for conservation in the future remain ambitious and we believe we are 

well on our way to accomplishing the states goal of a 20% reduction by 2020. We 

have had extensive dialogue with stakeholders through three regional Conservation 

Summits and the public and business community involvement that resulted. We are 

pioneering the use of water budgets to manage water use in the landscape and in 

creating a supply chain of water efficient landscape and a trained profession that 

knowledgeable in low water use plants and irrigation practices. San Diego County 

is home to a unique Water Conservation garden that provides the public an opportunity to see real world low water use landscape and how to do it. Managing demand through water use efficiency is an important part of our diversified portfolio, 

but we believe that supply reliability cannot be achieved by conservation alone. We 

cannot conserve water we don’t have. 

Water Recycling and Seawater Desalination are key elements in our diversified 

supply portfolio. Recycled water is expected to meet at least 6% of San Diego County’s need for water by 2020. There are 17 active water recycling projects in the county for a variety of landscaping and industrial purposes. The Water Authority along 

with the Metropolitan Water District has provided financial incentives to almost all 

these recycling projects in order to make the projects more cost effective and price 

competitive with buying imported water. Because San Diego County does not have 

large industrial users of water or large groundwater basins to recharge reuse of recycled water is primarily limited to seasonal irrigation. This idles recycling plants 

during the wetter winter months. To better utilize these resources local agencies are 

exploring indirect potable reuse of highly treated recycled water through blending 

with surface water in reservoirs. If successful, reservoir augmentation could significantly increase the amount of recycling in San Diego County. 

Seawater desalination is considered by our Board to have one of the greatest potentials as a new supply for San Diego County. Because of our proximity to the 


54619.002.eps
49 

ocean, the geological limitations I have discussed in my earlier testimony today, the 

Pacific Ocean represents a significant drought proof resource for our region that 

uses proven technology and can be developed cost effectively and in an environmentally responsible manner. Current plans to construct a 50 million gallon per day 

seawater desalination plant in Carlsbad through a public-private partnership involving 9 of our local retail agencies will supply enough water to serve over 100,000 

households in San Diego County. The Water Authority itself is engaged in studies 

to develop additional seawater desalination projects and is planning for that resource to make up 10% of our supply portfolio by 2030. We are working with Marine 

Corps Base Camp Pendleton on the siting of a plant on the Base that would provide 

the opportunity for future expansion up to 150 million gallons per day and provide 

water to businesses and residents throughout the County. We are also exploring opportunities for desalination with Mexico as part of the effort to augment Colorado 

River supplies. 

As with any of the supplies in our diversified portfolio we do not believe there 

is a single solution and it is no different with seawater desalination. It is an important part of our future supply but it is by no means the only part or the most important part but it is a supply we believe should be developed and we are pursuing 

it along with conservation and water recycling. 

Northern California Water Supply 

How are the water agencies in Southern California handling the reduced 

water imports from Northern California? What actions are they taking to 

make up for the reduced supply to meet their user demands? What management actions are being taken to maintain service to citizens? 

As a result of continuing dry conditions and regulatory restrictions that are limiting pumping to southern California, water agencies across the region have responded by implementing drought management actions that range from drawing on 

dry-year storage reserves to supplementing reduced supplies with water transfers 

from willing sellers in northern California to implementing voluntary and mandatory allocation and water use restrictions to reduce municipal and agricultural 

water demand. 

As an example of this response, the San Diego County Water Authority activated 

its Drought Management Plan in 2007 when the current dry conditions and pumping restrictions began to threaten water supplies. The Water Authority’s Drought 

Management Plan, or DMP, includes a series of progressive measures to manage 

through shortage conditions, depending on severity. As conditions worsened in 2008 

and 2009, the Water Authority moved from a call for voluntary reductions in water 

use to our current allocation of water supplies, coupled with mandatory water use 

restrictions at the consumer level, now in place across most of our service area. The 

Water Authority also moved to supplement our supply with the purchase of dry-year 

transfer water from willing sellers in northern California. These supply and demand 

management actions sparked a tremendous consumer response to the region’s water 

supply shortage. Since July, consumer demand is well below allocation targets and 

as much as 13 percent below 2008 levels and 17 percent below 2007 levels. 

Role of Congress 

How can Congress assist in addressing demands for increased water supplies that may help some users balance the needs of the at risk species, the 

economy, and ecosystems in general? 

The federal government is a critical partner in improving California’s water supply reliability and can play vital roles in a number of water supply issues, including 

resolving problems plaguing the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta, in its role as 

water master on the Colorado River, and through support of local water supply development, including promising new technologies. 

Bay-Delta 

• Support the completion of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan and consider actions 

that help implement the plan. 

• Ensure that federal regulatory actions and congressional oversight recognizes 

the truly co-equal goals of the environment and the economy. 

Regional Self-Sufficiency 

• Reduce dependency upon imported water supplies and improved regional selfsufficiency through development of new local water supplies, including reclamation, seawater and groundwater desalination, conservation and local storage. 

• Increase funding for Title XVI Water Reclamation Programs and Conservation 

Programs. 

50 

Climate Change 

• Focus federal efforts on improving climate modeling, including regional 

downscaling, to better meet the needs of water utility managers. 

• Provide financial support for climate adaptation projects, including infrastructure enhancements for large urban water utilities, which may be needed to reduce the regional impacts of climate change. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We will move on to Mr. Dan Parks, Assistant 

General Manager, Coachella Valley Water District in Coachella. 

STATEMENT OF DAN PARKS, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, 

COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, COACHELLA, 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. PARKS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. First, I want to 

thank the Committee for their interest in California’s supply challenges and opportunities. 

Coachella County Water District is located in the desert between 

Palm Springs and the Salton Sea. We serve roughly a 1,000 square 

mile territory. In the desert, let us not overlook the obvious. Every 

day is a drought. Thus, we rely on importing water from our supplies from the Colorado River and the State Water Project. We use 

those sources to recharge our groundwater basin and irrigate crops. 

All of our domestic water is pumped from our groundwater basin. 

Our economy consists of agriculture, the resort golf industry, and 

residential homebuilding. They all require a dependable supply of 

water. We have been successful with our history of managing water 

supplies. We manage that through conservation measures, core 

substitution projects such as using recycled water, and other nonpotable water supplies instead of pumping groundwater, and 

through our programs of recharging our groundwater basin. 

This last year, due to the drought and due to the failure of the 

Delta ecosystem, we only received 40 percent of our nearly 200,000 

acre-feet of State Project entitlement. The estimate for this year, 

as you have heard earlier, is five percent. Without these supplies, 

we will overdraft our groundwater basin and run the long-term 

risks of impaired water quality, permanent loss of storage, and 

ground subsidence. Also, our local economy is at risk. 

Now, California’s Legislature has passed a good foundation to restore the Delta and improve water supplies. However, to solve California’s water crisis we must have improved conveyance across the 

Delta and water storage projects. These will be both extremely 

costly and take a decade or more to build. Unless California’s water 

crisis is solved, California’s economy will continue to suffer as, 

hopefully, the rest of this nation’s economy improves. Of course, the 

economy is not hampered by water problems today, but they will 

be a limitation for California’s future. 

I ask your support, as the others on the panel today have, to support our state and Federal water contractors as we move ahead 

with a Delta fix, and of course, we always look forward to opportunities where the Federal Government can participate as a partner. 

I thank you, and be glad to answer questions at the appropriate 

time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Parks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parks follows:] 

51 

Statement of Dan Parks, Assistant General Manager, 

Coachella Valley Water District 

My name is Dan Parks. I am assistant general manager of the Coachella Valley 

Water District (CVWD), Coachella, California. I am a registered civil engineer in the 

state of California and have an engineering degree from California State Polytechnic 

Institute in Pomona, California. 

The CVWD is a public agency serving 1,000 square miles in Riverside, Imperial 

and San Diego counties. 

CVWD’s service area is somewhat unique. It lies within Southern California’s 

desert with an average rainfall of a little over 3 inches. Many years have no measurable rain, yet in other years more than the annual average falls in one storm. 

Locally, every day is a drought in the desert. 

The State of California is experiencing a two-pronged drought. In regard to climate, we are feeling the effects of what many are predicting will be the most severe 

drought in recorded history. On the other hand, we are also affected by a regulatory 

drought that is severely limiting the amount of water available from the State 

Water Project. 

The Coachella Valley relies on imported water supplies from the Colorado River 

and State Water Project to recharge its groundwater basin. When water is available, 

it is stored in the ground water basin. When supplies are short, water is pumped 

from the groundwater basin to meet the needs of the area. Thus, the groundwater 

basin acts as a large storage reservoir. Groundwater in the Coachella Valley is cooperatively managed by the two agencies with State Water contracts, Desert Water 

Agency (DWA) and CVWD. 

Since the 1980’s, CVWD, DWA and The Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California (MWD) have participated in a conjunctive use program. In wet years, 

MWD stores its surplus water in Coachella Valley’s groundwater basin. In dry 

years, MWD takes delivery of CVWD’s and DWA’s State Water supplies, and in exchange, CVWD and DWA pump MWD water stored in the groundwater basin. This 

program benefits all agencies by utilizing wet year supplies to meet dry year water 

demands. 

Over the years, we’ve increased our entitlement of imported water with the goal 

of recharging the same amount or more water than what is taken out of the aquifer 

each year. Legal entanglements surrounding the Sacramento Bay Delta have resulted in contractors only receiving 40 percent of their allocation last year. Without 

sufficient groundwater replenishment, the Coachella Valley faces potential negative 

effects of overdraft, including subsidence, diminished water quality and permanently 

reduced storage space. 

We are fortunate to have multiple sources of water, including Colorado River. But 

the Colorado River Basin is also suffering from several years of drought. So far, we 

have been able to receive what water we need from that source, but Lake Powell, 

Lake Mead and other reservoirs on the river are very low. 

Last year, two significant water management projects were completed, a facility 

to recharge 40,000 acre-feet of groundwater per year and the other to supply 50,000 

acre-feet of non-potable water to golf courses in-lieu of pumping groundwater. The 

combined cost of these projects is $115,000,000. 

In some areas of the state, various forms of rationing or use restrictions are in 

place. Groundwater storage has allowed CVWD to implement a softer program of 

conservation measures than other areas. Because the average Coachella Valley 

home uses 80 percent of its water outside, CVWD’s conservation and outreach programs are targeted toward reducing outdoor water use. Our success is attributed to 

a combination of imposing a water-budget based rate structure, desert appropriate 

landscape regulations, and incentive programs to increase irrigation efficiency and 

eliminate water waste. The programs have resulted in reducing water use by more 

than 10 percent on a permanent basis. Long-term reductions are expected to exceed 

20 percent as customers make further changes in their landscape and irrigation 

systems. 

The ability to capture, transport and store water is of key importance to managing California’s water supply. In the short run, a solution is needed to reduce the 

pumping restrictions in California’s Sacramento—San Joaquin Delta. In the long 

run, additional water storage is needed. If climate change results in less snowpack 

as some predict, additional transport capacity and storage will be needed to capture 

rain fall rather than let it run to the ocean. 

In regard to Colorado River supplies, CVWD is a party to the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA). Signed in 2003, the QSA is a series of agreements between federal, state and local agencies which resolves disputes between California 

agencies created by the priority system of allocating water and resolves concerns of 

52 

other western states and the United States Bureau of Reclamation over California 

using more than its amount of Colorado River water. A recent California court determined one sentence in one agreement violated a California Constitution provision 

and invalidated the QSA. 

Since 2003 much work has been done among western states to address managing 

the Colorado River during both surplus years and drought years. I believe we are 

in better position to minimize reductions in the Colorado River supply through those 

management programs. Relations between California agencies and the other western states are not the same as they were in 2003. I believe it is more likely that 

the parties to the QSA will rise to the challenge created by the courts decision and 

find a solution whereby the QSA is implemented as negotiated. 

One dilemma we face in addressing demands for increased water supplies is the 

inherent conflict between endangered species and the use of water to supply the 

public and its economy. It would be helpful if environmental laws balanced human 

needs with those of at risk species and the ecosystem. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these matters. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We will begin the question and answer period. 

Mr. Kightlinger, can you tell me what the current average cost 

of a delivered acre-foot of water currently is? 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. On our power side, our average cost of delivery is basically driven by our power, and on the Colorado River it 

is in the $50 to $60, $70 an acre-foot. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How much? 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. It is between $50 and about $60 an acre-foot 

on the Colorado River side, and higher on the State Water Project, 

$70 to $90 an acre-foot for power on the State Water Project. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And that is what you charge your customers? 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. No, that is just the cost of moving it. Our typ- ical cost of an acre-foot of water right now, treated, is about $750 

an acre-foot. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. How do you plan to implement the 

reductions of the water supply from both the Colorado and the 

Northern California to your 26-member water agencies? 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. We worked with our member agencies and put 

together a supply allocation plan where we looked at everybody’s 

base use and tried to reduce that by 10 percent and accommodate 

certain areas that had losses of local supply due to impacted 

groundwater wells or pollution, and so we put together this plan, 

and we implemented it, and we are very pleased, as I noted earlier, 

that we called for a 10 percent reduction in use in calendar year 

2009, and we have achieved over 15 percent to date. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Ms. Stapleton, congratulations on 

your advances in all your reductions. It is very impressive. How do 

you plan to implement the reductions in the water supply from 

MWD and potentially the Colorado River on your customers? 

Ms. STAPLETON. One of the things is communication with our region, not only through our retail water agencies but with the population at large. We have worked very closely with our businesses 

as well as our agricultural communities to do a couple of things. 

Number one is to keep them informed right up front of what is 

happening and what the potential implications can be. 

Number two is that we notified them of the allocation shortage 

and also opportunities in where they can receive financial assistance for conservation programs or installation of conservation 

measures, as well as what we have been able to achieve is focusing 

on outdoor landscaping has been extremely helpful. So we have acVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:03 May 03, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\54619.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
53 

tually obtained a higher than needed conservation over this last six 

months or so. We have been very pleased with our community response. They have really stepped up to the plate when we asked 

them. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But you have been engaged in many efforts? 

Ms. STAPLETON. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Parks, how do you plan to implement the 

reductions in the water supplies from the Colorado and the Northern California for your farmers, and if you have any assistance programs to them? 

Mr. PARKS. Our ag. supplies—we have been very fortunate to 

participate in the Bureau of Reclamation’s 2020 program and have 

put out some demonstration incentive projects whereby our agricultural growers could use such technologies as high tech irrigation 

scheduling, moisture management, and soil management procedures to be much more efficient in their application of water. It has 

been a tremendous success, and we have shown proven savings 

with that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Brady, how would you implement the water delivery restrictions if the restrictions occur on the 

Colorado River, and what process would you do so to implement 

that? 

Mr. BRADY. Well, Madam Chair, the essence of the QSA is that 

we transfer eventually up to 300,000 acre-feet to the urban areas 

by implementing on-farm and system conservation measures. The 

system measures are going to cost somewhere around $300 million. 

The on-farm, we will be paying farmers to implement drip and 

sprinkler systems and the like. Beyond that, if there are restrictions on the Colorado that take us below our allocation, we will 

most likely go to allocation per acre on farmed land, and the farmers—we intend to work with the farmers so that we can maintain, 

if possible, the same yields with, of course, less water. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would suggest to all of you, stay for the scientific panel who is coming on afterwards, to listen to some of what 

they are saying about how we can help each other. 

What is your plan if the QSA decision does not change, any of 

you? 

Mr. BRADY. Well, I would just say that we are not planning for 

the QSA, but we will continue to transfer water until we are told 

that it is illegal to do so. 

Ms. STAPLETON. Madam Chair, I think from our standpoint, we 

believe, and it is where we are focusing our effort, is to actually address the provision which the Judge found to be unconstitutional, 

to go into that, look at it, specifically understand fully what the 

Judge’s concerns were, work with the state and the Federal Government in identifying that, and correcting that problem. That is 

what we are working on, and we look forward to the Federal Government being a partner to ensure the continuity of the QSA. 

Mr. PARKS. If I might add to that, how appropriate the title of 

today’s hearing, challenges and opportunities. I believe this creates 

a challenge to which the parties to the QSA will rise to the opportunity to find a solution. It is very good and refreshing to hear both 

the Bureau and the state’s comments today, that they, too, support 

the QSA as negotiated. 

54 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Let us just look for the action behind it. Mr. 

McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. 

Kightlinger, you indicated that wet or average water years will 

bring even more water supply restrictions to the Delta. At our 

mock hearing this morning in Fresno, we were told that up to 

10,000 acre-feet of additional water is now being diverted to the 

ocean per day as a result of the recent rainfall. What impact is this 

going to have on your water supply and groundwater replenishment? 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. It is a very significant impact. Metropolitan 

gets 50 percent of the State Water Project as our entitlement. For 

the last three years, we have not been able to deliver any water 

to our groundwater basins for replenishment, and those basins are 

at record low levels in the San Gabriel and the San Fernando Valley and Orange County. So they are hurting for replenishment 

water, and we have not been able to receive any replenishment 

water since those fishery restrictions have gone into play. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I want to focus on a bit of your testimony here 

where you said, ‘‘Many of us who have been following water issues 

for decades have been accustomed to quick bounce-back in deliveries from the State Water Project when the drought cycle ends 

and the rains return. This pattern will no longer hold true. New 

water supply restrictions—new water supply restrictions because of 

deteriorating environmental conditions in the Delta will have their 

greatest impact in wet and average years. Metropolitan will lose 

the ability to capture as much as 600,000 acre-feet of water in 

above-average and wet years because of these restrictions.’’ 

Now we just heard a great deal of fanfare over Title XVI projects. 

I believe that they were producing roughly 350,000 acre-feet. These 

restrictions alone are going to cost Metropolitan alone 600,000 

acre-feet. How do you square those two? On the one hand, we are 

spending phenomenal amounts of money, again up to $18,000 per 

acre-foot in capital costs on these Title XVI projects to produce 

roughly 350,000 acre-feet of water, while near-bureaucratic restrictions are costing you, just at Metropolitan alone, 600,000 acre-feet. 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. Yes. We believe we need a very diverse portfolio of water supply. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Do you think that is a sustainable policy, restrictions that are costing you 600,000 acre-feet of water? 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. Absolutely not. It is not sustainable. So that 

is why we must find a way to repair that Delta ecosystem and to 

build some new conveyances so that we can get back to more reliable State Water Project levels. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, we have been diverting these massive 

amounts of water, and the population of the Delta smelt continues 

to decline. Maybe that is just nature’s way of telling us that is not 

the problem. You argue for a new conveyance across the Delta. I 

assume that is as peripheral canal to more efficiently move water 

from the north to the south but, at the same time, the administration in Sacramento, the State Water Resources Control Board appointed by the Governor, voted to take away the Federal development rights for the Auburn Dam. 

55 

If we are not going to produce additional water in the northern 

region, what good is it going to do to improve our conveyance facilities? We have to have water to convey, and we have an Administration that is actually blocking the development of these projects; 

and by the way, the AB-32 restrictions have a huge impact on future cement productions. You know, every ton of cement requires 

the production of a ton of carbon dioxide, and in case the rocket 

scientists in Sacramento haven’t noticed, cement is a rather handy 

thing to have around if you are going to build a conveyance facility 

or a dam. Your comments? 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. Oh, our comment is just that we believe we 

have to do both. We are going to eventually need more storage in 

the state. We have been roughly a storage poor state, and that includes both groundwater and surface storage, and we have to have 

more conveyance, because right now we can’t even move the water 

we have in storage. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, don’t you think we ought to have more 

storage to go along with that more conveyance? 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. Absolutely. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Though you would disagree that the policies 

out of Sacramento that are impeding construction of the Auburn 

Dam and impeding our ability to produce cement economically are 

going to have a serious additional impact on our water needs? 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. I don’t know about the Auburn Dam specifically, but I do know they have five specific new storage sites they 

are analyzing, and that is the process that we have to go through 

and, hopefully, choose one or two of those sites. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. One final question. You mentioned the—and 

in fact, several witnesses have mentioned the effectiveness of water 

conservation in San Diego County. Ms. Stapleton said that San 

Diego County used the same amount of water in 2009 that was 

used in 1996, although they have added 200,000 people to the region. 

Well, the thing that jumps off the page at me in other claims like 

this is that in 2009 we were in a severe recession. In 1996 we had 

a booming economy. I wonder how much of the water conservation 

success is actual success and how much of it is directly related to 

the recession. 

Ms. STAPLETON. I think there is a portion of it that is related to 

the recession, but we track gallons per capita per day very closely, 

and we have been able to make real progress in less water usage 

on a per capita basis. That is through the installation of a number 

of indoor fixtures, whether it be washing machines, dishwashers, 

shower heads and so forth, and then turf irrigation and the outdoor 

landscaping area. 

As I said, we see conservation as a piece of the solution, but certainly not the only solution. You cannot get enough water by just 

conserving. If you don’t have the water initially, you can’t conserve 

it. It doesn’t make sense. It is a piece of the pie. It is not the entire 

solution. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Calvert. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Kightlinger, 

even if the water bond issue passes in this next election, how long 

will it take to build those improvements? 

56 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. We are looking at probably 2018 at the earliest, maybe 2020. 

Mr. CALVERT. Saying that if those improvements, based upon 

your testimony, 2018, we must have an interim solution on the 

Bay-Delta. Is that correct? 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CALVERT. Now you have been involved in coming up with 

ideas, along with people in the Central Valley, on how we can come 

up with an interim solution to allow us to mitigate for the Biological Opinion, and at the same time pump water, and part of that 

was the Two Gates project that was mentioned in earlier testimony. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CALVERT. What is your opinion why that temporary solution 

is unable to get the necessary permits to build in an immediate 

way? 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. Well, we see the Administration is very concerned with implementing it until they are convinced about the 

science behind it and the theory that the smelt will track with the 

turbidity, and the gates would help cut off the smelt and be 

able—— 

Mr. CALVERT. What is your opinion about that? People have been 

looking at this for some time. Experts that have a contrary point 

of view of the administration believe that this, at the same time, 

would resolve the issue of the smelt and, at the same time, allow 

for additional water flow. Do you share that belief? 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. No. We were one of the authors. We were one 

of the chief proponents of the Two Gate proposal. We have faith in 

the science. 

Mr. CALVERT. So if this agreement is going to continue to be put 

off, and the Biological Opinion is going to continue to be followed, 

even if we end up with 120 percent snow melt at the end of the 

season and you are unable to pump water, and this goes on from 

year to year, what is going to happen in one or two years from 

now? 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. We are going to be in a world of hurt, and—— 

Mr. CALVERT. Applying that to the Quantification Settlement, we 

had a recent judicial opinion that we are aware of, what happens, 

God forbid, if the QSA comes unwound, along with the restrictions 

you have in the Bay-Delta? What happens? I guess that is the 

question that all of you could answer. 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. We will have a significant problem here at 

Metropolitan, if we are cut back on both our Colorado River supplies and the State Water Project supplies simultaneously. 

Mr. CALVERT. And by the way, I was involved in negotiation of 

the Quantification Settlement Agreement. I know, and work with 

many of you on that. It wasn’t an easy agreement to come by, and 

still somewhat controversial, I understand, in the Imperial Irrigation District and other areas, but I will ask the gentleman who is 

the General Manager: Has production in the Imperial Irrigation 

area, agricultural production, been affected by the Quantification 

Agreement? 

Mr. BRADY. I would say—and given that I have only been there 

20 months, my institutional history is not that long, but I would 

57 

say that it has not. Right now we are in an interim fallowing program, and we have worked within the constraints of the QSA. 

Mr. CALVERT. So the conservation improvements that were designed to improve water conservation in the Imperial Irrigation 

District are working? 

Mr. BRADY. Well, they are working. There are several parts to it. 

The initial ones are. We are planning for additional ones, yes. 

Mr. CALVERT. If the Quantification Agreement came undone, 

would anybody there think that we could ever put this agreement 

back together again with dynamics for the Upper Basin states and 

the Lower Basin states, and what is going on locally in politics? 

Yes? 

Ms. STAPLETON. I think the real issue is it is like pulling a 

thread on a sweater. There are so many components, not only in 

the Quantification Settlement Agreement but in the agreements 

with the other six Basin states that, in fact, it took over eight years 

to negotiate the QSA, and subsequent years to come up with the 

criteria on the Colorado River with the other Basin states, and so 

forth. To have that all swept away—I don’t think you are talking 

about being able to achieve it again, certainly in the next decade. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. I am going to be leaving shortly, but 

I just wanted to make this point. If we don’t resolve an interim solution soon in the Bay-Delta and sweep away this immediate threat 

on the QSA, we have no certainty on water supply in California, 

no certainty at all. As you know, under state law that can have a 

horrendous effect on issuance of both commercial and residential 

building permits if ever this economy ever turns around. So I just 

wanted to make that point, and I thank the Chairwoman, and I 

apologize. I have to head back out. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your attendance. You have 

made some very good points. May I add that he was the Chairman 

when I was Ranking Member for a while. So he has a great deal 

of background, and was my mentor at one time. Thank you. 

Just to Mr. Kightlinger, are you in agreement with Title XVI programs and to your overall Metropolitan water portfolio, and while 

you are at it, I would like to know if there are any improvements 

that could be made in the infrastructure to yield more water, understanding that we are not—many water agencies I have talked 

to are not collecting enough money to be able to set aside for infrastructure repairs. The aging system in Southern California is horrendous, as in many other parts of the state. 

You see, the water mains now are bursting almost on a daily 

basis, which was not an occurrence that we faced years ago. All of 

that, how is that going to affect us being able to ensure the water 

quality, water delivery for our customers? 

Then to Ms. Stapleton, what is the current use of the gallons per 

day from your folks? I will wrap it all into one, because that is so 

important, the answers, for us. 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. I will start, Madam Chair, and thank you for 

your question. We have to continue to invest in our infrastructure 

in Southern California and continue to invest and reinvest. The 

Title XVI boost that Commissioner Connor spoke to was very helpful, that $160 million. They helped many of the recycling and reclamation projects in Southern California. 

58 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, that came from the leadership on our 

side. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. We understand. Thank you, and we appreciate 

the support. Metropolitan has invested to match that and go beyond, another $370 million into recycling and reclamation projects. 

The message we have delivered is the cost of water has to go up 

as the area continues to grow, as we have to find more and more 

water supply, we are raising rates, and we have to do that to continue to invest and not have our water supply crumble and break 

around us. 

Ms. STAPLETON. Regarding the usage of water by our residents, 

we started out in those same years that I referred to probably 

nearly 200 gallons per person per day. We have dropped it now into 

the 160s, and it is continuing to drop. We really look at it carefully, 

and it is working in cooperation with our businesses and our residents. We believe that we are well on our way to achieving that 

20 percent conservation by 2020. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so very much. I will go into one 

more question. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Has anyone done a cost/benefit analysis on 

these various forms of water delivery? Mr. Kightlinger, you pointed 

out that residential rates, in particular, or water rates in general 

are going up dramatically as we look for more and more exotic 

ways of producing water, and yet we ignore surface water storage 

as the obvious unfulfilled promise of California’s resources. So the 

question I have is: Have you looked at the costs and benefits of 

these various types of water production, from desalinization, to recycling, to local surface water, to increasing storage on the Sacramento? 

Everybody thinks that the Colorado is the mother of all water in 

the western United States. As you know, the Colorado River is a 

junior sister to the Sacramento. The difference is that we store 70 

million acre-feet on the Colorado, and yet we store only 10 million 

acre-feet on the Sacramento. Your thoughts? 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. Those are all very good points. We do do cost 

effective analyses of all projects, and we look at that. We also have 

to look at which are the most reliable, and which supply water year 

in and year out, and how we can mix and match the best supplies. 

Certainly, we are storage-short in the State of California compared 

to the Colorado River. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, what is cheaper, surface water storage 

or recycling? 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. Surface water storage is very expensive. It is 

on a comparable basis with recycled water, but it also is very valuable. When you need it, it is always there for you and in large 

amounts. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Have you guys done a study on that? I would 

like to see some reliable figures where we can get a cost/benefit 

analysis of each of the forms of water development. 

Mr. KIGHTLINGER. We have done that, and we will provide your 

staff with that. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, panel, and I invite you to stay 

with us for the next panel, and appreciate your travel and your 

time and your effort. 

59 

I would like to call up Dr. Peter H. Gleick, President, Pacific Institute in Oakland; Professor Jay Famiglietti, Ph.D., with the Department of Earth System Science, University of California at 

Irvine; Mr. Miguel Luna, Executive Director of the Urban Semillas, 

‘‘seeds’’ to those of you that don’t understand Spanish, Los Angeles; 

Ms. Lucy Dunn, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Orange County Business Council in Irvine; Mr. Joe L. Del Bosque, 

Owner of Empresas Del Bosque Inc. in Los Banos; Mr. Larry Collins, Vice President, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association in San Francisco. 

Audience, if you could take your conversations outside, thank you 

very much. We want to continue and be out of here on a timely 

basis. Dr. Gleick, I would like to start off with you. 

STATEMENT OF DR. PETER H. GLEICK, PRESIDENT, 

PACIFIC INSTITUTE, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 

Dr. GLEICK. Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, members 

of the Subcommittee. Thank you very much for having me here 

today. This has been quite an interesting hearing. 

I have submitted my written testimony. I am just going to summarize a few key points. Let me reiterate something that has already been said. I agree there is no silver bullet to California’s 

water problems. We have many problems. There are many solutions. I think everyone involved in the state’s water debates would 

acknowledge the need for diverse answers or a portfolio, as we 

sometimes say, of solutions, but the need to do many things does 

not mean we need to do everything or we can afford to do everything. We have to do the most effective things first, the most cost 

effective things first. This has already been mentioned. 

What I would like to do a little bit today is focus on opportunities, the good news, if you will. In particular, I am going to talk 

about two things very briefly. One is the potential for additional 

conservation and efficiency improvements statewide. The other is 

opportunities to rethink water supply statewide. 

In particular, there is vast untapped potential for reducing our 

demand for water without affecting the benefits that that water 

provides. Improving the efficiency of use of water is the fastest, the 

cheapest, the most environmentally sound option for meeting California’s current and future needs. 

We have to change the way we think about supply. There are 

enormous opportunities for new supply in California, but I would 

argue that we ought to not be thinking about expensive, inefficient 

surface storage. As much as we ought to be thinking about smart 

surface storage and groundwater, we ought to be thinking about recycled and reclaimed water. We ought to be thinking about, where 

appropriate, desalination. 

It is important to realize that we don’t want water. We want the 

services and the benefits that water provides. We want a healthy 

agricultural economy. We want clean clothes, and we want to be 

able to clean our dishes. We want to make semi-conductors and the 

other things that are industrial processes produce, all of which require water, but all of which require less water than we are spending to do those things today. That is the definition of improving efVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:03 May 03, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\54619.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
60 

ficiency. We can do the things that we want with less water than 

we are spending to do them today. 

Californians have made enormous progress in this in the last 25 

years. Our water use is relatively flat. Our population has grown. 

Our economy has grown. Our per capital water use has gone down. 

We have been able to meet a lot of our demands, in part by improving efficiency, and yet our current use of water is still wasteful. 

There is still enormous potential to improve efficiency. 

In a few weeks the Pacific Institute—it is my institute in Oakland; it is a nonprofit research institute—is going to release a new 

assessment, in part stimulated by a letter that the Chairwoman 

sent to the Department of the Interior last August requesting that 

we rethink a million acre-feet quickly. Where can we find a million 

acre-feet in the State of California relatively quickly? 

Our new assessment is going to look at the potential for conservation and efficiency to produce a million acre-feet quickly. We 

decided we would look at 60 percent agriculture, 40 percent urban. 

We would look at only things that were cost effective, only things 

that used existing technology. 

The savings in the urban sector, 400,000 acre-feet, we estimate, 

would cost about $2 billion and produce about 400,000 acre-feet of 

water, would save a lot of energy in the meantime. 

I would note Temperance Flat, the current dam that has been 

proposed on the San Joaquin, is estimated to cost well over $3.3 

billion, would probably produce far under 200,000 acre-feet of 

water, an example of the potential for conservation and efficiency 

to meet some of our demands. 

We find there are 600,000 acre-feet that could be saved pretty 

quickly in agriculture by applying additional smart irrigation technology, the things that farmers are already doing; regulated deficit 

irrigation on certain kind of acreage; and converting part of the 

Central Valley acreage that is not on drip and sprinklers to drip 

and sprinklers. 

Let me conclude. There are new ways of thinking about supply. 

We should be doing more reclaimed water and reuse of water. We 

should be doing smart desalination. We should be doing much more 

conjunctive use, much more storage of groundwater, the best place 

to store water in California. All of these things are part of what 

we need to do to meet California’s growing demands, and perhaps 

provide some of this interim solution that we so desperately need, 

because of the long time frame required for some of the other 

things that we have already addressed today. 

I am going to stop there. I would be happy to answer any questions during the question and answer period. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gleick follows:] 

61 

1President, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California. Member, U.S. National Academy of 

Sciences. www.pacinst.org. 

Statement of Dr. Peter H. Gleick1, President of the Pacific Institute 

The Critical Role of Water Efficiency and Conservation 

in Solving California’s Water Problems 

Honorable Representatives, distinguished guests: Thank you for inviting me to 

discuss the key role that water efficiency and conservation has and will play in solving California’s water problems. Notwithstanding the recent winter rains the state 

has received, California continues to face serious unresolved water challenges. Current proposals for meeting those challenges are inadequate and largely misdirected. 

But effective solutions are available. 

Summary 

Water is vital to the health of our economy and natural ecosystems. California’s 

cities and agricultural communities rely on reliable supplies of clean and adequate 

fresh water. As California’s population and economy grow, there is mounting concern about our ability to meet future water demand amidst pressure on our complex 

water systems. In the 20th century, our approach to meeting this demand has been 

to develop new supply. While this approach has brought tremendous benefits to this 

state, we have reached the limits of traditional supply options and continuing to rely 

on building new infrastructure will fail to solve our crisis. A broader and more integrated approach is needed. 

There is no ‘‘silver bullet’’ solution to California’s water problems, and everyone 

involved in state water debates will acknowledge the need for diverse answers or 

a ‘‘portfolio’’ of solutions. But the need to do many things does not mean we must 

do, or can afford to do, everything. We must do the most effective things first. 

In particular, there is vast untapped potential for reducing our demand for water 

without affecting the benefits that water provides. Improving the efficiency of our 

water use is the cheapest, easiest, fastest, and least destructive way to meet California’s current and future water supply needs. Indeed, without past efforts to improve 

water-use efficiency, our current crisis would be much worse. And we must expand 

our thinking about supply, away from costly and ineffective new dams and toward 

the other excellent options for expanding supply. 

My testimony today will address three issues: 

1. The flaws of our traditional methods of water planning; 

2. The massive untapped potential for improving water-use efficiency. Specifically, I will address the potential to quickly reduce demands in California by 

one million acre-feet at a cost far below that of any new supply option that has 

been proposed. 

3. The potential for expanding water supplies through non-traditional approaches 

of water recycling and reuse, smart desalination, rainwater harvesting, and 

better conjunctive use of California’s surface and groundwater. 

1. Traditional Water Planning Assumptions are Incorrect 

Traditional water planning is based on two premises. First, it assumes that as 

populations and the economy grow, water use must also grow. Second, it assumes 

that in order to meet growing demand, new dams must be built, new groundwater 

aquifers tapped, and new supplies brought from farther and farther away. This is 

what most of you believe; it is what most of the public believes; it is what most 

water managers believe. 

Both of these assumptions are false. 

Figure 1 shows California’s gross state product, population, and water use between 1975 and 2001. Total water use in California was less in 2001 than it was 

in 1975, yet population increased by 60% and gross state product increased 2.5 

times. 

The same trend is true for the United States as a whole. The latest information 

from the U.S. Geological Survey shows that total water use in 2005 for the United 

States is now lower than it was in 1975. Figure 2 shows total U.S. water withdrawals from 1900 to 2005 along with Gross National Product. Per-capita water use 

has dropped even more dramatically over the past three decades. This suggests that 

we can and in fact we have broken the link between water use, population, and economic growth. This has been achieved in large part by improvements in conservation and efficiency. Figure 3 shows the ‘‘economic productivity’’ of water use in the 

62 

2See: Gleick et al. 2003, ‘‘Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation 

in California’’ and Cooley et al. ‘‘Sustaining California Agriculture in an Uncertain Future.’’ Pacific Institute, Oakland, California. 

United States over the past century. Improvements in efficiency of water use now 

permit us to produce nearly three times as many dollars of goods and services per 

gallon of water as just a few decades ago. 

Absent a discussion about population policy, our goal in California must be to continue these trends toward higher economic productivity of water and decreasing percapita water use. 

2. Conservation and Efficiency Are the Most Important Options 

It is important to realize that we do not want water; we want water services. We 

want to grow food and fiber, clean our clothes and dishes, get rid of our wastes, 

produce semiconductors and other goods and services. This realization lies at the 

heart of conservation and efficiency. If we can continue to provide these goods and 

services with less water, we have increased the efficiency of our water use. 

Californians have improved efficiency of our water use over the past 25 years as 

shown in Figure 1. But our current water use is still wasteful. The Pacific Institute 

has completed a series of independent reports on urban and agricultural water efficiency that provide a comprehensive statewide analysis. 2 Our findings have been 

adopted by the California Department of Water Resources in the California Water 

Plan. These studies finds that existing, cost-effective technologies and policies can 

readily reduce current state demand for water by six to eight million acre-feet, or 

around 20 percent. The Governor’s recent call for a 20 percent reduction in water 

use by 2020 is thus based on sound science and economics, even if the policies to 

achieve such savings are not yet in place. 

Widespread conservation and efficiency improvements are possible in every sector 

and these water savings can be found for much less than the cost of building new 

supply or expanding our current supply. These savings are real and represent a tremendous amount of untapped potential. Even today, after California’s conservation 

efforts, over 60% of all toilet flushes are well above national standards, suggesting 

that many old inefficient fixtures remain. More than 65% of all crops in California 

are still grown with inefficient flood or sprinkler irrigation systems. Studies have 

shown that installing efficient irrigation technologies, such as drip system, can reduce water use and increase agricultural yield. Given that the agricultural sector 

uses 80% of California’s water supply, or about 34 million acre-feet per year, even 

small efficiency improvements can produce tremendous water savings. Additional 

water savings are possible if farmers continue the trend of moving away from waterintensive crops like cotton, pasture, rice, and alfalfa in favor of more valuable lowwater crops like vegetables, fruits, and nuts. 

In a few weeks, the Pacific Institute will release a new assessment of how to save 

one million acre-feet of water, split 60/40 among agricultural and urban users, 

quickly and cost effectively. Let me offer an advanced look at some of our findings: 

• 400,000 acre-feet of water can be quickly conserved by urban users by replacing 

only some of the many remaining inefficient toilets, showerheads, restaurant 

spray-rinse nozzles, washing machines. These savings would require an investment of under $2 billion and over the life of these fixtures, the energy, water, 

and wastewater savings will far exceed the initial investment. 

• Another 600,000 acre-feet of water can be saved by applying smart irrigation 

scheduling to 20% of the state’s vegetable and orchard acreage, practicing regulated deficit irrigation on 20% of current almonds and pistachios acreage in the 

Sacramento Valley, and converting 20% of Central Valley vegetables, and 10% 

of orchards and vineyards, to drip and sprinklers. These changes would save 

water at a cost of around $100 per acre-foot. 

These savings are just the tip of the iceberg: far more water could be saved at 

far less cost than any proposed new supply option. For example, the proposed Temperance Flat dam is grossly uneconomic and would, at a cost far exceeding $3 billion 

(or over $900 per acre-foot), only provide between 100,000 and 200,000 acre-feet of 

water, and even these figures are disputed. 

Our research has shown that California’s total water use in 2030 could be 20% 

below current levels while still satisfying a growing population, maintaining a 

healthy agricultural sector, and supporting a vibrant economy. Some of the water 

saved could be rededicated to agricultural production elsewhere in the state; support 

new urban and industrial activities and jobs; and restore California’s stressed rivers, groundwater aquifers, and wetlands—including the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta. 

63 

I note that water conservation and efficiency has the additional benefit of producing significant energy savings. Capturing, treating, transporting, and using 

water require a tremendous amount of energy. This is particularly true in Southern 

California, where water supplies and population centers are separated by hundreds 

of miles, requiring a tremendous amount of infrastructure to move water from 

where it is available to where it is needed. As a result, California’s water-related 

energy consumption accounts for roughly 19% of all electricity used in California, 

approximately 32% of all non-powerplant natural gas use, and 88 million gallons of 

diesel fuel. Thus improving statewide water conservation and efficiency can achieve 

substantial energy savings. 

3. Additional Water Supply Options Are Available 

Current proposals to expand water supply in California by building a few new 

dams are seriously flawed. As mentioned above, the best ideas for new dams in California are grossly uneconomic and do nothing to solve the state’s water problems. 

But there are other good water-supply options we must pursue. These options include: 

• Water recycling and reuse: Water reclamation and reuse can augment water 

supplies, as well as provide a means to treat wastewater and reduce environmental discharges. Water agencies in California currently produce about 

500,000 acre-feet of recycled water, the majority of which is used for agricultural and landscape irrigation. Expanding current efforts could produce a substantial amount of new water. For example, the Irvine Ranch Water District, 

in Southern California, meets nearly 20% of its total demand with recycled 

water. A new residential community in Ventura County, California is using recycled water for all of its landscaping needs at an estimated cost of $200 per 

acre-foot, far below the cost of new surface storage. Significant other opportunities exist to increase recycling and reuse throughout the state, effectively lessening the need to identify and develop new water supplies. 

• Conjunctive use: Surface water and groundwater are hydrologically linked. 

Conjunctive use takes advantage of this connection by storing excess surface 

water, including stormwater, in groundwater basins for later use in drought periods. This option can improve supply reliability and flexibility, reduce land subsidence, and minimize the impacts of urban runoff on local steams and the marine environment. But it requires fundamental changes in the way we monitor 

and manage groundwater. It is time for the state of California to enter the 21st 

century and require comprehensive groundwater management. 

• Desalination: Appropriately designed and sustainably managed desalination 

(both seawater and groundwater) can provide a costly but reliable, high-quality 

water supply. But desalination must be done in an environmentally sound manner, and without inappropriate public subsidies. Current plans for desalination 

in southern California do not yet meet these conditions. 

Summary and Recommendations 

Better water conservation and efficiency can meet California’s water needs for 

decades to come. Total state demands for water can drop by as much as 20 percent 

while still satisfying a growing population, maintaining a healthy agricultural sector, restoring the health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and other threatened 

ecosystems, and supporting a vibrant economy. 

Can such an efficient water future be achieved? Yes, given appropriate attention 

and effort, California’s water-use practices can be substantially modified over the 

next quarter century, just as they have over the past 25 years. Implementing these 

efficiency measures requires action on the part of legislators, water managers, water 

districts and agencies, farmers, corporations, and all individuals. 

Finally, a quick comment on the recent political attempts to overturn or eliminate 

the requirement that the Federal government protect endangered and threatened 

species. Species extinction is not a sustainable water policy. And the collapsing ecosystem is not the cause of our water problems, it is a symptom. If the problem is 

falsely and ideologically defined as ‘‘people versus fish,’’ our water policy will have 

failed. We must ensure that both people and fish can thrive with the water we 

have.Gleick 3 charts go at end insert 3-5 

64 


54619.003.eps 54619.004.eps
65 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would like to now call upon Professor Jay 

Famiglietti, Department of Earth Science. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES S. FAMIGLIETTI, DEPARTMENT OF 

EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT 

IRVINE, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 

Dr. FAMIGLIETTI. The Central Valley offers a compelling example 

of the importance of groundwater to the water supply and of the 

need to manage its use for sustained availability and productivity. 

As one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world, the 

Central Valley relies heavily on groundwater to meet its irrigation 

water demands. 

The extended western U.S. drought and resulting changes in surface water allocations are now triggering an increased reliance on 

groundwater to meet those demands. Meanwhile, our warming climate is resulting in a decreasing snowpack in the Sierras and the 

Rockies, which will slow future rates of groundwater recharge and 

limit the aquifer’s ability to replenish these additional water withdrawals. 

Monitoring groundwater availability in the Central Valley is, 

therefore, critical to help manage California’s water crisis and its 

impact on the state’s economy and the nation’s food production. It 

is exceedingly difficult to observe the ups and downs of groundwater storage for a large system like the Central Valley aquifer 

using traditional ground based observations from wells. Fortunately, a new satellite mission, the Gravity Recovery and Climate 

Experiment, or GRACE, now enables routine groundwater monitoring from space. GRACE measures minute changes in earth’s 

gravity field. 

Notice its time variable component. Because these changes are 

largely driven by changes in the distribution of liquid and solid 


54619.005.eps
66 

water on our planet, we can use the gravity measurements to estimate the corresponding changes in water stored on land. 

GRACE has already been successfully applied to track monthly 

groundwater changes in several large aquifer systems around the 

world, providing a holistic picture of aquifer behavior that would 

not otherwise be possible. For example, last summer we published 

a study of rapid rates of groundwater depletion in northwestern 

India, an agricultural region like the Central Valley that is heavily 

dependent on groundwater for its irrigation demands. Could I have 

my slides, please? 

The next two slides summarize our recent work on the combined 

Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, including the snowpack 

in the western Sierras and the groundwater in the Central Valley. 

The upper left panel shows the GRACE estimate of the change in 

total water storage for the region; that is, all of the snow, surface 

water, soil moisture, and groundwater for the October 2003 

through March 2009 time period. 

The drought conditions since 2005 are evident in the figure. During the entire study period, water storage in the Basins decreased 

by 31.3 cubic kilometers or roughly the volume of Lake Mead. Since 

GRACE measured the change in all the snow, surface water, soil 

moisture and groundwater together, we need to estimate and remove these first three in order to isolate what is happening with 

just the groundwater. These are shown on the other panels of the 

slide. 

Soil moisture, in the upper right, totaled 1.7 cubic kilometers. 

Reservoir storage at the lower left declined by 7.6 cubic kilometers, 

while the snowpack losses at the lower right totaled another 1.7 

cubic kilometers. Removing these from the total water storage 

change that we get from GRACE, the groundwater storage changes 

from the Central Valley, as shown in this slide. The table shows 

that during the study period groundwater storage decreased by 

over 20 cubic kilometers, or nearly two/thirds the volume of Lake 

Mead. 

As you know, California’s water future is highly uncertain. Climate change may drive the Sierra snowpack close to zero by the 

end of the century, while our population will continue to grow. Unfortunately, the Colorado River Basin faces a similar plight, as 

shown in this last slide. 

I hope that my testimony convinces you that advanced technologies such as the GRACE mission can make an important contribution to the future of water management. If I have, then unfortunately, I have some bad news for you. GRACE will perform reliably for only another three to five years. Its follow-on, known as 

GRACE II, is not slated for launch until 2020. 

Assuming the usual delays, we can probably expect a gap of at 

least a decade in GRACE water storage data. If your Committee 

believes, as I do, that GRACE is invaluable in order to adapt water 

management to changing climate and human activities, then please 

do what you can in Congress to help increase the priority of the 

GRACE II mission. Thanks once again for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of James Famiglietti follows:] 

67 

Statement of Dr. James S. Famiglietti, Director, UC Center for Hydrologic 

Modeling, Professor of Earth System Science, Professor of Civil and 

Environmental Engineering, University of California, Irvine 

Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member McClintock, and other members of the 

subcommittee: thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the state of 

our water supply and water supply monitoring in California, including groundwater 

resources. 

My name is James Famiglietti. I am a hydrologist and Professor on the faculty 

at the University of California, Irvine, with appointments in the Department of 

Earth System Science and the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. 

I am the Founding Director of the new UC Center for Hydrologic Modeling. My research group uses satellite remote sensing to track water availability on land, and 

has been working for many years towards improving hydrological prediction in regional and global weather and climate models. I am also the former Director of the 

UCI Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics and the past Chief Editor of the 

interdisciplinary Earth science journal Geophysical Research Letters. I am currently 

in the last year of a three-year term as Chair of the Board of Directors of CUAHSI, 

the Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Sciences, Inc. It 

is on the strength of nearly 25 years of research, teaching and service to the water 

science and engineering community that I offer the following testimony. 

INTRODUCTION 

Groundwater—the water stored beneath the land surface in aquifers—accounts 

for nearly 30 percent of global freshwater resources. Today, some 2 billion people 

rely on groundwater as a primary source of drinking water and for irrigated agriculture. However, in many regions of the world, groundwater resources are under 

stress due to a number of factors, including groundwater depletion (when withdrawal rates exceed recharge rates), salinization and contamination. When coupled 

with the pressures of changing climate and population growth, the stresses on 

groundwater supplies will only increase in the decades to come. 

In many regions in the United States, including the Ogallala Aquifer of the High 

Plains, the Colorado River Basin, California, and its Central Valley, groundwater 

plays an essential role in supporting agricultural activity, as well as in domestic and 

industrial use. In some regions in the U.S., groundwater provides the sole freshwater source, while in others, it is used to supplement surface water supplies, which 

can vary with swings in weather and climate. For example, until recently, the cities 

of Fresno and Visalia depended entirely upon groundwater for their domestic supply; and in my own hometown of Irvine, roughly 50 percent of the water supply is 

drawn from local aquifers beneath Orange County. 

Nearly 80 percent of the fresh water used in the United States is for agriculture 

(though more recent statistics on water use for power generation underscore the importance of that sector). In regions such as the Central Valley and the Ogallala, 

groundwater provides the majority of the irrigation water requirements. The Central Valley offers a compelling example of the importance of groundwater, as well 

as the need to manage its use for sustained availability and productivity. The Central Valley is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world, producing 

more than 250 different crops worth $17 billion per year (2002 dollars), or 8 percent 

of the food produced in the U.S. by value; it accounts for 1/6 of irrigated land in 

the U.S.; and it supplies 1/5 of the demand for groundwater in the U.S. In short, 

it the second most pumped aquifer in the United States. 

The current water crisis in California places additional stress on Central Valley 

groundwater resources. Continued drought has resulted in decreasing surface water 

allocations to the southern valley, triggering an increased reliance on groundwater, 

in a region where groundwater dependence is already high. The crisis is being exacerbated by the ongoing drought, since less rainfall results in less groundwater recharge. Under these conditions, groundwater use rates exceed replenishment rates, 

and the groundwater supply and the water table drop. Likewise, climate change and 

its impact on the decreasing snowpack in the Sierras and the Rockies poses its own 

set of challenges to reliable water supply in California. Decreasing snow in the Sierras may well lead to additional reductions in Central Valley groundwater recharge, 

while the diminishing snowpack in the Colorado River basin may well result in decreasing surface and groundwater availability there. Hence monitoring groundwater 

availability in the Central Valley is critical to help manage California’s water crisis, 

its impact on the state’s economy and the Nation’s food production 

Surprisingly, in spite of its importance to freshwater supply, groundwater resources are often poorly monitored, so that a consistent picture of its availability is 

difficult and sometimes impossible to construct. Typical groundwater monitoring 

68 

relies on tracking water levels in a network of wells. However, existing monitoring 

wells are often sparse, measurement records are frequently discontinuous (Figure 

1), and wells are often monitored by different agencies, at different time intervals, 

and record lengths often vary. Well measurements from different local, state and 

federal agencies are often archived at different locations, stored in different formats, 

and may not be easily or freely accessible. The recent U.S. Geological Survey report 

on ‘‘Groundwater Availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California,’’ which was 

several years in the making, underscores the major effort required to assemble a 

comprehensive picture of changing groundwater availability. It is not clear that such 

an effort can be sustained as part a routine monitoring program. 

The main goal of this testimony is to share with committee members recent advances in satellite technology that now enable routine groundwater monitoring from 

space, including in the Central Valley. The satellite mission of interest today, the 

Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE, has already been successfully applied to track monthly groundwater storage changes in several large aquifer 

systems around the world. It is our hope that the information that advanced technologies such as GRACE can provide will ultimately be incorporated into the information stream that supports environmental decision making. I will also appeal to 

you for your help. Unfortunately, hydrological model development and water observing networks have lagged far behind the increasingly urgent need to address pressing issues of national significance. We cannot make the necessary progress in areas 

such as water, energy and food security without your leadership and support. 

BACKGROUND 

The GRACE mission was launched in March 2002. It consists of two satellites 

that orbit around Earth each month. The primary measurement is not of Earth’s 

surface, but rather, of the distance between the two satellites, which is perturbed 

by changes in gravity from place to place as the pair orbit around the globe. The 

mission collects millions of these inter-satellite distance measurements, which are 

exceptionally accurate (to the sub-micron level), and uses them to produce a map 

of our planet’s gravitational field. Taking the difference between these maps yields 

the time-variable component of the gravity field. The major topographic and geologic 

features of Earth do not change on a monthly basis: their contribution to Earth’s 

gravity field is static. Consequently, owing to the fact that water is one of the heaviest materials on Earth, the time-variable component of the gravity field is largely 

a reflection of changes in water storage each month. Hence the measurements of 

this time-variable component of the gravity field are used to estimate the corresponding changes in water mass stored on land and in the oceans. GRACE cannot 

measure the total (absolute) amount of water stored in a river basin, an aquifer or 

any other region of interest. It can only tell us the change between successive measurements of the gravity field. 

GRACE data have been successfully used to measure changes in the Greenland 

and Antarctic ice sheets, the Alaskan glaciers, and the Patagonian glaciers in Chile. 

Our research group at UC Irvine has focused on hydrologic applications of GRACE. 

We have demonstrated how GRACE data can be used to track water storage 

changes (Figure 2), to estimate evapotranspiration and to estimate streamflow from 

the world’s major river basins. We also incorporate GRACE data in computer models 

of hydrology to improve prediction of surface and groundwater storage changes. 

GRACE data are now an input data stream into the operational U.S. Drought Monitor (Figure 3). After nearly 8 years of GRACE data, we are now able to identify 

trends in water storage that result from both natural and anthropogenic forces (Figure 4). 

One of the key hydrologic contributions of GRACE is that it has enabled satellite 

observation of groundwater storage changes. Our group has pioneered these techniques, beginning over a decade ago with our pre-launch feasibility study of the potential of GRACE to monitor groundwater storage changes in the Ogallala Aquifer. 

Since then we have used GRACE data to explore groundwater storage changes in 

the Mississippi River basin, and in aquifers in Illinois, Oklahoma and Australia. 

Figure 5 shows a figure from our recent study of rapid rates of groundwater depletion in northwestern India, an agricultural region like the Central Valley that is 

heavily dependent on groundwater for its irrigation demands. 

It is critical to recognize the contribution of the GRACE mission to observing the 

changing hydrology of the continents. Figures 2, 4 and 5 display information on the 

behavior of water storage on land that is essentially brand-new: before the GRACE 

mission, this information was simply not available. For example, the ups and downs 

of river basin water storage shown in Figure 2 were simply not known: likewise the 

pattern of water storage trends in Figure 4. In particular, remote sensing of groundwater was regarded as a ‘‘Holy Grail’’ in the hydrologic community. In addition to 

69 

the several reasons described in my introductory testimony, since groundwater is located below the Earth’s surface, it is not ‘‘visible’’ by traditional, optical satellite 

missions. GRACE has effectively allowed us to ‘‘see’’ beneath the surface, by ‘‘weighing’’ groundwater storage changes from space. 

There are several caveats that must be understood before we discuss the Central 

Valley example. First, GRACE operates at relatively low resolution in space and 

time. It can measure monthly changes in water storage, for regions with a minimum 

area 150,000 km2, with an accuracy of 1.5 cm of equivalent water height. Its performance improves with increasing area and time period. Second, GRACE measures 

changes in all of the water stored in a region—that is, it is unable to differentiate 

among snow, ice, surface water, soil moisture and groundwater. In order to isolate 

changes in one of these individual storage reservoirs, for example, groundwater, 

mass changes in the other above-mentioned storages must be estimated and removed. Typically these data come from ground-based observations, advanced 

hydrological models, or from other satellites. 

Third, the GRACE mission has a limited lifespan. Barring any unforeseen battery 

or electronics failures, mission scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory estimate that GRACE will perform reliably for only another 3-5 years. 

Finally, it is important to note that our goal is not to expose water ‘‘overuse.’’ In 

fact, Figure 4 shows that in many land regions, for example, in high-latitude Eurasia, water storage is increasing. Moreover, unpublished research from our group 

suggests that the continents as a whole show zero storage change, or even a small 

increase in water storage, during the life of the GRACE mission. Rather, we are 

committed to developing advanced methodologies to help monitor water storage 

changes, characterize water availability, and to predict and understand the forces 

that contribute to regional water stress. As mentioned earlier, it is our hope to 

share this information with regional water managers, and with state and federal 

policy and decision makers. 

WATER STORAGE CHANGES IN THE SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN 

RIVER BASINS: GROUNDWATER DEPLETION IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY 

Our most recent regional study is of the combined Sacramento and San Joaquin 

River basins in California. This 154,000 km2 region includes California’s major 

mountain water source, the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountain range, as well 

is its primary agricultural region, the Central Valley (52,000 km2). We selected this 

region for study due to its socioeconomic importance for California and for the Nation. This research shown here was presented in December 2009 at the Fall Meeting 

of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) conference held in San Francisco. It is 

currently in preparation for submission to a peer-reviewed journal. 

Figure 6 (upper left) shows the change in total water storage (all of the snow, surface water, soil moisture and groundwater) for the combined Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage area. The drought conditions since 2005 are evident in the figure. 

During the 66-month time period studied (October 2003-March 2009), water storage 

in the basins decreased by 31.3 km3, or roughly the volume of Lake Mead. 

As I mentioned earlier, in order to estimate only the groundwater storage changes 

in the region, mass changes in the other major water stores (snow, surface water, 

soil moisture) must be estimated and removed. Soil moisture is largely unmeasured 

in the United States. Consequently, we estimated and removed the soil moisture 

signal using the average of three different soil moisture simulations for the corresponding time period, taken from advanced hydrological models, and run at the 

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (upper right). The loss of soil moisture during 

the study period accounted for 1.7 km3 of the 31.3 km3 total. Reservoir storage data 

(lower left) were compiled from the state CDEC website, and accounted for 7.6 km3 

of water loss. The snowpack estimates, or its snow water equivalent (lower right), 

were obtained from the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center 

(NOHRSC), and are a combination of both observations and advanced simulation 

models. The NOHRSC data represent the best estimate of the Sierra snowpack currently available. These data show a decrease of 1.7 km3 during the study period. 

The results the total water storage, snow, surface water, soil moisture, and groundwater (discussed next) are summarized in Table 1. Note that the trends reported 

are for the specified time period, which was selected to maximize the overlap among 

the various datasets used in the study. 

Since the total water storage change in the Sacramento and San Joaquin basins 

is the sum of the snow, surface water, soil moisture and groundwater changes, subtracting the first three of these components from the total (observed by GRACE) 

yields the groundwater storage change (Figure 7). Table 1 shows that during the 

study period, groundwater storage changes accounted for 20.3 km3 of the total 

water loss. We assume in this work that nearly all of the groundwater loss occurs 

70 

in the Central Valley, since the other major geological features in the combined basins, that is, the mountain ranges surrounding the Valley, have limited capacity to 

store groundwater. 

The picture that emerges from this analysis is consistent with the U.S.G.S. study, 

and extends that study from its end date in 2003 to the present. Our estimated loss 

trends are similar to those of the U.S.G.S., and the steep decline estimated in our 

study is similar to the those estimated by the U.S.G.S. in previous drought periods. 

Furthermore, the results are consistent with our understanding of Central Valley 

farmers’ behavior. Facing significant cuts in surface water allocations, farmers are 

forced to tap heavily into groundwater reserves to attempt to meet their irrigation 

water demands. Our research also indicates (not shown here) that nearly 75 percent 

of the 20.3 km3 of groundwater loss is occurring in the San Joaquin River basin, 

including the Tulare Lake basin, which is also consistent with ground-based observations (Figure 8) and other studies. 

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? 

As you know, California’s water future is highly uncertain. Climate change may 

drive the Sierra snowpack close to zero by the end of the century, while our population will continue to grow. Unfortunately, the Colorado River basin faces a similar 

plight (Figure 9). It is not hard to imagine that water may emerge as one of the 

key political issues in the decades to come. Perhaps that time is now. Will water 

be the ‘‘oil of the future?’’ Maybe. 

Given the importance of water, both now and in the future, the U.S. must significantly accelerate its predictive capabilities in order to address the pressing issues 

we will soon face. Will we have enough water to supply our growing population? 

Will there be enough water to sustain agricultural activity? Is there enough water 

and land to support biofuel production? How will declining snowpack affect hydropower in the American West? How will changes in extreme events such as flooding 

and drought affect California? How can water management best adapt to these 

changes in climate, snowpack, population and hydrologic extremes? Agencies like 

NOAA, the National Weather Service, and NASA, are responding, but slowly given 

current economic constraints. I contend that a significant investment in hydrologic 

prediction, observation and research must be made, now, in order to build the intellectual infrastructure to ensure the security of our nation in the decades to come. 

My own contribution to this effort is through leadership at the state and national 

levels. I am the founding director of a new modeling center at UC Irvine called the 

UC Center for Hydrologic Modeling. Our goal is to develop a very high-resolution 

hydrological model for the state that includes all major components of the natural 

(snow, ice, surface waters, soil water, groundwater) and managed (reservoirs, aqueducts, groundwater withdrawals) water cycle that can be used to test solutions and 

provide answers to the questions above. Another goal is to provide a forum for water 

managers, practitioners, environmental decision makers, and center researchers, to 

transfer knowledge, provide training, and develop meaningful collaborations that 

can advance water management in our state. 

I am leading a similar effort at the national level. This activity, called the Community Hydrologic Modeling Platform (CHyMP), is unfunded, but is highly regarded 

by the National Science Foundation and other agencies such as NASA and NOAA. 

Both the UC Center and the CHyMP effort will require sustained funding at the 

state and national levels. Again, I am already devoted to the cause, but I need your 

help to identify the resources to ramp up and sustain these critical activities. Students must be trained at all degree levels. New modeling paradigms must be developed that can easily accommodate ground-based observations, emerging sensor technologies, and satellite observations like those from GRACE. There is much work to 

be done. 

I hope that I have convinced you that advanced technologies such as the GRACE 

mission can make an important contribution to the future of water management. 

I will be happy to work with your staff to spread the word about the potential of 

GRACE so that it can be fully utilized in water prediction and management. However, recall that GRACE will last, at best, another 3-5 years. The follow-on mission, 

known as GRACE 2, is not slated for launch until 2020. Assuming the usual delays, 

we can expect a gap of at least a decade in GRACE water storage data. If your committee believes, as I do, that GRACE is invaluable in order to adapt water management to changing climate, then please do what you can in Congress to help increase 

the priority of the GRACE 2 mission. 

I thank you once again for the opportunity to testify. 

[NOTE: Figures have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

71 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is the Commissioner still here? I don’t know 

what to say, other than there are things we need to maybe explore 

with NASA, with NAS, with all those agencies, to see how we can 

begin to look at some of what they are findings can impact and assist our agencies. Thank you. 

I would like to move on to Mr. Miguel Luna, Executive Director 

of Urban Semillas. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MIGUEL A. LUNA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

URBAN SEMILLAS, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. LUNA. As a community organizer, my perspective will be one 

that comes from community at the grassroots level. I wanted to 

start my testimony with this quote. ‘‘Solutions have been a permanent dialogue between human beings and water.’’ I feel part of the 

problem of the state of today’s water stems in part from a historical 

lack of dialogue with this resource. Our interaction with this vital 

resource has been one-way, us demanding from it, without hearing 

the warnings, the warnings when we pollute it, when we overdraft 

it, when we waste it. 

Of course, I am aware that our water situation requires solutions 

that are engineered and that also utilize nature’s services, but if 

we move forward without a true appreciation of water and the role 

it plays in nature, our rivers, our food, our energy, our communities, then we will continue to run into the same problems we face 

today, just at a later time and most likely with a greater magnitude of negative impact and at a greater cost, both economically 

and ecologically. 

I wouldn’t be doing my job of building capacity within the communities I work with if I didn’t partner with other organizations 

to identify support and implement sustainable local solutions which 

many of us feel are the most cost effective, least environmentally 

destructive and, why not, even provide community benefits that 

boost local economies through the creation of jobs and the retraining of workers to fit new emerging technologies and eco-friendly 

best practices. 

They are all outlined in my testimony that was crafted by the 

Water Coalition I belong to with other several colleagues. I wanted 

to highlight some of them. One is sustainable growth in areas that 

can sustain it, requiring the inclusion of the most water efficient 

design, fixtures and landscaping to draw down new water demand. 

Retrofitting aging infrastructure to minimize systemwide inefficiencies in leaking infrastructure; taking a proactive role in repairing and replacing old infrastructure before large breaks occur; expanding the purple pipe system that delivers recycled water so we 

can offset potable water demand; support the collaboration between 

the Department of Water and Power and Bureau of Sanitation; and 

the development of a recycled water master plan that outlines 

strategies to increase the city’s recycled water use to 50,000 acrefeet by the year 2019; promoting water culture through conscientious water management and conservation. 

The Pacific Institutes estimates about one-third of current urban 

usage, more than 2.3 million acre-feet of water, could be saved 

statewide through better implementation of existing technology for 

homes and businesses, and more aggressive education at all levels 

72 

with matching expansion of water conservation programs for customers. 

Revitalization and restoration of our streams, creeks and rivers, 

which are deeply connected to water supply: When we restore 

creeks and rivers, they can serve as a viable natural way for our 

aquifers to be replenished to serve as key water sources. They also 

revitalize communities and, in the process, can provide for short 

and long-term jobs, maybe even for a better sustainable future for 

our children. 

One example of this is a local project, the Elm Avenue Retrofit 

Demonstration Project in Sun Valley. This project models a sustainable future for neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles, but also 

the ideal collaboration between agencies and groups at all levels. 

This is a project where the Bureau of Reclamation, the City of Los 

Angeles, and two local LA groups. 

Bailey-San Gabriel River Watershed Council and Tree People are 

working together to make it happen. A whole block in an area 

where there are no storm drains flooded all the time, now will capture rainwater on site and infiltrate it. Not only that, but most of 

the homeowners are already replacing their lawns with native 

landscaping and re-articulating their private yards to include biological swales as well as adding rain barrels to their properties. 

While still not completed, it is already providing for a better quality of life and serving as a great education and community engagement tool. 

I wanted to close with safe water for all. While we are very fortunate this year in the City of LA to be able to open our tap and have 

access to safe drinking water, it is not the case for other places in 

the state. One example is our neighboring City of Maywood where 

a population of 50,000, 98 percent Latino, is served by three water 

mutual companies, and still customers open their taps of water 

containing manganese, lead, PCs and other contaminants. 

We must have policy in the state that ensures that every human 

has a right to clean, affordable and accessible water. Thank you so 

much. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Luna. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Luna follows:] 

Statement of Miguel A. Luna, Executive Director, 

Urban Semillas, Los Angeles, California 

We Have Enough Water, but Not Enough to Waste: 

Solutions to Securing LA’s Water Future 

Introduction 

There has been much discussion recently of Los Angeles being in the midst of a 

drought. Although this type of dramatic language is good for capturing the attention 

of the public, it is ultimately misleading. Depicting the current water situation as 

a drought implies that Los Angeles is facing a temporary water shortage, an abnormal situation that will pass in time. This is not the case. Years of low rainfall tend 

to sound alarm bells amongst the public, but for Southern California, dry years are 

actually more common then wet ones. Most of the city is in a semi-arid Mediterranean climate with generally low annual rainfall that can fluctuate from year to 

year. Moreover, the effects of climate change have caused the fluctuation in annual 

rainfall to increase: both the wettest and driest years of record for the Los Angeles 

region have occurred in just the past eight years. 

Los Angeles draws its water supply from a variety of sources. However, many of 

these are now oversubscribed, and several face serious water quality problems. LA’s 

73 

sources of imported water can no longer supply the city at the level they once did, 

due to legally mandated environmental mitigation programs and increased demand 

from other communities that share these resources. LA’s local water sources also 

face problems such as pollution, overuse, and the danger of seawater infiltration 

into underground freshwater basins. 

In spite of all this, there is still hope for LA’s water future, but city officials and 

residents must look for sustainable solutions, rather than crisis-driven band-aid 

fixes that will only exacerbate the problems in the long term. Central to such a sustainable approach is first acknowledging that for LA to continue to thrive, it will 

need to reduce its dependence on imported water. 

Necessary strategies to increase LA’s local water supplies include: 

• Manage the entire greater Los Angeles watershed using a holistic regional approach. 

• Aggressively pursue all water conservation, efficiency, and recycling options on 

individual, business, and industrial levels by pursuing water education, water 

efficiency solutions, greywater and rainwater capture systems, drought resistant 

landscaping, incentives for conservation, and low impact development. 

• Require that all new development be water neutral by requiring the use of the 

best conservation, efficiency, and recycling practices. 

• Repair aging water infrastructure, require water system audits, and expand 

water-recycling infrastructure. 

• Mandate groundwater clean-up efforts and tighter pollution controls to deter 

further degradation. 

By taking these actions to preserve and protect LA’s local water supplies, the city 

can also fight environmentally unsound and expensive water distribution trends 

such as water privatization and the over reliance on bottled and vended water. 

These changes will also create new employment and development opportunities 

for local communities. The implementation of water-saving technologies, retrofitted 

infrastructure, and new LID development practices is a chance to create new jobs 

in this time of economic crisis. It’s also an important opportunity to redevelop lowincome communities in a responsible way, making sure they aren’t left behind in 

these efforts and providing them with better infrastructure and public space. 

Implementing these solutions is a priority that can’t wait. If both the city government and residents act now, Los Angeles has an opportunity to maximize its local 

water resources to secure a safe water supply for a sustainable future. 

Water Supply 

The water supply for the Los Angeles region comes from a variety of local and 

imported sources, and as the population has grown over time, LA’s reliance on imported water has increased. The city currently imports about 65 percent of its water. 

State and federal courts have reduced LA’s allocations from these non-local sources 

in recent years. Exploring and investing in ways to maximize local resources will 

be the best way to offset these supply reductions. 

Imported Water Sources 

The Los Angeles Aqueduct carries water from the Owens Valley and Mono Lake. 

It is controlled by the LA Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and provides 

water solely to the City of Los Angeles. Currently, the aqueduct supplies the city 

with 11 to 32 percent of its annual water supply. 

The Colorado River Aqueduct carries water from the Colorado River to many different parts of Southern California and supplies 37 to 46 percent of the water used 

in this region. It is controlled by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), a public 

water wholesaler made up of 26 member agencies that together provide drinking 

water to some 19 million people in parts of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San 

Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties, a combined area of over 5,000 square 

miles. 

Los Angeles shares the Colorado River with six other states upstream (Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada) and with Mexico downstream. 

California has been allocated 4.4 million acre-feet per year from this aqueduct, but 

due to surpluses in years past, MWD had been using more than its allocation by 

about 800,000 acre-feet. Because of increased demand from other states upstream, 

the Secretary of the Interior is forcing California to reduce its take of Colorado 

River water back to its 4.4 million acre-feet allocation. 

The third source of imported water for Southern California is the California State 

Water Project. The California Aqueduct, at 444 miles long, is the largest aqueduct 

in the world. All the pumping of water out of the Delta and over the Tehachapi 

mountains makes the State Water Project the largest single consumer of energy in 

California. The State Department of Water Resources administers the project and 

74 

through it supplies water from the Feather River and the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Delta in Northern California to the Bay Area, the Central Valley, and 

much of Southern California. In spite of its scale and energy consumption, the State 

Water Project has never provided as much water as it was supposed to. The state 

is contracted to deliver 4.2 million acre-feet per year but only delivers an average 

of 1.86 million acre-feet a year, less than half. The State Water Project could see 

its ability to deliver water further hindered by such impacts of climate change as 

the greater frequency of dry years, a sea level rise requiring additional fresh water 

releases from reservoirs into the Delta to maintain water quality, and a corresponding curtailing of pumping water south of the Delta. 

Already the diversion of so much water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin 

River Delta has caused an environmental disaster in the region. Due to overdrawing 

water for agricultural and urban uses, increased water salinity, and pollution, the 

balance of a vital ecosystem is being seriously damaged. The most obvious and inexpensive solution to stop the degradation and begin to restore the Delta is to decrease the Central Valley and Southern California’s reliance on the Delta as a water 

source by maximizing reliance on local water sources. 

Local Water Sources 

The Los Angeles region currently gets about 35 percent of its water supply from 

local water sources. However, many of these sources are under-utilized for various 

reasons. 

Surface Water 

About 20 percent of LA’s water supply comes from local surface water: near-by 

rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs. The water for all of these sources originates 

from rainwater and snowmelt from surrounding mountains. Almost all rainwater is 

diverted to storm drains that send the water out to sea. Most rivers and streams 

in the LA area have been engineered to flush out water to the ocean, since these 

have been channeled and paved to prevent flooding. However, some rainwater is 

stored in man-made lakes (or reservoirs) to later be diverted to spreading basins. 

These are ponds where rainwater is allowed to spread and slowly percolate back 

into the groundwater table, increasing the city’s groundwater supply. There are also 

some parts of the Los Angeles River and other streams that have not been paved, 

where water can seep back into the ground. 

Ground Water Basins 

The Los Angeles region receives about 15 percent of its water from groundwater 

basins. There are six major groundwater basins in the LA area, of which the San 

Fernando Basin is the largest, alone providing about 80 percent of the local groundwater supplies. These basins are replenished through spreading, the percolation of 

surface water back into the ground, and also through injection. Injection, where 

wells pump water down into the aquifer, is normally used in places where the basins have been oversubscribed or there is a danger of salt-water intrusion or sinkage. These groundwater basins hold large quantities of water and could be a much 

bigger water source for the LA area. However, not all of the groundwater in the basins can be used. Numerous basins have been contaminated with industrial waste 

from World War II era rocket fuel, such as chromium 6 and perchlorate, which has 

taken them out of use for drinking water. Additionally, many of the basins are polluted by agricultural run-off and leaking septic systems, which result in water quality issues. 

Water Recycling 

Water recycling, the process through which wastewater undergoes multiple levels 

of treatment so that it can be safely reused, is another important opportunity for 

increasing local water supplies. Currently, treated wastewater is used in Los Angeles for a variety of purposes, such as landscaping, industrial use, artificial bodies 

of water, and injection into underground water basins to prevent salt water infiltration. Recycled water is carried by its own separate plumbing infrastructure, purple 

pipes, and is not used for drinking purposes in LA County. Recycled water may be 

used on individual, institutional, and industrial scales. 

There are three main levels of treatment for municipal wastewater. Primary 

treatment involves the removal of sewage solids through sedimentation. Secondary 

treatment uses biological processes to further remove organic compounds, with 

microorganisms using the oxygen in aeration tanks to consume the compounds as 

their food. Tertiary treatment combines chemical disinfection using chlorine, sedimentation, and filtration. Recycled water that has gone through all three stages of 

treatment may be used in for irrigating golf courses and parks. The California DeVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:03 May 03, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\54619.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
75 

partment of Health Services closely monitors and enforces health requirements for 

the use of recycled wastewater. 

Los Angeles began water recycling in 1979 for irrigation and industrial uses. 

While LA currently uses about 4,600 acre-feet of recycled water—saving enough potable water for about 9,200 homes—this only represents around 3 percent of LA’s 

total water use. Recently golf courses like Woodley Golf Course and schools like Loyola Marymount University have begun using recycled water for their irrigation. 

Conservation 

A most promising source of local water is the water that Los Angeles saves 

through local conservation measures, both through individual residential and business efforts with government incentives. Although the LA region has managed to 

reduce its water consumption a great deal, there are still untapped opportunities 

to conserve a lot more. Using local water resources more efficiently is the best and 

least expensive way for Los Angeles to increase its water supply and achieve regional water independence. The city has already made great strides in conserving 

water. Despite population growth of 35 percent since 1970, Los Angeles has experienced a mere 7 percent jump in water consumption. During that same period individual per capita water usage dropped by 15 percent. More recently, after 5 months 

of mandatory water rationing, the LADWP announced in December 2009 that they 

had reduced water consumption by 18.4 percent. 

Watershed Management 

Watershed management may also help safeguard clean water supplies and identify recycling and conservation opportunities. A watershed is the area of land where 

all the water in it or on top of it, from rainfall, snowmelt, and melting ice, drains 

downhill into a single destination such as a lake or ocean. Water does not stay still. 

It flows both above and below ground, and even when held in lakes and seas, it 

evaporates into the atmosphere and falls again as rain. Thinking in terms of watersheds enables one to understand how seemingly distinct water sources such as individual rivers, lakes, and aquifers are in fact linked together by virtue of flowing toward the same destination. According to the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) there are 2,110 watersheds in the continental United States—2,267 including 

Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico. 

Watershed management approaches thus seek to view both land and water resources as they are connected to one another in the watershed and to manage them 

accordingly. Such a management approach is essential to both identifying sources 

of existing groundwater pollution and preventing further pollution. It is also necessary to navigate the intricacies of conflicting water supply and water rights demands. Watershed management requires the collaboration of anyone taking water 

from or putting water back into the watershed, thus looking at the overall water 

quality and quantity implications throughout a watershed of land use, development, 

industry, agriculture, and other activities. 

The main watersheds in the Los Angeles area are the Los Angeles River Watershed, covering an area of over 834 square miles, the San Gabriel River Watershed, 

covering about 640 square miles, and the Santa Clara River Watershed, covering 

an area of 1,600 square miles. 

Facing Los Angeles’ Water Supply Problems 

Problem: Groundwater Pollution 

In Los Angeles there are numerous ground wells, however, we can only one fourth 

of the existing wells. Drawing uncontaminated water from polluted basins increases 

the risk of the polluted plumes migrating to other basins and thereby spreading the 

contamination. Such is the case with the Main San Gabriel Valley Basin, which is 

contaminated with chromium 6 and perchlorate. The Department of Defense has 

fought for years to avoid funding significant clean up by stating that they would 

not act until the EPA set national standards for permissible levels of perchlorate 

contamination in drinking water, while simultaneously fighting for broad exemptions from federal environmental laws. The California State Legislature created the 

San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, but its efforts have been hamstrung by 

lack of federal funding. 

Solution: Groundwater Clean Up 

Polluted groundwater in the Los Angeles region represents a huge source of water 

that cannot be fully utilized. LADWP’s attempts to further groundwater clean up 

by filtering recycled water into polluted basins should be studied and pursued rather than taken off the table. Pressure must be put on the responsible parties, including the Department of Defense, to fulfill their legal duty to clean up superfund sites 

76 

in our groundwater basins. Previous legislative efforts by California federal representatives such as then Rep. Hilda Solis stalled in Washington during the Bush 

Administration. A broad coalition of local, state, and federal officials should aggressively pursue clean up funds through Congress and the Obama Administration. The 

EPA should prioritize making its final regulatory determination for perchlorate and 

ensure that public safety is the paramount criterion in the determination. To prevent future groundwater contamination, stricter legislative standards must be devised and enforced for capturing polluted runoff and preventing dangerous chemicals from entering the watershed. 

Problem: Unsustainable Development 

Population increases will place additional strains on Los Angeles’ water supply. 

However, it is necessary to first distinguish between development built to meet the 

demands of a growing population and development meant to create demands where 

they do not exist. Several mass development projects such as Tejon Ranch depend 

entirely on imported water supplies that critics claim can be found only on paper. 

Solution: Water Neutral Development 

While development may be inevitable, it is urgent that it be done responsibly and 

in areas that can sustain the growth. In Water Neutral Development the local water 

supplier would require new developments to include the most water efficient design, 

fixtures, and landscaping to draw down new water demand. Any new demand 

brought online by the project would be mitigated in the adjacent residential areas. 

For example, the developer could pay into a water conservation or mitigation fund 

as a means to offset new demand. The fund would provide a new revenue stream 

for conservation programs that are regionally based and not contingent on bond 

funds or the state budget. Not only does this form of development help an area grow 

and be sustainable, it also provides a new funding stream for conservation programs 

such as MWD’s Water$mart program that is pending cancellation. 

• Require new residential and commercial developments that are subject to CEQA 

to incorporate cost-effective water efficiency measures. 

• Require that any water use in the new development be fully mitigated through 

water efficiency measures in existing communities or by developing local water 

supplies. 

• Require that 40% of the benefits from mitigation projects be directed to disadvantaged communities that otherwise would not be able to afford efficiency 

and adaptation measures. 

• Require that a portion of the work is done with community based organizations 

who have gone out of business during the drought! 

• Begin the manufacturing of water saving equipment in Los Angles to provide 

jobs and economic development 

Problem: Aging Infrastructure 

Aging water mains waste tremendous amounts of water through leaks and spills, 

but can also cause great damage when they break. 

Solution 1: Repairing and Replacing Old Infrastructure 

System-wide inefficiencies such as leaky infrastructure are an easily preventable 

source of waste in the Los Angeles region. By retrofitting old plumbing systems in 

homes and businesses LA can achieve substantial water savings. Local water agencies should take a proactive role in repairing and replacing the city’s old infrastructure rather than waiting for large breaks to occur. The city must increase the rate 

of replacement of infrastructure repair and rehabilitation. 

Solution 2: System Audits 

System audits should apply to residential and commercial users. Similar to the 

energy assessment that DWP provides to its customers, water audits should also be 

provided. For example, in Australia the water company can monitor the water use 

of any single customer, or across a particular area. They installed special meters 

that are connected remotely to a computer system. This allows monitoring of specific 

locations or areas and makes it easier to target outreach where it is most needed. 

This should be done at no charge to LADWP lifeline rate customers. 

Solution 3: Expand Recycled Water Infrastructure 

Existing infrastructure should be expanded so that the use of recycled water can 

become more widely utilized. Its use in new developments for purposes like landscaping or toilets should also be mandated. 

77 

Problem: Wasting Good Water 

In spite of the progress that has been made, there are still many unexplored opportunities for water conservation in Los Angeles. The Pacific Institute estimates 

that more than 2.3 million acre-feet of water (or one third of current urban usage) 

could be saved statewide through better implementation of existing conservation 

technologies for homes and businesses that range from more efficient toilets, showers, washing machines, and dishwashers, to fixing leaks and changing impermeable 

turfs to native landscaping. Eighty-five percent of those savings could be achieved 

at costs lower than those required to tap new water sources. Excessive levels of personal water use, for domestic and landscaping purposes, also represent a large 

source of unnecessary consumption. An aging water infrastructure exacerbates the 

problem, while an unwillingness to fully exploit resources like rainwater and 

greywater further frustrates conservation efforts. 

Solution 1: Education 

• Prioritize educational outreach. LADWP should partner with the Los Angeles 

Unified School District to educate students about conservation and engage them 

in water audits through existing programs such as the Infrastructure Academy 

to improve water conservation in schools. 

• Provide workshops and assistance for customers to use existing dual meter programs for landscape watering and provide rebates to make it more affordable. 

• Increase outreach for purchasers for recycled water. 

• Increase and advertise California Friendly Landscape workshop for LADWP 

customers in multiple languages. 

• Distribute conservation program materials in high traffic areas like markets 

and malls to ensure renters get the information. 

• City officials should model behavior by stringently following the city’s water 

conservation ordinance 

Solution 2: Water Efficiency Solutions 

New technologies represent a huge source of potential water savings. Many of the 

technologies aimed at individual consumers are readily available and easy to install. 

Low flow high efficiency toilets and showerheads address some of the larger sources 

of domestic water use. Water-efficient washing machines and dishwashers tackle another area of significant water consumption. Point of use water heaters without 

tanks save on water consumption and energy usage by reducing wait times for hot 

water. Consumers can also cut back on the biggest source of domestic water consumption—outdoor usage—through the installation of smart irrigation technology. 

Smart irrigation systems eliminate over watering by automatically adjusting the 

timing and volume of water use to reflect actual needs. Conservation technologies 

aimed at the business and public sectors can also yield impressive results. In addition to the opportunities described above, water can also be conserved with waterless urinals and the retrofitting of car washes. 

• Meter apartment complexes and use dual plumbing in retrofits and new buildings for the use greywater for toilets and other non-potable uses. 

• Retrofit existing public buildings for water efficiency and implement low impact 

development strategies in new and redeveloped buildings. 

• Include water efficiency standards in building ordinances. 

• Continue to explore ways to maximize water recycling. 

• Dual landscape meters 

• ET irrigations controllers—implement the existing Prop. 84 grant with CBO’s 

Solution 3: Greywater and Rainwater capture systems 

Greywater and rainwater capture systems are two ways to make use of water resources that would otherwise go to waste. With greywater systems, wastewater from 

sources like washing machines, hand sinks, and showers is captured on site and reused in toilets and landscape irrigation systems. Greywater is defined as wastewater that, although not potable, does not contain sewage, significant food residue, 

or dangerous concentrations of chemicals. As 50 to 80 percent of residential wastewater is greywater, these systems represent huge potential water savings. Rainwater capture systems do exactly what their name suggests, capture and store rainwater for use in irrigation. These systems cut down on water consumption but also 

provide an additional ancillary benefit: by using captured rainwater for landscaping 

purposes, the rainwater then filters through the ground and helps replenish local 

groundwater basins. 

• The city should expand its current rainwater barrel pilot program and provide 

education and incentives for greater implementation of rainwater capture sysVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:03 May 03, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\54619.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
78 

tems citywide, particularly in environmental justice communities and provide 

information about the program in multiple languages. • The city should provide greywater guidelines and workshops in multiple languages making use of new state guidelines. 

Solution 4: Drought Resistant Landscaping 

Outdoor water usage represents the greatest amount of residential urban water 

consumption, as much as 60 percent of urban water consumption in LA goes to landscaping and other outdoor use. Although Southern California is a semi-arid climate, 

many home and business owners choose to landscape their properties with traditional lawns or imported tropical plants, evidencing deeply set cultural preferences. 

Both of these landscaping choices require more water to survive than the Los Angeles area can naturally provide. One square foot of turf uses approximately 50 gallons of water per year. Moreover roughly 50 percent of water used for irrigating 

lawns and gardens is wasted due to over watering and evaporation. Over watering 

also washes significant amounts of pesticides and fertilizers into storm drains, tributaries, creeks, groundwater supplies, and ultimately into the ocean. 

By contrast, many California native plants (or plants from other Mediterranean 

regions) are well adapted to the dry Southern California climate and are able to 

thrive on comparatively little or no water. According to the results of a study by 

the City of Santa Monica’s Office of Sustainability and the Environment, maintaining a traditional lawn requires almost ten times the amount of water needed to support a sustainable landscaped lawn (57,000 gallons of water per year for a typical 

single family home versus 6,000 gallons per year). 

Sustainable landscaping, which uses native grasses, shrubs, flowers, cacti, and 

other plants instead of typical lawn grasses like St. Augustine Grass or Buffalo 

Grass, also creates a wealth of other environmental benefits. According to the same 

Santa Monica study, yard waste is significantly reduced with sustainable landscaping (250 pounds per year versus 670 pounds), as are maintenance hours (15 

hours per year versus 80 per year). Planting California native plants also creates 

habitat for native fauna like birds and butterflies whose numbers are rapidly dwindling due to habitat destruction. State law requires that all cities and counties 

adopt by January 1, 2010 the Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient 

Landscape Ordinance. The ordinance does not apply to new or rehabilitated landscape projects that cover an area less than 1000 square feet or that exceed 1000 

square feet but do not require a building permit. • Switch to sustainable, native landscaping. • Install remote meters for easy monitoring of water consumption. Make use of 

existing landscape or outdoor meter program by providing incentives and notifying customers. • Although MWD has a California friendly landscape and gardening classes program through the Be Water Wise conservation campaign, MWD, LADWP, and 

other water agencies need to be more aggressive in providing individuals and 

businesses with education and incentives to replace their lawns. • Sustainable landscaping should be compulsory for all city properties and the 

city should consider mandating native landscaping for all new developments. • The city should be the leader in native landscaping in their parks and public 

spaces. 

Solution 5: Incentives for Conservation 

• Provide more incentives to LADWP customers to conserve by extending and increasing the rebates for efficient washers, smart controllers, rotating nozzles, 

low-flow toilets, and turf removal not less than 250 square feet. Make it easier 

for DWP customers to access rebates. • Improve enforcement of water use restrictions. • Tiered pricing should be increased without impacting the lifeline rate to four 

or five tier pricing levels to provide incentive for customers to use less water, 

especially by reducing lawn maintenance: the more water used the more it 

costs. • Ensure that MWD expands the water conservation credit program. 

Solution 6: Low Impact Development (LID) 

Low Impact Development is a term used to refer to development practices that 

seek to capture a larger percentage of rainwater runoff. By capturing the water onsite it can be released back into the groundwater table where it replenishes underground basins. This process allows air pollution and other particulate matter to be 

filtered out of the water as it percolates down through the soil. 

In LID practices, rainwater is diverted from roofs and paved areas to landscaping, 

planter boxes, and bio-retention areas, instead of storm drains and rainwater capVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:03 May 03, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\54619.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
79 

ture systems like underground cisterns where soils do not allow permeability. Cement and asphalt surfaces are replaced with porous pavement that allows water to 

filter through to the ground. Bio-retention areas, zones that retain rainwater, and 

run off allow soil and plant-based filtration to clean water before it percolates into 

ground water. These bio-retention areas can also double as public green space, as 

is the case with Pan Pacific Park and Park La Brea which serve as retention areas, 

during times of heavy rain. 

In addition to yielding environmental benefits, LID practices are actually more 

cost effective over time. Because LID is more sustainable and makes use of better 

materials, fewer repairs are required. Widespread implementation of LID practices 

will also reduce the need to replace storm water drainage infrastructure. 

Related to LID is the City of Los Angeles’ Green Streets Initiative. The Green 

Streets design strategies, which have already been implemented in a number of test 

projects, call for: 

• Increased use of permeable surfaces on sidewalks and streets, allowing for a 

higher degree of water infiltration and 

• Landscape systems such as vegetated swales, flow-through planters, and storm 

water curb extensions that capture and filter storm water. 

Green Street developments also serve the additional function of beautifying neighborhoods with new landscaping. This can be of particular value in creating new 

green space for LA’s many park-poor communities. 

On January 15, the Los Angeles Board of Public Works unanimously approved the 

draft LID ordinance requiring that 100 percent of the rainfall from a three-quarter 

inch storm at newly built houses, developments, and certain redevelopments either 

be captured and reused or infiltrated on site, or that developers pay a stormwater 

mitigation fee to help fund offsite LID projects like Green Streets. 

• Push for an expansion of the city’s current Green Streets pilot programs that 

have already proven effective. Particular effort should be made to provide funding and incentives for this type of redevelopment in low income areas, so that 

they are not left behind. 

• Install mini-water treatment plants and onsite water treatment plants 

Solution 7: Other Watershed Solutions 

Other efforts can help to improve the quality and availability of drinking water 

within our local watershed. Restoring natural bottoms to some parts of Los Angeles’ 

many channeled waterways will help a greater degree of storm-water runoff to filter 

down into groundwater basins rather than emptying into the ocean. Increased conjunctive use of surface water to store winter and spring surpluses will also increase 

local water supplies for future use. To bolster this effort greater emphasis should 

be put on exploring new potential sites for spreading basins. 

Problem: Over consumption of Bottled and Vended Water 

Encouraging people to use tap water, rather than bottled water, will also help the 

water situation in our region. It is a commonly held misconception that the tap 

water in Los Angeles is not fit for drinking. In fact, LA’s water not only meets or 

exceeds all federal and state safety standards, but in 2008 MWD also tied for the 

gold medal in the Berkeley Springs International Water Tasting Award for best 

testing municipal water. Despite these facts many Los Angeles residents still choose 

to rely on bottled or vended water for their drinking water needs. 

Bottled and vended water are a waste of both money and resources. In California, 

the price of bottled water represents a 10,000 percent markup from the cost of tap 

water. Bottled and vended water is also environmentally damaging, not only because of the amount of trash generated, but also because of the resources required 

to transport this water over long distances. Purchasing bottled water also helps to 

accelerate the process of water privatization that is occurring in many parts of the 

world. As industry takes control of more fresh water sources communities that once 

relied on these resources are finding their access curtailed. 

Finally, there are also safety concerns with vended water. In 2000, the Los Angeles County Environmental Toxicology Bureau found that 33 percent of the 279 water 

vending machines they tested failed to meet the EPA standard for trihalomethanes, 

a by-product of water chlorination. Vended water machines throughout the city are 

largely unregulated. Water machine operators are only required to test machines for 

trihalomethanes once a week and fecal coliform bacteria once every 6 months. However, many operators fail to comply with even those meager regulations. This is a 

real problem for Los Angeles residents, especially in low income communities, where 

they pay a disproportionate amount of their income for water they think will be superior to tap water, when often it is of far inferior quality. 

80 

Solutions: 

To remedy our city’s reliance on bottled and vended water it is first necessary to 

change public perceptions regarding the safety of tap water. In 1999, MWD embarked on a public campaign to inform Latinos that MWD’s water is clean and safe 

for drinking. The DWP can learn from MWD’s experience to expand its own outreach efforts in this area. The mayor has already issued a memo to LA city departments regarding their wasteful expenditures for bottled water. It is important that 

he now hold them accountable for their continued bottled water use by banning bottled water in all city departments. The City of San Francisco banned bottled water 

within all branches of city government, successfully reducing city bottled water purchases from about $500,000 a year to zero. Lastly the city and county public health 

departments should collaborate with the state Department of Health Services to inspect vending water machines and stores. 

Conclusion 

There are many factors that play into the current state of the water in the Los 

Angeles region, but it is clear now that this is a permanent problem that city government and residents will have to face now and into the future. The solutions proposed here are low hanging fruit that both officials and residents can use to maximize local water resources with the lowest monetary and environmental costs. Conservation, better watershed management, recycled water, and avoiding vended 

water and water privatization are all easy solutions that can have big effects. These 

solutions will both provide enough water for the Los Angeles region and provide economic benefits such as green jobs and community redevelopment. Availability of 

clean drinking water and water for nature is a growing problem and if the city does 

not implement these measures now, it will become harder and harder to reach the 

population’s water needs and achieve the regional water independence necessary for 

the city’s future. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We move on to Ms. Lucy Dunn, President and 

Chief Executive Officer of Orange County Business Council, Irvine. 

STATEMENT OF LUCY DUNN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ORANGE COUNTY BUSINESS COUNCIL, 

IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. DUNN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate the opportunity of representing the business community today. 

Southern California is the economic engine of the State of 

California, and California itself is the economic engine of the nation. In addition to agriculture, this state’s innovations in biotech, 

medical device, green technology—you name it—are all dependent 

on a clean, reliable source of water. 

Southern California uses every tool in the toolbox right now. You 

have heard that over and over today. We are leaders in conservation, groundwater replenishment, desalting offshore, recycling, but 

we see the crisis is real and will not be resolved in any single strategy or an end to the current drought. Droughts in California are 

a fact of life here. They will return and, as we have not made major 

new investments in water infrastructure commensurate with the 

environmental, population, climate and infrastructure aging realities we have to deal with, we will face incalculable long-term impacts on California’s economic competitiveness and quality of life. 

We simply cannot exist without a secure water supply system 

with sufficient clean water for all in California, and it does affect 

the nation. Given the threats to the State Water Project and the 

Central Valley Project in the Delta, there is no excuse for not making it the highest priority of the state and the Federal Government 

to agree on a feasible remediation plan and to implement it as soon 

as humanly possible. The state’s economy and a major part of the 

81 

country’s economy is hanging in the balance. Do not repeat the 

mistakes of Katrina and New Orleans. 

The business community understands it costs money to build and 

maintain a reliable and environmentally friendly water system. Investments of billions of dollars will be required. We are more than 

willing to pay our fair share as residents and as water users. There 

are also many opportunities to attract private capital, as we are 

doing in the transportation sector in California and, frankly, in 

public/private partnerships throughout the nation. These are well 

documented models of cooperation and success. 

We urge you in government to consider and authorize as necessary private investment participation in water infrastructure to 

augment and work side by side with public investment. Do not let 

the lack of public investment capital be the cause of failure to modernize this state’s water system. 

You have many coalitions of support among business groups and 

water agencies in the state, in particular, the formation of a joint 

partnership between the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the 

Orange County Business Council called The Real Coalition. The 

largest economic associations in the state, over 18 of us business 

groups, have formed together with water as one of our top priorities. 

You also see that here locally in Southern California with the 

Southern California Water Coalition, strong supporters of clean, 

safe water, helping each other understand the issues and get out 

the word to the public. 

You know, it is the first time in human history that I can recall 

where a government has turned off water for its people. If in Los 

Angeles we can get through a regulatory process that allows an environmental streamlining for a football stadium here in Los Angeles, we should be able to do the same thing for 38 million people 

in the State of California and get this project in the ground. I love 

football. I love water. Let’s just get it done. It is enough talk, 

enough studies. We have studied this to death. It is time now for 

strong action on the ground for a very cranky public out there. 

Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dunn follows:] 

Statement of Lucy Dunn, President and CEO, 

Orange County Business Council 

California, home to one in eight Americans, accounts for around 12 percent of the 

nation’s gross domestic product and has the economic horsepower of the world’s 

eighth-largest economy. 

When the state stumbles, its sheer size 38 million people creates fallout for businesses from coast to coast, which means California’s economic malaise could make 

it harder for the entire nation’s economy to recover. 

The single biggest threat facing businesses in California, outside of the existing 

economic crisis, is the lack of a reliable water supply. 

For Orange County specifically, this reality is sobering because water resources 

managed by state and regional agencies account for 50 percent of our overall yearly 

water supply countywide. Just like America’s relationship with foreign oil, we are 

dependent on others for a large portion of this most basic element of life—water. 

Water is a critical element in every industry and particularly for bio-tech, manufacturing, agriculture, homebuilding and new green-tech. 

Any and all signals that suggest we are emerging from this economic downturn 

could be dashed if we do not have a sufficient water supply. 

82 

Why would a Wisconsin Senator care about California’s water? 

California has been the leader in U.S. agricultural production for over 60 years. 

Eight of the nation’s top 10 producing counties are in the state. California grows 

more than half of the country’s fruits, nuts and vegetables. It is the country’s number one agricultural exporter. 

California is the leading dairy state and also America’s top wine producer, making 

90% of all U.S. wine, and is the fourth leading wine producer in the world. 

California’s food production and processing industry is critical to both California 

and the United States’ overall economy. Food production companies face unprecedented global competition and must remain cost competitive to stay in business. 

Natural and regulatory drought conditions are resulting in zero water supplies in 

many Central Valley areas and similar situations have begun to emerge elsewhere 

in California, including many of the state’s major urban areas. 

Travel to California’s bread basket and you’ll see miles of fallow fields and 

stumped orchards and cross through small towns facing enormous hardship with 

unemployment as high as 40%. Water means food, jobs and a future. 

California’s innovation 

California is a world technological and economic leader. It has been the birthplace 

of many products and social trends that have changed the world. From Levi Strauss 

jeans in the 1850’s to the birth of the modern computer, some of the world’s most 

significant technological innovations, and social trends had a start here. The 

popsicle, the zamboni, the polygraph test, the modern theme park, windsurfing and 

even golf carts were invented here in California. 

California continues to lead innovations in water technology. 

• Seawater Desalination plants 

• Ground water replenish systems 

• Establishment of rebate and grant programs to incentivise efficient usage 

Endangered Species Act 

Environmental reform should value our people more than a fish. 

Not even Mother Nature can match the impact the Endangered Species Act has 

had on California’s water supply. 

Enforcement, or threat of enforcement, of both the federal and state Endangered 

Species Acts have become the foremost controlling factors in the development of 

California’s water resources. Compliance with ESA creates significant impacts on 

water supplies throughout the state. 

Regulatory actions to protect species have reduced water deliveries from the 

state’s two largest water systems in recent years to more than 25 million people in 

the San Francisco bay Area, Central and Southern California. 

There is no question that protection of the largest estuary on the West Coast is 

critical. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is in an ecological crisis, but so are California’s farmers and residents. There must be a way to balance economic and environmental viability. 

The current status seems to put a small fish about the needs of humans. This 

policy also creates new environmental problems. By forcing agricultural production 

to fallow, risk shortages of our food supply here at home and force greater production of greenhouse gases as once local food production must be shipped in from foreign locations. We all believe in conservation of the species, but shouldn’t people 

come first? 

R.E.A.L. Coalition points 

The water supply system that supports most of California’s residents, businesses 

and underpins its ecological health is facing unprecedented challenges. Coordinated 

near-and long-term actions to address constraints and conflicts are needed if we are 

to realize the co-equal values of adequate water supply for California, and ecosystem 

health and revitalization. Given the breadth and statewide impact of the crisis, the 

interest of the business community is coincident with that of the general public. 

About OCBC 

The Orange County Business Council is the leading voice of business in Orange 

County, California. OCBC represents and promotes the business community, working with government and academia, to enhance Orange County’s economic development and prosperity in order to preserve a high quality of life. OCBC serves member and investor businesses with nearly 250,000 employees and 2,500,000 worldwide. In providing a proactive forum for business and supporting organizations, 

OCBC helps assure the financial growth of America’s fifth largest county. For more 

information, visit www.ocbc.org. 

83 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We go on to Mr. Larry Collins—Audience, 

please refrain from interrupting. I won’t ask again. You are taking 

the time of these people to testify. Mr. Larry Collins, Vice President of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations in 

San Francisco. Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY COLLINS, VICE PRESIDENT, PACIFIC 

COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS, SAN 

FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. COLLINS. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman, Mr. McClintock. My name is Larry Collins. I am a commercial salmon fisherman. I am Vice President of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, which is the largest organization of working 

fishing men and women on the West Coast, with associations mostly in California but also in Oregon and Washington. I am also 

President of the Crab Boat Owners Association out of San Francisco, and we have been fishing wild California King Salmon for 

well over 100 years. 

I think that Ground Zero for us is on the coast, not in the valley. 

Every working waterfront from Santa Barbara to the Washington 

border has been out of work for the last two years, because we 

have had a ‘‘no salmon’’ season. I have been fishing with my wife 

for 25 years, chasing these fish, these beautiful fish, up and down. 

It seemed like we always were able to have a balance between 

water for the cities, water for the farmers, and enough water for 

the fish to get up or the baby fish to get out through the gate. 

There are a couple of things that people say that really bother 

a commercial salmon fisherman, that water through the gate is 

wasted, that hydroelectricity power—they call it cheap—and when 

they talk about cheap water. It all depends on where you are sitting. San Francisco Bay-Delta—it is our Everglades. It is like 

Chesapeake Bay. It is where the crabs grow up, where the herring 

fishery that is stopped this year for the first time in history, where 

the salmon go through. It is critical to the commercial fisherman 

on the coast, up and down the coast. 

You know, you were talking before about training people about 

water. I do the Fishermen in the Classroom Project with the Gulf 

of Farallones Marine Sanctuary. I go into the classrooms, and I 

talk to the kids about how these are public trust resources. Every 

fish, every crab out in the ocean—they own them. They are always 

impressed by that fact. I tell them that the water that is in the rivers is a public trust resource, too, and I tell them that these are 

very valuable resources. 

So every now and then, if things get out of balance because 

people try and take more than they ought to, and that is what we 

need a government for—to keep things in balance. I am not against 

farmers growing things down in the Valley, but, in my mind, the 

main course is salmon. We need to fix this environment so the 

salmon can get up, and the baby salmon can get out. 

You know, I have been interested in water issues since the passage of the CVPIA, which is 18 years ago, and I thought, oh, boy, 

fish doubling. We are going to put this water down the river so the 

fish can get up. It was supposed to be 600,000 feet from the state 

and 600,000 feet from the Fed. We are going to get doubled up 

84 

1Dr Lindley’s statement may be found at http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-03-19/bay-area/ 

17215271—1—chinook-salmon-pacific-fishery-management-council-national-marine-fisherieshere, and we were going to all be healthy, and everything was 

going to be beautiful. 

Eighteen years later, it hasn’t happened. None of that water has 

flowed through the gate, and that, to me, is not wasted water. That 

estuary needs that mixture of salt and fresh water to be healthy. 

A healthy estuary is every bit as productive as anywhere in the 

Valley. We have a community that travels up and down the coast 

chasing these fish, and that community is as important as any 

town in the Valley. 

We would like to thank Congress for seeing our need a couple of 

years ago and getting us some disaster relief money, or I wouldn’t 

be here today, and none of the fleet would still be here. Salmon is 

70 percent of my income. So it has been a pretty tough hit, and 

we may not get a salmon season again this year. So we may have 

to come and ask Congress for help again. 

We can fix this thing, but we got to get the balance right. We 

got to value the salmon as much as we value the farms and the 

urban areas. We have to share that water. We got to make it right. 

Thanks. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Collins follows:] 

Statement of Larry Collins, Vice President, Pacific Coast Federation of 

Fishermen’s Associations, San Francisco, California 

Good afternoon. I am Larry Collins, vice president of the Pacific Coast Federation 

of Fishermen’s Associations, largest organization of working fishermen and women 

on the West coast with member associations mostly in California but also in Oregon 

and Washington. 

My wife Barbara and I fish for salmon and crab out of San Francisco on our vessel, the ‘‘Autumn Gale’’. 

I first got involved with water issues around the time of the CVPIA passage and 

have been involved ever since. Salmon fishing was 70 percent of my income so, 

clearly, if the resource wasn’t healthy I didn’t work. 

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to provide the fisherman’s perspective on California’s water resources, the ways in which these resources 

are being managed and abused, and the assistance which Congress might provide 

to assure a more equitable and sustainable distribution of the state’s water resources among food producers—both fishermen and irrigators—and the state’s 

urban communities. 

We are out of work, now, as salmon fishermen. 

Barbara and I have been successful fishermen for 25 years. During these years 

we bought our home in San Francisco, raised our two kids, and paid our bills—all 

from the income earned from of our fishing. 

California’s salmon fisheries have been shut down, by order of the U.S. Secretary 

of Commerce, under the regulations of the Federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, since 2007. 

That is, we’ve been out of work, now, for two years by direct Federal mandate. 

Prospects for fishing for Central Valley chinook (‘‘king’’) salmon—the mainstay of 

our fishery—are dim for 2010. 

Following the closure of our fishery in 2008 the National Marine Fisheries 

Service—the Service’s scientists headquartered at their Santa Cruz, California laboratory—prepared an assessment of the reasons for the poor condition of Central 

Valley salmon stocks. The lead investigator of that NMFS panel, Dr. Steven Lindley 

told the press ‘‘Poor ocean conditions triggered the collapse. But what primed it is 

the degradation of the estuary and river habitats and the heavy reliance on hatcheries over the years 1 (Hatcheries are created, of course, to mitigate for salmon habitat lost to water developments.) 

85 

service; his report ‘‘What caused the Sacramento River fall Chinook stock collapse’’ at http:// 

swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/media/SalmonDeclineReport.pdf 

This chart documents the dramatic decline of the Central Valley Chinook salmon. 

We’re not talking about just another estuary here. 

We are talking about the San Francisco Bay Estuary, the most important estuary 

on the Pacific Coast of North or South America 

The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary ecosystem has been declared, time and 

again, by the California Legislature—most recently in its November, 2009 ‘‘historic 

Bay-Delta water deal’’ legislation—to be a resource area of both state and national 

significance, held in trust for the public by the State government. 

Given the nexus among State and Federal water quality, environmental policy 

and endangered species acts, we assume that such public trust responsibility extends to Congress and the Federal government, as well. 

To say that the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary is a national treasure does not 

adequately define its importance. It is a planetary treasure and its health or sickness has grave consequences for all of us. The responsibility for its safekeeping lies 

primarily in the hands of State government. 

So how has the safekeeping of the Estuary by its State and Federal stewards been 

going lately? 

There’s been a lot of hand-ringing, of course, because there are supposedly high 

protection standards in place for the Estuary, but since the Governor declared a 

drought emergency two years ago many of those Delta protections—including those 

necessary to address the degradation pointed out by Dr Lindley—have been suspended. 

And, of course, there have been those controversial Federal court decisions, back 

and forth, about how much water can be taken from the Delta before harm is done 

to its public trust resources. 

How bad has the drought been? 

It would be hard to tell from the media the past year or so just how bad—or not— 

the ‘‘drought crisis’’ has been. What is clear is the subject supported a year-long 

media circus. 

According to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation precipitation in Northern California—where three-quarters of the state’s water comes from—was 94 percent of average in 2009. 


54619.006.eps
86 

2See Professor Michael’s report at http://forecast.pacific.edu/articles/PacificBFC— 

Fish%20or%20Foreclosure.pdf 

And how about unemployment? 

The suffering of the farm community of Mendota, California has played on the 

pages of every major newspaper in the country, on Fox ‘‘News’’ repeatedly, and most 

recently in a 60 Minutes broadcast. 

How bad is unemployment in Mendota? Really bad—not only in 2008 and 2009, 

but in practically every year for which there are records. 

Unemployment peaked in Mendota last year at 42 percent. It hit 38 percent seven 

years ago and got below 20 percent, thanks to the construction boom, for the first 

time in 2005-2007. 

The Berkeley-based Pacific Institute noted last year: 

‘‘...the drought has had very little overall impact on agricultural employment, compared to the much larger impacts of the recession. In fact, in the 

last three years, while State Water Project allocations have decreased statewide, California’s agricultural job sector has grown. Further, according to 

Professor Jeffrey Michael, director of the Business Forecasting Center at 

the University of the Pacific in Stockton, rising unemployment in the Central Valley is largely the result of the bad economy, not a lack of water.’’ 2

How bad is unemployment in California’s salmon fisheries? 

Unemployment in the California salmon fisheries, the result, in major part, as Dr 

Lindley said, of the degradation of the Estuary and river habitats, is 100 percent— 

by order of the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. 

A study conducted by our industry last summer, using 2006 National Marine 

Fisheries Service survey data, indicates that the shut-down of salmon fishing in 

California—both commercial and sports fishing—has delivered a $1.4 billion annual 

loss, and the loss of 23,000 jobs to our state. The study found that the recovery of 

California’s salmon fisheries to their good, pre-drought condition would provide California a $5.6 billion annual economic gain and the creation of 94,000 new jobs. 


54619.007.eps
87 

3 i.e., of the CVP’s 13,000,000 acre-foot reservoir capacity and 7,000,000 acre-feet of annual 

‘‘safe’’, or reliable yield 

In contempt of Congress—the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s administration 

of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act’s Anadromous Fish 

Restoration Program 

Development of the Federal Central Valley Project began in the 1930s, driven at 

the time by the need to lift the state out of the Great Depression. There were, of 

course, no water quality or fishery protection laws at the time. 

As development of the CVP progressed over the years, its impact on water quality 

and fishery resources became increasingly hard to ignore. The complete drying up 

of the San Joaquin River for 75 miles below the CVP’s Friant Dam and the loss of 

300,000 chinook salmon there was the most visible of the CVP’s aquatic insults. But 

there were many other, less obvious impacts, including the over-diversion of water 

from the Trinity River and the steady decline of Chinook salmon in the Sacramento 

River. 

In the early 1990s the stars aligned to make some significant changes to the 

CVP’s Depression-era congressional authorization: 

1. Key House and Senate committees were in the hands of Members informed 

and deeply concerned with Central Valley, Trinity River and Bay-Delta Estuary conditions, Representative George Miller and Senator Bill Bradley. 

2. The 1983 National Audubon Society v. Los Angeles court decision ordering the 

restoration of Mono Lake’s public trust resources had California’s southland 

communities scrambling for replacement water supplies, and 

3. A real drought which persisted for six years from 1986 until 1993 had driven 

a wedge between urban and agricultural water users, who were traditionally 

aligned in their quest for more and more water from Northern California, over 

what struck many city-dwellers, rightly or wrongly, as agriculture’s water 

greed and misuse 

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992—the CVPIA, signed into law 

by George Herbert Walker Bush—came from that convergence of politics and 

drought. 

The CVPIA dedicated water to the restoration of the Trinity River. Earlier allocations for Trinity River salmon flows, made in the 1950s and ’60s, had been manipulated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, with considerable help from Trinity diversion-interested Members of Congress, to levels inadequate to maintain the river’s 

salmon resources. 

The CVPIA dedicated 800,000 acre-feet of CVP ‘‘yield’’ 3 with which the Secretary 

of the Interior was to address explicit environmental improvement actions in the 


54619.008.eps
88 

4See CA Fish & Game Code Section 6900, the ‘‘Salmon, Steelhead Trout, and Anadromous 

Fisheries Program Act’’ 5See http://www.cvpiaindependentreview.com/FisheriesReport12l12l08.pdf, the bottom of 

page 41 and the top of page 42 of the report, where the reviewers say they are ‘‘flabbergasted’’ 

to learn that Reclamation has gamed the water in direct contradiction of its Congressional mandate 6 subparagraphs (A) and (I) of section 3405(a)(1) of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and 

Adjustment Act of 1992—the CVPIA—Public Law 102-575; 106 Stat. 4709 7See ‘‘Harvest of Cash; Kern County Agency Buys Public Water Low, Sells High http:// 

www.contracostatimes.com/cil10152127 and ‘‘Massive Farm Owned by L.A. Man Uses Water 

Bank Conceived for State Needs’’ http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/19/local/me-kern19 

Bay-Delta Estuary and its watershed—not the Secretary’s on-going Clean Water 

and Endangered Species acts responsibilities, mind you, but specific fish and wildlife 

restoration actions. 

The CVPIA responded, in effect, to the California Water Resources Control Board, 

which had determined through two years of intense inquiry into the flow needs of 

Bay-Delta Estuary resources, from 1986 through 1988, that 1.6 million acre-feet of 

additional water through the Delta was needed to maintain Central Valley salmon 

and other public trust resources in good condition. 

The CVPIA specifically embraced the policy enacted in 1988 by the California Legislature to double Central Valley salmon over the depressed numbers that they 

reached in the 1960s and 1970s 4—and put up the Federal government’s ‘‘fair share’’ 

of the 1.6 million acre-feet of water needed—the CVPIA’s 800,000 acre-feet for assuring Central Valley salmon ‘‘safe passage’’ through the Delta to the Bay and ocean 

beyond. 

In a U.S. Office of Management and Budget-prescribed evaluation of the CVPIA’s 

Anadromous Fish Restoration Program—that salmon-doubling effort mandated by 

Congress—an independent science review panel found in 2008 that the Bureau of 

Reclamation has ‘‘gamed’’ the CVPIA salmon water ever since the program began— 

that not one drop of the 800,000 acre-feet of CVP water allocated by Congress to 

the rebuilding of Central Valley salmon has ever made it though the Delta to San 

Francisco Bay. 5

The OMB independent science review finding that Reclamation is in contempt of 

Congress deserves some sort of reaction, some response from Congress. We know of 

none to date. 

CVP water trading threatens implementation of Delta flow criteria 

Which brings us down to a couple of closely related California water supply challenges that deserve the attention of your Committee: 

1. The California Legislature’s mandate two months ago to the State Water Resources Control Board to determine the ‘‘flow criteria’’ necessary to protect the 

public trust resources of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. 

2. Efforts underway to gut the environmental safeguards that Congress placed in 

the CVPIA, which, unless stopped, will confound horribly the State’s efforts to 

implement those flow criteria when they are determined this summer. 

H.R. 3750, which resides in your Committee, would increase sales of CVP water 

from traditional Project users to non-Project users by, among other things, stripping 

away the environmental safeguards placed by Congress in the CVPIA. 

Let me explain. 

Prior to the CVPIA, the use of CVP water was strictly confined to the CVP’s designated ‘‘place of use’’, within the boundaries of the CVP’s water district customers. 

California’s southland communities were scrambling in 1992, as we mentioned, for 

water to replace what they would lose to the National Audubon’s 1983 Mono Lake 

State Supreme Court decision. 

Congress said, OK, we’ll allow the sale of some CVP water to non-CVP water 

users, but we’re talking about only water that has been used on-farm at the time 

the CVPIA was enacted. That way, Congress was heading off the sale of the water 

that it had reserved for Trinity River restoration and Central Valley salmon doubling. 

H.R. 3750 strips away the CVPIA’s environmental restraints 6—the saving 

clauses for the Trinity River restoration and salmon doubling—and plunges the CVP 

headlong into California’s growing ‘‘arbitrage’’ water market—that handful of political insiders waxing fat by buying heavily-subsidized public project water and ‘‘flipping’’ it, at greatly increased prices 7 to non-CVP buyers. 

To the extent that H.R. 3750 waives away the protections for the water that Congress intended be used for doubling Central Valley salmon stocks, it severely threatens the implementation of the State Water Resources Control Board Delta ‘‘flow criteria’’, they which the Legislature’s 2009 ‘‘historic Delta water deal’’ intends be apVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:03 May 03, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\54619.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
89 

plied to the protection of the Bay-Delta Estuary’s public trust resources, including 

Central Valley salmon. 

Once sold, particularly into urban markets, this heavily-subsidized public project 

water is very, very hard to retrieve. 

We recommend, with all our might, that your Committee take a long, hard look 

at the environmental chaos that would result should you release H.R. 3750. We recommend you hold it in your Committee. 

To be clear, we are not against legislation to help farmers. What we are opposed 

to is legislation like H.R. 3750 which threatens to move publicly-subsidized CVP 

water from the farms into the hands of water traders. 

I’ll be glad to answer such questions that I can. PCFFA’s executive director, Zeke 

Grader, is also here today and will gladly answer any questions that you may wish 

to put to him. 

Let me quickly add my thanks to the Members of Congress for their help in keeping our fleet alive these last two years. When we could not go fishing you provided 

us badly needed disaster relief. We don’t know yet if there will be a season this year 

but if there isn’t, we will need your help again. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address your Committee. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Now for Mr. Joe Del Bosque, owner of 

Empresas Del Bosque, Inc., in Los Banos. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JOE L. DEL BOSQUE, OWNER, 

EMPRESAS DEL BOSQUE INC., LOS BANOS, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. DEL BOSQUE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am glad to 

be here to hear the points of view on the water. It is very good to 

hear that, and you have won one forum. 

My name is Joe Del Bosque. I grew up on a farm in the San Joaquin Valley, became a farmer in 1985, and my wife and I grow cantaloupes, organic cantaloupes, asparagus, almonds, and cherries. At 

peak season my farm employs over 300 people growing, picking, 

and packing fresh fruits, nuts, and vegetables for the country. My 

farm would be considered average an average size and representative of the very diverse San Joaquin Valley. 

The farm lies in the CVP, Central Valley Project. So we are at 

Ground Zero in this drought. We have been operating with chronic 

water shortages since 1992 when, as Mr. Collins mentioned, the 

CVPIA was passed, but since 1992 until 2008 our average water 

allocation was 60 percent, and the worst that we had was 25 percent. We have learned a lot during that time, learned a lot how to 

become efficient. We have learned a lot about how to find sources 

of water, transfer water. We learned how to be as efficient as possible growing our crops, but nothing could prepare us for what we 

got in 2009, a 10 percent allocation. It has been devastating to our 

part of the world. 

As I said, our farm as tried to become as efficient as possible. All 

of my crops are under drip irrigation. In fact, I have more drip irrigation than I have crops, because we don’t have enough water to 

go around. So I had to lay 850 acres fallow on my farm last year. 

I still have to pay rent, mortgage payments, tax assessments on 

that land. So it has been a very tough economic hit for us. 

The worst part of this situation is what it has done to our communities and our farm workers. Our farm workers are a very important part of our farm, and they are the most vulnerable segment 

of our communities out there. We have heard all sorts of statistics 

on unemployment of farm workers out there, and disputes about 

whether it is 35 or 40 percent or not. 

90 

The fact of it is that I know that we did not hire a lot of people 

back this year. I know that a lot of the people that we did hire 

were underemployed. You don’t see that in the statistics. These 

people during peak season typically work six and seven days a 

week very happily, and most of the time in the summertime they 

were only working five days a week. For farm workers, that is very 

devastating. It is not like you or I. They don’t have additional 

sources of income. They rely on us, and so that is why I am here, 

for them. 

Many of them were seen at food distribution lines in Mendota, 

Firebaugh, San Joaquin, Huron, receiving food that oftentimes 

came from China. That was very demoralizing to see that. Several 

times I volunteered to distribute food, and I found the wives of my 

workers in line. These are people who would rather be working. 

Handouts are appreciated, but they don’t pay for rent. They don’t 

pay for their children’s clothing. These people need to get back to 

work, and we need them. Our fruits and vegetables need these 

people. They are just as important to us as our land and our water. 

It is a three-legged stool. We need all three. 

The economic impacts of my farm—I am not even going to talk 

about that. It is not as important as what it has done to our people. 

So where are we now? You know, we have seen these storms that 

have come and dumped tons of rain and snow in the mountains. 

As was stated earlier, there is about 100,000 acre-feet of water 

flowing to the ocean right now. Our pumps are running at 60 percent speed. The amount that we are losing there could supply my 

farm’s annual—the whole farm’s annual irrigation needs for two 

years. 

I am not saying that water is lost, and we don’t want all the 

water. We know that the fish need water, but our area is suffering, 

and that is why we have come here to speak up. The ironic thing 

is that now there is an issue coming up called turbidity, and as the 

storms swell the rivers even further and there is more water in 

them, we are going to get less, because apparently, if the smelt 

don’t see the pumps, we have to turn the pumps off. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. Could you wrap it up? 

Mr. DEL BOSQUE. Yes, I will. Thank you. I would like to say that 

our Federal Government has not been of help to us. We feel in the 

Central Valley that we have been neglected, that they have been 

giving us promises since last summer. We have seen very little, if 

anything, from them, and so, Madam Chairwoman, we would like 

to appeal to you, and anyone else who will listen, that we need to 

get something done. We need to get some sense into this. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Del Bosque follows:] 

Statement of Joe L. Del Bosque, Owner, Empresas Del Bosque Inc, 

Los Banos, California 

Introduction 

My name is Joe Del Bosque. I grew up on a farm, the son of farm workers on 

the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley. Thanks to this great country, I went to college, and was able to become a farmer in 1985. Some of the land that I now own, 

I worked as a boy picking melons. I now grow cantaloupes, organic cantaloupes, asparagus, almonds, and cherries on about 2300 acres. At peak season, my farm employs over 300 people growing, picking, and packing nuts, fruits, and vegetables, 

feeding people across America. My wife, Maria Gloria, who was also a farmworker, 

91 

helps me manage the operation. My farm would be considered average in size and 

representative of the very diverse Westside. 

Our water supply 

Our farm lies in several water districts, but all are federal districts that receive 

water through the CVP. Our water comes from the Delta, pumped into canals that 

provide water for farms and cities. About 25 million people receive some of their 

water through this system, including San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego. 

We have been farming with chronic water shortages since 1992 when the CVPIA 

took effect. Before 2009, in our worst years we received a 25% water supply. The 

recent biological opinions for smelt and salmon have cut our water supply deeper 

than solely hydrologic conditions. That is the reason that we only received 10% in 

2009. 

For over fourteen years we have been adopting high tech irrigation systems to become more efficient and conserve water. This has required large investments and 

learning new methods. Last year, 170 acres of land with high tech drip irrigation 

systems laid idle because there wasn’t enough water. At some point, we can no 

longer conserve our way out. 

Impacts to my farm 

Since 2007, the amount of crops that my farm produces has been reduce by almost 

half. I no longer grow tomatoes or wheat. My bread-and-butter crop, cantaloupes 

has been reduced by 55%. Asparagus acreage has been cut in half. Last year I terminated leases on 300 acres of land, and another 850 acres were left idle. I still 

had to pay rent or mortgage payments, taxes, and assessments on this land. We 

have had to find other sources of water to make up the shortfall for the survival 

of our trees, always at expensive rates. Since 2007 my water cost has tripled causing me to exhaust cash reserves. 

Right now is the time of the year when my banker is reviewing our loan requests. 

I will have to provide him with sources and quantities of water for our farm. All 

I have to show him now is what I have left over from last year, which is very little. 

We typically start planting in March. The Bureau of Reclamation didn’t allocate 

water to us last year until May 7. This makes ag bankers very nervous. 

Impacts to the community 

Some of the most vulnerable people in our farming communities, our farm workers, have been hit hard by this drought. With less produce to grow and harvest, 

many workers were not rehired. Those that had jobs were often underemployed. 

During the summer harvest season when people normally work six or seven days 

a week, most employees worked only five. This is a terrible impact on our worker’s 

and their families. Some of our workers bought homes for the first time in late 2008, 

only to struggle to make payments in 2009. In our local towns of Mendota and 

Firebaugh the unemployment rates skyrocketed to 35% and 40%. Hundreds of 

people who should have been growing and picking our food were gathered in food 

distribution lines. Several times that I volunteered to distribute food, I found the 

wives of our employees waiting in line. These are people who would rather be working. Handouts are appreciated, but they do not pay rent or children’s clothing. God 

only knows how they are surviving the winter. I’m sure many have gone back to 

their home countries. Madam Chairwoman, we need these people. They are just as 

important to our farms as our land and water. 

Other economic impacts 

The impacts of starving our farms is far-reaching. Just from the reduction of our 

cantaloupe acreage is a significant economic loss to our economy. That reduction, 

595 acres, would have generated over $4 million to our economy, $1.1 million of that 

in wages, and several hundred thousand dollars in taxes. Every farm dollar would 

have been multiplied by four or five in our distribution and retail sectors. The crop 

produced would have fed over 2 million people their annual consumption of the 

fresh fruit. All this for about 900 acre feet. About the same amount that waters 

about 600 lawns per year. 

What do we face for 2009? 

The biological opinions for smelt and salmon have restricted pumping from the 

delta since November 1, and consequently choking our water supply. Even during 

storm events such as this week when rivers have tripled in size, the pumps are restricted, and water flows to the ocean. This week we have lost about 10,000 acrefeet per day. That is enough water to irrigate my entire farm for two years. As rivers reach flood stage, we expect pumping to be restricted even further due to turVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:03 May 03, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\54619.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
92 

bidity standards. Apparently when the smelt can’t see the pumps, these must be 

shut down. 

Our government has not helped us. Most of the aid that Washington sent to California for drought relief went to environmental projects such as fish screens, and 

didn’t produce any water at all. Some went to fund groundwater wells which will 

exacerbate the depletion of our aquifers. The two-gates project has been all but scuttled by the Interior Department. Secretary Salazar came to my farm in October, 

gave us little hope, and he has made it real. Madam Chairwoman, who else can we 

turn to? 

Among farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, there is a very real urgency. We are 

watching as our future spills out the Golden Gate Bridge to the Pacific every day. 

We cannot sustain another 2009. We have already seen farmers pull our their almond orchards in the San Joaquin Valley, and avocado growers decimate their trees 

in San Diego County. All the water that has been deprived us, causing economic 

and social devastation, has not improved the populations of smelt or salmon. We 

have come to the point where our leaders must make some sense of this and prevent 

further disaster to our farms and people. It was done in New Mexico with the silvery minnow; it can be done here. Thank you for the opportunity to present this 

testimony to you and the committee. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so very much for your testimony. 

We are running a little behind. I want to be sure that we are out 

of here shortly. Since there are only two of us left, it may be making a little leisure. But I will start off with Ms. Dunn. 

This is more of a comment than a question, but is the business 

community ready to put in financial, moral and other support to 

solve the water problems, because normally the polluters, the 

PRPs, potential responsible parties, walk away and leave the taxpayer to pay for the pollution in many of the areas. That, to me, 

is a great concern. 

So while some of the businesses may say that they are wanting 

all these benefits, there is also a cost to that, and I want to be sure 

that we do not ignore that. So that is just as a comment. But thank 

you very much for your testimony. 

Ms. DUNN. Ma’am, if I may, I want to share with you that I 

couldn’t agree, and I think the businesses, certainly in my organization and up and down the state, would concur that a clean, reliable water supply, together with a clean environment, is very important to business as well. They could not do business without it. 

So that will happen. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Well, we may call on you for 

maybe identifying some of those parties to help out. 

Ms. DUNN. Absolutely. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Dr. Gleick, have you calculated the cost comparisons of the various types of water development projects such as 

surface, recycle, and groundwater storage? 

Dr. GLEICK. We have done some of that. The water agencies have 

done some of that. The state and the Federal Government has done 

some of that. There are many different options out there. It depends on what you want to build where. 

We believe that the conservation and efficiency options that I described very briefly and that are described more in the report we 

are doing are the cheapest. They pay back the fastest. They save 

water. They save energy. They let water—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Such as? 

Dr. GLEICK. Well, for example, one of our suggestions is replacing 

2 million very inefficient toilets in the state. New York City replaced 1.3 million toilets in three years in a city of 8 million. We 

93 

have a population of 35 or 36 or 37 million. That would save an 

enormous amount of water. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I might want to interject, but recently in a 

briefing that I had with many water agencies, they said they have 

tapped out. I don’t believe it. I think you are right. 

Dr. GLEICK. Surface storage is an option. There are discussions 

of a number of dams that have been proposed. They seem to be 

very expensive, even the best estimates of what it would cost to 

build a surface storage dam, and I can’t remember a surface storage dam that we actually built for what the initial estimates were 

anyway, but we have lost a lot of groundwater, as we have heard. 

It is much cheaper to store water underground. We ought to figure out a way to capture a lot of this runoff, store it in underground reservoirs, underground aquifers. Now that is conjunctive 

use. It is much cheaper. Desalination is very expensive, but we 

might choose to build it for its reliability. It is very reliable. We 

might consider building desalination in Southern California, if we 

agree to take less water from the Delta. That is an option that 

hasn’t been discussed. 

There are lots of answers here to your question, depending on 

what you want to build where. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you very much for your very insightful testimony and to your answers, because I think you have 

a lot of good, solid information for a lot of the water agencies that 

we can benefit from. 

Where do you think the best application of funds can be made 

right away to get the biggest benefit in addressing our supply 

issue? 

Dr. GLEICK. I think, in part, it is a question for many farmers, 

for example, of coming up with upfront money for them. Those 

farms that have not moved to drip, that have not moved to precision sprinklers, that aren’t able to measure their soil moisture and 

irrigate when the crops really need it rather than just when it is 

delivered by irrigation districts, or irrigation districts who don’t 

have the money to rebuild their delivery systems so they can deliver water more accurately, that is an upfront cost. 

Some of those savings pay back over a long period of time, but 

there isn’t money for upfront expenditures. The Equip program 

under the farm bill provided some of that money, but that money 

ran out really quickly. That is one example of a good source of— 

a potentially very fruitful source of money. I have other examples 

I would be happy to share with you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. All right. We would like for you to submit it 

to the record, Dr. Famiglietti, can GRACE be used to identify how 

much water is actually in the Central Valley aquifer or, as far as 

that is concerned, in that Basin, and try to figure out if there are 

any other aquifers that had been unidentified that may have been 

spotted or you know there has been some kind of activity that leads 

you to believe that they may be usable for storage of rainwater capture, recycled water, etcetera? 

Dr. FAMIGLIETTI. GRACE cannot tell us the absolute amount of 

how much water is there. It can tell us the changes from month 

to month, but as we spoke earlier, I do think that there is the potential to identify new sources, and I gave an example before of 

94 

how we see some signals of water storage variation in places where 

we might not expect it; for example, in the Sahara Desert. 

So we can look there and see that there is a fair amount of water 

stored in the Nubian aquifer. So I think that we can be using it 

to do a little prospecting, if you will. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So what would it take for us to request that 

you begin that prospecting on behalf of California? 

Dr. FAMIGLIETTI. Oh, not too much, but as I mentioned in my 

testimony, I think the biggest thing is that the data will be disappearing soon. So I think the biggest contribution that you can 

make—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Again, Commissioner Connor, help. 

Dr. FAMIGLIETTI. And I can get you the names of the appropriate 

NASA officials to speak with about how to increase that priority. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Very quickly, Mr. Luna, what is your number 

one challenge to achieve water sustainability in the Los Angeles 

area, and what options exist to achieve that? 

Mr. LUNA. I am big believer in education. So I think we need to 

do more of that. When I say more, I praise the existing information 

that has been out there, but we need to educate, and we need to 

educate our youth, prepare them for how we are leaving the status 

of this planet for them, and by preparing them I mean appropriate 

tools, education-wise, culturally. They need to appreciate it. So I 

think that is the biggest challenge for the immigrant communities. 

It is not that we don’t get it. It is that we disconnect, and we come 

here, and we suddenly forget that water gets flushed away, and 

that tap, that water, is connected to other places. 

So I think it is that connection and that water culture that we 

need to build, is what I see as most challenging, but also provides 

the best opportunity, because it doesn’t cost that much. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And also in different languages. Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I was just pondering the question of financial 

commitment that the Chairwoman raised with Ms. Dunn, and it 

seemed to me a good opportunity to take a trip down memory lane 

back to 1960 when California voters approved the Burns-Porter 

Act. The Burns-Porter Act authorized the construction of the State 

Water Project, including the great California Aqueduct and the series of northern dams. It included Oroville that I mentioned earlier. 

That bond measure was $1.75 billion in 1960. You do the inflation adjustment. It is about $12.5 billion in today’s money. So 

about $12.5 billion to produce the State Water Project, essentially 

everything that we are dealing with today that we depend upon for 

our water supply from Northern California. 

Now in the last dozen years, California voters have already ap- proved six bond measures totaling $17 billion, all of which promise 

to increase our water supplies. So the question I would ask Ms. 

Dunn is where is our generation’s state water project? Do you 

think the money that has already been committed has been very 

well spent? 

Ms. DUNN. None of these bonds, sir, were perfect, and many of 

the bonds, my personal review, contained a lot of benefit for the environment and not a lot of water in them, but the reality is the nature of the bond processes—I know I do not have to instruct you, 

95 

sir—is such that they are a result of many compromises. So even 

this bond package that is coming to the ballot now is not perfect, 

but it does provide for a delicate balance among both the environment and the economic benefits that we need. 

Yes, that is correct. The funds that we have received under previous bonds probably didn’t produce the infrastructure, all the infrastructure, that we needed, but there were benefits in them that 

helped. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Speaking of the bond process, up until the last 

generation, we first decided what project we were going to build, 

what dam we were going to build, what canal we were going to 

build. We went out and got bids on that, and once we knew and 

had agreed to exactly what we were going to build and how much 

it was going to cost, only then did we go to voters with a bond. 

When we went to the voters with a bond, it was a self-liquidating 

general obligation bond. In other words, it was not redeemed by 

general taxpayers. It was redeemed by the users of the water and 

power from that dam in proportion to their use. That has been 

completely turned upside down. The most recent bond, and for that 

matter, the six that preceded it, don’t authorize specific projects. 

They establish grab-bags of money. 

Why are we surprised then when that money is frittered away 

on small projects that don’t add up, don’t begin to add up to the 

magnitude of the Burns-Porter Act projects that had produced the 

state water system. 

Ms. DUNN. If there is a question in there, the answer is I agree 

with you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Good answer. Mr. Collins, to what extent does 

a renewed commitment to fish hatcheries roll into this whole equation? I was very impressed by the enormous commitment that the 

State of Alaska has made to salmon hatcheries off of their coast. 

What role do fish hatcheries play in the salmon population? 

Mr. COLLINS. Hatcheries are absolutely necessary. We wouldn’t 

have any salmon left. You know, they were a mitigation for when 

the dams went up. There were huge runs of salmon that were naturally occurring that became extinct when, for instance, the Friant 

Dam went up. We would be out of business without the hatcheries, 

and we need to fund then fully and make sure they keep working, 

and I think, expand them. If we expand them, it will help everybody. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I was very impressed by the—I forget the 

exact figures—the astonishing number of salmon produced by the 

hatcheries in Alaska. 

Mr. COLLINS. Five billion. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Should we be making the same commitment 

in California? 

Mr. COLLINS. We can’t. We don’t have the rivers and the area 

that they need for that kind of production. I think it is 5 billion 

fish they have up there. We could definitely double the number of 

hatchery production in this state, and it would be a good thing. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would the gentleman yield for a second? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Sure. 

96 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I was asking the staff. In other briefings that 

I have been at, and hearings, I hear that some of the folks don’t 

like the hatcheries, because it dilutes the fish, the species. 

Mr. COLLINS. We have had hatcheries on Central Valley runs. 

The Mad River hatchery started in the 1880s. Most of the Central 

Valley fish are more homogenized than the individual runs like the 

clam, if they are further up, because it is such a long history. When 

it was started, they didn’t know what we know now about genetic 

policy. They are way, way better at it now than they used to be. 

They are very strong, these fish. I mean, they go out the gate. 

If they can get through the Delta to get out, they are this big, and 

three years later they are 35 pound fish. So they are very excellent 

fish. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. But I guess maybe what I am getting 

is that we need to be sure we have hatcheries, and that is alluding 

to his point, is that somewhere along the line we need to support 

it, but ensure that they are run well. 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, and we need the wild fish. We need the wild 

fish to be able to get up the river, too, and that is why we need 

the water there. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Ms. Dunn, what is your number 

one challenge to achieving the water sustainability in Orange 

County, and what options exist to achieve it? 

Ms. DUNN. I think the number one issue for Orange County is 

continuing to educate the public on the issues of water and how important it is to understand—it is interesting for me personally to 

see how often folks don’t even realize that so much of our water 

in Southern California comes from the Delta, how important it is 

to us. So education is important. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So you would say that we have not done a 

good job? 

Ms. DUNN. I would say collectively, all of us, not just, obviously, 

Congress. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Ms. DUNN. But in addition, making sure that our elected officials, our local elected officials, understand that they set examples 

for conservation, for recycling, for understanding water. I think 

that is an important component. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, ma’am. Mr. Del Bosque, what can 

be done to achieve water sustainability for your farm and your 

local cooperatives? 

Mr. DEL BOSQUE. In my local area, we have gone to high tech 

irrigation systems. We are using all kinds of atmospheric instruments and monitors. You know, when you are down to 10 percent, 

there is not much more you can do. You know, we are doing it. 

This old irrigator told me one time, he says, we are working the 

water so hard, it is getting callouses, and that is a fact. Our water 

that we put on our crops is literally put on by eyedroppers. We 

have no runoff. We have no excess water. There is nothing to recycle or reuse. it is all there, just in the crop. So for us the only answer is to find some sort of reliability in the water that we get. 

I believe it is going to take some sort of storage, whether it is 

surface storage or below ground storage. We are just starved for 

97 

water. There is no other way for us than to try to increase our supply some way and to be a little more reliable. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Recycle water for nonedible crops? 

Mr. DEL BOSQUE. For what? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Usage of more recycled water? 

Mr. DEL BOSQUE. We have no water to recycle. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, no. We have a lot of rainfall, and you 

are able to capture it, if you could find a place to store it. Some 

areas use rubber dams to be able to capture runoff and be able to 

have it trickle into the aquifers. There has got to be ways of being 

able to continually look for solutions. 

Mr. DEL BOSQUE. Yes. I agree. We do need to, and nobody has 

a greater sense of urgency about that than we farmers in the San 

Joaquin Valley. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you to all of you. I would state 

that we should have the media lined up here, being participants 

and being able to get the general public interested in the water solutions. Maybe it is because there has been so much rain, they 

think the drought is over. 

I would hope that somehow we are able to educate, as you will: 

Yes, have a drink; turn the water on everywhere. The fact is the 

constant message from most of the panelists has been education. 

It is an important project. It is an important topic. It is an important issue for all of us. 

Please count on us in being able to do what we can. The problem 

is, as everybody knows, if you are going to try to buy air time, it 

is expensive. So we need to find ways of being able to get the message out, whether it is to the water end users in their bill, to getting the state to cooperate, getting the media to understand the severity of the issue, and being able to say, hey, we are going to have 

more unemployment and some of you may be out of work. Maybe 

that will get to them. I don’t know, but somehow we need to work 

together, continue working on that. 

Thank you very much to all the panelists for your time, for your 

ability to travel and be with us. This concludes the Subcommittee’s 

oversight hearing on ‘‘Perspectives on California Water Supply: 

Challenges and Opportunities.’’ 

I thank the Members that came, my staff. Thank you, Metropolitan. Thank you. I do want to close and honor Steve Hall, a former 

member of the ACWA, and Wes Bannister from MWD, and Tom 

Grant, Executive Director of the Environmental Defense Fund. 

Thank you to all witnesses for appearing. Your testimonies and 

expertise have indeed been very enlightening and helpful. Under 

Committee Rule 4(h), additional material for the record should be 

submitted within the next 10 business days from today. The cooperation of all of the witnesses in replying to any questions submitted to you in writing would be most greatly appreciated. 

With that, this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ