U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

47–727 CC u WASHINGTON : 1998

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3267—THE

‘‘SONNY BONO MEMORIAL SALTON SEA RECLAMATION ACT’’

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 12, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–77

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE], JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California, Chairman

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

GEORGE MILLER, California

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

SAM FARR, California

ADAM SMITH, Washington

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

————— —————

————— —————

ROBERT FABER, Staff Director/Counsel

VALERIE WEST, Professional Staff

CHRISTOPHER STEARNS, Democratic Counsel
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held March 12, 1998 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of Members:

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, a Senator in Congress from the State of California . 7

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

Brown, Hon. George E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 14

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

Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 5

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

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

Lewis, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 10

Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New Jersey ................................................................................................ 17

Statement of Witnesses:

Bazdarich, Michael J., Ph.D., Director, Inland Empire Economic

Databank and Forecasting Center, response to questions from the Subcommittee ...................................................................................................... 163

Bunker, Richard, Chairman, Colorado River Commission of Nevada ......... 38

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

Codekas, Tellis, President, Salton Sea Authority, accompanied by Tom

Kirk, Executive Director, Salton Sea Authority and Paul Cunningham,

Director of External Affairs, IID .................................................................. 35

Prepared statement of Mr. Codekas ........................................................ 83

Cook, Wayne E., P.E., Executive Director, Upper Colorado River Commission ................................................................................................................. 69

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 160

Hardie, R. Wayne, Group Leader, Energy and Environmental Analysis,

Los Alamos National Laboratory ................................................................. 58

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 148

Harris, Christopher, Water Resources Program Manager, Arizona Department of Water Resources .............................................................................. 54

Hayes, David, Counselor to the Secretary, Department of Interior, accompanied by Robert Johnson, Lower Colorado Regional Director, BOR,

and Michael Spear, Pacific Regional Director, F&WS ............................... 32

Prepared statement of Mr. Hayes ............................................................ 112

Hirsche, Evan M., Director, National Wildlife Refuge Campaign, National

Audubon Society ............................................................................................ 74

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 93

Lesika, Leon, Executive Director, Desert Wildlife Unlimited ....................... 70

Lopez, Art, Chair, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians ....................... 56

P .................................................................................................................. 128

Pearson, Rita P., Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 86

Stewart, Ted, Executive Director, Utah Department of Natural Resources,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 92

Vaux, Henry J., Jr., Ph.D., Associate Vice President, Division of Agricultural and Natural Resources, University of California .............................. 60

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 89

Weber, Stephen, President of San Diego State University, Salton Sea

University Research Consortia .................................................................... 72

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 91
Page

IV

Statement of Witnesses—Continued

Wheeler, Hon. Douglas P., Secretary for Resources, State of California ..... 34

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

Additional material supplied:

Babbitt, Hon. Bruce, Secretary, Department of the Interior, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 123

Shaddegg, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Arizona, additional material submitted for the record .............................. 109

Text of H.R. 3267—The Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation

Act .................................................................................................................. 96
(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3267—THE

‘‘SONNY BONO MEMORIAL SALTON SEA

RECLAMATION ACT’’

THURSDAY, MARCH 12, 1998

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER AND POWER, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee convened at 10:07 a.m. in room 1334 of the

Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable John T. Doolittle,

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will

come to order.

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony concerning

H.R. 3267, The Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act.

Our objective today is to consider legislation that has been introduced by the Salton Sea Task Force. Members of the Task Force,

Congressmen Ken Calvert, Duncan Hunter, Jerry Lewis and

George Brown have introduced a measure which is designed to restore effectively the health of the Salton Sea. As many of you are

aware, restoration of the Salton Sea was a focus and primary concern of our late colleague Sonny Bono. This bill, H.R. 3267, the

Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act, is designed to

promote Sonny’s dream of restoring the Sea quickly and effectively.

Today we will hear some of the issues affecting the water quality

and lake levels at the Salton Sea. A great deal of work has been

done to evaluate the causes of poor water quality as well the periodic inundation and exposure of land around the Sea. More importantly, there have been scores of alternatives offered to solve these

problems. If we are ever to find and implement the solutions, the

time for action is upon us. Water quality is at an all-time low. The

Sea can no longer serve as the recreation resource it once was and

wildlife populations continue to be adversely affected.

The Salton Sea as it now exists is an artificial phenomenon created in 1905 as the result of high water and a break in a temporary levee along the Colorado River. For a period of about 16

months the Colorado River flowed into the Salton Sea. After the

levee break was fixed with great difficulty and over an extended

period of time, evaporation quickly reduced the size of the Sea. The

water level declined until the 1920’s when increased runoff from

imported water used in the basin began to increase the Sea’s surface.

The Salton Sea is now about 35 miles long and 15 miles wide.

The inflow has a high salinity content from the Colorado River resulting in over four million tons of salt being deposited into the Sea
2

annually. Without a natural outlet, water leaves only by evaporation, leaving the salt behind. The Sea’s salinity has increased to

the point where it is now 25 percent higher than that of our oceans

and currently jeopardizes local and migratory wildlife populations.

The Salton Sea currently experiences frequent large fish and wildlife die-offs and will be incapable of accommodating any wildlife in

just a few short years.

Land, recreational and ecological values associated with the Sea

have declined over the last two decades due in large part to the rising salinity and surface elevation. Without efforts to reduce and

stabilize the salinity levels they will continue to rise and will have

severe impacts on surrounding landowners, individuals that wish

to use the Sea for recreation and the existing wildlife species.

H.R. 3267 establishes the process for determining and implementing an engineering solution to save the Sea while also continuing the environmental analysis to evaluate and ensure the

long-term health of the Sea’s wildlife populations. Additionally, this

measure will authorize the Water Reclamation and Purification

Project along the New River, one of the major sources of water

flowing into the Sea.

If we successfully reclaim this inland Sea it will provide for recreational and economic potential while also ensuring an environmentally safe refuge for fish and the one million migratory birds

that use the Sea as part of the Pacific Flyway. If we fail to act, the

wildlife will die and we will have lost a significant recreational, ecological and economic resource.

I commend the Members of the Congressional Task Force who

have invested their time and energy to advance the cause of restoring the Sea. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses who have

had an opportunity to evaluate the problems associated with the

Salton Sea and the legislative proposal we are considering.

I do want to take a minute to comment on one issue which a

number of Members have mentioned concerning this legislation,

and that is access to Colorado River water. The legislation indicates that any water used to reduce salinity will be taken pursuant

to existing law, including the Law of the River governing the Colorado River.

As all who deal with the Colorado River know, the Colorado

River is very erratic in its supply of water. When the Colorado

River water was allocated this variation was recognized. At the

same time there was an assumption that the average annual supply available to the upper and lower basins combined would be

about 15 million acre feet of water per year. Since that time the

average has been around 14.2 million acre feet, somewhat less than

the average expected. The water allocation scheme considered periods of high flow, and at those times existing secondary priorities

or allocations will apply. If any water is to come from the Colorado

River it must be in the context of those allocations.

I look forward to further discussion on this issue, and would like

now to recognize Mr. Miller.

[H.R. 3267—The Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation

Act may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want

to join you in sharing your concerns and interests with our col-
3

leagues in devising a long-term solution for the restoration of the

Salton Sea. We need to stabilize salinity and contaminant levels to

protect the dwindling fisheries, resources and to reduce the threats

of migratory birds, and we need to revive the economic potential of

this area as well.

I do not, however, believe the Congress should act in haste to authorize and construct an expensive project at the Salton Sea before

we know what we’re doing. H.R. 3267 is well intentioned, but I believe it could force Congress to spends hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money before the scientists and engineers have

supplied us with the information we need to make good decisions.

This bill will require many changes in our Committee and I am

certain that we will hear many suggestions from Members at today’s hearing. I am particularly concerned that we correct the requirements for a compressed study and planning period. The time

period for environmental studies and NEPA compliance is entirely

too short, and the explicit language overriding further NEPA compliance and limiting judicial review is highly inappropriate.

I sincerely appreciate the efforts of those that have been made

by the Congressional Salton Sea Task Force, the Salton Sea Authority, Senator Boxer and others of our colleagues.

I just want to say this. I guess I’ve been here long enough to see

enough of these projects start and stop and start and stop. It’s my

belief that the road to success is paved by doing these things right

at the outset, and a little more time taken at the outset has huge

payoffs later on. I know I’ve struggled with George Brown over the

last several years looking at a multiple of different ideas for the

Salton Sea, I’ve read the proposals that are before us brought to

us by Congressman Hunter, and I’ve read Senator Boxer’s legislation.

I think the one thing that Sonny Bono gave us is Congressional

agreement that we’ve got to do something and we’ve got to do it

now. But what we ought to set in place is a process that is workable and that achieves a goal. It would be a tragic miscarriage of

public duty if in Sonny’s name we created something that didn’t

work or got bogged down because in mid-course we found out that

the science of the studies was wrong, and another 6 months or a

year at the beginning may have hugh payoffs in terms of the success of this project going forward.

So I would hope, since we do have agreement here that we need

to do something, and I’m not saying that it has got to be my way,

but what I’m saying is I would hope that between now and the

time this Committee marks it up we sit down and sort through

some of these problems and realize that maybe the shortest point

between ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’ is through some existing law with good agreement and good science and positions by Members of Congress pushing the agencies to get this done.

So I look forward to the testimony by our colleagues and Senator

Boxer, and I look forward to those who will testify on the later panels. I assume that I, like many of my colleagues, have heard from

all of the signatories on the Law of the River about their views of

this legislation, and I think that’s simply indicative of whether or

not you spend time on working these problems out up front or
4

whether you try to jam this and you end up with still having nothing been completed in the legislative process.

So I want to thank all of our colleagues in the House that have

worked so terribly hard to try to get this up before the Committee,

and I look forward to the testimony. Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Under our Committee rules the opening statements are normally

limited to the Chairman and Ranking Member. However, in view

of the fact that Mr. Calvert is a primary sponsor of this bill I wondered if the Committee would entertain unanimous consent to

allow him to make a statement. I would be happy to have everybody make a statement, but there are 16 witnesses at this hearing

today and it’s going to be a very long day if we can’t expedite it.

Mr. Shadegg.

Mr. SHADEGG. Reserving my right to object, I would Mr. Chairman, like to make a brief opening statement, but I will make a

commitment to you to keep it very brief, along with Mr. Calvert.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. Well then with that reservation is

there objection?

[No response.]

OK.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Calvert is recognized.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I promise to keep

my statement brief also.

First, Congressman Lewis could not join us this morning, and I

would ask unanimous consent that his statement be entered into

the record.

I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member of this

Committee for holding the hearing so promptly on the Sonny Bono

Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act, an issue that is not only important to me, but to California and I believe to the nation.

Mr. Chairman, my interest in saving the Salton Sea is personal

as well as professional, and it has taken even more meaning since

Sonny’s death. Sonny and I became close friends representing the

same county and working closely on issues important to our constituents, and certainly no issue came to the forefront more than

the Salton Sea. We both shared fond memories of waterskiing on

the Sea in our youth, and we looked forward to future generations

enjoying the same type of memories.

When I was a boy I only appreciated the fun that the Sea had

to offer, but now as a Member of Congress I see a large body of

water with enormous potential. As the largest inland body of water

in California it also offers an enhanced potential for environmental

uses as it already serves as a component of the migratory bird Pacific Flyway. This is Southern California’s largest environmental

problem, in my opinion, and it needs to be addressed in a manner

that provides for long-term solutions.

One point that I would like to make to my friend from California

is we’ve been talking about this problem for 30 years, as I’m sure

we’ll hear from our other friends who are on this Task Force. When

I was going down to North Beach 30 years ago they were putting

up banners with Save the Salton Sea. They have been studying it

for all of that time, and now it’s time for action. I don’t think anyone wants to see the death of the Salton Sea. We all agree that
5

something has to be done, but delay, no matter how well intentioned by the folks that are trying to do that, unfortunately may

lead to some unfortunate results. We must act now and work out

our differences. I have no problem meeting with the other side to

accomplish this task and to get it done.

I appreciate your having this hearing, Mr. Chairman and, unfortunately, my friend from Arizona wasn’t here to hear your excellent

explanation of the Law of the River.

[The prepared statement of Congressman Calvert follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing so promptly on the Sonny Bono

on this panel on an issue that is so near and dear to my heart. Mr. Chairman, my

interest in saving the Salton Sea is personal as well as professional, and has taken

on even more meaning with Sonny’s death. Sonny and I became close friends representing neighboring districts and working closely on issues important to our constituents, especially saving the Salton Sea. We both shared fond memories of waterskiing on the Salton Sea in our youths, and wanted to ensure that future generations would be able to have similar memories.

When I was a boy, however, I only appreciated the fun the sea had to offer. As

an adult, and as a Member of Congress, I see a large body of water with a staggering potential for the community. As the largest inland body of water in California, it also offers enormous potential for environmental uses, currently serving

as a component of the migratory bird Pacific Flyway. This is Southern California’s

largest environmental problem, and it needs to be addressed in a manner that provides for long-term solutions.

You will hear from many people today with many laudable reasons for saving the

Salton Sea. But the most compelling reason we are here today, and the reason this

bill has such bipartisan support, is to honor the life and legacy of our dear friend

and colleague, Sonny Bono. As we work toward getting this bill approved by the

House and Senate, if understandable differences of opinion threaten to slow the forward movement of this legislation, we must keep foremost in our mind that it was

Sonny’s dream to restore the Salton Sea, and in his tragic absence, it is up to us

to accomplish the task.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well this is his first opportunity and he’ll be able

to hear it right now perhaps.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Shadegg.

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize for being a few minutes late and for not being able

to hear your brilliant and eloquent explanation of the Law of the

River. It is in fact the Law of the River which gives me concern

in this particular hearing.

Let me say at the outset that I have no objection to the restoration of the Salton Sea and indeed view that as a worthy goal and

one that I would be happy to work with in a reasonable fashion to

ensure that those working toward that task are able to do so.

The caveat that I am compelled to insert is in fact the implications for the Law of the River. There are literally millions of people

in the Western United States, over 13 million in the six Basin

States, excluding California, and tens of millions others beyond

that in California who are dependent upon the Colorado River,

which is already completely allocated, and which allocation California is not only taking its entire current allocation, but as we all

know it is taking more than its current allocation.

The point being that the Law of the River has been the subject

of probably dozens of pieces of legislation in this Congress and of

numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and of at least one sem-
6

inal case, Arizona versus California. That law has been established

over decades of compromise of litigation, and it important for us in

considering this bill that we understand the delicate balance struck

by the Law of the River.

Second, it is important to understand that restoration of the

Salton Sea does not require that we alter the Law of the River,

that is, California already gets its basic allocation of Colorado River

water. In addition, California gets the largest piece of the surplus

or excess waters of the Colorado River flow, when and if they occur,

and the Secretary of Interior has now declared on two separate occasions that they have occurred, and from its basic allocation or

from its surplus or excess allocation California can use that water

for any purpose, including the Salton Sea, if that’s what it sees fit.

However, I think it is important not just to my State of Arizona,

but in fact important to the delegations from every other State, the

six remaining States besides California that are in the Colorado

River Basin, that we not alter the delicate balance struck by the

Law of the River that compromises it in the litigation which have

created it.

In that regard, as you all know, I circulated a letter which has

been signed by every Member of each Delegation from each of the

six remaining Basin States saying what I have just said, that is,

that we do not oppose restoration of the Salton Sea. We simply implore you that this legislation should not alter the careful balance

struck under the Law of the River, that California can take its current allocation, either its basic allocation or its surplus allocation,

and achieve what those who want to restore the Salton Sea want

to achieve, and that under no circumstances can we, the Representatives of those other States, and I would suggest quite frankly that

many Members I think of the California Delegation representing

other interests would be concerned about any reallocation of Colorado River water which would place them in jeopardy for this purpose.

Since it’s not necessary to change the allocation or the Law of the

River to accomplish the goal that the bill’s sponsors want to do, I

am hopeful they will agree to language which makes it clear that

that is not intended in this Act, and quite frankly they have already represented to me, Mr. Calvert has and Mr. Hunter has to

Senator Kyle in my State that they do not intend to do that.

And with that I look forward to the testimony.

[The letter referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Let me just draw to the gentleman’s

attention Title I of the bill which does indeed state that the bill

does not affect any treaty, law or agreement governing the use of

water from the Colorado River. If the gentleman might review that

and let us know in a timely manner whether you think that———

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed that, and actually

it says this section does not alter that, and an amendment I will

seek at some point would be that this Act not be that purpose, and

then I think we would be comfortable. There also will be language

offered by the Arizona Department of Water Resources and identical language offered by the Director of the Upper Basin States

representing four Upper Basin States which is the clarifying lan-
7

guage which we will seek which does not alter the intent of what

you just read and it technically corrects the language of the bill.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK, and maybe some of our principal authors

would want to comment on that to indicate whether you’re sympathetic or not.

We welcome our distinguished panel of Members here today to

testify, and first on the panel is Senator Barbara Boxer of California.

Senator.

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, A SENATOR IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, and I want to thank my colleagues for saying it was fine if I did open. We have a vote starting

at 10:30, and I’m a little bit hobbled this morning. So I will have

to leave. I would love to take questions. So if you could put them

in writing, Mr. Chairman, I will immediately get the answers back.

I am very delighted to be here in the House, the House of the

people, the place that I served for 10 years with many of you. I

have many fond memories, and I think it is very appropriate that

this legislation start here. It was brought to us by the late Sonny

Bono who we all miss, and I am very proud to be playing a role

in saving the Salton Sea.

I want to make a couple of points, Mr. Chairman, and I will be

brief myself. I want to ask unanimous consent to place my entire

statement in the record.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Without objection, so ordered.

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I have had very pleasant conversations with Congressman Hunter on this, with Congressman

Brown and Congressman Miller and several others and wanted to

make the point that the legislation that I have introduced along

with Senator Feinstein builds on the House bill. This is not a contest and there is no simple answer to this. This is going to be a

moving, breathing piece of legislation. As Congressman Miller

points out, I think we all have the same goal, and I was very taken

with the comments of the Congressman from Arizona because I

think he is working in a very friendly fashion to resolve his concerns.

What Senator Feinstein and I attempted to do in the legislation

we have introduced is to listen to those concerns that have come

in from the Department of Interior, from the local community, from

environmental groups and from other States concerned about water

allocation, and we did hear from Senator Kyle with a similar comment. So what we have tried to do in this legislation having had

the benefit of Congressman Hunter and Congressman Brown and

Congressman Calvert’s work, if you will, and others is to respond

to some of the discussions around the bill and try to put something

together that responded to that.

In my presentation I go into some detail about the Salton Sea,

which from the time I was a child learning about the Salton Sea

has always fascinated me, and in the interest of time I won’t go

into that, except to say we now know that the Salton Sea is one

of the most important habitats for migratory birds along the Pacific

Flyway and that the extreme salinity along with agricultural and
8

waste water in the Sea are rapidly deteriorating the entire ecosystem. The existing Salton Sea ecosystem is near collapse or nearing collapse with millions of fish and thousands of birds dying off

in recent year. Birds and fish that once thrived there are now

threatened with death and disease as the tons of salt and toxic contaminants that are constantly dumped into the Sea become more

and more concentrated and more and more deadly over time, and

the local economy is being affected by the loss of recreational opportunities.

So we have an issue here that really I think does unite us. This

is an environmental issue, this is also an economic issue, and it’s

also a tribute to our late colleague. So I think there is much going

for us to come to a solution. But we do not have a solution at hand,

and therefore while we must move forward swiftly I believe we

must not more forward hastily. The legislation which I introduced

allows the Department of Interior to adequately review all options

for restoring the Sea while complying with all environmental laws.

We put a timeframe in of 18 months, and I believe it is a tight

timeframe, but it is realistic.

I am very pleased with the favorable comments on the BoxerFeinstein bill. Secretary Babbitt said ‘‘I have had an opportunity to

review the legislation. In my judgment the bill is a thoughtful and

practical approach.’’ He says he looks forward to refining and implementing this important initiative.

John Flicker, the President of the National Audubon Society said

that the Audubon Society strongly endorses the legislation, and we

have had other comments from local people. Tellis Codekas, President of the Salton Sea Authority and President of the Coachella

Valley District said ‘‘Senator Boxer is on the right track. Her legislation builds on a bipartisan local and national effort.’’

Mr. Chairman, I am proud of this support, and you will certainly

have an opportunity to hear from the real experts sitting behind

me.

Again without going into the details of the legislation let me

make this point. If we waive environmental laws, Mr. Chairman,

I see this project getting delayed and delayed and delayed. The

people of this country want us to stand by these environmental

laws, and I think when Congressman Miller says we have to push

the agencies I think that is absolutely true. When I started the legislation I had a conversation with Congressman Hunter, and he

said, Barbara, 24 months, I mean we’ve got to push it down, and

we talked to the Department of Interior and they signed off on the

18 months. So I think with all of us having good will this can come

to a very good ending.

In closing let me quote Sonny Bono who told USA Today ‘‘If we

don’t move within a year or two, it will be too late,’’ and I think

he’s right. The clock is ticking and we must act now to find a solution. Scientists have warned that the Salton Sea will be dead within 15 years. It is our responsibility.

I am very proud to be here, and I’m very grateful to you, Mr.

Chairman, for including me. I want to be a member of the team

with all of you in a bipartisan fashion to make restoring the Salton

Sea one of the greatest accomplishments of this Congress. Thank

you very much.
9

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Senator.

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for this opportunity to discuss an issue which

is so important to all of us here today—restoration of The Salton Sea.

I am very pleased to see the impressive panel of experts that will be testifying

today, and I believe all opinions will lead us to a solid legislative effort.

Last week, I introduced a Senate version of the Salton Sea legislation. The Boxer–

Feinstein legislation builds from the House bill, but there are important distinctions

that alleviate some of the concerns I have heard from the Department of Interior,

the local community, and environmental groups.

Over the years, scientists, communities and politicians alike, have been trying to

draw national attention to the decline of the Salton Sea. Our late friend and colleague, Representative Sonny Bono, who died in a tragic accident in January,

worked tirelessly to make this issue an environmental priority for this Congress. I

am very pleased to join the bipartisan effort to carry on that legacy.

The Salton Sea is a unique natural resource in Southern California. Created in

1905 by a breach in a levee along the Colorado River, the Salton Sea is California’s

largest inland body of water. It is one of the most important habitats for migratory

birds along the Pacific Flyway.

For 16 months after the breach, the Colorado River flowed into a dry lakebed, filling it to a depth of 80 feet. For a time following the closure of the levee, the water

levels declined rapidly as evaporation greatly exceeded inflow. A minimum level was

reached in the 1920s, after which the sea once again began to rise, due largely to

the importation of water into the basin for agricultural purposes from the New and

Alamo Rivers.

Since there is no natural outlet for the sea at its current level, evaporation is the

only way water leaves the basin. Therefore, all of the salts carried with water that

flows into the sea have remained there. Salinity is currently more than 25 percent

higher than ocean water, and rising.

This extreme salinity, along with agricultural and wastewater in the sea, are rapidly deteriorating the entire ecosystem. The existing Salton Sea ecosystem is under

severe stress and nearing collapse, with millions of fish and thousands of bird dieoffs in recent years. Birds and fish that once thrived here are now threatened with

death and disease as the tons of salts and toxic contaminants that are constantly

dumped into the Salton Sea become more and more concentrated and deadly over

time. The local economy is also being affected by the loss of recreational opportunities.

Despite the urgency of the situation, we do not have the solution at hand and,

therefore, must move forward swiftly, but not hastily. The legislation which I introduced allows the Department of Interior to adequately review all options for restoring the sea while complying with all environmental laws. The time frame of 18

months, I believe, is tight but realistic.

I am pleased with the favorable comments on the Boxer–Feinstein legislation.

Secretary Bruce Babbitt said, ‘‘I have had an opportunity to review the Salton Sea

legislation that Senators Boxer and Feinstein are introducing this morning. In my

judgement, the bill as drafted reflects a more thoughtful and practical approach for

addressing the serious environmental challenges that face the Salton Sea. I look forward to working with the Senators in refining and, hopefully implementing this important initiative.’’

John Flicker, President of the National Audubon Society said, ‘‘The National Audubon Society strongly endorses this legislation by Senator Boxer. This bill sets in

motion a process to determine the source of the ecological crisis facing the Salton

Sea and provide recommendations on how to reverse the Salton Sea’s rapid deterioration.’’

‘‘Senator Boxer’s bill represents an important step forward in the fight to save the

Salton Sea,’’ said Congressman George Brown. ‘‘She has done an outstanding job

building a consensus bill that can win local and Federal support.’’

And Tellis Codekas, President of the Salton Sea Authority and President of the

Coachella Valley Water District said, ‘‘Senator Boxer is on the right track with her

bill. Her legislation builds on a bipartisan local and national effort to save the

Salton Sea.’’

I am proud of this support. And today you will have the opportunity to hear more

from these individuals and their organizations.
10

Under my legislation, Interior will report to Congress within one year on the options for restoring the Salton Sea, and will include a recommendation for a preferred option. Interior will review ways to reduce and stabilize salinity and stabilize

surface elevation. They will also explore opportunities to restore the health of fish

and wildlife resources and their habitats, enhance recreational use and economic development, and continue the use of the Salton Sea for irrigation drainage.

Interior then has another 6 months within which it must complete all environmental compliance and permitting activities required to implement the proposal. By

the end of this eighteen month period, Interior must submit a final report to Congress, at which time the authorization for construction is triggered, allowing Congress 30 days of session to make changes in the plan, or to stop it. This 30-day wait

period gives the local authorities and Members of Congress an opportunity to review

the plan before construction begins. If necessary Congress can then take action to

stop or modify the proposal.

I totally understand the need to act swiftly, but I am concerned about the time

frames established in the House bill. I firmly believe that if we rush this process

and waive or modify the National Environmental Policy Act, we will end up in

court, prolonging this process instead of shortening it.

As I said, I have worked with local and Federal interested parties, most of whom

are represented here today—including the Salton Sea Authority, the Department of

Interior, the Imperial and Riverside Counties Boards of Supervisors, the National

Audubon Society, Members of Congress, and others—to develop, what I consider to

be, a true consensus bill. I would again like to thank them for their assistance and

dedication.

In a December 23, 1998, article in USA Today, Sonny Bono said, ‘‘This is our last

chance. If we don’t move within a year or two, it will be too late.’’ He was right:

the clock is ticking and we must act now to find a solution. Scientists have warned

that the Salton Sea will be a dead sea within fifteen years.

I am hopeful that with the bipartisan effort shown here today, we can avert that

unnecessary disaster, and save the Salton Sea for future generations of farmers,

tourists and wildlife to enjoy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing today. I look forward to working with you and other Members of the Committee on this critical

issue. This is necessary and important legislation that will not only benefit Californians and our Nation’s natural heritage, but will also carry on the legacy of Representative Sonny Bono.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I believe Mr. Calvert has testimony to be entered

into the record on behalf of Mr. Lewis; is that right?

Mr. CALVERT. Yes. Mr. Chairman, would you entertain Congressman Lewis’ statement for the record?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes. Actually let me indicate to the Members

and witnesses that the full text of the statements will be automatically included as part of the record. I know Representative

Chenoweth has a statement as well to submit, and anyone else up

here who has a statement it will be included.

[The prepared statement of Congressman Jerry Lewis follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY LEWIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I would like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for allowing me

the opportunity to participate in this important hearing and lend my strong support

for this measure which recognizes the hard work of our former colleague, Sonny

Bono, and addresses an important environmental issue in Southern California.

The legislation before the Committee today is a result of regular meetings of a

group known as the Salton Sea Task Force. The Task Force is comprised of Congressmen Duncan Hunter, George Brown, Ken Calvert and myself. We all owe

Sonny Bono a debt of gratitude for raising the profile of this critically important

Western Environmental project. Without his leadership, we would not be here today

moving forward with this legislative initiative.

Through this legislation, we have the opportunity to get a handle on potential solutions relating to the environmental restoration of the Salton Sea. However, if we

don’t act quickly and in unison, we may be too late to make a difference. Some environmental experts have predicted that at the current rate of increasing salinity, the

Salton Sea may be dead in five or ten years.
11

It is important for everyone to understand that the members of the Salton Sea

Task Force view this legislation as the starting point of a long and complicated process. For this reason, the legislation does not pick a solution to the problem. It lays

out a framework that involves all the stakeholders—the Federal Government, the

State of California, water agencies, farmers, local county governments, the Salton

Sea Authority, local universities, environmental groups and others—and allows

them to determine the most feasible solution to the pressing environmental issues

associated with the Salton Sea. Members of the Salton Sea Task Force are extremely enthusiastic and supportive of the Salton Sea University Research Consortium’s involvement on a variety of fronts, including the University of Redlands’ establishment of a Salton Sea Bioregional GIS Database, San Diego State University’s

Center for Inland Waters, and the University of California, Riverside’s expertise in

farming and hydrological issues.

We believe that this hearing is an important first step towards recognizing and

addressing issues and concerns we may not have accounted for in our original draft.

In fact, many of my colleagues from Colorado River Compact States have raised

questions regarding this bill’s impact upon treaties, laws or agreements concerning

allocations and uses of Colorado River water. I want to be clear—this legislation is

not designed to upset these fragile water rights agreements. If necessary, the Task

Force is certainly open to further clarifying this important point. It is our intent

that this legislation should represent a consensus and not be a source of conflict.

Before I conclude my brief remarks, I want to reiterate that this legislation is a

beginning point. We all expect the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation

Act to evolve as it moves through the legislative process. It is our sincere hope that

the final bill will represent Sonny’s vision of the once vibrant Salton Sea—a Sea

which can again play host to diverse ecosystems as well as recreation and unlimited

economic opportunities.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. With that we will recognize Representative Duncan Hunter.

STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a real pleasure to

be with you, and it was good to listen to Senator Boxer, our good

friend who is working on this issue in the Senate and initiated legislation with Senator Feinstein. I was thinking about the common

ground that we have as she was going through the litany of elements that they have in their bill.

You know, Mr. Chairman, this body of water, which was started

in about 1905 with a flooding from the Colorado River, has become

a recreational resource. We were figuring out today this thing is

really within driving distance of about 6 percent of the population

of the United States, and a few years ago it had more visitors that

Yosemite National Park, for example. A lot of working people in

this country are able to get in their cars, their pick-ups, or their

campers and drive from Los Angeles or the Inland Empire, my

good friend George Brown’s area and Ken Calvert’s great district

there or Jerry Lewis’ area or from the San Diego area. Literally 6

percent of the American population could get in their car and drive

down the freeway, get away from the boss, have a good time, camp

and enjoy what at one point was the most prolific fishery, the best

fishing per angler day of any body of water in America, and that

was the Salton Sea.

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that my statement be admitted into

the record, and I’ll just generally summarize that statement.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. That will be fine, and we will certainly include

the whole statement.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know you’ve undertaken a lot of time working on this problem. You attended the
12

hearings that Sonny convened for us in Palm Springs and you actually visited the Sea and visited the New River area also.

And, you know, Ken Calvert, who has done so much great work

on this, and of course Sonny who grew up around the Sea and

knew it so well, and Jerry Lewis who is just north of there and myself and George spent a lot of time working the issue, and one

thing that we discovered was the issue has been worked for a long

time.

This map that you have right here talks about the Salton Sea,

the salinity level, the fact that it needs to get to around 34 parts

per million, and that is roughly the salinity of ocean water, and the

fact that it’s above that and we need to bring it back down, and

you can see the diking proposal that is manifest in that particular

map. That map is 1974, and that was one of the initial proposals.

So we have been looking at the Salton Sea and have been getting

ready to do something about it for a long time.

Just to go to the point that my good friend, George Miller made,

the reason we put an expedited timeframe in this bill very simply

is because the Sea is dying, and when it gets to 60,000 parts per

million the Sea is dead and the fish life can no longer exist. We’re

at 45,000 parts per million right now, ocean water being 35,000. So

you’ve got this problem. You’ve got this big sump, this big bathtub,

so to speak, with no outlet to it, and the waters that come in from

the New River and the Alamo River which carry mainly tail water

from the massive farming operations in America and in Mexico carries a little bit of salt into the Sea, but as the Sea evaporates off

with no outlet over the years since that 1905 flooding the Sea becomes necessarily and by definition increasingly saline.

So how do you get rid of the salt and how do you arrest the increasing salinization of the Sea and hold it at an acceptable level?

Well there are only a couple of ways you can do it at least under

modern science and do it economically. One is to dilute that water

to some degree, and that can be done by putting more water in the

Sea. Of course, that causes a lot of problems if you don’t pump

some water out because you have right now a level of the Salton

Sea that actually is higher than some of the surrounding farm

land. So you can expel water, and you’re probably going to have to

expel some water. You can dike off part of the Sea and you can

allow part of the Sea to die, and that’s analogous to taking an arm

off so that the patient can live, or you can do a combination of that,

a combination of diking and perhaps some expulsion of water.

Ken Calvert during our brainstorming sessions with Sonny had

this great idea that we have a 500,000 acre bombing range immediately to the east of the Salton Sea that we could use a basin

there in the bombing range to host some of the expelled saline

water and then continue to flush in with the fresher water that

comes through the New and the Alamo Rivers.

So there are really three elements, and I’ll wind up here very

quickly because you’ve got a lot of witnesses. We’ve got to handle

the salinity. That’s the big question, and it’s going to cost a lot of

money. We know that. Even in the terms we speak of today it’s

going to be a fairly expensive proposition, but we have to do it.

The second leg of this still is we have to solve the toxic waste

and pollutant problem that comes from Mexico where the New
13

River flows through the city of Mexicali picking up industrial waste

and sewage presently and then flows some 50 miles past the Mexican border, north of the Mexican border into the south end of the

Sea. We have a massive project with the International Boundary

and Water Commission right now with Mexico, and we’re going to

break ground this August I’m told by the Commissioner on this

project with Mexicali to wean the city of Mexicali and its wastes

from New River. So that will solve part of our problem when that

project is completed. That is fairly well funded at this point and

moving forward.

We have a second problem, and that of course is the New River

itself and the Alamo River, but mainly the New River which has

been polluted for many years and is considered the most polluted

river in North America.

Leon Lesika, who is going to testify today, is a great leader of

Desert Wildlife Unlimited who has solved so many of our wildlife

problems, and this group, this citizens group that you will listen to

along with the Bureau of Reclamation, Mr. Chairman, are going to

build, they are proposing to build, and we have money in our bill

to do this, basically 50 miles of marshes along the New River, from

where the New River enters Mexico and comes into the south end

of the Salton Sea, and those marshes will have a natural filtering

effect. It’s scientifically proven and it’s used by hundreds of communities throughout this country today to cleanse water. We need to

address some technical problems in our national law to allow us to

do that, but I think can do that.

But cleaning up New River along with weaning Mexicali and its

industrial wastes from New River and, finally, coming up with this

answer as to how we arrest the salinity of the Sea are the three

problems we’re facing.

The bill has quite a bit more detail than that, Mr. Chairman, but

I know you have a lot of witnesses, and I’ll close with that.

I just want to thank you and thank all my colleagues for picking

up this ball. This is going to be tough and we’re going to have to

move it forward and it’s going to take some sharp engineering and

some sharp scientific work. I think we can do it.

To my friend, Mr. Miller, I know that these time lines are important, but we’re only about 6 months apart. Senator Boxer’s bill is

18 months, and ours is 12, the Task Force’s bill is 12. That’s not

much difference, and today a computing dollar will buy about four

million times as much computing power as it would in 1960 or

1962. We can do a lot of things today I think that we couldn’t do

in the past.

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for taking on this challenge, and

to all the Members of the Subcommittee we appreciate you, and I

appreciate my colleagues. You know, Sonny used to say when he

would wrap up these sessions that he would summon us to can’t

we just get this thing done. Let’s start on it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Representative George Brown.

Mr. Brown, you are recognized.
14

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I ask unanimous

consent to insert my complete statement in the record and I will

try and summarize also.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, and it will be included in the record.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to

you for your strong support of taking some action on this matter,

and I want to categorically state in response to your opening statement that none of the Members of our Task Force have any intention or desire to avoid respecting the Law of the River. That would

open a can of worms which we just could not cope with, and we

assure you of our respect for maintaining fully the existing Law of

the River and all of its ramifications. As you know, this is a very

complex body of law, but it has been built up over years.

I should indicate at this point that the original Congressman

from this region, the first to be elected from what we call the Inland Empire was Phil Swing, who in effect began the Law of the

River when he was able to get through the Congress the Bolder

Canyon Act and the All American Canal Act back in the 1920’s,

and in honor of the first Congressman from the region I think all

of the succeeding Congressmen from the region would want to respect that.

I would also like to assure Mr. Miller that we don’t want to act

in haste. However, reiterating what Mr. Hunter said, after 25 years

of study of this problem and after predictions made by the Bureau

of Reclamation that the system would collapse in the 1980’s we

don’t think it’s premature to speed up the action a little bit, and

that’s our only effort. We hope that this Committee will suggest

reasonable and legitimate ways of speeding up this action so that

we can save the Sea from collapse.

Now the prediction that it would collapse in the last 1980’s would

have come true except for the fact that the Sea is now about 10

feet higher than it was when that prediction was made, and that

additional volume of water has maintained the salinity level at a

considerably lower level than it normally would have been. It has

raised the elevation, and in raising the elevation it has cost the Imperial Irrigation District about $40 million in damages levied by

the courts or settled by negotiation with the riparian landowners.

That is a very large sum of money to pay for raising the level and

maintaining the salinity a little bit lower to prevent that predicted

collapse.

Now why didn’t we do something when for 25 years we have

been looking at studies of various solutions? Because there wasn’t

the political will to act on this, and that’s the main difference in

the situation over the years and today. We now have I think the

political will, and it was Sonny Bono who was the inspiration for

a great deal of this along with Mr. Hunter who has pursued this

just as vigorously in order to create some momentum here. I think

that we ought to move ahead with a prompt, but not overly hasty

solution that respects the Law of the River, and I think we can do

that.

I think that this whole operation can become a test bed for what

is going to be the proper solution to our overall water problems in
15

the West, and that is using water more efficiently. We can do that

through recycling, through desalinization, and through any number

of methods of conservation.

Since this is the largest available Colorado River allocation that

can be conserved I think we should use every possible scientific

method to show that we can use this water efficiently, and then we

must respect the right of the water right holders to use whatever

conservation methods that are best for them to save water and to

export that water at the prevailing price that exists to those areas

which are willing to pay a higher price for it. I’m bringing in here

the San Diego Imperial Irrigation District Water Transfer, which

I think, while it’s not in this bill and probably shouldn’t be, it is

a key element that needs to be considered here.

Conserving water in the Imperial Valley can release anywhere

from 200- to 400-thousand acre feet per year according to their own

calculations, and in my optimistic calculations it could be even

more than that. That kind of a willing transaction between buyers

and sellers is the way that we will get the most efficient use of

water, and I urge that we make every effort to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Congressman Brown follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I wish to thank Subcommittee Chairman Doolittle and Ranking Member DeFazio

for providing me this opportunity to express my views on H.R. 3267, the ‘‘Sonny

Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act.’’ It was a distinct pleasure for me to

work with Congressman Sonny Bono in the early stages of formulating a legislative

plan for saving the Salton Sea. I feel strongly that this bill is a fitting commemoration of his dream to restore the health of the Sea and the economic value of the

Sea to the region.

I believe that this bill is a valuable step in addressing the problems at the Salton

Sea. I am pleased that we were able to bring this bill forward now, though I am

saddened that only with the passing of a fellow Member were we collectively able

to muster the political will to tackle this daunting problem. But tackle it we must,

because the Salton Sea is dying. Over two-hundred thousand birds and millions of

fish have perished over the last five years. The die-offs, originally occurring only in

the hot-weather months, now take place year-round. The death of the Salton Sea

could imperil the health of the Pacific Flyway, which stretches from Alaska, through

Canada, the Western United States, and on to Mexico.

Federal agencies have been studying solutions to the mounting problems of the

Salton Sea for decades; today’s high salinity and ecosystem stresses at the Sea are

certainly no surprise. Until this year, policy-makers have preferred to take the easy

wait-and-see option. I believe that this option is now closed, and it has fallen to the

105th Congress to finally decide the fate of the Salton Sea. Should we fail to act

now, we may be addressing far more expensive and draconian measures to come.

The Salton Sea is more than just a problem to fix. It is a missed economic opportunity, capable of providing the region with a much needed engine for prosperity.

Both visitor-day data from the State of California and a recent economic study conducted by faculty at the University of California Riverside suggest lost economic inputs to the region are in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Local unemployment runs over 30 percent in some areas. We must remember that Congressman Bono, more than any other Member of Congress, stressed the need to seek a

solution which would provide for restoration of the economic life of the Sea and its

surrounding communities. We must strive to honor his goal in this legislation.

I’ve been pursuing a solution to the problems at the Salton Sea for years. Obviously, if cleaning it up were easy, it would probably have been done a long time

ago. But cleaning it up will not be easy. It is going to be a very difficult process

for both the Congress and the many stakeholders involved. And I believe that the

difficulties are reflected in H.R. 3267. We are still very early in the legislative proc-
16

ess. I look forward to discussing the issues raised in the bill with fellow Members.

It raises the level of understanding and participation.

As Ranking Member of the House Committee on Science, I’ve developed a strong

interest in understanding complex systems, and I’m very interested in the improvement of processes. The Congress has worked hard to create many approaches for

dealing with difficult multi-faceted problems related to natural resources and the

environment. The restoration of the Salton Sea presents the Congress with a valuable opportunity to build on these approaches, to improve upon them, to learn from

the lessons of implementation. Certainly, the bill is not perfect; I am relying on the

legislative process to perfect it.

I would be remiss if I did not express to the Subcommittee my positions on several

of the important elements of the bill. I am looking forward to testimony on the provisions in the bill which waive certain environmental reviews of the restoration

process. In attempting to expedite action, the current bill may well go too far in denying citizens and local governments their legitimate rights of review under environmental and reclamation statutes. I strongly support the importance of recognizing and valuing local stakeholder interests in the process to save the Sea. The

Salton Sea Authority and its member agencies have worked hard to achieve a solution, and should be recognized for their critical role. I support the need to include

the Torres Martinez Band of Cahuilla Indians in decision-making, and I believe that

the inclusion of the Salton Sea University Research Consortium will expedite and

bring greater trust to the overall solution-making process.

I feel most strongly that this bill reflects the authors need to act. H.R. 3267 represents a landmark shift in the nation’s perception of the importance of the Salton

Sea. I believe this Subcommittee can provide critical input needed to perfect this

bill, to achieve broad-based bipartisan support for its passage.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. We will now have the opportunity to ask the

Members of our panel questions.

Mr. Hunter, if I could ask somebody to put that chart back up,

and I just wonder if you could tell us on that chart if it’s displayed

where that military range is.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, obviously the top of the chart is the

north there, and it’s to the east basically starting almost I would

say about oh 20 miles from the top of the Sea coming down this

way and then 500,000 acres is the bombing range. There is one to

the west also, Mr. Chairman, but the biggest one is to the east. So

we basically have ranges, government property flanking on each

side of the Salton Sea.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And the spot where you believe the water could

be deposited from the Sea, how many miles from the Sea is that?

Mr. HUNTER. The one spot that they identified, and George help

me on this, but the spot they identified I think is about 10 miles

away.

Is that accurate, George?

Mr. BROWN. If I may comment. Yes, it’s very close. Unfortunately, it’s up about 1,700 feet, and that has been explored and investigated and a cost analysis made of pumping water up that

high, and it comes out at $40 million a year. Now if you pump it

at sea level it’s only $10 million a year. So the elevation is critical

unless you can find some way to generate electricity from letting

the water run back down to the Sea or something like that.

Mr. HUNTER. And, Mr. Chairman, I would offer that this is all

on the floor of the California desert. I mean the Sea itself is below

sea level. I think we ought to explore in this study of course the

possibility of finding a lower basin. In other words, the Sea literally

is at sea level, and this basin that they identified in the bombing

range is up some 1,700 feet, as George said. There are a lot of spots

in the bombing range that are much lower and therefore require

much less lift. The government property and the training area to
17

the west of the Salton Sea, none of that to my knowledge is more

than 4- or 5 hundred feet above sea level. So I think we can further

explore that and see if there aren’t some lower ranges. That was

one idea that Ken Calvert had.

The complication here, Mr. Chairman, and you’ve opened this

question a little bit, is expelling water, and we still are looking at

arranging some type of an agreement with Mexico that would allow

us to expel some of that water to the south of the Sea into either

the Laguna Salada, which is about 40 miles away, and that’s a

backup, if you will, of the tributaries that go into the Sea of Cortez,

or taking it all the way down into the Sea of Cortez, or running

a line over to the Colorado River desalinization plant that we built

for Mexico right at the border at Yuma, and that is about, what,

George, 60 miles away, and taking it down that canal into the Sea

of Cortez. Now that obviously would require immense cooperation

from Mexico.

So Ken’s common sense idea was well if we can’t get that and

we can’t bet on that perhaps we can build evaporation ponds there

on one side of the Sea or the other, and I think that’s going to be

perhaps a really strong consideration.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Let me ask the Members for unanimous consent. I had offered

to Mr. Pallone, who has now been able to join us, to testify as part

of the first panel, and I wonder if we could just suspend our questioning to allow him to make his statement and then resume. Is

there any objection to that?

[No objections.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Seeing none, Mr. Pallone, a Member of our Full

Resources Committee is recognized for his statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize. I was

in the Commerce Committee and we had the Speaker and Mr. Gephardt there on the American Disabilities Act. So I just came over.

Let me just say that although I’m not a Member of the Subcommittee I have become very interested in the topic of this hearing, the Salton Sea. I actually had the opportunity last weekend to

be out there and have a tour of the Sea and also talked to some

of the people that are concerned about its future. I witnessed, I

have to say, both the great potential of the Sea as an environmental and recreational resource and also the unfortunate problems that the Salton Sea currently endures.

It was very interesting, Mr. Chairman, because in many ways

the situation reminded me of what we faced in New Jersey back

in 1988 when I was first elected. My district is along the shore in

New Jersey and we had medical waste wash-ups and sewage

sludge and a number of other things that negatively impacted our

tourism industry so that we actually lost billions of dollars statewide as a result of the environmental degradation.

I truly empathize with my colleagues from California and also

the Native American tribes and others who are working to restore

the Salton Sea to a healthy ecosystem because I think that if they

take certain preventative measures that are outlined in this bill or
18

other bills that have been introduced in the Senate that they can

prevent the kind of problems that we in fact witnessed and that

created huge economic problems for us at the Jersey shore.

Now I represent a very different area of the country, but my constituents and I, I think, have a lot in common because we have

these similar environmental and economically linked hardships. I

guess my point, and obviously I think everyone here agrees, is that

the environment and a good economy, the environment and job creation, all that can co-exist, and I would very much like to see a solution for the Salton Sea that recognizes the environmental and

recreational potential and what that means in terms of jobs. At the

same time, you look at the impacts that might affect the agricultural sector and some of the other economic sectors in the area.

If you’re willing, I would like to stay for the rest of the hearing

today and work with my colleagues on this Committee in trying to

address what I consider to be not only a California issue, but a

truly national issue. Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Well resuming the questioning, let me just ask the Members that

are present on this panel either who have lived there or been there

to see what it looks like, would any of you be inclined to take a

swim in the Salton Sea as it presently exists?

Mr. HUNTER. Well, you know, when Secretary Babbitt came out,

and I think it’s indicative of the bipartisan support for this project

because Speaker Gingrich has spent a lot of time working on this

issue, as you know, Mr. Chairman, but when Secretary Babbitt

came out and he took his tour George and I got to take a tour on

an air boat with him. It was a very windy day with white caps

coming over the tops of these air boats, and I asked the gentleman

who was handling the boats, and he said you and George can go

down and get in your boat, and there was one with very high seats

that was about 20 feet above the waves, and we started to walk

toward it, and he said, no, that’s not your boat. We had the boat

with the low seats where you sit down right at wave level and you

catch them right in the face. I just will tell you that I asked Leon

Lesika, who is sitting behind me, the great leader of Desert Wildlife Unlimited, if he wanted to do, and he said are you kidding, and

he didn’t go with us.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well that was certainly my impression, and I

didn’t go out on the Sea. I saw enough from the shore. Well thank

you very much.

Let me recognize Mr. Miller for his questions.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Just a couple of comments because I

think I outlined some of my concerns. I hope my opening remarks

were interpreted as a desire that we do work together. It’s not

about delay. Duncan, was it you or George who said that this has

been around for 25 years because you didn’t have the political will

to do it, and now to take the absence of that political will and lay

that on the head of the agencies that have got to comply with laws

and try to compress this so they can’t do an adequate job I think

lands this back into a controversy and into court because I don’t

think you’re going to get a removal of judicial review, and I don’t

think the Administration can live with that, that’s their indication.
19

What I was suggesting is that we ought to think, and I don’t

know if you’re going to mark this up on the 26th or what day it

is, but we ought to think about trying to get a preconference. You

know, I’ve always thought of sending good legislation to the Senate

is sort of like putting your child in foster care, you may never see

it again.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MILLER. You know, as soon as people know that this is what

California wants, all the sudden there are multiple holds on a bill,

and if we don’t have the agreement of all of the parties your

chances, given the limited number of days, your chances of getting

it out of the Senate are the same chances you have of escaping a

black hole. I just think that people have got to set aside all their

ideology, whether they like environmental laws or don’t, but figure

out how we make this work so we can walk over to the Senate and

say everybody is in agreement and this is what we want done, because otherwise it just becomes bait and I think we ought to try

to avoid that.

So what I’m saying is I think thinking about this over the next

week or 10 days could buy us a real shortening of the legislative

process here because none of this is going to happen before this bill

becomes law. If we miss this cycle it would be a shame, and that’s

all I’m saying. This isn’t about delaying, you know, what you and

Barbara have tried to do because, as you point out, on this you’re

only 6 months apart. That’s a tiny, tiny price if you thought you

were going to get success. So we’ll sort it out.

Mr. BROWN. May I comment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Without objection.

[No objections.]

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Miller is expressing what I think is the desire

of the sponsors of this bill. If we follow normal procedures here in

the Congress it will be 6 months before this bill is signed. Six

months is critical. The Sea could collapse by virtue of our failure

to cut 6 months off of the normal time, and the normal time if we

go through all the processes, including the Congressional processes,

is about two and a half to 3 years. I don’t think we have that much

time. If we can cutoff 6 months here and if we can cutoff 6 months

of extra time in the NEPA process we should do it and we should

ask the Department how to do it right.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Miller have you concluded?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Calvert is recognized and then following his

questions we will recess for the votes, two votes.

Mr. CALVERT. Just a quick question since we have to go down for

a couple of votes.

Duncan, you mentioned the problems we’re having along the

New River and the idea of putting those marshes in. As you mentioned, this is an idea that is being used throughout the United

States to clean up various toxins from water, but you have an interesting problem with the Clean Water Act. Would you like to get

into more detail on what that problem is.

Mr. HUNTER. Certainly, and we really need your help. I mentioned this to Secretary Babbitt, and at least he indicated initially

that he would be happy to work on it also. When we first put to-
20

gether this idea, the idea of cleaning up a river or a body of water

with a series of ponds, is that you flow some water out and you

flow it through a series of ponds and the water hyacinths or other

shrubbery pull the toxics out of the water so the water is a little

cleaner as it goes to the next pond, and then finally you flow it

back into the river, and after you’ve done that for 50 miles, basically 50 miles of marshes you’ve incrementally, by using these incremental processes at each pond, you’ve cleaned up the river considerably.

The problem that was laid on us by the Imperial Irrigation District who had their attorneys look at it was they came back to us

and said the way we read the Clean Water Act is if we touch this

water in the New River we own it. That means that once we pull

it out we can only put it back in if it’s basically pure quality, drinking quality. So that means that you’ve lost the chance to do incremental cleanup which has been shown to work very effectively

around the country.

So we need to adapt the law, and we’ve got a change proposed

in our bill that would do that, that would allow us to pull the water

out as we travel this 50 miles of New River from Mexico to where

it empties into the Salton Sea, filter it through the marshes and

run it back into the river, and we’ll have a much cleaner river for

the water that finally gets to the south end of the Salton Sea. So

we do need that change, Ken, and it’s a very important part of this

package, and we will need a lot of cooperation.

So, George, we are all going to have to make compromises. We

can’t have a situation where folks say this Act is inviolate and we

can’t change a comma or a single letter. We do have to make some

common sense accommodations so we can have a good ecosystem

and so we can clean up the New River.

Mr. CALVERT. And, last, George, you mentioned the Colorado

River and the Law of the River and everyone’s intention to meet

that law and not violate it in any way. We couldn’t take any water

from the river today even if we wanted to, as you know, because

the Sea is at flood stage now and we can’t accept any. But if somewhere down the line we were able to remove water and we were

able to take water in, how much capacity is there in the All American Canal to deliver water?

Mr. BROWN. Well the canal delivers the full allocation to the Imperial Irrigation District, which is three million acre feet, plus or

minus a couple of hundred thousand. I think that it’s actually more

now, but of course the further down the canal you get the less

water it’s carrying because it’s being used to irrigate as it goes

down. I don’t think capacity for the amount of water we’re talking

about is an important consideration here, but I could be wrong.

My own calculations are that under a steady state where you

have the salinity at the level you want, then all you need to do is

remove the incoming salt. Pumping out about a hundred thousand

acre feet per year and making up a hundred thousand acre feet in

fresh water would do the job and would maintain the Sea stable

in perpetuity as far as salt level is concerned, and an additional

hundred thousand acre feet I think could be accommodated in the

All American Canal. If I’m wrong, why I’ll suggest some other ways

to get the water in.
21

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

We are going to recess now and we’ll come back after the two

votes. It is the Chair’s intent to take a lunch break right around

noon. We should finish up with this panel I think quickly after we

come back, and then we will resume at approximately 1 o’clock

once we take the lunch break. So we will reconvene in a few minutes.

[Recess taken for Members to vote.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Subcommittee will reconvene. We are in the

midst of querying our first panel, and the Chair recognizes Mr. Ensign from Nevada for his questions.

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Obviously coming from Nevada and being a lower basin State

ourselves we are very concerned about this project, and I want to

ask a couple of fundamental questions dealing with the formation

of the Sea in the first place. Can you maybe just discuss the history

of how it was formed.

Mr. HUNTER. Sure. The Sea was formed in the several years succeeding 1905. It was a flood of the Colorado River in which the totality, as I understand it, and George is a better historian than I

am on this, but the totality of the Colorado River flooded into the

basin for about 2 years. Of course early on it was a fresh water

lake. I mean the salinity built up over the years.

And I want to applaud you, Mr. Ensign and Mr. Shadegg. I know

you are very concerned as participants in the River Division of

Water, that this doesn’t infringe on any of your rights, and I think

George stated, and I want to state it again that we have no intention of upsetting the division of the Law of the River or taking any

bigger share.

Mr. ENSIGN. The reason I brought up how it was formed is that,

first of all, you’ve been to Israel and have been to the Dead Sea

and you’ve seen the Great Salt Lake and all of that. If you have

no outflow naturally bodies of water will die. You know, in less artificial man-made means of, you know, tremendous amounts of

money and everything what you’re talking here of having an unnatural outflow to this body of water it’s going to die regardless of

what kind of stuff from agriculture is brought in or any of that

kind of stuff. It’s going to die over time. I mean I thought that part

of the environmental movement of today, you know, because this

thing is called an environmental restoration, but it’s part of

environmentalism today about going along with what is natural?

Mr. HUNTER. Well let me give my answer, and then I know

George has got an answer on this thing, too. That Sea serves, regardless of how it was made, and let’s say it was a man-made lake,

it serves 6 percent, or is within driving distance of 6 percent of the

entire population of this nation, and a lot of folks who can’t afford

to book a trip to go fly fishing in New Zealand on the weekend can

get in their camper and they can get away from the boss and they

can drive down to Bombay Beach or one of those other places

where Sonny Bono used to go and enjoy the sea, and in the old

days they could ski, and they had the best fishing literally. It was

the best fishing per angler day in the entire United States.
22

I don’t think anybody here is saying that we want to return this

desert to pristine days. I think what we say is we want to have

multiple use of a great natural resource, and that includes our

farming community that the Sea serves, the agriculture basin of

about a million and a half acres in Mexico and in the United

States. So we want our agriculture users and the great production

that comes from that is a beneficiary of the Sea. And regardless of

what has happened here and how it started, a great many fresh

water birds, hundreds of thousands of them use the Sea. It’s a

great resource for average people. Middle-class Americans can go

down and get in a duck blind at one of the refuges along the Sea

and can have a nice morning watching the sun come up. So it’s a

great resource for us.

And, incidentally, I want to tell you, you have some folks that

come over from Arizona also. There are not many that come down

from Las Vegas to the Sea, but quite a few from Arizona.

George has an answer.

Mr. ENSIGN. Let me just point out a couple of other things about

the bill that concern us in Nevada.

One is that you’ve tried to put in the bill, efforts to not change

the Law of the River. One of the problems that we have in Nevada

is we’re working on a deal with Arizona right now about banking

Arizona excess water, underground in Arizona. It will help future

growth in Southern Nevada. Under your bill currently you’re talking about surpluses and excesses and possibly being able to use

that. California right now only has allocated to them 4.4 million

acre feet, and they are currently using about 5.3 million acre feet

of the Colorado River. I guess the fundamental question here is

that we would have no problem supporting the bill if California

was willing to only use its 4.4 million acre feet.

Mr. HUNTER. Well here was the way I envisioned it, John. My

district goes all the way to Winterhaven. It goes to Arizona and includes that part of the river. We have years when our farmland

along the river is washed away by floods and we have to get disaster relief. That water flows down and flows into the ocean. So it’s

not used by Arizona, it’s not used by California and it’s not used

by anybody. It just flows into the ocean. So I think that you’re eminently reasonable and, incidentally, our options may not even involve using excess storm water or years when you have excess rain

water. I think it’s reasonable that you don’t want to have any infringement on water that you folks would use in Arizona or in Nevada, but I think it’s unreasonable if we have a decision that we

are going to let water flow into the Pacific Ocean rather than use

it to restore this great resource.

Mr. ENSIGN. Just two quick points if I may make about this.

First of all, Nevada right now is building a new pipeline from Lake

Mead coming into Las Vegas. It’s a $1.7 billion project and we’re

funding it all ourselves. In other words, we didn’t come to the Federal trough to feed from the Federal trough. We’re doing it all ourselves.

The second point is that the surplus in the Colorado River when

you have surplus years, is allocated and is not your excess, but it’s

the surplus above what normally flows down from the river. When

a surplus occurs everybody along the Colorado River has their allo-
23

cation increased, and that would be one of the things that we

would want to definitely have protected within this legislation.

Mr. HUNTER. Well I would say this. I think we can all work together and make this thing work and come to a solution, and I understand the nervousness. If you mention the word Colorado River,

I was told if the word Colorado River was used all of Arizona’s and

Nevada’s ears went up. I think we can do this thing without infringing on any of the water that you folks need.

Incidentally, it was good to see you at that meeting that we had

on the Nevada testing site where your folks there from your district were concerned about getting some of that money from the

Federal trough and we’re going to work with them on that project,

and you made a great speech. But seriously, I’m being facetious, I

think we can work as partners on this, John.

You know, water has been historically, it has been the issue over

which Westerners like us have big fights, but we also ultimately

come to some pretty darn good agreements to serve our people well,

and you and Mr. Shadegg are the best advocates for your folks, and

we appreciate that. But I think we’ll be able to work this thing out,

and I want to work with you.

Mr. ENSIGN. OK.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, would you be kind enough to allow

me to respond briefly to the gentleman’s question?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Sure. Go ahead. We’ll use the balance of Mr. Calvert’s and my time.

Mr. BROWN. There are two points you made and I would like to

respond to each.

First, Salton Sea is a natural lake, and at periodic intervals it

has been both a fresh water lake and a salt water lake. If you travel down there you will see the line established by the old lake level

along the mountains there. Sometimes it’s several hundred years

between inundations, but it’s formed naturally by the flow of the

Colorado River across its delta, and on occasion it breaks out of the

delta channel and the whole thing flows into the Salton Sea and

creates a fresh water lake.

Mr. ENSIGN. So it’s sort of an evaporation pond.

Mr. BROWN. Right. It has always been an evaporation pond, and

there has been a hugh Indian culture around that lake during

those times when it had water in it.

Mr. ENSIGN. Actually the whole State of Nevada used to be

under water as a lake.

Mr. BROWN. Right, and parts of California, including Death Valley. So I’m not urging that we necessarily think in geologic terms.

The last inundation of that lake was only 400 years ago. At the

time that Columbus came that was the largest fresh water lake in

the West.

Now the other point you made had to do with the utilization of

surplus flows. California expects to live by its allocation. It is working diligently to live by its allocation. It’s seeking to create new

water through conservation and recycling. You have every right to

insist that we continue, the Secretary is insisting that we continue,

and we will continue.
24

You need to do one other thing. You need to establish clearly in

either this legislation or other legislation your right, all of the

Basin States, to bank water and to sell it either intrastate or interstate and get the benefits from the sale of that water that you’re

entitled to. At the present time if you neither bank it or sell it it

either flows to the ocean, as Duncan mentioned, or we snap it up

in California as surplus water, and that cannot continue. You deserve to get the same benefit from surplus water as California

does.

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Is there any objection to the gentleman, Mr. Pallone, sitting with

the Subcommittee? Mr. Pallone is a Member of the Full Resources

Committee.

[No objections.]

All right. Seeing no objection, Mr. Pallone will be invited to join

us up here.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Shadegg.

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to followup on some points that have already been

raised and discussed to some degree.

First of all, I’m not sure, Mr. Brown, that I don’t disagree with

at least one point you just made. I believe that the Law of the

River already clearly allocates a hundred percent of the water, and

that at least in Arizona as a result of a combination of the Law of

the River and of some very forward-thinking laws we have enacted

as a State that we have the absolute right now to bank water, and

we are in fact banking water. We are banking water underground

and there is the issue of whether or not that water may some day

be sold outside of Arizona. That may be a legal question, but beyond that we have the right to take all of our current water and

we have the right to bank it, and Arizona is already aggressively

banking water. So I don’t think we need to address that in this legislation at all.

Second, I think I have the understanding of everyone that is involved in the sponsorship of this bill and the indication from the

Chairman that he is amenable to the same point, that language

can be added to the bill which says directly and clearly that the

bill doesn’t change the current allocation and doesn’t alter the Law

of the River in any way. Are we in agreement on that?

Mr. HUNTER. Absolutely, we agree with that.

Mr. SHADEGG. Beyond that then California, as I think we are

also in agreement, has the right to use either some portion of its

basic allocation or in those years where if in fact it turns out there

is a surplus, and as a result of El Nin ́ o there will be this year, because the current Law of the River clearly allocates a portion of the

excess or surplus flow to California, and indeed allocates the largest portion of the surplus or excess to California, and California is

free to use that water as well and to deliver it through the existing

canal system. We’re agreed on that.

Mr. BROWN. May I comment on that?

Mr. SHADEGG. Sure.

Mr. BROWN. The problem with the surplus water of the Colorado

River, and as you indicate it is fully appropriated at the present
25

time based on average flow, and probably overly appropriated, but

the trouble is that the Colorado flows anywhere from one half its

average flow to twice its average flow. When you have half the average flow there is a shortage all over the basin, and when you

have twice there is an inability to handle that. In Southern California of course we’re building more surface reservoirs as well as

probably some underground reservoirs to help capture some of that

water, shall we say, and to normalize the flow of the river by storing it in reservoirs.

The proper way to do this is of course to utilize very possible

technique and technology to maximize the usable water in the

river, and we fully support doing that both through storage and

through the right to transfer the water by any entitlement holder

to a willing buyer who is willing to pay for it, and that may need

some clarification, or any other similar device, and we would like

to work with you in establishing that very clearly.

Mr. SHADEGG. I think we are in agreement with the exception

that I believe in your remarks you create the implication that when

the river is at its highest possible flow that water is not already

allocated, and in point of fact it is already, every drop is already

allocated. There is some question about whether it can be used, but

the Law of the River allocates every single drop even in those highest flow years because the Secretary of Interior has the legal ability

in high-flow years, and by the way he can also in low-flow years

do the opposite, but in high-flow years he can declare that there

is an excess and the law then allocates that excess amongst the

Colorado River Basin States. So my only point is that since the law

currently allocates the entire flow of the river in its highest conceivable flow we do not need to change that in this legislation.

Mr. HUNTER. I would hope, John, that you and John Ensign

wouldn’t argue, you know, understanding the fact that you have

the allocation on paper under the Law of the River, but we still

have surge times and flood times when you have a lot of water

going into the ocean and that you wouldn’t insist on water that is

going into the ocean in practical fact not being used, if it could be

used, to reduce the level of salinity in the Sea to use that.

Mr. SHADEGG. Absolutely not.

Mr. HUNTER. That’s what we’re talking about.

Mr. SHADEGG. What I would object to would be a change in the

law which would supposedly deal with that water which is now as

a practical matter in fact flowing into the ocean in a different way

that than the law currently deals with it. The law gives you, California, the right to take the vast majority of that water, and quite

frankly right now you can’t, we can’t and nobody can. By the way,

Mexico has a legal right as well to a portion of that water.

Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence I would like to ask one

more question.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Without objection.

[No objection.]

Mr. SHADEGG. Just to clarify one separate point from that issue

having to do with the Colorado River and the flow of the river, two

things are my understanding. No. 1, it is my understanding that

the Imperial Valley Irrigation District, IIP or whatever it is, already was planning to spend, and the number I heard was some-
26

thing in the neighborhood of $60 million to clean up the Salton Sea

itself, and I would hope that whatever the Congress does does not

displace any existing commitments for funding toward this task,

and I would be interested in your assurance on that point because

beyond my concerns about the Colorado River I have fiscal concerns.

The second point, and let me just wrap them into one question

and then you can talk and they won’t cut you off, whereas they

might cut me off. The second point is it is also my understanding

that the most advanced best management practices, particularly

ditch lining and laser leveling of crop fields, are not fully being utilized in the Imperial Valley at this time and that there is currently

under consideration the fact that they are going to begin to do that

and that there then will be water savings, and it is my understanding that if those water savings occur there were plans in the

works to take the saved water and actually by pulling it out of the

further north canal deliver it to San Diego which is in a water

shortage itself, and I would be interested in your comments on that

point in terms of the long-term implications for the Salton Sea.

Mr. HUNTER. Sure. First, I think you’ve hit, John, on the overall

problem with the conservation of water in general in the Southwest

and the work or the cooperation between rural areas and the urban

areas. If you’re a farmer who is getting water for $15 or $20 an

acre foot it’s not in your economic interest nor can you afford, for

example, to do tail water recycling, lining of all the ditches and

other things, although we’ve done a lot of that in the Imperial Valley over the years, but it’s very difficult when you’re buying the

water at that price. To the urban user, whether you’re in Arizona

or California, if you’re paying $500-plus per acre foot at the margin

it’s in your interest to do things that will free up that water.

So working together, the Imperial Irrigation District and the people of Imperial Valley who democratically elect that institution and

the city of San Diego, which is at the tail end of the metropolitan

water aqueduct, are coming to an understanding in which basically

folks that live in the city are going to pay for water which otherwise would flow off of fields that could be reused, the tail water

pump back systems, and likewise are paying to line canals and do

other things that otherwise would allow the water to seep into the

desert sand. So it’s really a pretty good working partnership.

Now the effect on the Sea, and I think this is one reason why

George has brought out very properly the emergency situation that

we have, the Sea hasn’t died in recent years as was predicted because we have more water in the Sea. We’ve had lots of farming

operations there and lots of water delivered to the Sea and it’s

higher than it was predicted to have been.

When we pull down the amount of water that is going to the Sea

through New River and Alamo River, which is largely the result of

farming operations because of the new conservation practices,

you’re going to have a lower shoreline there. That means you’re

going to have a concentration of salt, and that means that the increased salinity could reach a crisis stage earlier than we think. So

that’s another one of the dynamics. So what we have here is we

have all the partners on the river as one element and we have

Mexico as a party which in several of options has to cooperate. We
27

need their cooperation or we can’t exercise those options. You have

the complication of the Mexicali pollution, the New River pollution,

and then the fact that your Sea is shrinking in size.

Now with all those problems, as Sonny Bono said, why can’t we

just do it. I think we can put our heads together and come up with

a practical solution that is not going to use up all the money in the

treasury and that is going to maintain this enormously important

resource and leave our Arizona and Nevada friends well satisfied.

I think we can do it.

Mr. SHADEGG. The commitment of the Imperial Irrigation District that was existing to do cleanup work, are you aware of that?

Mr. HUNTER. Well here is what we have in the bill. I mean this

is a 1974 proposal that showed what we could do, and there were

several Congressmen over the years who were interested in trying

to get something going, but obviously you’re talking of something

in terms of the funding sales, and this has to be Federal, State and

local. What we have is a requirement in the legislation that the

Secretary enter into a memorandum of understanding with the

Governor and with the Salton Sea Authority that basically divides

the cost, and there is going to be cost sharing. Obviously the local

agriculture area or the area that is associated with the sporting

uses of the resource can’t support a project of this magnitude, but

we have in place a mechanism for cost sharing that will be arrived

at with the Secretary and with the Governor of California and with

the Authority.

And, incidentally, the Torres Martinez Tribe is very much a part

of this. Art Lopez is here with them and he is going to testify

today. They’re another important player. They have some of their

lands submerged in the Sea, and Sonny was very, very concerned

that they be treated equitably in this project.

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Mrs. Chenoweth is recognized.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hunter and Mr. Brown, I do want to go on record as saying

that I enthusiastically endorse the concept of this project. I very

much endorse it. It may sound strange to some of my conservative

friends, but I believe the Federal Government has an obligation to

repair the damage that they did in 1905 when they destroyed the

dike upon the construction of the American Canal. That is what

caused the formation of the Salton Sea and the Federal Government has turned a blind eye to their responsibility there.

But I have some technical questions that I would like for you to

think about. Even though the Sea was accidentally formed it is surface water and therefore it does belong to the State of California.

So the way the bill is constructed I worry about the authority that

we’re giving to the Federal Government.

Now I believe that we the Congress should fund the project. We

should repair the damage. But what we’re doing in this bill, on

page 7 with regards to relationship to other laws, we are allowing

the Department of Interior to get out from under their obligations

under the reclamation laws, and it was under the reclamation laws

that the problem was formed in the first place.
28

Now what are we creating here? It appears that we’re giving over

the Salton Sea and the operation of the Salton Sea, taking that

property that belongs to California and giving it to the Federal

Government. The Federal Government never does as good a job as

the State does. I would much rather see us just block grant to California the money that we owe them and they could get this thing

done far quicker than the Federal Government could.

Another concern that I have is that there is a training range

down there, and once that property belongs to the Federal Government, and under what authority I don’t know. It’s not under reclamation. I mean this bill takes them out from under reclamation.

So how are they going to manage water when it’s outside of reclamation and we haven’t identified what it is.

The second problem is, and Mr. Hunter you have worked with

me on the training range in Idaho, and I think that I mentioned

to you that one of the problems, big problems that we’ve had in

Idaho is that the Department of Interior wants to control air traffic

above their properties, and I worry about that here, and I worry

about the future of the training range.

I think that if the Congress bellied up to the bar and did what

they were supposed to do in terms of funding the project, and I

think that we would like to be able to name it, but I think it should

be placed in the hands of the State, and I think that is consistent

with State water law and the Law of the River and the California

Compact.

And, furthermore, in the proposed bill we also have the Congress

stating that the Secretary shall employ agencies of the State government. It doesn’t state that the Secretary can help coordinate

studies and so forth. It states here that the Secretary shall require

certain agencies of the State government to do certain things, and

it doesn’t say the Secretary shall provide them with money.

So I think we’re handing something over to the Federal Government that may get us in deeper soup than if we just lived up to

our obligations and funded the project and let the State take care

of their resources that we damaged.

Mr. HUNTER. Excellent questions, Helen. Let me tell you why I

think the Federal Government is uniquely the lead player in this

project. Because of some elements that you don’t generally have in

a project like this, no matter which option we take with respect to

the salinity problem, Mexico is a key player, and one reason is the

New River that flows north through Mexicali and into the United

States, when it enters the United States is the most polluted river

in North America. We right now have this project with Mexico in

Mexicali trying to wean Mexicali from the New River and stop that

sewage and those raw pollutants from going in there.

Also we have in these options that are potential options here,

and we’ve addressed the Colorado River a lot, but really another

source of excess water is Laguna Salada, which is kind of a back

water of the tributaries of the Sea of Cortez. It backs right up to

the border, and if you look at our map there it’s about 40 miles

south of the south end of the Sea, and it comes almost up to the

Mexican border.

So we’re going to have to work with Mexico to make this thing

work in any event, and if we use one of the options that involves
29

expulsion of the salt water into Mexico, or it was even suggested

at one time you have a line pump in and pump out through the

Sea of Cortez. We need their cooperation.

You also potentially have the desalinization plant and the canal

that serves that plant at Yuma. This is an international project,

and when you have an international project we have a system that

is set up that works pretty well, the International Boundary and

Water Commission, but also the Federal Government has with respect to these water projects along the border, has a pretty good

rapport and a pretty good working relationship with Mexico. It’s a

lot easier for them to handle the ball there than it is for the States.

So we do have a requirement that they enter into an agreement

with the State. I mean the Governor of the State of California has

a lot to say about this program, and that’s necessarily so, and also

the Governor of the State and the State of California and the

Salton Sea Authority are obviously partners in the cost sharing aspect of this also. Because it sits rights on the border and we involve

Mexico I think this is one of those cases.

Now with respect to the bombing range and whether or not the

bombing range is going to be infringed on, let me just say as a guy

who represents that area that that is an enormous resource just

like your training range is in Idaho. My contemplation here is that

if we use part of the bombing range as a deposit for a salt evaporation area that that will be done with an understanding that it

is simply an easement into the range and that there is absolutely

no inhibition of the practices of training or fighting of both our

Navy aviators and our Air Force aviators at that range.

We have people from all over the country, units now that rotate

into that range and use it. It’s very valuable and you can fly 365

days a year there, and we will not inhibit that use at all. I mean

that would be a very important thing I think to all of us and to

the National Security Committee. So if we used it, as long as we’re

bombing it we’re using it as a bombing range. It seems like that

would be compatible to have a salt evaporation place there, but I

know Ken Calvert has strong feelings on that, too, and he would

join with me in seeing to it that we would not inhibit that national

security utilization.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Hunter, and I just want to let

you know that those of you in California have given a lot of

thought to this project. The precedent that this may set of course

is of concern to all of us in the West who deal with the western

water law and the national security issues and the international

treaty issues that you will have to deal with are of concern. I just

hope that we’re dealing with the right agency. Other than that so

long as the State’s sovereign rights to control and govern their surface water remains intact, then I’ll be very sanguine and supportive of it.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, and thank you for your work as a real

champion for States’ rights and for private property rights.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Pallone, you are recognized for any questions you may address.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
30

I as an outsider who just went to look at the Salton Sea for the

first time this past weekend, I just wanted to ask sort of a general

question of my two colleagues.

When I was there, it was somewhat surprising to me to see this

large body of water surrounded by major recreational activities, for

example, in Palm Springs, which isn’t very far. Then when I took

the helicopter tour I noticed that I guess historically there had

been homes built for recreational use. In other words, people that

built homes around the Sea who were obviously, you know, using

it as a marina for recreational purposes, but that that had seriously declined from what I could see because of the pollution problems. There were homes that were actually under water and there

were many that seemed to be abandoned. Of course I was told that

the agricultural interests essentially use the Salton Sea as a place

where the runoff, I guess from their agricultural pursuits and the

water that they use to irrigate the area, it’s sort of the basin for

that.

What I guess I wanted to ask you just very generally is—isn’t

there a real possibility because of the proximity to L.A. and because of the fact that you have Palm Springs nearby, isn’t there a

real possibility for this area to develop as a major recreational site,

I mean to bring new homes in and people who would use the area

for fishing, sports activities and whatever? And is it necessarily so

that by doing that that you impinge on the agricultural interests?

I mean it seems to me that you could still have, you know, major

agriculture going on, but still have this area develop as even more

of a recreational site. I guess I’m kind of getting the impression,

or I got the impression from some, that maybe the agricultural interests would just as soon have it used as a basin for their waste

water, but to me it seemed that in the long run that the recreational activity was extremely valuable and could co-exist with

agricultural interests.

Mr. HUNTER. Let me give just a real short answer, but I want

George Brown to comment on this because he was born in my district, and I was born in his district, and we’ve been real partners

on this thing as Sonny has.

First, agricultural interests have saved the Sea because the New

River basically consists of agricultural runoff. As George so eloquently stated, the death of the Sea was projected to be in the mid1980’s when we would reach 60,000 parts per million and we would

totally lose the fishing resource and the wildlife that attends that.

It didn’t happen because of the agriculture water that flows into

the Sea. If you cutoff New River and Alamo River, which is the

runoff not only from American farming but also farming in Mexico,

the Sea would be dead now.

And, second, the folks that I know, and I’ve spent a lot of time

there, I mean you could find me out there on, you know, a dike on

the Salton Sea at 5:30 in the morning with Leon Lesika crawling

through the mud hunting, and if we get this thing cleaned up we’re

going to be out there catching some of those corbina which still

exist in the Sea. We have a bird festival there that the Valley and

the farmers really love that attracts thousands of people each year.

So I think the community, the agriculture community and the Sea
31

really appreciates it, and they’re common sense guys and ladies

and certainly we can co-exist.

With respect to development of the Sea, and the Chairman of

Torres Martinez is going to testify, he is right here with us today,

but of course that is in the cards and could be done. Sonny Bono

had great dreams for this. I mean he would summon us to his office

and he had drawings and plans and lots of things that could be

done, particularly in conjunction with the Torres Martinez Tribe

which has thousands of acres submerged under the Sea. So I think

all those things can be accomplished in a multiple use.

George.

Mr. BROWN. It was Sonny Bono’s genius that he perceived the

value of the kind of recreational, commercial and other developments that you’ve talked about. Much of what already existed of

this sort has been inundated as the Sea rose. The Irrigation District has had to pay out close to $50 million, and I will submit the

detailed figures on that, to compensate for the inundation of the

areas surrounding the Salton Sea, and they are as much interested

in stabilizing the level as anybody else because only then can you

get the full commercial, recreational and other development potential that exists there.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Subcommittee is going to recess until approximately 1 o’clock. In the event there is a vote in progress at

that time it will reconvene following that vote.

[The Subcommittee recessed for lunch at 12:10 p.m.]

[The Subcommittee reconvened at 1:28 p.m, the Hon. John T.

Doolittle, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. We will reconvene the Subcommittee and begin

with Panel 2.

Let me ask the panelists if they will please stand and raise their

right hands.

[Whereupon, David Hayes, Douglas Wheeler, Tellis Codekas and

Richard Bunker stood, raised their right hands and were duly

sworn by the Chairman as follows:]

Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that

the responses given and statements made will be the whole truth

and nothing but the truth.

Mr. HAYES. I do.

Mr. WHEELER. I do.

Mr. CODEKAS. I do.

Mr. BUNKER. I do.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let the record reflect that each answered in the

affirmative.

Gentlemen, we appreciate your being here and indulging the

Committee in the votes and so forth. We will try and move as expeditiously as possible.

We have as our first witness on this panel Mr. David Hayes who

is Counselor to the Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. Hayes, you are recognized for your testimony.

Let me just jump in and say that the lights are a guide. When

the red light goes on the 5 minutes is up. That doesn’t mean you

have to cutoff in mid-sentence, but we do have a lot of witnesses
32

this afternoon. So we ought to try and be as expeditious as possible. And with that please begin.

STATEMENT OF DAVID HAYES, COUNSELOR TO THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED BY

ROBERT JOHNSON, LOWER COLORADO REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BOR, AND MICHAEL SPEAR, PACIFIC REGIONAL DIRECTOR, F&WS

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you mentioned, I am David Hayes, Counselor to Secretary

Babbitt. I appreciate the chance to appear here today on behalf of

the Administration on this important piece of legislation.

I am accompanied today by Bob Johnson, Regional Director of

the Lower Colorado Region of the Bureau of Reclamation, who is

behind me, and also Mike Spear, who is the Regional Director for

the Pacific Region of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and they’re

available for questions if you so desire.

I’m going to be brief this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and I ask

that my written statement be submitted for the record.

As you know, Secretary Babbitt visited the Salton Sea last December for technical briefings and for consultations with governmental officials. In connection with that visit and those discussions,

the Secretary publicly announced his concern for the environmental

condition of the Salton Sea and his interest in moving forward with

a plan to address the problems facing the Sea.

The Secretary also acknowledged the need to pull together the

many local, State and Federal players so that their efforts could be

coordinated to move out on this issue quickly and in lock step and

in a goal oriented fashion. Based on these principles, the Secretary

announced two key initiatives.

First, he suggested that the United States and the Salton Sea

Authority, in close cooperation with the State of California and the

Torres Martinez Tribe, initiate a NEPA/CEQA review of the Salton

Sea in order to evaluate the potential alternatives for addressing

the Sea and doing so in a disciplined timely manner in accordance

with the standards set forth under the National Environmental

Policy Act. The Secretary’s goal then, as he stated then and has repeated, is to take full advantage of the work that already has been

done in connection with a study of the Sea, but to do it right with

a thorough NEPA analysis on a fast track.

Secondly, the Secretary, because he recognized the need for more

coordination in terms of the research and science activities going

on at the Sea, suggested that the four key governmental authorities involved in the Sea, the Federal Government, the State of California, the local Salton Sea Authority and the Torres Martinez

Tribe, form a Research Management Committee to obtain input

from scientists and to coordinate policy choices on implementing

needed research on a real-time basis and folding that science into

the NEPA/CEQA process that needs to get underway in full flower

over the short term. It is his idea that the science should be front

loaded so that it will be of utmost utilization in the NEPA/CEQA

process.

These initiatives are moving forward. The NEPA process has

begun. Meetings with cooperating agencies have been held, ar-
33

rangements with consultants have been made, a work plan is underway, the Bureau of Reclamation is hiring a new manager for the

project, and there is a close working relationship that has been continued between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Salton Sea Authority and particularly on this subject with outreach to the State

of California and others. Also, the Research Management Committee has been formed. The Committee has appointed a Chair of

the Science Subcommittee, Dr. Milt Friend, and the Science Subcommittee is beginning its work.

It is within this framework that the Secretary and the Administration considers H.R. 3267. Much of this legislation and its goals

match the goals that the Secretary and the Administration have

laid out for the Sea, but it does depart in certain important respects that I would like to highlight here briefly, more in terms of

highlighting issues that we need to work together on than to suggest that there are impediments to coming together on a bill that

can have bipartisan support.

First with regard to the environmental analysis of remedial actions at the Sea. As mentioned in my written testimony, the Administration feels strongly that we need to be open minded about

the potential alternatives and the appropriate alternatives for remediating the Sea. We should not be at this point limiting ourselves to two or three potential types of solutions. We need to get

more input on a short-term basis to make sure that what we analyze are the potentially available options and we do it in a disciplined way.

We are concerned about the timeframe that is in this bill. We do

not think that it’s practically feasible within a 12-month timeframe

to do a NEPA evaluation on as large and complex a project as this,

plus do the environmental permitting that is contemplated within

that 12-month period, and plus do the construction specification

work that the bill anticipates all to be done within 12 months. The

Secretary is committed to working this EIS on a very fast track

basis, but this kind of timeframe in our judgment is not feasible.

On the science side we think that it’s important that the science

effort be funded fully and appreciate the interest of the Congress

in increasing funding. We think it’s important that the charge of

the Science Committee not be too narrow, and we think that it’s

important that the actual priority decisionmaking on the science

side be done by governmental officials who are accountable for

their actions, although we encourage the support of the University

Committee and their availability in actually implementing much of

the science work that is going to need to be done once those decisions are made.

Two quick final points. I see the red light is on. As mentioned

in my——

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let’s hear your points.

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As mentioned in my

statement, the Emergency Action Title, Title II, is of great concern

to us. We think that moving forward with beginning to pump out

saline water before the end of the year without knowing the end

location for the water and without knowing the availability of

water coming in and replacing it presents some serious practical

problems as well as serious potential environmental problems, and
34

we would want to do a full review before taking any kind of action

like that.

In terms of funding, a couple of points. The Secretary has indicated an interest in and a willingness to accelerate the level of attention that the Department will give to this matter. More money

certainly would be helpful in that regard. We do not have the kind

of money in our current budget or our fiscal year 1999 budget request to undertake the type of effort that seems to be contemplated

here. So we assume that supplemental funding authority would be

needed in order to effectuate this.

And, finally, as mentioned in my written testimony, we are con- cerned about the potential preauthorization of $300 million for the

potential project that would spin out of the environmental analysis.

We think it would be more prudent to identify the project and to

seek authorization and appropriation for whatever amount is appropriate to the selected project.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the

opportunity to be before you today.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of David Hayes may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Our next witness is the Honorable Douglas P.

Wheeler, Secretary for Resources with the State of California.

Secretary Wheeler.

STATEMENT OF HON. DOUGLAS P. WHEELER, SECRETARY FOR

RESOURCES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. WHEELER. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Doug

Wheeler and I am the California Resources Secretary, and am

pleased to represent Governor Wilson and the State of California

in commenting on this bill. I will ask that my full written testimony be submitted for the record, and I will attempt very briefly

to summarize that testimony in the interest of time.

Let me say, first of all, that Governor Wilson thanks you, Mr.

Chairman, and the Subcommittee for this hearing and for the expeditious consideration that you are giving to H.R. 3267. The State

of California supports strongly the objectives of this legislation and

believes that the Salton Sea resource is one of national and State

significance quite obviously whose issues and problems have been

long standing and which deserve our very close and immediate attention.

There is a history, as you’ve already said, of efforts to deal with

these questions. The State has been involved in virtually all of

those up to and including the effort that Mr. Hayes has just described which was initiated by Secretary Babbitt last fall in consultation with the State. We were in part responsible for the establishment of the Salton Sea Authority in the belief that the Authority ought to provide and can provide local leadership in addressing

the issues of the Authority, and you will hear from its very capable

President in a moment. At least four of our State agencies have

continuing roles to play, including our Department of Water Resources, our Department of Fish and Game, our State Water Resources Control Board and our Department of Parks and Recreation.
35

Despite these early efforts, and there have been studies, as you

know, by the Bureau of Reclamation in cooperation with the State,

and there has been a Congressional Task Force even prior to the

untimely death of Congressman Bono, there are still more questions than answers about what needs to be done first to restore the

Sea and then to protect it on a sustainable basis over time.

You’ve heard described the many issues which need to be addressed using sound science as the basis for a recovery strategy.

Those include the problems of evaporation and the resulting salinity, they include the water quality impacts of urban and agricultural runoff, and those include fluctuations in sea level which

threaten the economic viability of adjoining properties.

So I think it’s fair to say and to summarize the State’s position

as urging that we move expeditiously now to capitalize on the momentum which seems to exist in a bipartisan spirit, but that we

do it methodically making use of the science and making use of the

processes which are already in place. We have some studies, as I’ve

said, that recommended a number of options. Those were to have

been the focus of the process which Secretary Babbitt announced

last fall. Similarly we have a Research Management Committee

which is underway, as you have already heard. It, too, has the capability of reaching out to those who can provide it and obtaining

from them science that will inform an appropriate solution.

I want to underscore something that was said this morning. It

is our belief that if we pursue here a flawed procedure either because we avoid judicial review or the possibility of judicial review

or environmental review or the possibility of environmental review

we run the risk of contaminating the entire result, which is something that none of us would want to have. It is important I think

to have both an effective and expeditious procedure as we also have

a perfect, not an imperfect solution.

In conclusion let me just say that I echo the sentiments of millions of Californians, and particularly those who live in the Basin

of the Salton Sea, that it is a tarnished treasure. We believe its

luster can and should be restored, and working together we believe

that this legislation will make that possible.

Mr. CALVERT. [presiding.] Thank you for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Wheeler may be found at

end of hearing.]

Mr. CALVERT. Next is Tellis Codekas.

STATEMENT OF TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT, SALTON SEA

AUTHORITY, ACCOMPANIED BY TOM KIRK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SALTON SEA AUTHORITY AND PAUL CUNNINGHAM,

DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, IID

Mr. CODEKAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On behalf of the Salton Sea Authority, thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee and to comment on the Sonny

Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act, H.R. 3267. I am Tellis

Codekas, President of the Salton Sea Authority.

The Salton Sea Authority is comprised of the Counties of Riverside and Imperial, and the Imperial Irrigation and the Coachella

Valley Water Districts. The Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians and a host of Federal and State agencies are ex-officio mem-
36

bers of the Authority. The Authority is at the hub of a wheel which

includes dozens of national, state, regional, tribal and local stakeholders. The Authority recognizes the vital importance of the Sea

as an agricultural drain, an environmental resource, a recreational

destination, and an economic development engine.

Introduction of this legislation and the companion legislation in

the Senate represent important steps forward in reclaiming and restoring the Salton Sea. Enacting legislation to save the Sea is a fitting tribute to the man who was very much responsible for the current drive to save and restore the Sea. The Salton Sea Authority

and its member agencies strongly support the central elements of

H.R. 3267 and look forward to working with the Committee and

the Congressional Salton Sea Task Force on this proposed legislation.

The Authority was established in 1993 and has been working

closely with Federal partners, particularly the Bureau of Reclamation and our State partners, particularly the Resources Agency and

Cal–EPA on developing a consensus to restore this important resource. Until a year or so ago much of our effort went unnoticed.

The Sea was not viewed as a high national priority, but times have

changed and we are thankful for the change in relation to the Sea.

We need the help of our Federal Government.

The Secretary of Interior became personally involved in our efforts in December. The Secretary acknowledged the interagency

and multi-interest effort that we had already developed. He confirmed the Department’s commitment to this effort and established

a structure to address biological and other studies.

We are committed to the process that the Secretary and the Authority agreed upon. The proposed legislation largely builds on the

existing process and we support the areas where it does so specifically, particularly findings acknowledging the Federal interest,

project requirements consistent with those developed by the Authority, commitment to exploring multiple options in the feasibility

study, and authorization of appropriations which will allow completion of the feasibility, environmental analysis and permitting work.

Unfortunately, there are also provisions in the bill which do not

reflect our process or local needs.

First of all, the memorandum of understanding referred to on

page 6 seems to suggest a new process and a new feasibility study.

We think it ought to confirm the roles of the Federal lead agency,

the Department of Interior through the Bureau of Reclamation,

and the local lead agency, the Salton Sea Authority, in completing

our current work program.

Secondly, limitations of administrative and judicial review under

the National Environmental Policy Act may be counterproductive.

As the co-lead agency we still must meet the requirements of the

California Environmental Quality Act. Waiving NEPA provisions

sends up a red flag to the very interest groups that we are working

very hard to include in our restoration efforts, such as the Audubon

Society.

Thirdly, the Secretary of Interior, the Authority, the Torres Martinez and the State currently sit on a Research Management Committee. The Committee was so composed to ensure limited conflict

of interest, management oversight of research conducted, and to
37

move expeditiously on research needs. The inclusion of a fifth member from the university community is disconcerting. The universities may well receive some share of research funds and having

them make recommendations on fund distribution is an apparent

conflict of interest. Additionally, research imperatives and their

pace should not jeopardize plans to quickly restore the Sea. We do

not support including any representative on the Management Committee that may create a perception of a conflict of interest.

There are other provisions in the bill which raise questions.

My red light is on. May I have two more minutes.

Mr. CALVERT. Go ahead.

Mr. CODEKAS. The Authority applauds the Members of Congress

and specifically the Congressional Salton Sea Task Force for recognizing that stabilizing and reduce the Sea’s salinity is the highest

priority. However, the Emergency Action specified under Title II of

the bill may be counterproductive.

Title II directs the Secretary to expluse water out of the Salton

Sea by December 1 of 1998 to accommodate diversion of, presumably, Colorado River water into the Sea. However, given that the

mechanics of how the water will be pumped out, where the seawater will be pumped to, how the project will be funded, designed

and constructed have not been worked out, this Title and its deadline are unworkable. Such an emergency action is an overwhelming

technical, financial and political challenge by the deadline imposed.

Preferably, the bill should direct the Secretary to work with the

Authority through our current effort to identify and design an

emergency plan to stabilize the Sea.

Perhaps the greatest tribute to the late Congressman found in

this bill is its intent to fix the Sea’s problems quickly. The Authority thanks Congressmen Hunter, Brown, Calvert and Lewis for

their commitment to expediting the recovery efforts.

I am thankful that the Speaker has shown a commitment to this

effort and that our two California Senators have introduced similar

legislation to this bill. We hope that the President signs restoration

legislation within a few months. Still, the clock is ticking for the

Salton Sea.

In the interim, the Authority and the Bureau of Reclamation can

accomplish a great deal under our current $5 million work program. Federal funds authorized under Public Law 102–575 are

being matched with State and local funds to carry out this work

plan. Commitment by the Administration to proceeding on our

work plan will help all of us to get a jump-start on whatever legislative deadline Congress establishes.

We are thankful for the opportunity to speak before you today.

The Authority represents the local interest in reclaiming this important resource.

At this point, while not part of my written testimony, but because of all that has gone on today I would like to briefly address

the issue of using surplus Colorado River water. In discussions

with Colorado River Basin representatives they have expressed

concerns about using excess Colorado River water to restore the

Salton Sea. The Authority, the Coachella Valley Water District and

the Imperial Irrigation District have never assumed the use of socalled excess Colorado River water to reclaim and restore the Sea,
38

and we have continuously expressed our concern that any such language in the Salton Sea bill could jeopardize passage.

To terminate I would like to say we stand ready to work with

our partners and to do so quickly. The Authority’s Executive Director, Tom Kirk is here to address any questions that you may have.

Additionally, Tom Veysey, one of our board members and a Supervisor of Imperial County, and Paul Cunningham, Chair of the

Authority’s Technical Advisory Committee and Director of External

Affairs for the Imperial Irrigation District are here to serve as resources to you. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Codekas.

[The prepared statement of Tellis Codekas may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. CALVERT. Next is Mr. Richard Bunker, Chairman of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada.

You may begin your testimony.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD BUNKER, CHAIRMAN, COLORADO

RIVER COMMISSION OF NEVADA

Mr. BUNKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to express our gratitude on behalf of the State of Nevada and Governor Bob Miller for the opportunity to appear on behalf of H.R. 3267, the reclamation of Salton Sea. My name is Richard Bunker, and I’m Chairman of the Colorado River Commission

of Nevada.

In the past month or so several of my colleagues from Southern

Nevada and I had an opportunity to go into the Salton Sea area

as well as the Imperial Irrigation area and parts of Arizona, and

at the time were given a very in-depth briefing by the people of

both Arizona and California regarding the reclamation efforts of

the Salton Sea. We went on this tour to convey basically to our Nevada policymakers one simply reality, that when it comes to the

Colorado River water Nevada is very inextricably connected to the

actions and the activities of our sister States, both Arizona and

California.

As a member of the Colorado River Commission for the past several years I have learned that issues involving the Colorado River

are really like a never ending soap opera with intricate, slow-moving plots and subplots, and unless you follow the program faithfully

it’s very difficult at any given moment to know who is romancing

who and why. We in Nevada have been romanced by almost everyone at one time or another, including the interests behind the

Salton Sea Authority.

Let me say we appreciate and are supportive of the objectives of

the Salton Sea interests and we support that over all plan. However, we feel that H.R. 3267 has a lot of work to be done on it before it meets that criteria. I would just underscore it’s primarily because the arithmetic on the Colorado River just doesn’t work, and

I will get into that in a minute.

I also would like to for your record issue a disclaimer, that the

comments that I am making about this bill should in no way be

taken by any of the California interests that we are siding with one
39

side or the other in the California water war between the agricultural and the urban areas.

Our problem is that today California is using approximately 5.2

million acre feet of Colorado River water when its entitlement is

only 4.4 million. The additional water that has been coming from

Arizona and Nevada as its unused entitlement is part of the overall

entitlement of the Lower Basin. Arizona and Nevada along with

the four Upper Basin States have for years been urging California

to implement a plan to reduce its usage to the 4.4 million acre feet

that it has been allocated. I am pleased to tell you that in the past

couple of years this plan has been talked about. As of right now

they have not reached a resolution, but they have been working on

it.

I wouldn’t want you to misunderstand. California has a very absolute contract right to the water that they are using. However, we

think it is very dangerous for them to base any type of long-term

activity, and particularly Federal legislation on temporary water.

Within the next several years Nevada will be using up its own

meager supply of 300,000 acre feet, and we also will be attempting

to use some of the unused apportionment and surplus water.

Unlike California, however, we have a plan that is in place and

it is being worked on at the present time for the day when all of

the Lower Basin water will be put to use. As the Department of

the Interior moves forward to approve regulations which will allow

Colorado River water to be banked in Arizona we intend in Nevada

to avail ourselves of that opportunity to the point of hopefully being

able to bank somewhere in the area of 100,000 acre feet annually

for the next several years. I would underscore the fact that we are

waiting for the Department of the Interior to move forward with

those banking regulations.

The other thing we would indicate to you is that Nevada, unlike

California, has no agricultural buffer. We know that there is a lot

of conversation going on between agricultural and urban interests

in California and would suggest to you that some of the water that

is going currently into the Salton Sea, if the arrangements are

made between the San Diego Water Authority and Imperial Irrigation, a lot of the water that is going to be transferred because of

that negotiation is going to be water that ultimately would not be

going into the Sea because it will be conserved water from that Irrigation District.

I will bring my remarks to a conclusion, but we would suggest

to you that before any further Federal demands for water are created California should first implement a plan as to how they are

going to live within the 4.4. We believe that, Imperial, Palo Verde

and the Coachella Irrigation Districts are going to have to enter

some substantive plans to conserve water, and we are opposed to

the legislation as it is currently written because we believe that it

brings about a huge dependency over and above what they currently have for the State of California on Colorado River water.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

[The prepared statement of Richard Bunker may be found at end

of hearing.]
40

Mr. CALVERT. We have a vote in process right now. There are approximately 7 minutes left, and then there is another vote following on passage. So we will stand in recess, and I’m sure there

will be some questions as soon as we return, which will be approximately in 15 minutes.

We stand in recess.

[Recess taken for Members to vote.]

Mr. CALVERT. [presiding] The Committee will come to order.

Mr. Lewis has asked to join us at the roster if there is no objection.

[No objections.]

Mr. CALVERT. It’s approved.

I’m going to ask a quick question. I know Mr. Lewis has some

time constraints.

I’m going to first ask Mr. Hayes, in your testimony you referred

to the restricted time constraints in the bill. Mr. Hayes, I understand that in past positions you’ve been involved in CERCLA litigation. As you know, that law was established to remediate our nation’s worst abandoned hazardous waste sites. When that program

was established Congress did not want cleanups to be hindered by

judicial challenges—I’m going to move over here and let the Chairman take over.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Go ahead.

Mr. CALVERT. [continuing] and wrote Section 113[h] of CERCLA

so that parties may not challenge Superfund cleanup remedies before they are completed. The Supreme Court has recently upheld

a lower court ruling that in fact Congress did not want Superfund

cleanups hindered by judicial challenges. The members of the

Salton Sea Task Force that have introduced this measure before us

today have those same concerns, that because of the deteriorating

and dangerous environmental conditions at the Salton Sea Congress should provide that the cleanup is not hindered by judicial

challenges. Also, this Administration, as have past Administrations, has enacted legislation that limits administrative and judicial review in a number of areas and for a variety of reasons. In

light of this information your statement that ‘‘In the Administration’s view, it is inappropriate to shortcut the remedies afforded by

the environmental laws in the name of environmental protection’’

appears schizophrenic at best. Do you agree with the Congressional

Task Force Members that reclaiming the Salton Sea should proceed

without being hampered by dilatory litigation?

Mr. HAYES. Congressman, it is a very rare circumstance I think

that the Administration is comfortable with overriding the environmental laws. In the context of NEPA I think we’ve got a very good

track record on both sides of the aisle of doing NEPA reviews and

with the courts not interfering with actions that are selected as the

result of an EIS process.

As you know, the standard for enjoining a project based on

NEPA violations is quite high, and only in the case of an egregious

violation of NEPA would judicial review potentially interfere with

the administration of a project. And if those circumstances in fact

took place, it may be appropriate to have the courts review the

NEPA process. The Administration does believe that any departure

from the normal course of NEPA review, and NEPA in particular,
41

one of the central environmental laws, the first and the one with

which we have had the most history, that departures are not warranted and in fact have been quite rare.

Mr. CALVERT. One point, and then I’m going to ask the Chairman

to take over again and recognize Mr. Lewis, but you mentioned

that you were not in favor of preauthorization on this bill. Well

Secretary Babbitt, as I understand it, has endorsed the Senate

version of the bill which also asks for preauthorization. So are you

opposite of Mr. Babbitt’s position?

Mr. HAYES. No. Mr. Babbitt’s statement was that he is encouraged by the Senate bill. He finds it to be, and I believe the quote

was, a more practicable and feasible approach, but it needs to be

refined, and once refined, implemented. He did not endorse all aspects of the bill. The Administration has a concern, a budgetary

concern about preauthorizing $300 million for a project that is not

yet identified. But, as the Secretary has said, and I hope these

comments will be understood in this light, the Secretary is extremely interested in working closely with the Congressional Task

Force, as exhibited by his visit, in getting legislation that will

work, but the Administration is concerned about the

preauthorization, and that concern extends to the Senate bill.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Ken.

The Chair asks unanimous consent to have our colleagues, Duncan Hunter and Jerry Lewis join us up here on the panel.

Is there any objection?

[No objections.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Seeing none, you’re official.

Mr. Lewis, we welcome you.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It’s unusual to

have these circumstances, but as you know I was scheduled to testify earlier and Mr. Calvert was kind enough to submit my written

testimony. The Appropriations subcommittee hearing is still going

on that I’m responsible for. So I’m going to have to run back shortly.

The reason I wanted to come back was because it is my understanding that there may be some disagreement, a serious disagreement between some of the members of the panel who have a similar interest in the Salton Sea to my own, but apparently the lines

of communication that contain a serious gap and I’m quite concerned about it. I wanted to come and formalize those concerns before the Committee.

Mr. Codekas, you know that during my last 4 years in the State

Legislature and my first 4 years in the Congress I had the privilege

of serving the Coachella Valley. We’ve had long-term contact here

as well as long-term interest in the Salton Sea, but over these

years there has been virtually nothing done about solving this

problem.

Following the tragic death of Congressman Jerry Pettis he was

replaced by my predecessor, Shirley Pettis and, as you may remember, she raised the question of the Salton Sea as her No. 1 legislative issue. In those days because of a lack of intensive involvement

of legislators on both sides of the aisle from Southern California,

Shirley was the only point person really carrying the cudgel. Com-
42

petition for environmental spending in Northern California made

this idea difficult. Eventually, the whole project, idea and thought

pattern were set aside. The Salton Sea has continued to deteriorate, and we are at the point where it is all but gone in terms of

a usable and valuable asset.

In the last couple of years we have been successful at raising the

issue in a way that would suggest that maybe, just maybe the National Government will do more than just pay lip service to this

problem. As you know, because we have studied and restudied and

analyzed and reevaluated this problem for over 30 years, 2 years

ago I had the opportunity to put a million dollars in a bill that involves a subcommittee that I happen to Chair that suggested that

maybe people a little bit away from the valley where, we all have

special interests in this environmental problem should take an

independent look at the issue.

I had the audacity to suggest that maybe the University of Redlands might be able to look at all the studies that had been produced and give us some evaluation. That was in the fiscal year

1977 VA HUD bill. Last year we put another million dollars in the

fiscal year 1998 bill to have that work continue to formalize itself.

But beyond that we were able to put $5 million in a pool that could

be used by the Authority to assist in looking at those alternatives

and taking some constructive steps toward a solution that would be

a comprehensive solution.

I know that over all these years in frustration the local people

who have an interest have essentially said, my God, we had better

do something and let’s opt on the cheapest solution, which is

diking. I don’t know if that is the right one or not, but I do know

that there are many, many alternatives that involve recognizing

the impact of pollution coming from the New River, that recognize

that there are problems from the Mexican border that are multiple

and that a very complex solution that be involved if we deal with

Mexico. There are suggestions about the value of the possibility of

pumping out and using evaporative ponds. There are a whole array

of ideas.

It seemed to me that there is a need one more time for those people who are just outside the region, to help us evaluate those alternatives. A coalition of universities has come together. Redlands

isn’t just going to do it by itself, but rather some of the finest

minds in the country dealing with the environment are going to

help us take a look at this.

I’m concerned about two things. It’s my understanding that at

least among members of the Salton Sea Authority there are those

who think that we should not have the universities involved, and

that baffles me. If that’s the case we’ll take the $5 million back and

my committee can use it some other way.

The other line that I heard that came from this morning’s meeting was a suggestion that we shouldn’t fund or have money in to

deal with the New River, and, my goodness, if there is a problem

that needs to be addressed, the New River is in that category. I remember Clare Burgener talking about that when I first arrived in

Congress. It is the source of one of our major difficulties.

Would you please clear the air for me and tell me if I’m wrong.

If I’m not wrong, then just let me know and I would be glad to see
43

if we can use that funding for public housing or some other purpose.

Mr. CODEKAS. Well with your permission, Congressman Lewis,

can I have our Executive Officer answer this for you?

Mr. LEWIS. If he is the guy who is the source of those ideas I

would love to hear from him.

Mr. CODEKAS. Tom Kirk.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Before you answer raise your right hand, please.

[Whereupon, Tom Kirk comes forward, raises his right hand and

is first duly sworn by Chairman Doolittle as follows:]

Do you solemnly swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury

that the responses given and the statements made will be the

whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Mr. KIRK. I do.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Why don’t you introduce yourself

and tell us your official position. You can sit down there and grab

a microphone.

Mr. KIRK. Tom Kirk, Executive Director of the Salton Sea Authority.

Mr. Lewis, first, thank you for all of the work you have done in

helping to appropriate significant amounts of funding for the effort.

In terms of Authority’s position on the university involvement, I

can say without any hesitation that the Salton Sea Authority absolutely supports the university’s involvement in the effort, and the

question is how should that involvement be structured.

The Salton Sea Authority in fact has a current contract with the

University of California at Davis and with the Department of

Water Resources through the Resources Agency. We support the efforts of San Diego State University. Dr. Stuart Hurlbut has been

very active at the Sea and he has been one of the few researchers

that has been out there for many years. And with the University

of Redlands we have had continuing discussions with them. We see

their role as being absolutely instrumental with their geographic

information system in assembling the existing and the new information that we develop.

So, yes, I think the impression that you have that the Authority

is against university involvement isn’t correct. We see the university involvement as being absolutely critical. In fact, one of our concerns is one provision in the bill that would have the universities

sit on a panel, the Scientific Management Committee, and that in

fact that may preclude them of further involvement.

The way the panel was set up by the Department of the Interior

it was made very clear that that Science Management Committee

could have no ties or very limited ties to actual research. It was

to guide the research. We are concerned that the universities on

that panel may limit their ability to accept funds for research.

Hopefully that clarifies that issue.

May I also say on the issue of the $5 million, we again thank

you for providing that funding. There are a couple of points on

that. One, we would like to continue to use it. Public housing may

be a very good use for that funding.

Mr. LEWIS. Maybe the Coachella public housing.

Mr. KIRK. I know some people who would be very interested in

that, but we are much more interested in using that funding for
44

the Salton Sea recovery effort. When I came on board back in November I was told money wouldn’t be a problem. We’ve got $5 million through your good efforts and the Congressional Task Force efforts. We have $2.5 million through State funding. As our President knows, we haven’t seen dime one, not just dollar one, but

dime one of either of those. We are very close on the State funding.

We are working through the Cal EPA, and I think in the next 30

days we will have access to that $2.5 million. On the $5 million in funding the Authority assumed incorrectly

back when I was hired that that money would simply come to the

Authority and then we could use it for our current work program

doing the engineering analysis, the environmental permitting and

the like. We found out a couple of months ago that in fact that

funding travels the same route that the Redlands funding did, and

that was through an EPA office that the process took on the order

of 12 to 14 months to complete.

I have worked with your contacts at the University of Redlands

to help us with our proposal, and we have had many discussions

with them and we are hopeful with the help of the Research Management Committee and Milt Friend to put a proposal in to EPA

in short order.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Kirk, let me respond in this way. It is my understanding that you, Mr. Kirk, argued internally relative to the University Consortium staying in place, but the board has taken a different position than that. It’s the position of the board that concerns me a lot for I do think that there is great value to be had

here by the kind of evaluation and re-evaluation that they can provide.

Your comments about EPA, I’m very sensitive about and appreciate. My subcommittee is responsible for funding their budget. I

can tell you this, that they have a new grant administrator in place

as of this moment, and it’s my understanding that the grant administrator is quite anxious to work with us to expedite this process. That certainly should be a relief to everybody who is so concerned.

Mr. KIRK. What I can pledge to you, sir, is that the Salton Sea

Authority will take your concerns and I know concerns shared by

the rest of the Congressional Task Force and we will take a look

at our position related to university involvement. I can assure you

again that we want to see the universities very much involved and

we want to find a way to structure that involvement that makes

sense locally and for you.

Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate that.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, could Mr. Lewis yield to me briefly

on that point just to followup.

Mr. LEWIS. I yield.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. He is kind of out of time, but I’ll try and be as

generous as I can.

Mr. LEWIS. You are more than generous, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNTER. I’m looking at the provision that we have where the

University Consortium is a part of the Salton Sea Research Management Committee. The membership is made up of the Secretary,

the Governor of California or appointees of the Secretary and the

Governor of California, and, No. 3, the Salton Sea Authority, No.
45

4, the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Tribal Government and,

No. 5, one person appointed jointly by the California Water Resources Center, the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the

Salton Sea Research Consortium. Now that means that the universities in terms of power or what you call potential conflict of interest have one third of one fifth of the influence on this particular

structure, and if you divide that up further by the universities,

each university basically simply has a seat at the table, but in no

way can I see the leverage that would amount to a conflict of interest here. The reason for having this is that the Committee shall select the topics of study under this section and manage these studies.

I think it’s important to have our academic experts and the people who have done the research involved in a discussion as to what

the topics are going to be and how this study is going to proceed,

and I don’t see a problem there. So that was one area where I hope

that you folks will take another look at this thing.

Mr. KIRK. We will, and thanks for putting it into perspective, Mr. Hunter. I would like to add that on the existing $5 million in funding we do plan on working with the universities even on that. We

have already bounced some ideas off the University of Redlands

and we hope to involve the others.

Mr. Lewis, you did address the issue of the New River funding

as well.

Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

Mr. KIRK. I was surprised by your comments because the Salton

Sea Authority and, as far as I know, all of our member agencies

have not taken any position opposing the funding for the New

River.

Mr. LEWIS. I’m pleased to hear that, and I could be in error. I

do know that that funding, or at least I have heard that that funding has been eliminated or is not a part of the Senate bill, and that

is of some concern to me, but it may be just a lack of communication on our part.

Mr. KIRK. We had nothing to do with that elimination as far as

I know.

Mr. LEWIS. I appreciate that. Let me speak to the university representation in a different way. I have always strived in my lifetime

to have people think I was an academic. Having failed that, I’ve got

a couple of kids who are. They don’t work for any of these universities, but in the meantime it’s just the association with them that

helps my image. So I’m anxious to have them at least be my representative on them one way or another. Anyway, we appreciate

your response and appreciate working with you.

Mr. KIRK. Thank you.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Mr. Hunter, did you finish your questions?

Mr. HUNTER. Just one or two here, Mr. Chairman, and thank you

for letting myself and Mr. Lewis sit on the panel, too.

First, one reason why we had in our bill this to some degree

elimination of the judicial review and challenge is because, and,

Mr. Hayes, I would address this to you, because your boss, Mr.

Babbitt who really has his heart in the right place on this project
46

has seen with his own eyes that this Sea is dying. The last thing

we want to have, and especially if we start seeing less water going

into the Sea and salinization accelerate, the last thing we want to

have is to be part way down the line on a project which is basically

a function of decisionmaking by your boss. I mean the product that

we have when we pick the option is going to be presumably led by

your organization, and the last thing we need is to have is some

off-the-wall organization, not a responsible conservation organization, but some third party go forum shopping.

We know one thing Sonny Bono hated was what he called judicial activism and to find a judge who stops the project, and as a

result of that the 200,000 birds that have died so far in the Salton

Sea are joined by literally hundreds of thousands of other waterfowl, and we get to the point where the Sea will not allow fish to

survive because of increased salinization. So I would hope that you

understand the importance for that.

I think what we tried to track when we put that together was

the same acceleration and the same limitation on judicial review

that we’ve had with things like the Alaskan pipeline, and certainly

you’ve seen it, too. I mean it was mentioned by Mr. Calvert that

that has occurred in other places. But this is going to be largely

your decision on how we move ahead with this in consultation with

some other agencies. If we make a responsible decision we need to

move quickly. I think that’s a key here.

Let me just ask since Jerry touched on it briefly, and we’re going

to have a panel on New River. New River is something we can do

right now. We can start working it and do that concurrently with

the big project in cleaning up that river through a series of 50

miles of filtering marshes. I think it’s a great concept, and I

haven’t met an academic or a person coming from the conservation

community who doesn’t like it. It’s relatively inexpensive compared

to other things that you can do and the prospect of having to have

a plant to pull some of the pollutants out of that river.

So let me just ask, Tellis, since you’re before us now, you folks

do endorse the idea of moving ahead at the same time in this

project of cleaning up New River with a series of marshes and it’s

a partnership between the Bureau of Reclamation and IID and of

course Desert Wildlife Unlimited?

Mr. CODEKAS. How would you want us to work this?

Mr. HUNTER. Well we have in our bill, and the Senate bill doesn’t

have the $2 million, but we start out with $2 million for the initiation of the cleanup of New River, and what that would be is a couple of these initial ponds because the idea is you build a series of

marshes along New River. We’ve got about 50 miles of river there,

and as you flow the water, you flow the water out of the river

through the marshes, the aquatic plants pull the pollutants, some

of the heavy metals out and some of the sewage pollutants out of

the water, and then flow it back in.

So we’ve got to basically put our first couple of ponds in place,

and we can do that right now and do some experimentation with

them and see what types of water plants work the best, do some

work in terms of engineering and basically work that project of

cleaning up New River in concert with the major Salton Sea

project. So we have $2 million in the House bill to do that for New
47

River. The Senate bill doesn’t have that, although they do mention

that we do need to work on all the rivers, New River, Whitewater

and Alamo. Do you folks favor this second track project to clean up

New River?

Mr. CODEKAS. I can’t answer that. I will have to ask Tom Kirk.

This has to go through our Technical Advisory Committee before it

comes to the board.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Hunter, I will be very brief on this issue. We

haven’t addressed this as the Salton Sea Authority. The Authority

does applaud your efforts to address all of the sources of the Salton

Sea’s problems, including the New River, and obviously that’s a big

issue. What I can say is that I know Supervisor Veysey is in the

audience, and Imperial County and the Imperial Irrigation District

are very interested in the cleanup of the New River, and I believe

that the County of Imperial would like to continue to work with

you on how that is accomplished.

Mr. HUNTER. All right.

Mr. Hayes, do you have an answer on that? I know we gave Secretary Babbitt a very short briefing on that program.

Mr. HAYES. Yes, Congressman, and I think the Bureau has done

some preliminary work with the other partners and we are open

to it. We have not officially taken a position on the level of funding

and that kind of thing, but we are open to that project and think

it may be an innovative way to help deal with the New River

issues.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Secretary Wheeler, what is the status of the California 4.4 plan?

Mr. WHEELER. The plan, as Mr. Bunker has already indicated,

is under development by the Colorado River Board of California.

The Governor has indicated that it is a very high priority because

we take seriously the warnings we’ve had from Secretary Babbitt

and from our neighboring States on the Colorado Basin that we

cannot subsist on the margin between our allotment and that surplus which has been declared in recent times. We have shared with

the other States a draft of the plan and we have invited their comment. I should use this opportunity to say we intend, no matter

what outcome of this investigation relative to the Salton Sea, to

live within California’s 4.4 million acre feet allotment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Do you mean to begin immediately to live within

that or will it be phased in over a period of time?

Mr. WHEELER. Ultimately to live within it as circumstances dictate. We have a surplus this year and, as has already been said,

we may have one next year.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. As long as we have a surplus we’re legitimately

entitled to have that as well, right?

Mr. WHEELER. Exactly, a share of it, our share of it.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Right.

Mr. WHEELER. And the point is we have to be ready for that time

when we don’t have a surplus to live within our 4.4, and we will

be prepared to do that.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
48

Mr. Bunker, I’m sorry I was out of the room when you gave your

testimony and maybe you will be repeating yourself, but could you

explain the concept of surplus water as it applies to the Colorado

River. Could you use maybe the scenario from last year as an example and with what frequency would you expect that scenario to

occur?

Mr. BUNKER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not a technician, but to

the limits of my ability I will try to assist that. My understanding

is that it is a declaration that is possible by the Secretary of the

Interior each year, and that there is a process and there are criteria that have to be met before that is done.

I think one of the problems that comes back to the surplus issue

is the fact that there are priorities on the river and, unfortunately,

in a shortage there are some States that have a lower priority than

do some of the California agencies, and I think that is what their

concern is, and I think it’s a legitimate concern. I think it is very

difficult for any type of, whether it be Federal legislation or Irrigation District programs to be based on temporary water, and that’s

all you could say that surplus water is. You know, it might be great

for several years, but if a drought comes, then of course it’s going

to be a very difficult situation.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It is possible that someone with an existing Colorado River allocation could contribute that to the cleanup effort?

Mr. BUNKER. I think the answer to that is yes. I think it’s the

position of the six other Basin States that as long as California is

operating within its 4.4 we really don’t care where it goes or how

they use it. That’s an internal discussion that you folks must have.

So my answer to that would probably be yes, as long as it’s within

the 4.4.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me ask Mr. Wheeler. How many years have

we been over the 4.4?

Mr. WHEELER. I don’t have an exact answer for you, but continuously, and that’s in part, Mr. Chairman, for the obvious reason that

in addition to surplus determinations, which are made as a consequence of the hydrology of the river annually, there have been

excesses beyond the allotments made to the other States and not

utilized by the other States, and that, too, has been available to

California. But as you have heard this morning from Mr. Bunker

and from the other States, as their needs being to grow that excess

over their allotments will no longer be available as well. So it’s not

as if California has relied unreasonably or inappropriately on that

water. It’s just that that water is not any longer as readily available as it once was.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. How many years into the future is it before

these other States can actually take their full allotment and do

something with it?

Mr. WHEELER. You would have to ask them. Arizona has taken

the very strategic decision to store its water even in advance of its

need and has offered to sell some of it to Mr. Bunker we’re told.

Mr. BUNKER. Mr. Chairman, if I might respond to that.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes.

Mr. BUNKER. The Arizona Banking Authority has set up a program, if the Federal regulations are approved by the Department

of the Interior, that would allow Nevada to start banking 100,000
49

acre feet, approximately 100,000 acre feet each year. Now Arizona

is already using that additional allotment that they have entitlement to to recharge their groundwater system. They are currently

doing that from their allotment.

And in response to your question of how soon are we going to be

using those allotments or those entitlements in the two States, Arizona is very close, and certainly with banking Nevada will become

very close because we’re going to try to bank the rest of our unused

entitlement.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Would one of you gentlemen care to volunteer an

opinion as to whether it’s possible under this Law of the River for

one State to sell it to another State?

Mr. WHEELER. That is a determination about which we await the

decision of the Secretary of the Interior, and those are the regulations that Mr. Bunker has made reference to. We might address

that question perhaps unfairly to Mr. Hayes.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Mr. Hayes.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HAYES. Fair or unfair, here it goes. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary has issued proposed regulations under which he believes he

has the authority under certain circumstances where there is an

authorized State banking program for interstate transfers of

banked water that it would be subject to Secretarial approval.

Those proposed regulations were published in the Federal Register

I believe just on December 31st, and the public comment period is

continuing until April 3rd, and we hope to go forward with final

regulations that will facilitate these transfers.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Wheeler, is the State of California inclined

to accede to the proposed regulations?

Mr. WHEELER. California has been an advocate both of banking

and of interstate transfers, yes.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So there would be no opposition to this moving

forward?

Mr. WHEELER. Not to the concept generally. I have not seen the

regulations themselves.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right. Well in the interest of time, I have

more questions, but I think since we’ve got so many witnesses perhaps we will try and move along here.

Let me just ask a question of you, Mr. Hayes. This afternoon the

idea was raised to block grant to the State of California the funds

to perform the entire project as the lead agency. Would the Administration prefer this option or the current proposal outlined in the

bill, and tell us why or why not.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I don’t think this project is a good

candidate for a block grant. I think rather the kind of joint approach the Secretary talked about is more appropriate. The reason

I think why a block grant approach may be particularly inappropriate here is the fact that there are several Federal interests here

that would be difficult to delegate through a block grant.

There is obviously a very strong interest in tribal communities

in the Sea, and we as trustee of the tribes have a special responsibility toward the tribes, and that’s one of the reasons why the

Torres Martinez Tribe in particular with their major land holdings
50

is playing a major role, and appropriately so in the activities we’re

talking about.

Also, we have one of the major fish and wildlife resources in the

entire Pacific region with the Salton Sea. The national wildlife refuge in the southern part of the Sea is a very important aspect of

the whole national Federal western flyway, as Congressman

Hunter and others have discussed.

And, finally, the Secretary is Water Master of the Colorado River

and has special responsibilities in that role as Water Master and,

as exhibited in this hearing, the Colorado River issues are quite

sensitive and need to be handled with great care. Having a block

grant concept of pushing those issues off to the State, certainly Mr.

Wheeler and his colleagues are very well qualified to work in this

arena, but we think the Federal presence is necessary.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Wheeler, could I pose the same question to

you?

Mr. WHEELER. You may, and I haven’t had a chance to discuss

it with the Governor of course, but I could imagine what his response might be, and therefore I will venture to guess that California would welcome this challenge, Mr. Chairman. I would say

that the Chenoweth formula will soon gain credence in Sacramento. But I do want to say more seriously that we have a good

record of collaboration with the Federal Government in California,

and increasingly so, in which there is a recognition both of our interests and our ability to work cooperatively.

Mr. Lewis has been a major sponsor of our habitat conservation

work in Southern California, and you have been supportive of our

efforts in the CalFed Bay Delta solution. I think there is a role for

each, and I think we can find a way appropriately to reflect those

responsibilities and to share in the costs, to say nothing of the important role of local government in this new Regional Authority.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Here is a tough one, Mr. Wheeler. As between

this and CalFed which has the higher priority?

Mr. WHEELER. Which of my children do you want me to dispose

of?

[Laughter.]

Mr. WHEELER. We have an answer for that, Mr. Chairman. We

believe that the sequencing of timing and funding will allow you

to do both. Happily, the Federal commitment to CalFed will expire

with the fiscal year budget 2000 according to present plan, and according to the timetable envisioned by the bill before you today the

authority will and the appropriation for this project will begin in

the year 2001. So we see a continuous stream not having to choose

between one or the other of these very important projects.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well thank you. Now are you telling us you

won’t be asking for CalFed money then after that time?

Mr. WHEELER. I won’t be asking, Mr. Chairman.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me just briefly ask you to answer this question, Mr. Hayes and then Mr. Wheeler. What percentage of the cost

of all of this for the Salton Sea do you believe should be borne by

the State of California and other non-Federal entities?

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, as you know, currently there is authorization for the Bureau of Reclamation to spend up to $10 mil-
51

lion on Salton Sea activities. That is the vehicle under which we

currently are funding the ongoing efforts, and that legislation anticipates a 50 percent cost share by the State and local interests.

Our position I guess going in is that seems about right, and that

it’s appropriate to have a cost share and the 50/50 makes sense.

We have not had significant discussions on that point, but my testimony does suggest that we could continue on that basis.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Mr. Wheeler, does that figure make sense to you?

Mr. WHEELER. It sure doesn’t. I’m more inclined to the 75/25 formula, Mr. Chairman, but I would note that your legislation, or this

bill provides that nothing can occur until we reach agreement

among the various parties about cost share, and that’s probably the

place in which to leave this decision at the moment. We don’t know

yet how much the project is going to cost, how much of the benefit

could be ascribed to local interests or to State interests or to national interests, and as we get additional research and we get the

feasibility study which is authorized by this bill I guess we will be

able to make a better judgment about a fair apportionment of costs.

But it is clear from your bill that there will be no cost sharing unless all parties agree to it, and that would be satisfactory to California.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Mr. Codekas, could you discuss how the Colorado River water

could play a role in solving the inflow needs of the Salton Sea while

protecting existing rights and obligations.

Mr. CODEKAS. How the existing Colorado River could aid the flow

into the Salton Sea?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, without violating any of the existing rights

that people have.

Mr. CODEKAS. Well what is difficult about this is we are already

looking at a transfer from IID to San Diego. If that goes ahead that

is going to reduce the inflow to the Salton Sea more instead of expanding it. If someone could feasibly treat the water well enough

to reuse it in irrigation, I could see that happening, reuse of the

water if that’s possible, but it really looks tough with the diversions

that we’re looking at today. So I can’t see that you can take any

of the Colorado River water and put it directly into the Salton Sea.

It’s all appropriated and I just don’t think that can happen.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So you and Mr. Bunker on that point would tend

to be in agreement then?

Mr. CODEKAS. I am.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Do you know of any water right holders that

have expressed interest in making Colorado River water available

through means of banking or permit or interim sale exchanges or

other creative measures?

Mr. CODEKAS. I think U.S. Filter, Mr. Hickman has made overtures in the Coachella Valley about trading agriculture runoff to

reuse or trade, but any additional water, I don’t know if there is

any available at this time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Of those that presently have water rights you

know of no one then that is interested in doing it?

Mr. CODEKAS. For the Salton Sea?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Right.
52

Mr. CODEKAS. At the prices water goes for now I couldn’t imagine

that.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Tell us what the prices are that it goes for.

Mr. CODEKAS. Well it’s going for about $240 an acre foot to San

Diego.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Hunter, you represent San Diego, don’t you?

[Laughter.]

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, could I followup on that?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, please.

Mr. HUNTER. I think we went over this idea initially when we

were discussing this thing, the idea of using a flood stage river

where you have water literally, as we did a couple of years ago in

my district, flooding out the banks and the farms across the river

from Yuma, and doing it on the Yuma side, too, that using that

water in maybe a one-time effort to knock the salinity down from

45,000 parts per million to say 40—or to say 38,000 parts per million, that would dramatically buy us time, No. 1, and put the Sea

back into a healthy state at least in terms of salinity for a period

of years.

So I guess my question is you stated that you don’t mind us

doing that as long as we would use it within our 4.4 million acre

foot allotment. So a question to Mr. Bunker.

If we’re using more than 4.4, which we are, as Mr. Wheeler said,

and have for a while, but we have a big rain year and even with

your banking and your storage and other things you have flood

stage Colorado River flowing past Yuma and ultimately to the Sea

of Cortez, is your position that you would rather see it go into the

ocean than to see us use it to flush to some degree the Salton Sea?

Mr. BUNKER. No. There are flood control criteria that are set up

by the Department of the Interior and by the Corps of Engineers,

and when the reservoirs reach a certain level, then by dictum from

the Secretary and, if not, then by the Corps of Engineers they can

release water. Now again I am not an expert in that area, and

there are experts coming after us———

Mr. HUNTER. No, I’m talking about in terms of policy. You said

that your policy feeling was that it was OK with you if California

used Colorado River water as long as it was within their 4.4 million acre foot allotment. I’m saying assuming we obviously are

using 4.4 and more already for our irrigation and our other uses,

but in reality we have a flood year in which you have water physically washing away the banks of the Colorado River bed at Yuma

and water flushing out into the Sea of Cortez, would it be OK if

California used it at that point?

Mr. BUNKER. Of course the obvious answer is yes. I do not know

if there are criteria that are set up whereby California would have

the majority of that water anyway. That well could be the case.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Calvert is recognized for an additional question.

Mr. CALVERT. I have one additional question, and I thank my

friend from San Diego for asking that question because I was going

to ask the same thing.

Mr. Wheeler, we have been talking about the time problem we

have here at the Sea. Time allocated for the Federal agencies to
53

complete NEPA work, as you know, is specified in H.R. 3267. But

since their work needs to be done in cooperation with the State of

California, could you assure you us that the State would comply

with the allotted timeframes that we have outlined in the bill?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, we believe we could. And it’s an important

point because although there is talk of relieving the Federal agencies of responsibility under NEPA, of course the Congress cannot

affect the applicability of CEQA, the State law, to the Salton Sea

Authority, which is a State agency. So in any event we would have

to comply with CEQA.

Let me make one further suggestion though, that we might expedite this process, as the Governor would want to do, by integrating

NEPA and CEQA and by allowing CEQA to become a functional

equivalent to NEPA so that we don’t have to run two separate and

redundant parallel processes. It may be a way to save some time.

Mr. CALVERT. That’s a very good suggestion and we’ll take that

under advisement.

One other question. The State is talking about some additional

bond measures on the November ballot. Are you going to include

dollars within the pending statewide bond issue for the Salton Sea

in November?

Mr. WHEELER. The Governor has asked for $2.1 billion in water

and parks bonds for which this project would be eligible. We have

the problem as yet of getting approval from the Legislature, as you

know. We failed to make the deadline for the June ballot, and we’re

hopeful of making it for the November ballot, but that’s a matter

to be determined by the Legislature.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, could I be recognized on that question?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Certainly.

Mr. KIRK. We have, the Salton Sea Authority has put in a request for $50 million through our State Senator and State Assemblyman to that proposed bond measure. So it is something that we

are actively working on.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Did I hear the figure was $50 million?

Mr. KIRK. Correct.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If this is a $300 million project that’s about,

what is it, one sixth. That’s 17 or 18 percent. So we’ll have another

bond issue to make up whatever the difference is.

Mr. WHEELER. That would be the State’s share of course, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. KIRK. We assume that $50 million is way beyond what our

local share would be.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well this has been very illuminating, and I’m

glad that we’ve taken some additional time with this panel. I hope

we’re not going to keep all of you too late. We may have some additional questions to address via written form and we would ask you

to please respond expeditiously to those so we can close out the

record.

With that we will excuse the panel. Thank you very much.

[Additional questions to be submitted and responded to for the

record may be found at end of hearing.]
54

Mr. DOOLITTLE. We will invite the members of Panel No. 3 to

come up and take their seats, or remain standing if you like because we are going to do the oath here first.

Let me ask you gentlemen please if you would raise your right

hands.

[Whereupon, Christopher Harris, Art Lopez, R. Wayne Hardie

and Henry J. Vaux, Jr. having raised their right hands were first

duly sworn by Chairman Doolittle as follows:]

Do you solemnly swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury

that the responses given and the statements made will be the

whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Mr. HARRIS. I do.

Mr. LOPEZ. I do.

Mr. HARDIE. I do.

Mr. VAUX. I do.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let the record reflect that each answered in the

affirmative.

We welcome you here gentlemen, and we will begin the testimony with Mr. Christopher Harris, Water Resources Program

Manager for the Arizona Department of Water Resources.

Mr. Harris.

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER HARRIS, WATER RESOURCES

PROGRAM MANAGER, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members.

My name is Chris Harris. I am here today representing Rita

Pearson, the Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources to provide the State of Arizona’s perspective on H.R. 3267,

the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act.

I would also like to request that a copy of my oral testimony be

placed in the record, Mr. Chairman.

Arizona is not objecting to the State of California’s desire to develop a plan to address the long-term needs of the Salton Sea ecosystem, but it is Arizona’s position that a well-thought-out and scientifically valid plan which will not harm the water supplies or

water quality of the other Colorado River Basin States or Mexico

has the greatest opportunity for providing a lasting legacy of the

late Congressman Bono’s efforts to stabilize and restore the Salton

Sea.

I would like to discuss two major points regarding H.R. 3267 for

the Committee’s consideration. These include the identification of

potential sources of water for Salton Sea reclamation, and the difficulty of using Colorado River water for Salton Sea reclamation

within California’s Colorado River allocation.

The passage of the Boulder Canyon Project Act in 1928 and the

completion of Hoover Dam in 1935, led to the construction of numerous large dams and reservoirs on the Colorado River and its

tributaries. These storage reservoirs allowed the Basin States and

the Bureau of Reclamation to control flood flows, regulate the river,

generate hydroelectric power and deliver water for downstream

uses in agricultural, municipal and industrial sectors.

Creation of this infrastructure has resulted in a permanent dependency on the water supplies of the Colorado River. Because of
55

this dependency, a complex use and accounting system had evolved

that has permitted the complete allocation of the Lower Basin’s

Colorado River Compact apportionment of 7.5 million acre feet.

Based upon this accounting system, Arizona made the commitment

necessary to ensure its long-term economic development through

full utilization of its Colorado River allocation.

Current demand on the Colorado River by the Lower Basin

States is at an all-time high. Arizona is approaching full use of its

2.8 million acre foot apportionment, along with Nevada which is

close to fully using their annual 300,000 acre foot entitlement. California’s present consumptive use of Colorado River water is approximately 5.2 million acre feet per year, exceeding its basic apportionment of 4.4 annually by 800,000 acre feet. Finally, the

United States is also obligated, through international treaty, to annually provide Mexico with 1.5 million acre feet.

Consequently, there is currently 9.8 million acre feet of demand

in the Lower Basin. Under the Law of the River, the Secretary is

not authorized to deliver more than 9 million acre feet of water to

the Lower Basin States and Mexico unless surplus conditions are

declared. In 1998, the Secretary did declare surplus conditions, but

this was an extraordinary event and is not sustainable over the

long-term.

Arizona’s concern is that any additional demand in the Lower

Colorado River Basin will increase the likelihood of shortage to Arizona’s Colorado River water supply. This concern reflects the highrisk position assumed by a significant portion of Arizona’s Colorado

River allocation. In order to gain California’s support for the construction of the Central Arizona Project in the 1968 Colorado River

Basin Project Act, Arizona was required to accept the low-priority

position for about 1.5 million acre feet of our Colorado River allocation.

In that legislation, Arizona was required to subordinate CAP

uses to California’s basic apportionment of 4.4 million acre feet.

During a shortage in the Lower Basin, cities and towns, Native

American tribes and thousands of acres of croplands in central- and

southern Arizona all supplied by the CAP, face a very real threat

of having their water supplies seriously curtailed or halted.

Title I and Title II of H.R. 3267 propose to reduce and stabilize

the salinity and the surface elevation of the Salton Sea. We interpret this as pumping a substantial quantity out of the Sea and

then attempting to dilute the remaining solution through the introduction of new water supplies. Arizona is concerned that the source

of this water is not identified in the draft legislation.

Currently, the Secretary of the Interior is not planning to make

flood control releases during the referenced timeframes in Water

Year 1998, nor are they anticipated in early 1999. It is Arizona’s

position that Congress should carefully consider the source of the

water that is expected to be used and the timeframe to accomplish

these goals.

Perhaps Arizona’s greatest concern is the preservation of the historic rights and obligations with respect to the Colorado River. The

State of Arizona has suggested language that could strengthen

H.R. 3267 in our written testimony on page 3.
56

With the increased demand—Mr. Chairman, if you could give me

about two more minutes I can wrap this up.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. That’s fine.

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much. With the increased demand

upon the Colorado River system and the potential risks of shortage

to the Colorado River Basin States the Secretary of the Interior requested that California initiate the development of a negotiated

plan among its Colorado River water using agencies to reduce their

annual use from 5.2 million acre feet to the basic apportionment

of 4.4.

The California ‘‘4.4 plan’’ proposes to reduce California’s annual

use of Colorado River water in two phases through the implementation of the following components: transfers of water from agricultural districts to municipal water providers in the South Coast region; transfer of seepage recovered from the All American and

Coachella Canals; intensive management of surface and groundwater supplies; and Colorado River reservoir operating criteria

which continue to make surplus water available.

In order to effectuate these transfers, intensive water conservation programs will be required in the agricultural districts which

will ultimately lead to reduced drainage flows into the Salton Sea

and thereby increasing the Sea’s salinity.

Successful development and implementation of the 4.4 plan will

require California Colorado River water users to make difficult decisions regarding reallocation or acquisition of supplies in order to

meet the long-term demand in the State. Arizona supports this

goal, but is concerned that the addition of Salton Sea reclamation

through the programs proposed in H.R. 3267, could result in an inability to reach consensus on the more immediate goal of completing the 4.4 plan. Not achieving this goal risks the long-term reliable supplies of Colorado River water for the other Basin States,

particularly Arizona.

To conclude, Arizona urges the Congress to amend H.R. 3267 to

accomplish the following:

1. Identify all potential sources of water for the Salton Sea

Reclamation Project and consider the impacts of using that

water;

2. Require explicit adherence to the current Law of the

River; and

3. Require that any Colorado River water utilized for the

Salton Sea Reclamation Project must come from within California’s mainstream allocation of Colorado River water.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the Committee.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Christopher Harris may be found at

end of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Our next witness will be Mr. Art Lopez, Chair

of the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians.

STATEMENT OF ART LOPEZ, CHAIR, TORRES MARTINEZ

DESERT CAHUILLA INDIANS

Mr. LOPEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
57

It’s a privilege to be a representative here of the Torres Martinez

and to have the opportunity to testify before you here today.

We are honored to address an issue that is of utmost importance

to the Torres Martinez Cahuilla Tribe. H.R. 3267, the Sonny Bono

Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act is a critically important acknowledgement of the dedicated efforts of the late Sonny Bono.

The Cahuilla Indians support in principal the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act. My people believe this Act will

focus the necessary public attention and direct the necessary financial resources to restore, preserve and ultimately protect the Salton

Sea.

In the process of focusing attention on the Salton Sea it is important that Congress include in any legislation its clear intent that

all the key stakeholders be involved and have the opportunity to

fulfill a meaningful role in the future of the Salton Sea. The Torres

Martinez are a major stakeholder. Twelve thousand acres of our

tribal land lies underneath the Salton Sea, and similar amounts lie

adjacent to the Salton Sea. It is important that any Commission,

Authority or decisionmaking bodies established under H.R. 3267

recognize the need for equal and active participation by the Torres

Martinez.

In restoring and reclaiming the Salton Sea the unique government-to-government relationship that exists serves to enhance our

cooperative efforts. The Memorandum of Understanding referred to

under Section 101, paragraph 5, item [A] should include the Torres

Martinez Cahuilla Indians. Any solution implemented as a result

to this bill will affect the Torres Martinez and our tribal lands for

many years. The Torres Martinez have paid their dues.

Finding a solution to the problem of the Salton Sea will require

monumental scientific and engineering efforts. The Torres Martinez have waited for this kind of Congressional attention for many

years, and we have always known that the Salton Sea is important.

All we ask of you is to fully include the Torres Martinez in a leadership and a decisionmaking role, to fund our need for professional

and scientific representation, to fund necessary scientific and engineering studies and activities so that the solutions are comprehensive and long-term and that you continue to show the leadership

that you have thus far.

Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to comment that the

12,000 acres that we have underneath the Salton Sea, we would request that consideration be given in the future toward our 12,000

acres that have been inundated for 93 years.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege and honor to testify

today.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Art Lopez may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Our next witness will be Mr. R. Wayne Hardie,

Group Leader of Energy and Environmental Analysis at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Mr. Hardie.
58

STATEMENT OF R. WAYNE HARDIE, GROUP LEADER, ENERGY

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL

LABORATORY

Mr. HARDIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you said, my name is Wayne Hardie, and I’m the Leader of

the Energy and Environmental Analysis Group at Los Alamos National Laboratory which is operated by the University of California

for the Department of Energy. Although Los Alamos is best known

for its work in nuclear weapons, we have significant expertise and

experience in environmental issues.

The Laboratory was asked last May by the Congressional Salton

Sea Task Force to provide technical support for the remediation of

the ecological problems in the Salton Sea. Today I am going to report on how the results of our work in evaluation various concepts

for addressing high salinity and variable water levels of the Sea relate to H.R. 3267.

Los Alamos has examined the costs, salinity and sea level

changes resulting from three remediation concepts, desalinization,

pump in, pump out and diked impoundment and compared these

results with no action. We have concentrated on performance and

economic issues and have not evaluated ecological or institutional

factors in this analysis.

Due to anticipated water conservation for our analysis we assumed the inflow into the Salton Sea will literally decrease from

the present flow of about 1.3 million acre feet per year to 1.0 million acre feet per year over a 20-year period. It is very important

to note that the results are strongly influenced by this assumed inflow reduction. Similarly, using supposed excess Colorado River

water could also have a major impact on the results.

If no action is taken the Salton Sea will of course continue to increase in salinity from today’s level of 44 parts per thousand. The

Sea would reach a salinity level of about 60 parts per thousand in

about 15 years. Remember this is assuming water conservation.

This is important because some believe that most fish can no

longer live in water at this salinity level.

If there were an expensive filtering or distillation method to remove salt from high salinity water desalinization would be an obvious solution to the problems of the Salton Sea. The process could

be used to reduce the salinity of the water already in the Salton

Sea or to desalinate ocean water being pumped from the Gulf of

California as part of a pump in, pump out scheme. While desalinization can be used to produce fresh water for urban household use,

in our opinion desalinization approaches to reduce the salinity of

the Salton Sea would be prohibitively expensive.

Another concept that has received attention consists of pumping

water from an external source to the Salton Sea and pumping

water from the Sea to an external location. The advantage of such

a concept is that it has the potential to allow simultaneous control

of salinity, elevation and surface area. The obvious source for

pumping water is the Gulf of California which of course is at ocean

water salinity. However, for this concept to be practical for salinity

control without a reduction in the level of the Sea the salinity of

the pump-in water needs to be considerably less than that of ocean
59

water. If the pump-in water is at ocean water salinity very large

quantities of water must be pumped, both in and out.

Pump out achieves nearly the same result as pump in, pump out

and at a much lower cost. Providing that a smaller Salton Sea by

approximately 35 percent is acceptable, pump out should be considered as a viable option for the Salton Sea.

One important issue that needs to be resolved with this is the

destination of the pumped water. One frequently mentioned area

is the Laguna Salada in Mexico. Technically this is feasible, but

would entail reaching an agreement with Mexico. Another important issue with pump out is that the salinity level would increase

for about 25 years, hitting a peak of almost 65 parts per thousand

before decreasing.

Another concept that has a potential for controlling salinity and

elevation is the creation of in-Sea impoundment areas by diking.

The primary disadvantage of diked impoundment is that part of

the surface area in the Sea would be in an impoundment area

which would contain very saline water. Fish would not be able to

survive in the impoundment and in time this brine would precipitate salt.

Using our assumptions on inflow volumes, an impoundment area

of about 10 percent of the area of the Salton Sea would allow the

Salton Sea to reach ocean salinity. An estimate of the cost of an

earthen dike is about $300 million. However, such a dike would

only provide salinity control and the Sea could ultimately be reduced in area by about 20 percent. A larger reinforced dike, which

would really be a dam, with an impoundment area of almost 30

percent of the present Sea would be required to maintain the existing shoreline. A reinforced dike providing both salinity and elevation control would probably raise the capital cost by more than

a factor of two.

Based on our analysis we conclude that:

First, desalinization is not a viable concept for salinity and

elevation control;

Two, pump out is a feasible method for salinity control, but

the size of the Salton Sea could decrease by approximately 35

percent, and further more the Sea would continue to increase

in salinity for about 25 years; and

Three, diked impoundment could control salinity and elevation if the dike is reinforced to serve as a dam. If the dike

is earthen the size of the Sea could decrease by about 20 percent. In either case the impoundment area would have high salinity water.

The ecological and institutional consequences of various concepts

need to be better analyzed before a final selection is made. Furthermore, the impact of anticipated water diversion from the Salton

Sea and the possible use of supposed excess Colorado River water

need to be factored into the decision.

In summary, the options identified for consideration in H.R. 3267

appear to be the most feasible for reclaiming the Salton Sea. However, the elevation requirements in the proposed legislation could

restrict the options. This is because the existing shoreline is the result of an equilibrium condition between historical inflows of about

1.3 million acre feet per year and evaporation, and meeting the ele-
60

vation requirements with a substantially reduced inflow could be

a considerable challenge to say the least.

Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of R. Wayne Hardie may be found at

end of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Our next witness is Dr. Henry J. Vaux, Jr., Associate Vice President of the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of California.

Dr. Vaux.

STATEMENT OF HENRY J. VAUX, JR., Ph.D., ASSOCIATE VICE

PRESIDENT, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL AND NATURAL

RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. VAUX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you say, my name is Henry Vaux, and I serve as Associate

Vice President of the University of California System for Agriculture and Natural Resource Programs. I appear here today on behalf of California’s Federal Water Resources Research Institute of

which I formerly served as Director.

At the outset I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear here this afternoon and ask that my written testimony be included in the record.

The Federal Water Resources Research Institutes were first authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 and, as you

are aware, that program has been reauthorized approximately

every 5 years since. The program maintains Federal Water Resources Research Institutes at the Land-Grant Universities in each

of the 50 States, in the District of Columbia and in the several

Trust Territories. The broad purpose of the Institutes is to focus

the collective research expertise of scholars in the nation’s institutions of higher education on water problems at the local, regional

and national levels. And to this end the authorizing legislation requires that the Institutes make their funds available to scholars at

all institutions of higher education in their respective States and

not just to those domiciled in the Land-Grant Universities.

In my written testimony I make three points, and I want to briefly identify those points and elaborate on them here this afternoon.

First, faculty researchers with interests in water resources at all

of California’s colleges and universities are eligible to compete for

the Federal funds which the California Water Resources Research

Institute awards.

The Institute’s role is to facilitate, coordinate and support research on water resources undertaken by all faculty in California

irrespective of institutional affiliation. Over the last 10 years nearly all of the Federal dollars available to the California Institute

have been awarded to faculty researchers on campuses other than

the University of California campuses. Thus, for example, over the

last 10 years funds have been awarded to faculty researchers at

San Diego State University, at Humboldt State University, at California State University at Fresno, at the California Institute of

Technology, and at Stanford University.

The Institute is unique in that it maintains relationships with

virtually all faculty with interests in water resources at all of Cali-
61

fornia’s colleges and universities, and the most recent edition of our

directory of water resources expertise, which provides the number

of those relationships, lists some 986 faculty at 33 colleges and institutions all within California.

My second point is that the role of the California Water Resources Research Institute is to identify the high-priority research

topics; to ensure through peer review that the research is directed

at those high-priority topics and is of the highest quality; and to

engage in programs of research dissemination to inform other researchers, water managers and members of the public of the results of that research.

The California Water Resources Research Institute does not itself

conduct research. Rather, its role is to facilitate the conduct of research by faculty experts located at the State’s colleges and universities. By performing its facilitation role the Institute helps to ensure that research on water resources in California is well coordinated, focuses on the most pressing topics and is of the highest

quality. In addition, the Institute’s activities help to avoid duplication of research efforts both within California and nationally.

My third point is that the California Water Resources Research

Institute is prepared to facilitate the development and conduct of

any research or programs of research that the Salton Sea Research

Management Committee may identify as necessary pursuant to the

provisions of H.R. 3267.

I want to emphasize as clearly as I can that our presence here

today and our interest in the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea

Reclamation Act lies with ensuring that whatever research may

emerge as a consequence of this Act is accomplished by the most

qualified investigators and is of the highest possible quality.

We believe that many important questions will emerge, and we

stand prepared to assist local, State and Federal officials in identifying and framing those questions, should that be appropriate. We

also prepared to make our offices available to ensure that only the

highest quality research projects are funded and that all of our college and university researchers with interests related to the reclamation of the Salton Sea are afforded an opportunity to compete

for whatever funds may be available.

In closing let me thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear here today. Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Henry J. Vaux, Jr., Ph.D. may be

found at end of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me ask one of you to comment on when we

anticipate this, and I know it’s just an estimate, when do we think

this 200,000 acre feet per year water is going to be transferred over

to San Diego? When is that expected to happen?

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, as I think I’m the only water buffalo

up here let me take a shot at that. There is a 1988 agreement between the Imperial Irrigation District and the Metropolitan Water

District which I believe accounts for 106,000 acre feet. The San

Diego Imperial County Irrigation District proposed transfer is simply that. It is a proposed component of the California 4.4 plan. I

believe that they have signed, if you will, a memorandum of agreement that they would like to advance the process. They are not yet
62

actually moving water. I believe the State of California as part of

the 4.4 plan is attempting to put together a wheeling agreement

with the Metropolitan Water District in order to facilitate moving

that water through the Colorado River aqueduct to the South Coast

region.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well in your testimony this would clearly negatively impact the Salton Sea, would it not?

Mr. HARRIS. I believe it would, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s clearly

in the best management practices within the district to be more efficient in their use of Colorado River water, and we believe that

this is a critically important component of the 4.4 plan to make

this transfer from a agricultural sector to the municipal sector, but

I believe that the end result will be that there will be some diminishment of the current inflows into the Salton Sea.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Which are already inadequate, and then we’re

going to add to that I gather the diminishment of the New River

water flowing in as a result of Mexico’s getting the reclamation

plant we’re building for them and then keeping and using the

water.

Mr. HARRIS. I think that’s another concern that is obviously

worth bearing in mind. My colleague just informed me that the

proposed date I believe to start moving some of that water would

be about 2008. They would start stepping it up, and I think the full

transfer could be complete by then.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. When they go through that are they going to

have to do their NEPA compliance and all of that?

Mr. HARRIS. Yes, sir, they will.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And is there no doubt that this negative impact

on the Salton Sea will be brought out as they do those environmental studies?

Mr. HARRIS. I would assume that in the scoping of issues that

NEPA and CEQA both would be evaluating that.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Isn’t there a requirement for mitigation when

there is an action to be taken that negatively impacts some other

resource?

Mr. HARRIS. I believe so, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Do you want to comment on that, Mr. Hardie.

Mr. HARDIE. Mr. Chairman, I testified that our calculations show

that the Salton Sea would reach a salinity of 60 parts per thousand

in 15 years under the assumptions of diversion. It would be more

like 30 years without diversion.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The first figure was, what, 15 years?

Mr. HARDIE. Fifteen years to hit 60 parts per thousand, and 30

years to hit 60 parts per thousand without diversion.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So I would gather this would be the basis for the

local entities participating in some solution for the Salton Sea

given the impact they’re having on this.

Mr. Vaux, you were telling us a little bit about the California

Water Center. That Center receives no funding under this legislation, right?

Mr. VAUX. That is correct.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Could you tell us what function the Center has

played regarding the use and coordination of the education institutions in California.
63

Mr. VAUX. Well, as I have indicated, the Center has served as a

coordinating body for all water resources research undertaken at

the universities and colleges within California. It has done that primarily through the Federal program for which it has received appropriations since 1965, and in that connection it involves scholars

on not only the UC campuses but other campuses in helping to establish with state and national officials a research agenda. Then

we coordinate the research through a unified call for proposals, and

the awards are the made on the basis of a fairly elaborate, but very

concise peer review process which provides us with assurances of

quality control, but on a very timely basis.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. What role has the Center had concerning Salton

Sea research in recent years?

Mr. VAUX. The Center has had various roles related to the Salton

Sea research. I can’t give you the exact number of projects, but out

of a research portfolio of about 30 projects annually I would judge

that between one and two of those projects in each of the last 10

years have been focused on problems, either generic problems or

very specific problems, related to the Salton Sea.

Mr. Tom Kirk mentioned earlier the work of Professor Stuart

Hurlbut at San Diego State University on the Salton Sea, and if

my recollection serves me correctly that was work on microorganisms in the Sea. That work was funded through the California

Federal Water Resources Research Institute program.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Mr. Calvert is recognized.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Hardie, during your investigations of potential

solutions to the problems of the Sea did you look into the concept

of evaporation ponds?

Mr. HARDIE. Yes. As part of the diked impoundment?

Mr. CALVERT. To take evaporation ponds outside of the Sea and

move them into either the eastern or western side of the Salton

Sea.

Mr. HARDIE. That would basically be the same as a pump out.

Mr. CALVERT. If we were able to find a location to put evaporation ponds within several miles of the Sea, and we were able to

pump out water, because right now how many thousand acre feet

determines the flood stage now in the Sea? How much water

should be pumped out to bring it to a stable elevation?

Mr. HARDIE. I can give you a few statistics here. There are 7.5

million acre feet of water in the Salton Sea currently. In a normal

year or an average year about 1.3 million acre feet of water enters

the Sea. Now if you are asking how much has entered say in the

past year—nobody is really measuring the water going into the

Sea.

Mr. CALVERT. I guess the question is this. At the present time

there is too much water in the Salton Sea and we’re flooding out

several farms in the area and some riparian habitat. How many

hundreds of thousands of acre feet would have to be removed to

bring it back to a reasonable level?

Mr. HARDIE. I don’t have that number. I mean I could easily get

it.

Mr. CALVERT. Just take a guess here today would you say it was

over 250,000 acre feet?
64

Mr. HARDIE. He said a foot per 250,000 acre feet.

Mr. CALVERT. I’m just asking the question that if we were able

to pump out water right now somewhere, say to evaporation ponds

at the rate of 100,000 acre feet, and the inflow of water from the

various locales, either from the New River, the Alamo, the Whitewater or whatever, remains the about a million three for the next

several years, what happens to the salinity in the Salton Sea?

Mr. HARDIE. The salinity will go up. That would be basically my

pump-out option, and the salinity will continue to increase for

about 25 years.

Mr. CALVERT. So we would be pumping out water at 47,000 parts

per million into evaporation ponds as the water comes in at a million three hundred thousand acre per year.

Mr. HARDIE. Well I was assuming that it would decrease, that

the amount of water coming in would decrease.

Mr. CALVERT. Even if the water remains the same for the next

several years, and let’s say the Imperial Irrigation District did not

come to an agreement within the next 3 years, what would happen

at that point? Would the salt remain the same or would it increase

or decrease?

Mr. HARDIE. We did that calculation and I actually have it in my

pile here. But if I remember right it would remain roughly the

same, it would not increase very much, and then it would decrease.

Mr. CALVERT. Over time it would decrease?

Mr. HARDIE. Over time it would decrease and it would not go up

nearly as fast or nearly as far as it would under diversion.

Mr. CALVERT. This is in the short run. And if during this period,

and I want to get back because I think Mr. Hunter may want to

ask this question, if we were able to get to flood stage water, flood

stage meaning there is water going into the Sea of Cortez and you

were able to bring in water from other sources into the Sea the salinity would go down, wouldn’t it?

Mr. HARDIE. Right. In fact, there is a little rule of thumb here

I can give you which is that for every hundred thousand acre feet

that you replace with Colorado River water the salinity will decrease by about .6 parts per thousand. So if you had say 500,000

acre feet that you could magically take out of the Salton Sea and

replace it with 500,000 feet of this excess Colorado River water

that we’ve been hearing a lot of about, then that would be three

parts per thousand. So it would go from 44 or 45 down to 42 or

43.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Mr. Hunter, do you wish to ask questions?

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a short one I wanted to ask Mr. Harris. I presume you

heard the representative from Nevada say that even if California

was using its 4.4 million acre foot allotment, that if we had such

a flood year that you had water physically overflowing the banks

of the Colorado and going into the Sea of Cortez that nobody was

using that it would OK if California used that to flush out the

Salton Sea. Do you folks agree with that also?

Mr. HARRIS. Congressman Hunter, we would be delighted if you

used that water. It might help us in the Yuma region.
65

Mr. HUNTER. That’s the only question I’ve got, Mr. Chairman. I

know we’ve got another panel, and you’ve been really great at giving us plenty of time here today. So thank you.

Oh, I wanted to thank Art Lopez, too, especially for being here

as well. Sonny Bono really wanted you folks to play an integral

part of what we do with the Sea, Art, and thank you for coming

back and being with us.

Mr. LOPEZ. Thank you.

Mr. HUNTER. And, Mr. Hardie, thanks for everything you guys

are giving us. I think you’re going to be with us for a while because

we’re going to have more technical questions for you.

Mr. HARDIE. I’m happy to help.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Shadegg is recognized for his questions.

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, I appreciate the information. I am a little bit confused about how damming off a portion of the Sea to make more

saline that area in order to reduce the salinity of the other is a tremendous benefit, and perhaps somebody can explain that to me.

However, while the technical members of the panel are thinking

about that aspect of the question let me simply ask Mr. Harris, you

said you have language in your prepared testimony. I would like

you to draw the Committee’s direct attention to that language and

perhaps read it and explain why you think that needs to be added,

in addition to which I think you were here this morning when the

Chairman pointed out that at least he read it to say the Act does

not alter the Law of the River, but in point of fact the way it’s

drafted it says the Section does not alter the Law of the River, and

that change of wording from Section to Act would be a significant

improvement, is that correct?

Mr. HARRIS. That is correct, Congressman Shadegg. In effect the

State of Arizona would be much more comfortable if this could be

more explicit in the Act that the Act does comply with the historic

rights and obligations of the Colorado River, and in fact we do offer

language on page 3 of our written testimony which enumerates

much, if not all, of that body of law that we call the Law of the

River.

Mr. SHADEGG. And on that point I understand the four Upper

Basin States have joined in the same language that we are requesting, is that correct?

Mr. HARRIS. To my knowledge, that is correct, Congressman

Shadegg. In fact, the Upper Colorado River Commission Executive

Director, Mr. Wayne Cook will follow in the next panel and I believe he will make a similar suggestion.

Mr. SHADEGG. A similar or———

Mr. HARRIS. In my understanding it is an identical request.

Mr. SHADEGG. Not the other point on Section versus Act.

Mr. HARRIS. That would be appropriate in our mind that this Act

should comply with the Law of the River.

Mr. SHADEGG. And the current language refers to just the Section rather than the Act.

Mr. HARRIS. That is correct, Congressman.

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you very much.
66

Gentlemen, does anybody want to try to further elucidate me as

to how that will work and why we aren’t creating two eye sores instead of one or one eye sore to fix another one?

Mr. HARDIE. It seems a little weird, doesn’t it.

Mr. SHADEGG. It does, yes.

Mr. HARDIE. But it works, and the reason it works is that first

off I think we all agree that if you have water going into a body

and only leaving by evaporation what is left is salt and it gets saltier and saltier. So if you had some way of removing the salt, then

the salinity would decrease.

Mr. SHADEGG. Well the clearest thought there is a desalinization

plant which, as I understand from your testimony, is impractical.

Mr. HARDIE. In my opinion it’s very expensive. For example, nuclear reactors could provide electricity, but I think it’s pretty impractical.

Think of this impounded area as the ultimate repository for the

water and the salt. Now it could be inside, it could be an internal

impoundment area, or it could be some place else. What you have

is water flowing from the outside into this impoundment area. So

now you have salt leaving the area that you would like to be fresh.

So it’s really no difference. It could be internal impoundment or it

could be external, but it’s a way of getting water and therefore salt

out of the area that you want to have at a lower salinity level, and

it’s being replenished by low salt water.

Mr. CALVERT. Would the gentleman from Arizona yield?

Mr. SHADEGG. Sure, but let me just summarize what I think you

said, and then I would be happy to yield.

What I think I understand you’re saying is by creating a flow of

water out of the one body you are reducing its salinity and you will

thus raise the salinity in the other body of water, but you’re not

worried about that.

Mr. HARDIE. Well I’m not saying I’m not worried about it, but I’m

just saying that is what will happen, and I think it’s for other people to study whether that is a problem or not. Ultimately it will

become so saline that the water will have to be pumped out. Now

that could be 50 years or it could be 200 years, depending on the

configuration, but ultimately it will reach saturation.

Mr. SHADEGG. In the main body of the Salton Sea that you’re removing water from and creating the flowing you will be able to reduce the salinity, but not make it fresh water.

Mr. HARDIE. Right. You could make it reasonably low, but not

fresh water.

Mr. SHADEGG. If it were reasonably low would it be significantly

more attractive either from an environmental standpoint or, more

importantly, or as importantly for me a recreational standpoint?

Mr. HARDIE. Oh, I definitely think so because you could certainly

get it at least to seawater salinity fairly easily.

Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Calvert.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

What the gentleman was pointing out, Mr. Hardie, and something the Task Force has been talking about is not particularly

having the impoundment within the Sea itself, but potentially have

evaporation ponds several miles away from the Sea which would

evaporate water at a faster rate and then would serve as the same
67

basic concept as having an interior impoundment area hopefully for

less money and would not have some of the negative connotations

potentially as an interior impoundment.

Mr. SHADEGG. My time has run out, but with the Chairman’s indulgence let me ask on quick followup question on that. If the second body of water which had flow into it but not flow out of it, in

that body is it contemplated that you might make that a large land

area with a very shallow body of water and thereby increasing the

rate of evaporation?

Mr. HARDIE. I’m sorry, in the second body of water?

Mr. SHADEGG. Yes, so you wouldn’t have to ultimately pump that

water out.

Mr. HARDIE. Well from point of view of the Salton Sea it’s just

gone. Now there is a negative impact of that, however, in that the

level of the Salton Sea will be reduced significantly under pump

out. So it’s not a simple solution. I mean all of these options have

advantages and disadvantages.

Mr. SHADEGG. And it will be a tough problem and therefore costly.

I thank the members of the panel, and I thank the Chair for his

indulgence.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Could I just ask, if you do pump this water out

some place somewhere else, either Laguna Salada or in the gunnery range or in an internal impoundment, what’s going to keep

them out of those areas so will we not continue to have waterfowl

problems?

Mr. VAUX. Yes. I’m not an expert in this area, but I know enough

about it to know that short of putting a net over the water body

it’s simply impossible to keep migratory birds off the water.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, Mr. Hardie.

Mr. HARDIE. I’m not a waterfowl expert, but I think the problems

you have with the waterfowl is the waterfowl eating the sick fish

because I mean I don’t hear any problems with waterfowl in the

Great Salt Lake, for example.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. So we presume there wouldn’t be fish in this

place the water flows into.

Mr. HARDIE. There won’t be fish there very long. So that doesn’t

strike me as a big problem.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Lopez, I understand there are other tribes

interested in this legislation. Could you shed any light on that as

to what their views might be or who the tribes are?

Mr. LOPEZ. Well the only interest the other tribes might be considering is help fund some of our activities. We are going to present

this to some other tribes. The only tribe down in that area that has

ancestral rights are the Torres Martinez Indians.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Is there a Kavizon Tribe down there and do they

believe they have interests in this?

Mr. LOPEZ. I haven’t heard from them personally, but that

sphere of tribal occupancy is Torres Martinez. The Kavizon Tribe

is north of us, and as far as I know I’ve never heard of their having

any right down in that area.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And you don’t know of any interest they have expressed in the legislation?

Mr. LOPEZ. No, not at this time.
68

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Is your tribe looking to connect this legislation

to your water rights settlement?

Mr. LOPEZ. I would like to see consideration toward our settlement, and I don’t want to have any hindrances to this bill with our

settlement.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. How much money are you seeking in the settlement?

Mr. LOPEZ. Well we are asking for 93 years of unused land, the

money that could have been generated off of that. A study on that

was I think $1.3 billion of loss of revenue. You know, we used agriculture numbers in that area. Well, we’re not asking that amount

of money. We are asking for $100 million for a recovery fund that

would be put into the government’s banks and we would draw interest off of that, by putting so much a year away for us that we

could draw interest and that would be sufficient for us to do some

kind of economic development that would help us participate in

that area of development.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. But you are then seeking $100 million in the

water rights settlement?

Mr. LOPEZ. Right, plus I believe there is $14 million already on

the table that has been there for a number of years. The Chairman

prior to me had a bill go through and that $14 million—the bill

didn’t go through, but the $14 million was delegated I believe.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Harris, it was mentioned in your testimony

that programs costing millions of dollars will compete with other

programs, and I just wondered how you believe that this program

along with all the others, is going to compete for a limited amount

of money?

Mr. HARRIS. Well I think that’s the point I tried to make in my

written testimony. I believe that this is an issue within the State

of California alone, and I’m not totally one hundred percent up on

all of the programs you have, but clearly you’ve got some big ones.

You’ve got the big CalFed process underway, I believe there are

more salmon stocks that are in the process of being evaluated for

listing right now, which undoubtedly will lead to additional programs, you have the NCCP process in the South Coast region, several large HCPs and now Salton Sea Reclamation all kind of competing, not only within the State of California, for both water and

fiscal resources and staffing resources, but now you’re also competing with similar programs in the Colorado River Basin and the

rest of the Western United States. There is a very large recovery

program for native fish in the Upper Colorado River Basin, and I

believe there is legislation that is being put forth or developed right

now to fund that program for another 10 years. In the lower Colorado region, there is a tri-State effort between California, Arizona

and Nevada on the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, and I believe that’s going to be significantly costly

over the long haul as well.

So my sort of note of caution was that I think we’ve got a big

picture here that we’ve really got to look at. We’ve got limited resources and fiscal austerity within our States as well as at the National Government, and I think that we’ve got to be very careful

that we get the most bang for our buck.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
69

Does any other Member up here want to ask further questions?

[No response.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your time

and contribution. We perhaps will have other questions which will

be submitted in writing, but for now we will excuse this panel and

call up the fourth and final panel.

[Questions to be submitted to be responded to for the record may

be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If you gentlemen will raise your right hands.

[Whereupon, Wayne E. Cook, Leon Lesika, Stephen Weber and

Evan M. Hirsche raised their right hands and were first duly

sworn by Chairman Doolittle as follows:]

Do you solemnly swear or affirm under a penalty of perjury that

the statements made or testimony given will be the whole truth

and nothing but the truth.

Mr. COOK. I do.

Mr. LESIKA. I do.

Mr. WEBER. I do.

Mr. HIRSCHE. I do.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let the record reflect that each answered in the

affirmative.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your patience and waiting

until this time.

We will have testify first Mr. Wayne E. Cook, Professional Engineer and Executive Director of the Upper Colorado River Commission.

Mr. Cook.

STATEMENT OF WAYNE E. COOK, P.E., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION

Mr. COOK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. My name is Wayne Cook and I am the Executive Director

of the Upper Colorado River Commission.

On behalf of the Upper Basin States of the Colorado River Basin

we thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony for

your March 12, 1998 hearing on H.R. 3267, the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Restoration Act.

The Upper Colorado River Commission is an interstate administrative agency created by the Upper Colorado River Compact in

1948. The member States of the Commission are Colorado, New

Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Among other things, this Commission

represents the Upper Basin States in consultations with the Secretary of the Interior on matters pertaining to the operations of the

Colorado River.

The Upper Basin States do not object to the goal of stabilizing

the Salton Sea, either its salinity level or the content. We are concerned, however, that H.R. 3267 as it is presently introduced is unclear on what role the Colorado River may play in such stabilizing

activities.

For instance, Section 101[b] paragraphs 1 and 2 suggest stabilizing the salinity level between 35 and 40 parts per thousand and

the surface elevation at 240 to 230 feet below sea level. Such goals

could perhaps jeopardize implementation of the California 4.4 plan

currently being negotiated by the Southern California water agen-
70

cies. California must restrict its current Colorado River uses to

stay within its normal water limitation of 4.4 million acre feet of

Colorado River water.

The proposed 4.4 plan envisions conservation of water in the Imperial Irrigation District and other agricultural areas for transfer

to the Metropolitan Water District for use in keeping aqueduct full.

Such conservation measures may significantly reduce inflow to the

Salton Sea perhaps by several hundred thousand acre feet. Any

successful Salton Sea legislation must not jeopardize that goal.

Section 101[c] paragraph 2[A] suggests augmented flows into the

Salton Sea. Such flows could be imported sea water or Mexicali

Valley return flows, but the direct use of Colorado River water for

this purpose would be generally precluded by the Law of the River.

Section 101[f] paragraph 1 regarding reclamation laws to the

Upper Basin States is somewhat disquieting. We are not sure that

we know what this section is intended to accomplish. We only ask

the question why do we preclude this project from planning criteria, benefit-cost analysis, discharge permitting, ESA and other

things. Doing so seems to set a dangerous precedent.

Section 101[f] paragraph 2, as Chris Harris pointed out in his

testimony on the last panel, needs to be strengthened and we have

some suggested language, which in the interest of time I will not

read, but it’s in our written testimony. We believe that this language better describes and fully lays out the compilation of Acts

that make up the Law of the River, and we would ask for that language to be inserted in any further drafts.

We are also concerned about the language in Title II under the

Emergency Actions to Stabilize the Salton Sea. Section 201[b] paragraph 2 suggests water will be available in late 1998 and/or early

1999. Again as Mr. Harris testified previously, the source of this

water is not identified, but under the present plans approved for

operations of the Colorado River for water year 1998 and projected

1999 there is no water available from the Colorado River for such

purposes in the Salton Sea. If this section contemplated use of the

Colorado River for emergency purposes in 1998 or 1999 it must be

rewritten to exclude use of Colorado River water.

We thank you for the opportunity to appear this day and would

be ready to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Wayne E. Cook may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Our next witness will be Mr. Leon Lesika, Executive Director of Desert Wildlife Unlimited.

Mr. Lesika, it’s nice to see you here in Washington. We enjoyed

having the field hearing and having the opportunity to examine

some of your important work out there at the Salton Sea.

STATEMENT OF LEON LESIKA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

DESERT WILDLIFE UNLIMITED

Mr. LESIKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to be here today and testify regarding the water

cleanup for the Alamo and New Rivers. We propose using existing

technologies and proven designs to improve the quality of water

flowing into the Salton Sea. Imperial County is located adjacent to
71

Mexico in the extreme southeast corner of California. The New

River starts in Mexico and runs through the city of Mexicali whose

population is in excess of one million people.

Based on polluted water samples collected from the New River

at the border the river has earned the title of the most polluted

river in the United States. The New River travels about 50 miles

north from the international border and empties into the Salton

Sea. From Mexico the rivers carries untreated and undertreated

human and industrial waste. The New River also receives agricultural drain water containing pesticides and chemical fertilizers

from farms in the United States and Mexico.

The Alamo River does not have the same level of human and industrial wastes as the New River, but does receive agricultural

waste on both sides of the border. Mexico with the assistance of the

United States is in the process of building a waste water treatment

plant.

In June 1997 Congressman Duncan Hunter formed the Citizens

Congressional Task Force on the New River to begin a grassroots

effort to address the problems of drain water on the New and

Alamo Rivers. He asked me to head this Task Force and in a weak

moment I agreed. We formed a group which includes representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological

Survey, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Regional Water Quality

Control Board, the University of California at Riverside, the University of California Polytechnic at Pomona and the University of

Baha, California. Local representation includes the County Board

of Supervisors, the Administration Office, the Agricultural Commission, the Fish and Game Commission, Imperial Irrigation and Imperial Valley College. We have also received support from many

volunteer groups, such as Desert Wildlife Unlimited, Boy Scouts of

America, local school districts and others too numerous to mention.

Since June the Task Force members have developed a pilot plan

to address these serious water quality issues on the American side

of the border. We are using proven technologies known as bioremediation to improve water quality. This plan includes a series

of ponds for sedimentation and wetland vegetation that will remove

contaminants before the river empties into the Salton Sea some 50

miles away.

To my left over here is a prototype on a 68-acre parcel that the

Bureau of Reclamation is doing the engineering on at the present

time. This is actually four-pond system. The water comes out of a

drain ditch and goes into a sediment pond, comes back into a ditch

and then goes into another vegetative pond, back into a ditch, then

into another vegetative pond and so forth, through all four. This

particular system if we have a problem in any one given pond we

can bypass it by cutting off the pond and circumventing it with the

ditch. So that is one of the prototypes for our first two series.

The Task Force has formed a subcommittee that is working on

a design that will monitor their project to evaluate the efficiency

and success of the cleanup process. We are all very confident that

this proposed project will be effective in improving the water quality of the Salton Sea ecosystem. Other benefits include improved

habitat for endangered species such as the Yuma clapper rail, the
72

Southwestern willow flycatcher as well as recreational opportunities, such as hiking, bird watching, camping, fishing and hunting.

Efforts to save the Salton Sea cannot be effective if we do not

clean up the water that contaminates it first.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Leon Lesika may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Our next witness will be Mr. Stephen Weber,

President of San Diego State University, Salton Sea University Research Consortia.

Mr. Weber.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN WEBER, PRESIDENT OF SAN DIEGO

STATE UNIVERSITY, SALTON SEA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH

CONSORTIA

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,

thank you for the invitation to appear today on behalf of the Salton

Sea University Research Consortium.

I am proud to represent my fellow colleagues, California University, Riverside Chancellor Raymond Orbach and President James

Appleton of the University of Redlands. Our Consortium strongly

supports the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Restoration Act.

The University of Redlands, the University of California, Riverside and San Diego State University have joined forces to form the

Salton Sea University Research Consortium in order to address the

environmental problems at the Salton Sea in an integrated, timely

and efficacious manner.

The complexity of issues surrounding the Salton Sea requires research approaches that consider the biological and ecological systems of the Sea, the regional hydrology, the chemistry of soil and

toxic substances as well as potential bio-remediation and engineering solutions. We must also take into account the economic issues,

the agricultural interests and the human cultural and social concerns of the Salton Sea region and the Lower Colorado River Basin.

The role of the Salton Sea University Research Consortium will be

to help provide policymakers with informed research grounded in

years of onsite scientific investigation of the Salton Sea and its ecosystems.

Our Consortium offers the full spectrum of expertise necessary to

grapple with the difficult questions and the difficult decisions

which must be made in real time.

Approximately 25 faculty members at the University of California, Riverside have expertise addressing issues facing the Salton

Sea. San Diego State University’s Center for Inland Waters includes more than 20 faculty and researchers who have conducted,

as you heard earlier today, long-term studies at the Salton Sea and

its surrounding basin. The University of Redlands has just received

the first half of a $2 million appropriation to establish a Salton Sea

Bioregional GIS data base which will consolidate existing data. Our

combined universities have extensive expertise in this area. We believe that timely access to this knowledge is vital to the Salton Sea

restoration efforts.
73

The University Research Consortium is made up of three universities in close proximity to the Salton Sea. Our faculty have been

working in teaching courses at the Sea and in the surrounding

basin for more than 20 years. Recent research results include an

analysis of the dynamics of several kinds of toxic algae we have

discovered there. We also have gathered the first comprehensive

data on nutrient levels in the Salton Sea since the 1960’s and have

discovered several new fish parasites which are implicated in the

massive fish die-offs. We are collaborating with the Bureau of Reclamation on a bioremediation project on the New River.

Members of the Consortium have considerable experience managing large-scale research projects and coordinating with other

State and Federal agencies as well as with other universities. The

salinity/drainage program of the University of California manages

extensive research activities at the Kesterson Reservoir, a situation

very comparable to the Salton Sea. San Diego State University’s

extensive work on arid-lands agriculture and salinity problems in

the Middle East has direct applications to the problems faced at

Salton Sea.

Through the Southwest Center for Environmental Research and

Policy a federally funded consortium of five U.S. universities and

four Mexican universities we have conducted applied peer-reviewed

research to find solutions to many of the environmental problems

that affect the border region. We propose to bring a California solution to a California problem.

We are pleased to learn that Section 102 of the proposed bill calls

for the establishment of the Salton Sea Research Management

Committee. The Consortium strong endorses this initiative because

it will bring together the diverse areas of expertise that are needed

to address, and to solve in real time, the complex issues facing the

Salton Sea.

Given the previous discussion about peer review, we strongly

support the statement on page 10, line 17 of the bill which requires, and I quote ‘‘studies under this section are subjected to peer

review.’’ Give our research expertise coupled with our geographical

proximity to the Salton Sea the University Research Consortium is

in a unique position to in the language of the bill, and I quote

again, ‘‘help select the topics of study and manage those studies.’’

The University Research Consortium has identified a number of

ways that it can be assistance.

• Coordinating research efforts;

• Collecting, maintaining and updating information;

• Developing and conducting peer-reviewed research;

• Advising and reporting to Congress on the progress of the

cleanup;

• Constructing and managing research stations on and near the

Salton Sea; and

• Providing long-term monitoring.

In short, our universities have substantial expertise in scientific

endeavors related to the Salton Sea, in managing large regional,

national and international programs, in forming and implementing

consortia, and in providing an objective peer-reviewed, sciencebased perspective on complex issues.
74

I have additional information about our faculty research capabilities and publications which I will submit for the record.

We look forward to working with the Federal Government, the

Salton Sea Authority, the State of California and all stakeholders

in addressing the critical environmental problems of the Salton

Sea.

Our Consortium is dedicated to bringing the best expertise available to preserve this unique resource.

Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Stephen Weber may be found at end

of hearing.]

[The additional information to be supplied may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Our next witness is Mr. Evan Hirsche, Director

of the National Wildlife Refuge Campaign, National Audubon Society of California.

Mr. Hirsche.

STATEMENT OF EVAN M. HIRSCHE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

WILDLIFE REFUGE CAMPAIGN, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

Mr. HIRSCHE. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,

my name is Evan Hirsche, Director of the National Audubon Society’s Wildlife Refuge Campaign.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide you with our

views on H.R. 3267, the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act. We appreciate the Committee’s interest in honoring the

late Representative Bono by promoting a solution to the ecological

crisis occurring at the Salton Sea.

The mission of the National Audubon Society representing more

than 67,000 Californians and more than 550,000 Americans nationwide is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems focusing on

birds, other wildlife and their habitats for the benefit of humanity

and the earth’s biological diversity.

Mr. Chairman, what is happening at the Salton Sea is nothing

short of an environmental Chernobyl. Indeed, what is widely considered one of the most important areas for birds in the Pacific

Flyway is fast becoming an avian graveyard. How we respond to

this crisis will have broad ramifications for people and ecosystems

far beyond the scope of our immediate interests.

The Salton Sea Refuge was established in 1930 for the purpose

of providing wintering and spring migration habitat for birds. The

refuge today provides vital wintering habitat for some of the largest concentrations of migratory waterfowl, shorebirds and passerines in the Nation and provides important habitat for the endangered Yuma clapper rail. More than 380 species call this unlikely alcove in the Southern California desert their home as they

travel between points as far south as Antarctica and as far north

as the Arctic.

In spite of the area’s tremendous ecological value, massive dieoffs of birds and fish have occurred in recent years. In the past 5

years alone more than 250,000 birds have died from outbreaks of

botulism, Newcastle disease and other undiagnosed causes. As we

speak, an outbreak of fowl cholera is 10 weeks running and has al-
75

ready killed an estimated 8,000 to 23,000 birds representing 54

species. What is happening at the Salton Sea is nothing short of

an ecological disaster.

The importance of enacting legislation to address the problems of

the Salton Sea cannot be overstated. H.R. 3267 is a bold, innovative initiative that makes a good-faith effort to reach a solution to

the crisis. We are concerned, however, that this legislation seeks to

accomplish a great deal without a full and accurate accounting of

all expected outcomes.

We have four main concerns with H.R. 3267:

First, we believe the timetable for identification and review

of alternatives is too short;

Second, we believe that the scope of options under consideration should be expanded;

Third, we object to any exemption of administrative and judicial review; and

Finally, we are concerned about pumping water from the Sea

without a full accounting of disposal impacts.

Concerning the timetable for review, H.R. 3267 proposes a 12-

month timeline to complete feasibility studies for a series of complex options described as cost effective by the Bureau of Reclamation. Even under the most optimistic circumstances this timeline is

unrealistic and may result in costly mistakes or missed opportunities. While we certainly agree that it’s possible to study an issue

almost without conclusion, we have equal concerns about hastily

adopting an alternative or series of alternatives without having a

better sense of the likely outcomes.

Concerning the scope of options, we must all recognize there is

no silver bullet solution to the problems facing the Salton Sea. H.R.

3267, however, limits the feasibility study to just four options, excluding a variety of others. The four options identified in this legislation were adopted from the 1997 Bureau of Reclamation’s volume

entitled Alternative Evaluation which reviewed 54 alternatives.

Rather than selecting alternatives with the best likelihood for success, the BOR selected their alternatives based on four criteria, one

of which was $10 million or less in annual operating costs. The obvious inadequacy here is that, and I quote from the report, ‘‘The

alternatives did not address what would be done with the salts or

how much the disposal cost would be if disposal were necessary.’’

Without knowing the cost for salt or brine disposal the $10 million

ceiling may be unrealistic even for the five retained alternatives.

Concerning exemption from administrative and judicial review,

the National Audubon Society is strongly opposed to provisions in

the H.R. 3267 that seek to limit environmental oversight and public participation. Specifically Section 101[f][3][A] would exempt activities associated with implementation of a selected alternative

from meeting the full requirements under NEPA. While we appreciate the authors’ interest in expediting actions to rectify the crisis

in the Salton Sea, we firmly believe that the full NEPA compliance

should be applied to the selection and implementation of alternatives.

Likewise, we have concerns about Section 104[c] which exempts

river reclamation activities from having to meet Section 402 requirements under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. I would
76

just add here that based on what I’ve heard today much of what

was explained earlier in testimony is reaching us for the first time

and we are withholding our judgment on how we feel about that

particular program pending further edification.

We also have concerns about Section 101[f][e][B] which limits judicial review of the chosen alternative. Despite the urgency of implementing a remedy, we should not sacrifice the legal rights of

U.S. citizens to accomplish our goals.

Finally, we have concerns about pumping brine from the Salton

Sea. Title II of H.R. 3267 requires that the Secretary of the Interior

begin pumping water from Salton Sea prior to December 1, 1998

to accommodate water diversions from unidentified sources. We object to this provision for several reasons.

First, Title II appears to bypass necessary environmental oversight mandated under NEPA. The ecological impacts of brine disposal, particularly on the scale addressed by the bill, are expected

to be enormous. A full review of the disposal plan and an opportunity for the public to comment will be critical.

Second, if it is desired to import surplus water from the Colorado

River to the Sea, the legal mechanism by which this can be accomplished needs to be identified. Again, we appreciate the need to expedite remediation, but we strongly believe that any such efforts

must comply with Federal and State environmental regulations.

In concluding, the National Aubudon Society appreciates the efforts of the Committee and the sponsors of H.R. 3267 to quickly address the crisis at the Salton Sea. Although there are a number of

provisions in the bill that we object to, we are supportive of the

overall intent to find and implement a solution in the least amount

of time possible. We hope the bill can be amended to address our

concerns, and we look forward to working with the Committee as

we move forward with this important legislation.

That concludes our testimony.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Evan Hirsche may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Weber, does your Consortium have a financial interest in this project?

Mr. WEBER. The universities we represent may very well submit

proposals, but they would be through independent peer review.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. But does it concern you that, under at least the

wording of the bill, while they have an interest in getting the research they are also part of the selection process for determining

the board that will determine these studies and manage these

studies? Does that seem to you as a conflict of interest?

Mr. WEBER. If I understand the language of the bill it says that

the Salton Sea Research Management Committee shall select the

topics of study. We believe that an informed presence by universities that have been researching in this area for many years will

be helpful in determining the most relevant topics of studies under

the section and then managing them, but they will not directly

award those contracts. That is, Mr. Chairman, on page 9, line 20

I believe.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Right. The committee shall select the topics of

studies under this section and manage those studies. I mean that
77

Consortium is likely to get some of that research in any event, and

doesn’t it put you in a situation where you could be accused of selfdealing if you’re on the committee that manages these studies and

selects the topics of the studies?

Mr. WEBER. I think there are two possibilities here. Either contrary to the language of the law you would imagine the Management Committee actually letting the contracts and not using peer

review, in which case there would clearly be a conflict of interest

and, frankly, I think you would all rightly be suspect of the quality

of science that might be a consequence of that. But under this bill

there are clear provisions for peer review so there is no conflict

there. We are constantly working with Federal agencies in this relationship.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Can you describe how that peer review would

work. Take the language of the bill and tell me how it is that peer

review works and how this would all operate.

Mr. WEBER. It could work in several different ways. It could

work through the Department of the Interior, or it could work

through Water Resources that testified on the panel before us.

There are many ways in which panels of independent experts and

academics from other universities around the country are

impaneled together, provide a call for proposals, and various universities that believe they have expertise to contribute then bring

forward proposals, and that independent jury selects the ones that

they think will be most efficacious.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. As opposed to the Management Committee itself

you mean.

Mr. WEBER. I read that as the clear intent of the bill.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Lesika, I have a question for you, and if people here don’t know, I’m going to ask this to some of the other people who testified before. When the sewage treatment plant is built

in Mexicali, and they’re going to take a large portion of the water

to reuse, and then San Diego takes its 200,000 acre feet of water

out of Imperial, of the total annual inflow into the Salton Sea, do

you know how much of that water will be reduced by those two

events?

Mr. LESIKA. Well there are apparently two positions on this,

whether Mexico will pump back this water south and use it or they

will not. But apparently about a third of the water that comes

across the border is what goes into the Salton Sea. So if they did

pump back the water to the south and used it for agriculture you

would lose a third of the water immediately. The amount pumped

to San Diego, I don’t know exactly what percentage that would be.

But, yes, that would reduce the inflow considerably right there, and

particularly if conservation by the agricultural community was also

tightened up considerably you could possibly lose another percentage there.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So the very bad situation we have now relative

to the salinity and so forth could be made substantially worse by

those two events, is that your understanding?

Mr. LESIKA. Yes. Of course I grew up in Imperial County and I

actually lived where the Salton Sea is about eight foot deep now.

So I kind of could see what would happen if this inflow was reduced say by 40, 50 or 60 percent. It would probably go back to the
78

1930 or the 1940 level. It would probably kill most everything there

because of the salinity, but then there would be a possibility at

that time that it could be reborn by reducing the salt by evaporative ponds.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So, even if it should become a total dead sea, it

doesn’t preclude a solution from reviving it then is what you’re saying.

Mr. LESIKA. Well that’s my own personal opinion, and I probably

shouldn’t comment on it.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I know you’re seeking to prevent that from happening in the first place and let’s hope it doesn’t happen.

This is a question for Mr. Hirsche. You seem to acknowledge that

there is a grave crisis here, and I just wonder, you’re in support

of the general objective of the bill, but are opposed to the specifics.

I’m just interested, is there ever in your mind or in the mind of

the organization you represent an emergency sufficiently acute to

justify acting in a short amount of time and circumventing protocol

based on the emergency the lengthy requirements of the environmental laws?

Mr. HIRSCHE. Off the top of my head I can’t think of one. I would

say with respect to this particular situation the proposals that have

been thrown out and the timelines that have been thrown out as

feasible to conduct the full engineering and environmental studies,

I think we’re talking about a 6-month difference between this bill

and what Interior is willing to accept and what the National

Aubudon Society is willing to accept. If we are talking about a

timeline of 15 years before the Sea is dead, I think 6 months is

adequate time to allot to a proper NEPA process and the conducting of engineering studies.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. You know, if it’s only 6 months that’s one thing,

but having been involved extensively in oversight over the implementation of the CVPIA, you know, they’ve taken two and three

times as long as what the representation was, and in some cases

we still don’t have the answer even to this day.

So I’m a little concerned, and if I had more time I would have

addressed that question to the witness for the Department of the

Interior, but it’s entirely foreseeable, and indeed I would venture

to guess it’s almost likely that they won’t get it done in the 18

months. So we’re really talking about 2 years or 3 years. I don’t

know how long we’re talking about. I think that’s the concern of

the authors of the bill and why they want a shorter time period.

I think if we all felt comfortable that it really was going to happen

in 18 months I suspect that would be an easy compromise to make.

Mr. HIRSCHE. Mr. Chairman, my understanding from discussions

with some of the folks over in Interior is that they are already moving on some of these things in advance of the enactment of legislation which adds to obviously the amount of time to conduct the appropriate studies. The National Aubudon Society wants to represent its position in good faith. If it can be done in 18 months, we

hope it can be done in 18 months. This really comes down to the

agencies though to give us a fair and reasonable accounting of the

timeline.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Mr. Calvert.
79

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, Mr. Cook, I appreciate your testimony. Obviously it’s somewhat redundant to what we’ve been talking about here today and

on the other panels because obviously the Law of the River has

been probably the biggest part of our conversation here today.

You’ve probably heard these comments before, and it is not the intent of the three of us here from California to alter the Law of the

River.

In fact what our intent is, and Mr. Hunter asked a question earlier to the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Nevada, that if the situation occurred where we had flooding down

the Colorado River and what happened, I guess it was last year or

a couple of years ago down in Yuma where water was just surging,

doing damage and going into the Pacific Ocean. Would you rather

see the water go into the Pacific Ocean or would you say that we

could use that water at that kind of level to help the Salton Sea?

Mr. COOK. Those waters are released because of flood control criteria that mandate them to be released, and the Upper Basin

States would not object to those being used.

Mr. CALVERT. So if that kind of a situation occurred, you

wouldn’t object to those flood waters being used?

Mr. COOK. They occur periodically, and they’re occurring today,

and we would not object.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Cook.

Mr. Weber, I appreciate your being here. I’m an alumni of San

Diego State, as you know, and I always enjoy seeing you folks from

San Diego. There was a question about a conflict, and I just wanted

to point out, if you agree, that on the Management Committee

itself there would be potentially five folks, and the Consortium

would elect one of the three universities to serve on that management team. So you would have to be very convincing to get a majority to go along, plus get peer review and everything else, and

wouldn’t you believe that a conflict of interest would be a very hard

case to make on the part of the Consortium?

Mr. WEBER. The voice of reason is always very suasive.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

And, finally, Mr. Hirsche, I listened to your testimony and I liked

the first part of it. You were wanting to find a solution and wanting to fix the problems with the Salton Sea, and then I was trying

to find the part of the bill that you agreed with. I thought I heard

that you had a problem taking salt out of the Sea, and if Sonny

Bono were here today, and I knew Sonny quite well, and he had

a way of putting things very simply, you know. It doesn’t take a

rocket scientist, although we do have a rocket scientist that is helping us on this problem, to figure out what the problem is. The problem is we have too much salt and too much toxicity in the Sea and

that’s what is killing the fish and killing the birds. So we need to

get the salt out and get rid of the toxics in the Sea, and part of

that is getting rid of that salt brine. I thought I heard you say you

had a problem with getting rid of the salt.

Mr. HIRSCHE. Congressman, actually in the testimony we are

concerned about the lack of accountability for where the salt is

going to go at this point, and there is nothing in the legislation

that provides for where it is going to go.
80

Mr. CALVERT. It’s going to go somewhere. It’s going to either go

to an impoundment area or evaporation ponds or to potentially

across the border back into the Sea of Cortez. It’s going to go somewhere, and you don’t object to that salt going some place?

Mr. HIRSCHE. No, as long as we follow the appropriate NEPA

guidelines.

Mr. CALVERT. You mentioned the NEPA guidelines, and I have

to share with my friend and Chairman, Mr. Doolittle, that if in fact

we were able to rely on the Department of the Interior to say that

it’s going to 18 months, no problem, we’re going to make that

timeline, and we’ll just all happily go along with that deal I’m sure,

but I have yet to find a timeline the folks over there have met.

Now this instance, as you readily admit, is a potential catastrophe, and would you pick between that type of catastrophe or

meeting the NEPA and other environmental requirements?

Mr. HIRSCHE. Well I think at this point our inclination would be

to follow the process and see where we are.

Mr. CALVERT. So if you had to choose between a catastrophe and

the environmental laws you’re going to pick the environmental

laws.

Mr. HIRSCHE. Well the catastrophe is already well underway. As

I mentioned, it’s 250,000 birds so far in 5 years.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I thank the members of the panel for appearing.

We will have perhaps further questions, and I will ask you to respond expeditiously.

[Questions to be submitted and responded to for the record may

be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. With that we will excuse this panel, and this

hearing is adjourned.

[The Subcommittee adjourned at 4:50 p.m., subject to the call of

the Chair.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
81

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS WHEELER, SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Douglas P. Wheeler, Secretary for Resources in the Administration of California Governor Pete Wilson. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee on the Sonny Bono

Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act. The Governor of California applauds the introduction of this bill and appreciates the efforts of the members of the Salton Sea

Congressional Task Force who have taken this important step, as well as their past

actions to bring to national attention the existence of this remarkable resource. In

particular, the Governor supports the goal of this legislation as a fitting tribute to

the exemplary efforts of the late Congressman Sonny Bono, who did so much to foster efforts to restore the Salton Sea.

Background

Since its accidental creation in 1905 following the flooding of the Colorado River,

the Salton Sea has served as a tremendous resource for the citizens of California.

As California grew during the early decades of this century, the Sea became a popular recreational haven for anglers, boaters, and wildlife viewers, reaching its zenith

from the late 1950’s through the mid-1970’s. The Sea provided a unique

sportfishery, found nowhere else in California, where anglers caught marine fish in

a lake setting at catch rates that were considered to be phenomenal. In addition,

as other wetland areas of southern California were lost to development, the Sea assumed increasing importance as a refuge for migratory waterfowl.

Unfortunately, however, the health of the Sea has deteriorated over the past several decades, primarily due to high salinity levels and the inflow of contaminants.

The salinity of the Sea has increased gradually to the current level of approximately

44 parts per thousand. By comparison, ocean salinity levels are in the range of 35

parts per thousand. The gradual increase in salinity is not difficult to understand;

the only ‘‘outlet’’ for the Sea is through evaporation, which removes water while

leaving the salts carried into the Sea from the New, Alamo, and Whitewater Rivers,

as well as from agricultural runoff. In addition to salt, the inflow to the Sea carries

contaminants such as selenium.

The problems of the Salton Sea have long been recognized and efforts have previously been initiated to address these problems. Without the threat of crisis, none

of these proposals came to fruition. In 1987, however, the results of inaction began

to impact the ecological health of the Sea. In that year, the combination of high salinity levels and contaminants led to the initial avian ‘‘die-offs.’’ In 1992, the avian

mortality escalated, as over 150,000 eared grebes and ruddy ducks died from an undetermined cause. Additional avian mortality episodes occurred in 1994, 1996, and

1997, and continue to the present. The increasing salinity has also greatly impacted

the 4 fish species comprising the entire fishery of the Salton Sea. Lower reproductive success and an increased susceptibility to disease are two known stresses on

Salton Sea sportfish that are caused by elevated salinity levels. Today, largely as

a result of the avian mortality and the decline in fisheries, the need to restore the

health of the Salton Sea is recognized as a priority in California and nationwide.

The restoration of the Salton Sea has long been a priority of the State of California. In 1988, the Salton Sea Task Force was formed with the encouragement and

sponsorship of the California Department of Fish and Game. The Task Force included local stakeholder representatives and was successful in focusing attention on

the problems of the Sea. By the early 1990’s, it was clear that strong regional leadership was needed to identify and implement a plan with local support. To this end,

the Salton Sea Authority (‘‘Authority’’) was established with State support in 1993

by Riverside and Imperial Counties, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the

Imperial Irrigation District.

The Authority has made substantial progress toward developing a workable plan

for the restoration of the Sea. Beginning in 1994, the Authority, in cooperation with

the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of California, began to study the environmental and economic impacts of salinity on the Salton Sea. The Authority also addressed the question of flooding, which resulted from fluctuations in Sea level and

threatened adjacent properties. The efforts of the Authority resulted in a report on

alternatives to fixing the Sea, released in final draft form in September 1997. The

report analyzed 54 alternative approaches to restoring the health of the Salton Sea

and recommended four ‘‘diking’’ alternatives which met specified criteria. The Authority also co-sponsored with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a workshop on

Saving the Salton Sea. The findings of the workshop were published in October

1997 and outlined 31 study proposals.
82

With these efforts as a foundation and following consultation with the State, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt visited the Salton Sea in December 1997. Secretary

Babbitt met with local stakeholders, State of California representatives, and Federal

agencies and recommended a two-fold approach to restoring the Salton Sea. First,

the Secretary proposed that an environmental review process pursuant to the Federal National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality

Act be initiated immediately under the direction of the Salton Sea Authority and

the Bureau of Reclamation. Secretary Babbitt recommended that the environmental

review process analyze the four diking proposals, which emerged from the alternatives study released in September 1997, as well as ‘‘pump-in’’ and ‘‘pump-out’’ options. Second, the Secretary proposed additional scientific research, drawing upon

the findings of the Saving the Salton Sea workshop. To guide research efforts, the

Secretary proposed a Research Management Committee to consist of representatives

from the Federal Government, the State of California, the Salton Sea Authority, and

the Torres Martinez Tribe. The State of California supported Secretary Babbitt’s

proposal and agreed to participate in the preparation of environmental documentation and as a representative on the Research Management Committee. The Research Management Committee has since been established and promises to be a

workable, effective means by which to develop a scientifically sound solution.

Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act

The State of California strongly supports the goals and objectives of H.R. 3267.

Congressional action on the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act is

a critical next step toward restoring the Salton Sea. We agree that there is need

for appropriate levels of funding support for further scientific and engineering studies, and ultimately, the implementation of an agreed solution. The funding for feasibility studies will allow a thorough evaluation of the alternative approaches to fixing

the Sea, which has already been initiated using State and Federal funds. The bill

also authorizes construction funding for the preferred alternative solution. Finally,

funding is provided to support scientific research on many of the as yet unresolved

resource management issues of the Sea.

California also supports the reliance of the Act on the existing analytical process

and management structure. The Salton Sea Authority and the Bureau of Reclamation have made significant progress over the past several years and it is appropriate

that H.R. 3267 build upon this progress toward the goal of restoring the Sea. The

Memorandum of Understanding required by the Act will appropriately provide a

framework for the Federal, State, and local partners to select an alternative which

meets our shared objectives and to establish the financial responsibilities of each.

California also endorses the recognition of the Research Management Committee as

an effective structure for managing the critical process of scientific study and research.

With respect to the scope of the environmental assessment process, California favors a comprehensive approach. The problems of the Salton Sea are complex and,

in order to achieve our objectives, we must gain a better understanding of the relationships between contaminants and avian mortality and disease, fisheries and salinity, and the health of fisheries and migratory birds. A successful solution must

address all of these issues and offer a means to effectively restore a healthy, sustainable equilibrium to the Sea.

Sustainability in this context includes disposal of the brine or highly saline waters

which will most likely be a byproduct of any engineering solution. It would be unacceptable to solve the salinity problems of the Sea only to exchange them for a brine

disposal problem. We support, therefore, the inclusion in the legislation of subsection 101(e) calling for ‘‘determination of a method for disposing of pumped-out

water.’’ Sustainability also necessitates that the ultimate solution address the root

causes of ecological degradation to the Sea, not simply the apparent causes of increasing salinity. The avian mortality and declining fisheries stem from a complex

set of factors, including contaminants from agriculture and urban runoff. The solution must identify and correct those factors throughout the watershed which contribute to the deteriorating water quality and fluctuating sea levels. In addition, as

we develop a solution, we must be sure to comply with the Law of the River and

take into account ongoing activities which might affect the quantity and quality of

water flowing into the Sea, such as proposed water transfers.

The environmental review required by the bill will be significant in helping to determine the best possible solution to the Sea’s problems. For this reason, we should

be sure to take advantage of the information generated through this process. We

share the sense of urgency for a credible solution that motivates the sponsors of the

bill. We suggest that there are ways to accelerate the environmental review process

without hindering its value as a decisionmaking tool. For instance, the state and
83

Federal environmental processes can be run concurrently, or, if the Federal Government agrees, the intricate and thorough state environmental review process could

be certified as satisfying the needs of Federal law. This option is built into the Federal transportation bill pending in the House. However, we would observe that the

imposition of a statutory deadline for completing environmental studies may prove

self-defeating.

Additionally, we believe that aggrieved parties should not be denied their right

to judicial remedies as is currently precluded by subparagraph 101(f)(3)(B). California and many other states have fought hard over many years to ensure that Federal agencies abide by state environmental laws, and we believe it would be a bad

precedent to excuse them from that responsibility, even in this narrow case.

Clearly, we must not delay progress toward a prompt solution. The Salton Sea is

deteriorating rapidly and time is of the essence. The ambitious timelines set out in

the legislation present a challenge to those of us charged with developing and implementing a solution, but, I am confident that with the commitment of all levels of

government to save the Sea, we will meet this challenge.

In closing, I would like to reiterate the support of the State of California for the

objectives of this legislation. The Salton Sea is a nationally significant resource and

deserves our full attention. We appreciate the efforts of the Congressional Task

Force and look forward to working with the Task Force and this Subcommittee to

help perfect the bill so that it may be promptly enacted. It will provide the framework and the resources necessary to restore the Salton Sea.

STATEMENT OF TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT, SALTON SEA AUTHORITY

On behalf of the Salton Sea Authority, thank you for the opportunity to address

the Subcommittee and to comment on the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act, H.R. 3267. I am Tellis Codekas, President of the Salton Sea Authority.

The Salton Sea Authority is comprised of the Counties of Riverside and Imperial,

and the Imperial Irrigation and the Coachella Valley Water Districts. The Torres

Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians and a host of Federal and state agencies are exoffficio members of the Authority. The Authority is at the hub of a wheel which includes dozens of national, state, regional, tribal, and local stakeholders. The Authority recognizes the vital importance of the Sea as an agricultural drain, an environmental resource, a recreational destination, and an economic development engine.

Introduction of this legislation and the companion legislation in the Senate represent important steps forward in reclaiming and restoring the Salton Sea. Enacting

legislation to save the Sea is a fitting tribute to the man who was very much responsible for the current drive to save and restore the Sea. The Salton Sea Authority and its member agencies strongly support the central elements of H.R. 3267 and

look forward to working with the Committee and the Congressional Salton Sea Task

Force on this proposed legislation.

The Authority was established in 1993 and has been working closely with Federal

partners, particularly the Bureau of Reclamation and our state partners, particularly the Resources Agency and Cal–EPA on developing a consensus to restore this

important resource. Until a year or so ago, much of our effort went unnoticed. The

Sea was not viewed as a high national priority. Times have changed and we are

thankful for the change. We need the help of the Federal Government.

The Secretary of Interior became personally involved in our efforts in December.

The Secretary acknowledged the interagency and multi-interest effort that we had

already developed. He confirmed the Department’s commitment to this effort and established a structure to address biological and other studies.

We are committed to the process that the Secretary and the Authority agreed

upon. The proposed legislation largely builds on the existing process and we support

areas where it does so specifically, particularly:

Findings acknowledging the Federal interest,Project requirements consistent

with those developed by the Authority,

Commitment to exploring multiple options in the feasibility study, and

Authorization of appropriations which will allow completion of the feasibility,

environmental analysis and permitting work.

Unfortunately, there are also provisions in the bill which do not reflect our process or local needs.

First of all, the memorandum of understanding referred to on page 6 seems to

suggest a new process and a new feasibility study. We think it ought to confirm

the roles of the Federal lead agency, the Department of Interior through the Bureau of Reclamation, and the local lead agency, the Salton Sea Authority, in

completing our current work program.
84

Secondly, limitations of administrative and judicial review under the National

Environmental Policy Act may be counterproductive. As the co-lead agency, we

still must meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Waiving NEPA provisions sends up a red flag to the very interest groups that

we are working very hard to include in our restoration efforts, such as the Audubon Society.

Thirdly, the Secretary of Interior, the Authority, the Torres Martinez and the

State currently sit on a Research Management Committee. The Committee was

so composed to ensure limited conflict of interest, management oversight of research conducted, and to move expeditiously on research needs. The inclusion

of a fifth member from the university community is disconcerting. The universities may well receive some share of research funds and having them make recommendations on fund distribution is an apparent conflict of interest. Additionally, research imperatives and their pace should not jeopardize plans to quickly

restore the Sea. We do not support including any representative on the management committee that may create a perception of a conflict of interest.

There are other provisions in the bill which raise questions. The Authority applauds the Members of Congress and specifically the Congressional Salton Sea Task

Force for recognizing that stabilizing and reducing the Sea’s salinity is the highest

priority. However, the Emergency Action specified under Title II of the bill may be

counterproductive.

Title II directs the Secretary to expulse water out of the Salton Sea by December

1, 1998 to accommodate diversion of, presumably, Colorado River water to the Sea.

However, given that the mechanics of how the water will be pumped out, where the

Seawater will be pumped to, how the project will be funded, designed and constructed have not been worked out, this Title and its deadline are unworkable. Such

an emergency action is an overwhelming technical, financial and political challenge

by the deadline imposed. Preferably, the bill should direct the Secretary to work

with the Authority through our current effort to identify and design an emergency

plan to stabilize the sea.

Perhaps the greatest tribute to the late Congressman found in this bill is its intent to fix the Sea’s problems quickly. The Authority thanks Congressmen Hunter,

Brown, Calvert and Lewis for their commitment to expediting the recovery efforts.

I am thankful that the Speaker has shown a commitment to this effort and that

our two California Senators have introduced similar legislation to this bill. We hope

that the President signs restoration legislation within a few months. Still, the clock

is ticking for the Salton Sea.

In the interim, the Authority and the Bureau of Reclamation can accomplish a

great deal under our current five million-dollar work program. Federal funds authorized under Public Law 02-575 are being matched with state and local funds to

carry out this work plan. Commitment by the Administration to proceeding on our

work plan will help all of us to get a jump-start on whatever legislative deadline

Congress establishes.

We are thankful for the opportunity to speak before you today. The Authority represents the local interest in reclaiming this important resource. We stand ready to

work with our partners to do so and to do so quickly. The Authority’s Executive Director, Tom Kirk is here to address any questions that you may have. Additionally,

Tom Veysey, one of our board members and a Supervisor of Imperial County and

Paul Cunningham, chair of the Authority’s Technical Advisory Committee and Director of External Affairs for Imperial Irrigation District are here to serve as resources to you.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD BUNKER, CHAIRMAN, COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION OF

NEVADA

Chairman Doolittle, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation

to testify on behalf of the State of Nevada and its Governor Bob Miller, concerning

H. R. 3267 to reclaim the Salton Sea. My name is Richard Bunker and I am Chairman of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada. It was just one month ago that

I, along with my colleagues from the Colorado River Commission and the Board of

the Southern Nevada Water Authority, visited the Salton Sea and participated in

a briefing from members of the Salton Sea Authority concerning their environmental restoration efforts.

Southern Nevada and the Colorado River

This Salton Sea briefing came at the end of a three day tour of the Colorado River

which started at Lake Mead and followed the river visiting its dams, powerplants
85

and aqueducts which serve millions of people in the three lower basin states. Every

elected and appointed official involved in water resources decision making was invited to participate on the tour. We met with water officials from Arizona and California and were hosted for dinners, dam tours, crop inspections and briefings. We

went on this tour to convey to our Nevada policymakers one simple reality, when

it comes to Colorado River water, Nevada is inextricably connected to the actions

and activities, problems and solutions of our sister states of California and Arizona.

During the past five years as a member of the Nevada Colorado River Commission,

I have learned that issues involving the Colorado are like a never ending soap opera

with intricate, slow moving plots and sub plots. Unless you follow the program faithfully, it is very difficult to really tell at any given moment, who is romancing whom

and for what reason. We in Nevada have been romanced by just about everybody

at one time or another, including the interests behind the Salton Sea Authority. Let

me say at the outset that we in Nevada appreciate the objectives of California

Salton Sea interests and support their overall plan to prevent the Salton Sea from

becoming a Dead Sea. We are, however, opposed to H. R. 3267 in its present form

for reasons which I will explain.

Concerns with H. R. 3267

I want to first issue a disclaimer that these comments on H.R. 3267 should not

be viewed by anyone as Nevada having allied itself with any particular interest in

California’s water wars. That said, we believe that the bill will exacerbate California’s continued over reliance upon Colorado River water to the detriment of Nevada

and the rest of the basin states. Although California uses about 5.2 million acre feet

of Colorado River water, its Compact entitlement is for only 4.4 million acre feet.

In the past, the additional water has come from Arizona and Nevada’s unused entitlement of lower basin water. Arizona and Nevada, along with the four upper basin

states have for years been urging California to implement a plan to reduce its uses

of the Colorado to the 4.4 million acre feet to which it has a permanent legal right.

I am pleased that California is now working on its 4.4 plan.

I do not want to suggest that California is breaking the law by using the excess

entitlement water. They have a contract right with the Department of the Interior

to use such water temporarily until it is fully utilized by Arizona and Nevada. Nevada has a similar contract right to temporary use of unused entitlement. Within

ten years when we exceed our own measly Colorado River entitlement of 300,000

acre feet, Nevada plans to also divert a smaller amount of the unused entitlement

system water now being used by California.

Unlike California, however, we have a plan to develop alternate supplies for that

day when all the water in the lower basin has been put to use. That day is not far

off. Just last year, Arizona used nearly all of its water for the first time, leaving

California to depend upon surplus water to meet its needs. As the Department of

the Interior moves to approve regulations which allow for Colorado River water to

be diverted and stored in groundwater aquifers located principally in Arizona, the

full lower basin supply of 7.5 million acre feet will be gone. Nevada hopes to take

advantage of the opportunity to participate in Arizona’s groundwater banking program to provide us with supplies when we need them. Also unlike California, Nevada has no significant agricultural water uses from which water can be conserved

or retired and transferred for municipal use.

California Must Move to Conserve Its Agricultural Water

As far as we can tell, California has a long way to go on its plan to live within

its 4.4 million acre foot entitlement. Several competing plans have been advanced

by the various Ag and urban interests in California with no consensus developing

around anything. Now comes H.R. 3267, the Salton Sea bill trying to stabilize a

Federal National Wildlife Refuge where historically no lake ever existed and was

created mostly from the wasted tailwater from the California Ag districts. The bill

calls for a study of how to bring more water to the Salton Sea and specifically redirects this year’s surplus flows to the Sea.

It seems to us that before any further Federal demands for water are created,

California should first implement a plan to live within the permanent supplies to

which it is entitled.

Conclusion

California is now using nearly 1 million acre feet of Colorado River water above

its entitlement. California’s right to use this water is temporary. With the prospect

of off stream groundwater banking, the excess lower basin water will soon be gone.

California cannot rely year to year upon surplus flows to satisfy its needs. California

must implement a plan to wean itself from this dependency upon other state’s water

by implementing water saving programs at the Imperial, Palo Verde and Coachella
86

irrigation districts and diverting that saved water to satisfy California’s growing

urban water demands. We are opposed to the creation of a Federal wildlife refuge

at the Salton Sea. Such a refuge would become dependent upon the very wasted Ag

water California must save to meet its 4.4 million acre foot limitation.

STATEMENT OF RITA P. PEARSON, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER

RESOURCES

I would like to thank the House Subcommittee on Water and Power for the opportunity to provide the State of Arizona’s perspective on H.R. 3267, the ‘‘Sonny Bono

Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act.’’

While Arizona does not object to the State of California’s desire to develop a plan

to address the long-term needs of the Salton Sea ecosystem, it is Arizona’s position

that a well thought out and scientifically valid plan, which will not negatively impact the other Colorado River Basin States or Mexico, has the greatest opportunity

of providing a lasting legacy of the efforts of the late Congressman Sonny Bono to

stabilize and restore the Salton Sea.

With this testimony, it is the State of Arizona’s intent to provide the Subcommittee with information on several issues to consider during the deliberations

associated with this legislation. These issues are: (1) the identification of potential

sources of water for Salton Sea reclamation in H.R. 3267; (2) the difficulty of using

Colorado River water for Salton Sea reclamation within California’s Colorado River

allocation; and (3) the balance to be achieved between the ecological needs of Salton

Sea and the larger context of the ecological needs in the southwestern United

States. Each of these issues are described in more detail in the following pages.

Introduction and Background

The Colorado River is one of the most erratic rivers in the United States. Over

the 90-year period of record there have been annual flows at Lees Ferry, Arizona

of more than 23 million acre-feet (maf) and flows as low as 5 maf. Approximately

70 percent of the annual natural flow of the Colorado River occurs in the months

of May, June and July. The only way these flood flows can be managed for beneficial

use is through utilization of a reservoir storage system.

Because of the erratic and meandering nature of the Colorado River, the Salton

Sink has been repeatedly filled and evaporated over the past few thousand years.

Prior to the filling of the present Salton Sea, the most recent was prehistoric Lake

Canhuilla which dried up approximately 300 years ago. The average annual precipitation in the region is about 3 inches, but the annual rate of evaporation is approximately 5 feet.

Settlement of the Imperial Valley in the late-1800s led to the first tentative attempts at diverting the Colorado River water at the turn of the century for agricultural purposes. Shortly after, in 1905, flood flows from the Gila and Colorado Rivers

breached a dike near the International Boundary and poured into the Imperial Valley for 16 months and created the Salton Sea.

Attempts by the agricultural interests along the Lower Colorado River and in the

Imperial Valley to limit the potential for devastating floods, as well as provide a

long-term reliable supply of Colorado River water led to the passage of the Boulder

Canyon Project Act (BCPA) in 1928 (43 U.S.C. 617, December 21, 1928). The BCPA

authorized the construction of Hoover Dam and the All-American Canal to supply

water for the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. The BCPA listed the primary purposes for the construction of Hoover Dam as controlling floods, improving navigation, regulating the flow of the Colorado River and providing for the storage and

delivery of water for reclamation of public lands and other beneficial public uses

within the United States.

Since the construction of Hoover Dam, numerous large dams and reservoirs have

been constructed on the Colorado River and its tributaries accounting for approximately 60 maf of storage. This is approximately four times the average annual yield

of the Colorado River. This allowed the Basin States and the Bureau of Reclamation

(Reclamation) to control flood flows and regulate the River to provide for the generation of hydroelectric power and delivery of water for downstream uses in agricultural, municipal and industrial sectors. Creation of this infrastructure has resulted

in a long-term dependency on the water supplies of the Colorado River. Because of

this dependency, a complex use and accounting system has evolved that has permitted the complete allocation of the Lower Basin’s Colorado River Compact apportionment of 7.5 maf.

Current demand on the Colorado River by the Lower Basin States is at an alltime high. Arizona and Nevada are approaching full utilization of their basic appor-
87

tionments of 2.8 maf and 300,000 acre-feet, respectively. California’s present consumptive use of Colorado River water is approximately 5.2 maf per year, while its

mainstream basic apportionment is only 4.4 maf, plus one-half of any available surpluses. Additionally, the United States is annually obligated, through an international treaty, to provide Mexico with 1.5 maf. Consequently, there is currently 9.8

maf of annual demand in the Lower Basin. Under the Law of the River, the Secretary is not authorized to deliver this amount of water unless surplus conditions

are declared. In 1998, the Secretary did declare surplus conditions, but this condition is not sustainable over the long-term, particularly during periods of drought.

Arizona is concerned that additional demand in the Lower Basin will increase the

likelihood of shortages to municipal and agricultural users.

H.R 3267 Does Not Identify the Source of Water for Salton Sea Reclamation

Title I, Section l0l(b)(l) of H.R. 3267 proposes to reduce and stabilize the ‘‘overall

salinity of the Salton Sea to a level between 35 and 40 parts per thousand.’’ In addition, Section l0l(b)(2) would ‘‘stabilize the surface elevation of the Salton Sea to a

level between 240 feet . . . and 230 feet below sea level.’’ Title II of H.R. 3267 is intended to provide ‘‘emergency action to stabilize Salton Sea salinity.’’ Section 202(1)

requires the expulsion of saline waters from the Sea ‘‘. . . by pumping sufficient

water out . . . prior to December 1, 1998 . . .’’ in order to accommodate, through Section 202(2), ‘‘diversion into the Salton Sea of water available as a result of highflow periods in late 1998 and early 1999.’’

Arizona interprets this as pumping a substantial quantity of water out of the Sea

and then attempting to dilute the remaining solution through the introduction of

new water supplies. Arizona is concerned that the source of this water is not identified in the draft legislation. The Secretary of the Interior is not planning to make

flood control releases during the referenced time frames in Water Year 1998, nor

are they anticipated in early 1999. It is Arizona’s position that Congress should reconsider the water that is expected to be used and the time-frame to accomplish

these goals.

Similarly, Section 101(c)(2)(A)(iii) describes an option to be considered which

would provide ‘‘augmented flows of water into the Salton Sea.’’ Again, it is not clear

what the source of these augmented flows would be. If these flows are the result

of importation of water from the Pacific Ocean, Gulf of California or return flows

from the Mexicali Valley, this should be specifically referenced.

Perhaps Arizona’s greatest concern is the preservation of rights and obligations

with respect to the Colorado River. Section 101(f)(2) must be strengthened with the

incorporation of the following language:

This Act shall not supersede or otherwise affect any treaty, decree, law or

agreement governing the use of water from the Colorado River. The Secretary

shall implement this Act in a manner fully consistent with and subject to the

Colorado River Compact, the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, the Water

Treaty of 1944 with Mexico, the decree of the United States Supreme Court in

Arizona v. California, and the provisions of the Boulder Canyon Project Act of

1928, Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 and the Colorado River Basin

Project Act of 1968 which govern the allocation, appropriation, development and

exportation of the waters of the Colorado River Basin.

Finally, the water supply and water quality issues associated with reclamation of

the Salton Sea as proposed in H.R. 3267 must be carefully examined in relation to

the overall management of the Lower Colorado River. The Colorado River is an

interstate river which is fully appropriated and managed by nearly a century of intense scrutiny, dialogue, negotiation, legislation and litigation. Currently, the seven

Colorado River Basin States, Native American Tribes, the United States and other

interested stakeholders are involved in several important basin-wide governance

processes which are addressing issues such as water supply, quantity and allocation,

water quality, as well as endangered species and habitat management.

Additional Colorado River Water for Salton Sea Reclamation Must Come From Within California’s Allocation

With the increased demand upon the Colorado River system and the potential

risks of shortage to the Colorado River Basin States, the Secretary of the Interior

requested that California initiate the development of a negotiated plan among its

Colorado River water-using agencies to reduce their annual use from 5.2 maf to the

basic apportionment of 4.4 maf. The California ‘‘4.4 Plan’’ proposes to reduce the annual use of Colorado River water in two phases. Phase I would step the use down

from 5.2 maf to approximately 4.6–4.7 maf over a ten to 15 year period (2010-2015).

Phase II would further reduce California’s use of Colorado River water down to the

basic apportionment of 4.4 maf. The primary 4.4 Plan components include: (1) firm
88

1Saving the Salton Sea: A Needs Assessment Workshop, August 4-8, 1997, Workshop Proceedings, A Report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Region 1, Portland, Oregon, 73 pp.

‘‘core transfers’’ from agricultural districts to municipal and industrial water providers in the South Coast region; (2) recovery of seepage from the All-American and

Coachella Canals; (3) implementation of conjunctive use management of surface and

groundwater supplies; and (4) Colorado River reservoir operating criteria which continue to make surplus water available.

A critical component of the 4.4 Plan is the firm transfer of approximately 400,000

acre-feet per year out of the Imperial Valley to the South Coast region during Phase

I. Phase II calls for an additional 50,000 to 100,000 acre-feet per year to be transferred from Imperial Irrigation District, if determined feasible. In order to effectuate

these transfers, intensive water conservation programs will be required in the agricultural districts which will ultimately lead to reduced drainage flows into the

Salton Sea. Even if only the Phase I 400,000 acre-feet per year of firm transfer

water is removed from the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, this is roughly equivalent to 40 percent of the nearly one million acre-feet per year of current agricultural

drainage flowing into the Sea.

The ultimate goal of the California 4.4 Plan is to develop programs which return

the State to its basic apportionment and continue to allow the Colorado River Aqueduct, operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, to run at

essentially full capacity (approximately 1.2 maf annually) without causing detrimental impacts to the agricultural service areas and to the other Basin States. This

raises a concern in Arizona regarding the relationship between the proposed California 4.4 Plan and the role of H.R. 3267 and reclamation of the Salton Sea. Arizona

believes that the legislation, in its present state, is unclear on the role of the Colorado River in the restoration and reclamation of the Salton Sea. Programs proposed

in H.R. 3267 must come within California’s lawful apportionment, but not jeopardize the overall goal of California’s implementation of the 4.4. Plan.

Ecological Needs of Salton Sea Reclamation Must Be Viewed in the Larger Context

of the Ecological Needs of the Southwestern United States

Arizona generally supports the concept described in Section l0l(c)(1) which requires that the Secretary prepare a ‘‘feasibility study’’ of various options for reclaiming the Sea. Preparation of the study is compatible with the recommendations stemming from the Salton Sea Needs Assessment Workshop which was held in August

1997 in Palm Springs, California. In fact, the Workshop proceedings developed a

package of 31 research proposals which would require approximately $32 million

and three years to implement.1 There are two specific recommendations which came

out of the Workshop which may be of interest to the Committee.

First, according to page 15 of the proceedings, ‘‘foremost in team discussions was

the overriding need to understand the Salton Sea ecosystem, preferably before, but

at a minimum, while we attempt to fix it through human intervention. Otherwise

the technical solution for the Salton Sea’s problems are liable to be too narrowly

focused and a unique opportunity to benefit people and wildlife may not be achieved

. . .’’

Second, an additional recommendation on page 71 suggested that ‘‘. . . agencies

should make clear to Congress and stakeholders that three years of focused science

can only reduce some of the major uncertainties about the problems of the Salton

Sea, and that final solutions to the problems are unlikely to emerge from such an

effort. An adaptive approach to managing the Salton Sea and conducting science is

more likely to be successful.’’ The Needs Assessment teams recommended that the

concept of adaptive management should involve implementing small actions, monitoring the response of the Sea to that action, assessing the response mechanisms

and using the knowledge gained to design and implement subsequent actions and

monitoring and assessment processes. It should be recognized that a similar adaptive management process has been successfully implemented by the Secretary of the

Interior, the Colorado River Basin States and other stakeholders for the management and operation of Glen Canyon Dam.

Currently, the Lower Basin States, several Native American Tribes, the United

States, environmental organizations and other stakeholders are developing a fiftyyear program which will meet the needs of over 100 species occupying habitats

along the Lower Colorado River. This Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a significant effort directed at ensuring long-term Federal

and non-Federal compliance with environmental laws and regulations, while ensuring the continued utilization and development of the water and hydroelectric power

resources of the Colorado River.
89

The MSCP, much like the CalFed Bay-Delta Program, Upper Colorado River and

San Juan River Basin Recovery Programs are major undertakings requiring significant commitment of Federal and state resources. Programs costing several hundred

millions of dollars must be carefully evaluated from the standpoint of the overall

goals and objectives and the likelihood of long-term measurable success. These programs, and similar ones in the southwestern United States, are all in the position

of competing for limited resources from the Federal and state taxpayers, while attempting to address certain specific and unique needs. There is an obligation on the

part of Congress and individual state legislatures to ensure that the programs with

the greatest likelihood of success are supported through commitment of these limited resources.

While Arizona recognizes that the needs of the Salton Sea ecosystem are significant, the proposed solutions must be evaluated in the perspective of the overall

management of the water and ecological resources of the Lower Colorado River

Basin. A Salton Sea solution must be considered and integrated with the ongoing

California 4.4 Plan, the recent proposed rule authorizing the offstream storage of

Colorado River water and the development of the 50-year Lower Colorado River

MSCP. Each of these processes are a single component of the evolving blueprint

which guides the wise use, management and conservation of all of the natural resources in the Lower Basin. One process cannot be rapidly advanced without carefully evaluating the potential impacts upon the others. Management of these valuable resources can only be accomplished with broad-based public participation in a

thoughtful, iterative and scientifically credible environment

Conclusion

In summary, Arizona urges the Congress to amend H.R. 3267 to accomplish the

following:

1. Identify all potential sources of water for the Salton Sea Reclamation Project

and consider the impacts of using that water;

2. Require explicit adherence to the current law of the Colorado River; and

3. Require that any Colorado River water utilized for the Salton Sea Reclamation Project come from within California’s mainstream allocation of Colorado

River water.

In view of the complexity of the current issues facing the Secretary of the Interior,

individual Colorado River Basin States and stakeholders, there are still questions

which remain to be answered. For example, there may not be sufficient resources

in Reclamation’s Lower Colorado Region to accomplish the goals and objectives required in H.R. 3267 and still meet the needs of the California 4.4 Plan process,

offstream storage of Colorado River water, development of surplus criteria for reservoir operations, implementation of the final biological opinion for Lower Colorado

River operations and the continued development of the Lower Colorado River

MSCP. Consequently, Arizona believes that the time-lines proposed in H.R. 3267

should be re-evaluated in the context of these other equally important elements of

Colorado River management.

The burdens placed on California, the United States and potentially the other Colorado River Basin States for development and implementation of the Salton Sea

Reclamation Project will require a cooperative and effective partnership of the Congress, the States and stakeholders within the Basin. Arizona looks forward to working with the United States, California and the other Basin States during the development of the Salton Sea Reclamation Project.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee regarding H.R. 3267.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF HENRY J. VAUX, JR., ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, my name is Henry J. Vaux, Jr. and I am Associate Vice President

of the University of California System for agricultural and natural resource programs. I appear here this morning on behalf of California’s Federal Water Resources

Research Institute, where I formerly served as Director. At the outset, I want to

thank you for the opportunity to appear before your Committee in support of efforts

to reclaim and improve the Salton Sea. I also want to reiterate our profound thanks

for your long-term support of the Water Resources Research Institute Program.

In my testimony this morning, I wish to make three basic points. First, I want

to describe and clarify the purposes of the Federal Water Resources Research Institutes and briefly identify several of the ways in which the Institute in California

has addressed these purposes. Second, I want to elaborate upon the current mission
90

and role of the Institute. Third, and finally, I want to describe the capability of interests of the California Water Resources Research Institute in supporting the activities that would be authorized under the provisions of H.R. 3267.

The Federal Water Resources Research Institutes were first authorized by the

Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-379). The Institute program

has been reauthorized approximately every five years since. The most recent reauthorization is contained in Public Law 104-147. The program maintains Federal

Water Resources Research Institutes at the Land Grant University in each of the

50 states, in the District of Columbia and in the several Trust Territories. The broad

purpose of the Institutes is to focus the collective research expertise of scholars in

the nation’s institutions of higher education on water problems at the local, regional

and national level. To this end, the authorizing legislation requires that the Institutes make their funds available to scholars at all institution of higher education

in their respective states. Thus, one of the hallmarks of the Institute program is

that competition for the Federal funds that it administers are open to faculty in all

institutions of higher education and NOT just to researchers at the Land-Grant Universities.

Faculty researchers with interests in water resources at ALL of California’s

Colleges and Universities are eligible to compete for the Federal funds

which the California Water Resources Research Institute awards.

The California Water Resources Research Institute, which is also known as the

University of California Water Resources Center, was initially established by the

State at the University of California in 1958. With the passage of Public Law 88-

379, the Center was also designated as the Federal Water Resources Research Institute for California. The Institute’s role is to facilitate, coordinate and support research on water resources undertaken by faculty at California’s public and private

Universities. Over the last ten years, nearly all of the Federal dollars appropriated

to the California Institute have been awarded to faculty researchers on campuses

other than University of California campuses. Thus, for example, since 1987, these

funds have been awarded to faculty researchers at San Diego State University,

Humboldt State University, California State University at Fresno, the California Institute of Technology and Stanford University. The Institute is unique in that it

maintains relationships with virtually all faculty with interests in water resources

at all of California’s Colleges and Universities. The most recent addition of our California Directory of Water Expertise lists some 986 faculty at 33 Colleges and Universities.

The role of the California Water Resources Research Institute is to identify

the high priority research topics; to ensure, through peer review, that research is directed at the highest priority topics and is of the highest quality; and to engage in programs of research dissemination to inform other

researchers, water managers and members of the public of the results of

the research.

The California Water Resources Research Institute does not conduct research.

Rather, its role is to facilitate the conduct of research by faculty experts located at

the state’s colleges and universities. This facilitation is accomplished in a variety

of ways. Annually, high priority research topics are identified in consultation with

water managers, local, state and Federal officials with responsibilities for water resources and members of the public. Research proposals are evaluated and rated by

peer groups and only those of the highest quality receive research support. The results of water research accomplished in California and throughout the world are disseminated in a variety of publications, at annual conferences and at workshops convened for the purpose. By performing its facilitation role the Water Resources Research Institute helps to ensure that research on water resources in California is

well coordinated, focuses on the most pressing topics and is of the highest quality.

In addition, the Institute’s activities help to avoid duplication of research effort both

within California and nationally.

The California Water Resources Research Institute is prepared to facilitate

the development and conduct of any research or programs of research that

the ‘‘Salton Sea Research Management Committee’’ may identify as necessary pursuant to the provisions of H.R. 3276.

I wish to emphasize as clearly as I can that our presence here today and our interest in the ‘‘Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act’’ lies with ensuring

that whatever research may emerge as a consequence of this Act is accomplished

by the most qualified investigators and is of the highest possible quality. We believe

that many important research questions will emerge as reclamation and restoration

efforts go forward. We stand prepared to assist local, state and Federal officials in
91

identifying and framing those questions, should that be appropriate. We are also

prepared to make available our good offices to ensure that only the highest quality

research projects are funded and that all of our college and University researchers

with an interest in questions related to the restoration of the Salton Sea are afforded an opportunity to compete for whatever funds may be available.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that the California Water Resources

Research Institute stands ready to help in any way as you move forward with H.R.

3267. Let me thank you again for the opportunity to appear before your Subcommittee, and for your continuing support of the Water Resources Research Institute program.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. WEBER, MEMBER, SALTON SEA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH

CONSORTIUM, AND PRESIDENT, SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY

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

to appear today on behalf of the Salton Sea University Research Consortium. I am

proud to represent my fellow colleagues, Chancellor Raymond Orbach, University of

California, Riverside, and President James Appleton, University of Redlands. Our

Consortium strongly supports the Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Restoration Act.

We are proud to have worked with the members of the Congressional Salton Sea

Task Force, Congressmen Hunter, Lewis, Calvert and Brown and the late Sonny

Bono, on this issue of paramount importance to California.

To address the grievous and disastrous environmental problems at the Salton Sea

in an integrated, timely and efficacious manner, the University of Redlands, the

University of California, Riverside and San Diego State University have joined

forces to form the Salton Sea University Research Consortium.

The complexity of issues surrounding the Salton Sea requires research approaches

that consider the biological and ecological systems of the sea, the regional hydrology,

the chemistry of soil and toxic substances, as well as potential bioremediation and

engineering solutions. We must also take into account the economic issues, the agricultural interests and the human, cultural and social concerns of the Salton Sea region and the Lower Colorado River basin. The role of the Salton Sea University Research Consortium will be to help provide policy-makers with the best possible research data on which to base their management decisions.

Our consortium offers the full spectrum of expertise necessary to grapple with

these difficult decisions.

Experts from each of our universities have long been active, not just on water resource issues in California, but specifically on issues pertaining to the Salton Sea.

Approximately 25 faculty members at the University of California, Riverside have

expertise addressing issues facing the Salton Sea. San Diego State University’s Center for Inland Waters includes more than 20 faculty and researchers who have conducted long-term studies at the Salton Sea and its surrounding basin. The University of Redlands has just received the first half of a $2 million appropriation to establish a Salton Sea Bioregional GIS Database, which will consolidate the existing

research data that is of greatest interest to the various stakeholders in the Salton

Sea.

Our combined universities have extensive interests and expertise in this area. We

believe that timely access to this knowledge is vital to the Salton Sea restoration

efforts. Scientists from California’s leading public and private universities, including

the University of California and the California State University systems, are represented in our Consortium. Faculty and researchers knowledgeable about the

Salton Sea and its ecosystem from nearly 40 campuses in California are available

to address the complex problems endangering the Salton Sea. These are university

scientists who have conducted research on the endangered brown pelican, who have

developed flow models for water movement within the sea, which has important implications for the proposed solutions; and who have linkages to such valuable programs as UC Mexus, which has important ties to Mexico and is currently conducting a comprehensive study of the Lower Colorado River basin.

Further, we have initiated discussions and plan to coordinate closely with the

Water Resources Center and Los Alamos National Laboratory both in naming a representative for the fifth seat to the research management committee and in carrying

out research. Already our relationship with each of these entities is tightly linked.

The Water Resources Center has funded scientists at both California State University and the University of California. The Associate Director of the center is a faculty member at UC, Riverside. Likewise, the Director of the Los Alamos National

Laboratory is being appointed as an adjunct professor at UC, Riverside.

The immediate benefits of our participation are twofold.
92

First, the Consortium comprises three universities in close proximity to the Salton

Sea. Our faculty has been working and teaching courses at the Sea and surrounding

basin for more than 20 years. Recent research results include an analysis of the dynamics of several kinds of toxic algae we have discovered there. We also have gathered the first comprehensive data on nutrient levels in the Salton Sea since the

1960s and have discovered several new fish parasites, which are implicated in the

massive fish die-offs. We are collaborating with the Bureau of Reclamation on a bioremediation project on the New River. We are up to speed and ready to ‘‘get it

done.’’

Second, members of the Consortium have considerable experience managing largescale research projects and coordinating with state and Federal agencies as well as

other universities. The salinity/drainage program of the University of California, for

example, manages extensive research activities at the Kesterson Reservoir, a situation very comparable to the Salton Sea. San Diego State University’s extensive work

on arid-lands agriculture and salinity problems in the Middle East has direct applications to the problems faced at the Salton Sea.

We propose to bring a California Solution to a California Problem. We know the

Sea, and it is we who will live with the success or failure of this effort.

We are pleased to learn that Section 102 of the proposed bill calls for the establishment of the ‘‘Salton Sea Research Management Committee.’’ The Consortium

strongly endorses this initiative because it will bring together the diverse areas of

expertise that are needed to address and solve in real time the complex issues facing the Salton Sea. Given our research expertise, coupled with our geographical

proximity to the Salton Sea, the University Research Consortium is in a unique position to play a critical role in the research and monitoring effort. The success of

this restoration effort requires the long-term alliance of our Federal, State, and

Local institutions, the indigenous peoples of the region, and the university community.

The University Research Consortium has identified a number of ways that we can

be of assistance:

• Coordinating research efforts, including the evaluation of existing research to

determine what is known and where the gaps are. The purpose is to integrate

priorities across disciplines.

• Collecting, maintaining, and updating information through a Salton Sea data

clearinghouse.

• Developing and conducting research in a coordinated manner, including economic impact reports.

• Advising and reporting to the Congressional Task Force and the Congress on

the progress of the Salton Sea clean up.

• Constructing and managing a Salton Sea Research Laboratory and Visitor

Center jointly with the California State Parks and providing research facilities

at the Coachella Valley Agricultural Station, only four miles from the Salton

Sea.

•Providing long-term management and monitoring to ensure that biological,

hydrological, and economic impacts are positive over the long-term.

In short, our universities have substantial expertise in scientific endeavors related

to the Salton Sea; in managing large regional, national, and international programs;

in forming and implementing consortia; and in providing an objective, science-based

perspective on complex issues. I have additional information about our faculty research capabilities and publications that I will submit for the record.

We look forward to working with the Federal Government, the Salton Sea Authority, the State of California, and all the stakeholders in developing and implementing

successful solutions to address the critical environmental problems at the Salton

Sea.

Our Consortium is dedicated to bringing the best expertise available to preserve

this unique resource. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF TED STEWART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF

NATURAL RESOURCES

Thank you for this opportunity to present written testimony for the March 12,

1998 hearing on H.R. 3267 titled ‘‘Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Restoration

Act.’’ I am charged with protecting Utah’s Upper Basin water allocation from the

Colorado River. I would like to convey to you a concern Utah has with the legislation as circulated in draft form.
93

California Use of Colorado River Water

With the advent of the full use of the Lower Basin’s allotment of 7.5 million acrefeet of water per year under the Colorado River Compact of 1922, pressures to improve irrigation efficiencies increased. In fact, the state of California passed legislation imposing fines on the wasteful use of water. This resulted in a lawsuit in the

1980’s where the Imperial Irrigation District was accused of wasteful use of water

and ultimately directed by the state of California to improve its irrigation efficiency.

However, from our point of view the side effects of improving agricultural water use

efficiency has been or will be a decrease in the volume of water flowing into the

Salton Sea. The result could be a decline in the level of the Salton Sea as evaporation may exceed inflow. Also as a terminal lake with no outlet besides evaporation

this will result in an increase in salinity concentration in the Salton Sea. The increasing salinity level is threatening the existing fishery, wildlife habitat and other

associated uses of the sea.

Problem with the Proposed Legislation

The proposed legislation calls for the stabilizing of both salinity and water elevation levels. Unless an outlet is provided to flush the salt from the sea, or a desalination plant is built to remove salts, the only other way we see to accomplish this

is by providing relatively large quantities of fresh water to the Sea. The problem

is, the draft legislation does not specify the source of water that might be used to

accomplish this purpose. The Colorado River appears to be the only significant

source of water available. But, the Lower Colorado River Basin states, particularly

California, are currently using in excess of their full allocation from the river. If the

legislation is not carefully crafted it could result in Upper Basin water being used

to freshen the sea. This would not only be unfair but it would disturb the delicate

balance that currently exists between the Upper and Lower Colorado River Basin

states.

Utah has no problem with stabilizing the Salton Sea, whether in terms of volume

or salinity. We believe, however, the water used for this purpose, if it comes from

the Colorado River, must come from the state of California’s compact allocation. We

think this is consistent with the current interpretations of the ‘‘Law of the River.’’

Indeed, Utah would emphasize that if Colorado River water is needed for Salton Sea

augmentation, the water should come only from California’s compact allocation.

Suggested Amendments

The state of Utah supports the suggested amendments recommended by the

Upper Colorado River Commission. With those amendments, Utah and the other

Colorado River Basin states will not be put at risk by this legislation. We believe

any other result would be inequitable, violate the ‘‘Law of the River,’’ and place at

odds with each other the Colorado River Basin states.

STATEMENT OF EVAN M. HIRSCHE, DIRECTOR, WILDLIFE REFUGE CAMPAIGN,

NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with our views on H.R. 3267, the

‘‘Sonny Bono Memorial Salton Sea Reclamation Act.’’ We appreciate the Committee’s

interest in honoring the late Representative Bono by promoting a solution to the ecological crisis occurring at the Salton Sea. The mission of the National Audubon Society, representing more than 67,000 Californians and more than 550,000 Americans

nationwide, is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds, other

wildlife, and their habitats for the benefit of humanity and the earth’s biological diversity.

The Salton Sea has become a virtual Mecca for migratory birds travelling along

the Pacific Flyway. More than 380 species call this unlikely alcove in the southern

California desert their home as they travel between points as far south as Antarctica and as far north as the Arctic. Indeed, the importance of the Sea transcends

national interests and must be considered in the broader international context.

Mr. Chairman, how we respond to this crisis will have broad ramifications for people and ecosystems far beyond the scope of our immediate interests.

The Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1930 for the purpose

of providing wintering and spring migration habitat for birds. At the time it was

established the refuge contained 46,800 acres above the Salton Sea’s waters; inundation over the years has left the refuge with just 2,400 acreage above water level.

In spite of the lost acreage, the refuge today provides vital wintering habitat for

some of the large concentrations of migratory waterfowl, shorebirds and passerines

in the nation, and provides important habitat for the endangered Yuma clapper rail.
94

Local communities also benefit substantially from the refuge’s existence and

wellbeing. A 1994 study conducted by economist Paul Kerlinger concluded that $3.1

million was spent by 54,000 bird watchers in local communities surrounding the

Salton Sea.

In spite of the area’s tremendous ecological value, massive die-offs of birds and

fish have occurred in recent years. In the past five years alone, more than 250,000

birds have died from outbreaks of botulism, Newcastle disease and other

undiagnosed causes. As we speak, an outbreak of fowl cholera is ten weeks running,

and has already killed an estimated 7,800-23,000 birds representing 54 species.

What is happening at Salton Sea is nothing short of an ecological disaster.

The importance of enacting legislation to address the problems of the Salton Sea

cannot be overstated. H.R. 3267 is a bold initiative that makes a good faith effort

to reach a solution to the crisis. We are concerned, however, that this legislation

seeks to accomplish a great deal without a full and accurate accounting of all expected outcomes. We have four main concerns with H.R. 3267:

•Timetable for identification and review of alternatives;

•The scope of options under consideration;

• Exemption of administrative and judicial review;

•Pumping water from the Sea without a full accounting of disposal impacts.

Timetable for Review

H.R. 3267 proposes a 12-month timeline to complete feasibility studies for a series

of complex options identified as ‘‘cost effective’’ by the Bureau of Reclamation. Even

under the most optimistic of circumstances, this timeline is unrealistic. Our major

concern is that in a rush to comply with this unrealistic timeline, costly mistakes

will be made or viable options ignored.

Solving the crisis at the Salton Sea will not be easy. In October of last year, Saving the Salton Sea, a research needs assessment, prepared by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service in cooperation with the State of California and other Federal agencies, concluded that at least three years and $30 million would be necessary to conduct studies alone. While we certainly agree that it’s possible to study an issue almost without conclusion, we have equal concerns about hastily adopting an alternative or series of alternatives without having a better sense of the likely outcomes.

Accordingly, the twelve-month timetable provided in H.R. 3267 seems a woefully

short time period in which to accumulate the necessary environmental and engineering data necessary to adopt a realistic alternative. In particular, it is mandatory

that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) follow the engineering/technical studies and the selection of a preferred alternative. To accommodate the sequential ordering of these

studies, Audubon believes that this legislation ought to be modified to allow at least

an Month timeline.

Scope of Options

We must all recognize that there is no ‘‘silver bullet’’ solution to the problems facing the Salton Sea. H.R. 3267, however, limits the feasibility study to just four options, excluding a variety of others. The options identified in this legislation: Pumping water from the Sea; building desalinization impoundments within the Sea; providing infusions of fresh water; and a combination of the three, were adopted from

the 1997 Bureau of Reclamation’s option assessment, which reviewed 54 alternatives. Rather than selecting alternatives with the best likelihood for success, the

BOR selected their alternatives based on fiscal criteria. For the purposes of their

selection, the BOR chose those options that would require $10 million or less in annual operating costs.

We don’t believe that any realistic option should be excluded because of a narrow

set of criteria. Therefore, we strongly encourage the Committee to expand the range

of alternatives for consideration to include those that may yield longer-term ecological benefits.

Exemption from Administrative and Judicial Review

National Audubon is strongly opposed to provisions in H.R. 3267 that seek to

limit environmental oversight and public participation. Specifically, Section

101(f)(3)(A) would exempt activities associated with implementation of a selected alternative from meeting the full requirements under NEPA. While we appreciate the

authors’ interest in expediting actions to rectify the crisis in the Salton Sea, we

firmly believe that full NEPA compliance should be applied to the selection and implementation of alternatives. Likewise, we object to Section 104(c) which exempts

river reclamation activities from having to meet Section 402 requirements under the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act. It seems contradictory to exempt inflows from
95

meeting pollution standards when our central objective is to clean up the Salton

Sea.

We also have concerns about Section 101(f)(3)(B) which limits judicial review of

the chosen alternative. Despite the urgency of implementing a remedy, we should

not sacrifice the legal rights of U.S. citizens to accomplish our goals.

Pumping Brine from the Salton Sea

Title II of H.R. 3267 requires that the Secretary of the Interior begin pumping

water from the Salton Sea prior to December 1, 1998 to accommodate water diversions from unidentified sources. We object to this provision for several reasons.

First, Title II appears to bypass necessary environmental oversight mandated under

NEPA. The ecological impacts of brine disposal, particularly on the scale addressed

by the bill, are expected to be enormous. A full review of the disposal plan, and an

opportunity for the public to comment will be critical. Second, it is unclear where

diversion water will be drawn from and what the expected ecological and economic

impacts on the source are likely to be. Again, we appreciate the need to expedite

remediation, but we strongly believe that any such efforts must comply with Federal

and state environmental regulations.

Conclusion

National Audubon Society appreciates the efforts of this Committee and the sponsors of H.R. 3267 to quickly address the crisis at the Salton Sea. Although there

are a number of provisions in the bill that we object to, we are supportive of the

overall intent to find and implement a solution in the least amount of time possible.

We look forward to working with the Committee as we move forward with this important legislation.
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169