U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

93–903 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–469

WESTERN WATER SUPPLY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING WATER SUPPLY ISSUES IN THE

ARID WEST

MARCH 9, 2004

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BOB GRAHAM, Florida 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SHELLY RANDEL, Counsel 

PATTY BENEKE, Democratic Senior Counsel 

MIKE CONNOR, Democratic Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

American Farm Bureau Federation ....................................................................... 63

Bell, Craig, Executive Director, Western States Water Council .......................... 45

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico .................................... 1

Gaibler, Floyd, Deputy Undersecretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 

Services, Department of Agriculture .................................................................. 32

Grisoli, Brigadier General William T., Commander, Northwestern Division, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................................ 18

Hall, Tex G., President, National Congress of American Indians, and Chairman, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation ...................................................... 50

Raley, Bennett, Assistant Secretary, Department of the Interior ....................... 5

Uccellini, Dr. Louis, Director, National Centers for Environmental Prediction, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .......................................... 26

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 67

(1)

WESTERN WATER SUPPLY 

TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:04 a.m., in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Pete V. Domenici, 

Chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will please come to order. 

We will have a Senator to take my place in a little while when 

I have to attend another hearing. 

First, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the witnesses to this hearing relating to water supply issues in the arid 

West. We will discuss many issues today and I hope my colleagues 

will use this time to outline the pressing water issues they feel we 

must meet in their individual States, as well as in our country. 

In my opinion, every State in the West, and for that matter, 

every State in the country faces the same problem. How do we supply adequate water, clean water, for our rural communities? How 

do we deal with the equally difficult problem of treating waste 

water, especially in rural small towns? 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency both work to address these issues, but the need is 

astronomical, pervasive, and persistent. We can no longer put off 

our Federal responsibility in my opinion. While I do not feel it is 

appropriate to constantly invent new Federal programs, I am convinced that all agencies with responsibility to manage water resources must be engaged. There are two key elements. 

First, we must make the technology and management methods 

work and be cost effective. We cannot expect to fix these problems 

solely based on today’s methods and technology. 

We must find a way to provide enough funding to bring clean, 

adequate water to these communities. One way would be to create 

a viable matching-funds program within the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that partners the Federal Government and the States to 

assist rural communities across America. 

Over the next few months, the Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee will address some of these Federal and State relationships. One of these partnerships that directly affects New Mexico 

is the Arizona water settlement, which includes the Gila River 

claims in New Mexico. We must move forward with these settleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Jun 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\93903.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
2

ments, but we must be prudent. I am particularly mindful that 

New Mexico receive its full allotment of water and receive the financial support it needs and deserves as we move this legislation 

forward. 

If you have followed the headlines in any number of Western 

States, you have probably seen some similar to these: ‘‘Forecast 

Dire for Drought Relief,’’ ‘‘Drought Not Letting Up on West’s Farmers,’’ ‘‘Western Power Plants Come Under Scrutiny as Demand and 

Drought Besiege Supplies,’’ ‘‘Growth Drying Up Water Sources.’’ 

I do not even know where to begin to describe the vast challenges 

facing States like mine and surrounding ones, but I would like to 

take just a minute to point out a few that I believe highlight the 

issues. 

We are entering the fifth consecutive year of a drought and forecasts call for less than average annual runoff in 2004. We anticipate the lack of runoff this year will exacerbate the already dire 

situation. One of the regions that will be hit the hardest in New 

Mexico is the Middle Rio Grande where for several years now we 

have been litigating over the allocation of already drought diminished supplies. This region has really struggled with the necessity 

of providing water to the largest city in the State, providing water 

for agricultural uses in the valley, providing water to six Indian 

pueblos, and finally providing an adequate supply for the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow. 

Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and California all face similar problems. 

Water continues to be the backbone of the economy, and we all 

seem to be waiting, kind of walking in place, as the problems seem 

to be all around us. We just wonder what in the world we can do. 

In addition to protecting existing supplies and creating some new 

water sources, this means that we need to invest today in research 

for the advancement of the state of the art in desalinization, 

demineralization, water reuse, and purification technologies. 

I have some additional comments. I am going to make them part 

of the record and proceed to ask the witnesses to address the committee and put their statements in and make them as brief as possible. 

Panel one, the Honorable Bennett Raley, Assistant Secretary for 

Water and Science, Department of the Interior, would you proceed 

first? Thank you very much for all the hard work you do, and it 

is my pleasure to have you here today. 

[The prepared statements of Senators Domenici, Allard, and Talent follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NEW MEXICO

I would like to take the opportunity to welcome all of the witnesses to this hearing related to water supply issues in the arid West. We will discuss many issues 

today and I hope my colleagues will use this time to outline the pressing water 

issues they feel we must be met in their individual states as well as nationally. 

It is my opinion that every state in the west, and for that matter, every state in 

this great nation faces the same desperate problems. How do we supply adequate 

clean water for our rural communities? And how do we deal with the equally difficult problem of treating waste water? 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency 

both work to address these issues, but the need is astronomical, pervasive, and persistent. We can no longer put off our federal responsibility. While, I don’t feel it is 

appropriate to constantly invent new federal programs, I am convinced that all 

3

agencies with responsibility to manage water resources must be engaged. There are 

two key elements in solving these problems. 

First, we must make the technology and management methods work and be cost 

effective. We cannot expect to fix these problems solely based on today’s methods 

and technology. 

Second, we must find a way to provide enough funding to bring clean adequate 

water to these communities. One way would be to create a viable matching funds 

program within the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, that partners the Federal government and states to assist rural communities across America. 

Over the next few months, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will address some of these Federal-State partnerships issues. One of these partnerships, 

that directly affects New Mexico, is the Arizona water settlement which includes 

Gila River claims in New Mexico. We must move forward with these settlements, 

but we must be prudent. I am particularly mindful that New Mexico receive its full 

allotment of water and receive the financial support it needs and deserves as we 

move that legislation forward. 

If you have followed the headlines in any number of western states, you have 

probably seen some similar to these: ‘‘Forecast Dire for Drought Relief’’, ‘‘Drought 

not letting up on West’s Farmers’’, ‘‘Western power plants come under scrutiny as 

demand and drought besiege supplies’’, ‘‘Growth drying up water sources.’’ These 

headlines highlight some of the areas continually plagued by drought in the West—

the farming sector, the power industry, and of course our cities and towns. 

I don’t even know where to begin to describe the vast challenges facing New Mexico, but I would like to take a minute to point out a few which I believe best highlight the issues: 

We are entering our fifth consecutive year of drought and forecasts call for less 

than average annual run off in 2004. We anticipate that the lack of runoff this year 

will exacerbate an already dire situation. One of the regions that will be hit the 

hardest in New Mexico is the Middle Rio Grande where for several years now we 

have been litigating over the allocation of already drought diminished supplies. This 

region has really struggled with the necessity of providing water to the largest city 

in the State, providing water for agricultural uses in the valley, providing water to 

6 Pueblos, and finally providing an adequate supply for the endangered Rio Grande 

silvery minnow. 

The pressure on the water supply in the Western United States has reached a 

critical point. Everyone is facing the prospect of declining water availability. For example, city planners in my home town of Albuquerque have speculated about the 

growth constraints facing the city due to limited groundwater resources. 

Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and California all face similar problems. The Western 

United States is the fastest growing region in the country. This population explosion 

will undoubtedly result in a scarcity of fresh water sooner than many realize. 

Water continues to be the backbone of our economy. Safe and adequate supplies 

of water are vital for agriculture, industry, recreation, and human consumption. In 

addition to protecting our existing water supply, we need to explore new ideas for 

expanding that supply and creating ‘‘new’’ sources of water. This means that we 

need to invest today in research for the advancement of state of the art in desalination, demineralization water reuse and other purification technologies. 

The lack of a water supply isn’t the real issue; it is the quality of the supplies 

surrounding us that is problematic. Brackish and sea water account for over 97% 

of the water on earth. There are brackish groundwater basins under many areas 

of the West, including New Mexico. Coastal states have the benefit of the Atlantic, 

Pacific and Gulf Coast on which to draw new supplies, but we need to take steps 

now and invest in the technology to utilize these supplies in a cost effective manner. 

Being able to cheaply covert this ‘‘new’’ supply into fresh water is vital to our future. 

Additionally, expanding our capabilities of reusing and conserving more water must 

also be thoroughly investigated. I know our committee is planning to explore many 

of these concepts later this month in our desalination hearing and I intend to do 

what I can to make significant advancements in these areas. 

On the water quality, the Environmental Protection Agency is steadfast in enforcing a new standard for arsenic levels in drinking water that will burden many communities even though it rests upon questionable scientific underpinnings. In 2006, 

new EPA federal drinking water regulations will take effect. Although arsenic is a 

naturally occurring substance found throughout New Mexico, many of the state’s 

small, rural communities, will be most affected by the new regulations and are the 

least able to pay for these new arsenic standards. 

This arsenic issue is only one of the major hurdles facing rural communities 

today. The lack of a comprehensive Federal program able to assist these communities in providing safe, affordable and adequate supplies is another. There are curVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Jun 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\93903.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
4

* The article has been retained in committee files. 

rently two bills pending before this committee, one that I authored and one that 

Senator Bingaman introduced. We note that the Administration has provided a 

third version which they have asked me to introduce on their behalf. These bills create this much needed program. I intend to work with Senator Bingaman and the 

Administration in hopes of creating such a program. I note that we will also be having a hearing on the need for a rural water program later this month as well. 

I have only touched on some of the issues affecting my state. As you all know access to fresh water is an increasingly critical national and international issue. As 

the world’s population grows and our stores of fresh water are depleted, finding additional sources of fresh water will be key to ensuring our future and security both 

domestically and internationally. 

I believe however, that we have a unique opportunity through new programs and 

new advances in technology to not only create new supplies, but also to provide the 

infrastructure to deliver these safe and affordable supplies to many in rural America and other parts of the country. I stand ready to assist in any way I can and 

I look forward to hearing what our witnesses have to say about these critical issues 

here today. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

MR. CHAIRMAN: As you know, the western United States continues to suffer 

through a sustained period of unprecedented drought. Large portions of my home 

state of Colorado are in the midst of a fourth year without adequate moisture. While 

state efforts to provide the appropriate relief continue, the federal government must 

act cooperatively with the states to bolster drought mitigation efforts where such 

federal involvement is appropriate. Appropriate action includes federal aid in dealing with invasive plant species—one of the largest culprits of water theft. 

The expansion of a variety of invasive plant species known as phreatophytes 

threatens more than the natural plant mix and wildlife forage. Phreatophytes, including the Salt Cedar (or Tamarisk) consume vast amounts of water and degrade 

the natural environment. For example, the Tamarisk is known to consume more 

than 200 gallons of water a day and may lead to high salinity levels in rivers and 

soil. They also alter the natural course of the river through a root system that grows 

some 250 feet down into the ground. I commend your efforts to introduce legislation 

that creates new partnerships and funding to eradicate these invasive plants. Senator Campbell also deserves praise for his efforts as well. I am a strong supporter 

of the legislation and look forward to providing you with any assistance you should 

require. By working together, we can develop a common sense approach to tackling 

the water theft by invasive plant species and ultimately restoring the health of our 

riparian systems. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. TALENT, U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I think there are few issues 

as conflict-ridden as water issues. In the West and Northwest, you have no shortage 

of water conflicts. In Missouri, we have our share too. 

For 14-years the Corps of Engineers has been working on the new Master Manual 

for the Missouri River. It was released earlier this month and we are now in the 

public comment period. I recognize the challenge that exists when trying to balance 

upstream and downstream interests but stakeholders in Missouri are very concerned with the recommendations in this plan. 

In 1980, nearly 3M commercial tons moved on the Missouri River, in 1866, the 

Corps started tinkering with the Master Manual and we lost that reliable channel 

on the Missouri River. In 1990, we were down to 1.3M tons. Today, I submit for 

the record an article that ran in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on January 14 of this 

year*—‘‘Two barge companies drop anchor.’’ I’ll read you the lead paragraph: ‘‘Uncertain about the depth of the Missouri River this summer, the two barge companies 

that move grain and fertilizer on the Big Muddy have shut down their operations.’’

I’ll also take a moment to point out, 1997, the Tennessee Valley Authority stated 

that the competition of water transportation kept rail rates down to competitive levels and saved shippers $203M annually. I’m sure that number is still true today. 

General Grisoli, can you tell me what your role was (personally) in the development of this plan? 

5

The MM states (page VII-I) that ‘‘Congress did not assign a priority to these purposes [the eight congressionally authorized purposes of the river—flood control, 

navigation, irrigation, etc.]... The Missouri River Master Water Control Manual 

Review and Update Study (Master Manual Study) was conducted without bias toward any project purpose.’’

In June, 2003, the 8th Circuit Court released a ruling affirming the priorities of 

the Flood Control Act of 1944. The court stated, ‘‘The dominant functions of the 

Flood Control Act were to avoid flooding and to maintain downstream navigation’’ 

and recognized that ‘‘recreation and other interests [are] secondary uses’’ on the 

river. 

How do you align the philosophy that Congress did not assign a priority with the 

8th Circuit ruling that stated that ‘‘flood control and navigation’’ are dominant functions of the Flood Control Act of 1944? 

The new Master Manual calls for a spring rise or ‘‘pulses’’ in the spring. While 

recently we’ve been in a drought situation, the floods of ’93 and ’95 were not that 

long ago. Those floods did major damage to farmland and urban areas of St. Louis 

and Kansas City. If we had additional, Corps imposed flooding, I can’t imagine the 

devastation and outrage in the countryside. 

Can you show me conclusive evidence that a spring rise called for in the Master 

Manual will actually improve the pallid sturgeon population? I can give you scientific data that implies that temperature, more than water depth is the spawning 

cue for the sturgeon. Additionally, the populations for the interior least tern and the 

piping plover have seen major improvements in recent years. So the only species you 

are working to improve here is the sturgeon. 

Another issue that Missouri stakeholders have raised is that it appears the river 

will be operated by the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) rather than according to a 

long-term Master Manual (MM) rule. With that being the case, how can stakeholders expect any reliability when river operations are potentially subject to vast 

change on an annual basis and where there opportunity for input in the AOP process is limited and usually doesn’t change the direction the Corps’ plan is heading 

for the coming year? 

Stakeholders were explicitly told by the Corps that ‘‘water banking’’ would not be 

a part of any new MM. A review of the MM indicates that the ‘‘water banking’’ 

scheme is indeed a part of the new manual. What is the reasoning for including a 

feature in the manual that was categorically guaranteed on numerous occasions 

would be eliminated after this year? FYI—‘‘water banking’’ is detrimental to navigation as water used downstream is balanced against upstream uses creating ‘‘debits’’ 

to navigation that result in reduced season length.

STATEMENT OF BENNETT RALEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 

WATER AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. RALEY. Senator, it is always a pleasure to be before this committee. 

Thank you for allowing my written statement to be added to the 

record. As is my custom, I will get right to the point. 

If we look at this year as a snapshot from the Department of the 

Interior standpoint, focusing on the West, the drought is easing 

slightly West-wide, and we have some areas that were suffering 

deeply in 2001 and 2002 that will not suffer as badly. However, we 

still believe that there is a serious potential for challenges in the 

Middle Rio Grande in your home State of New Mexico, as well as 

in the Klamath Basin. Those are the two areas that we are most 

worried about if we focus on the short term. 

As you mentioned, in the Colorado River basin, there like in the 

Middle Rio Grande we are in, depending on how you count it, the 

fifth year of a drought. The drought seems to be easing slightly, 

but we are still not up to normal runoff conditions. And as Commissioner Keyes testified some time ago, to understand the consequence of this deep and long drought, the best way to picture it 

is to understand that if we simply have nothing but normal conditions, it will take 15 to 20 years to refill the system. 

6

The Colorado is blessed in the mainstem with storage capacity 

that is unmatched in any of the other Western rivers. I think those 

who came before us of both parties that had the wisdom to build 

that storage because, without it, the Colorado River basin States 

would be in deep trouble today. 

With that, we have the flexibility to manage through more years 

of the drought, but as I come from a meeting of the seven States 

last Friday in Las Vegas, if the drought continues, there will be 

very serious issues on the mainstem, that will have to be faced by 

the Department and those States. 

But the point that you make, Senator, is one that Secretary Norton would agree with most strongly, in that the issue is broad and 

pervasive. It is our belief that unlike the last century when water 

supply conflicts were either limited to times of drought or focused 

on fights over control of the resource for 20 to 50 years in the future, and those fights, as much as we in the West enjoyed them 

and hated them and wrestled through them, at the time of the last 

century were largely of local and regional importance. 

The new paradigm for this century is that water supply issues 

are no longer going to be driven by droughts alone. We have a 

number of basins—and New Mexico is the classic example—where 

we have the potential for crisis in normal conditions. You know 

that well. Senator Bingaman knows that, and that is a challenge 

that will not go away with the next snowfall. That is the purpose 

of Water 2025, is to focus on the changing reality that it is no 

longer going to be a drought-driven debate. The water supply needs 

of the West, given the explosive population growth and the emergence of demands for endangered species and environmental restoration guarantee that, without action today, we will have crises 

in normal years. 

Senator Bingaman, I was just mentioning that, unfortunately, 

the Department believes that New Mexico continues to be one of 

the areas we are most concerned about from a water supply standpoint. While the drought is easing somewhat in some of the other 

basins, this summer is going to be a challenge for all of us to work 

together, and we look forward to working with both of the Senators 

from New Mexico. 

The second change in the paradigm from the last century, the 

first being that the conflicts were driven by drought and the impacts were limited to local and regional issues, is that we will first 

have normal year driven conflicts. The second is very clear, that 

water supply shortages in the next century will affect economies 

and resources of national and international importance. Water supply issues will no longer be an issue that is debated fiercely in the 

West. They have national importance. I need only point to the 

emergence of the dynamic of cities of Albuquerque, Phoenix, southern California, the rest of the West where there are nationally important economies to prove that water supply issues, if we fail to 

address them, will affect economies of national importance. California alone is the fifth largest economy in the world. 

I need also point only to the Endangered Species Act, which is 

a national priority. We all know, painfully so, that water supply 

shortages have serious implications for attaining goals of the Endangered Species Act. 

7

Simply put, the next century the water debate will change. We 

will have conflict, unless we do something now, in normal years, 

and that conflict will address and impact economies and resources 

of national importance. 

Water 2025 is Secretary Norton’s attempt to get to the reality 

that we do not have time for endless process. Process without 

progress is failure because it takes years to put in place the institutional and infrastructure answers to these supply issues, and we no 

longer have the luxury of debating it for decades to come. 

With that, I will conclude my oral remarks and hope to engage 

with both Senators in questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Raley follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BENNETT RALEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Bennett Raley, Assistant 

Secretary for Water and Science, Department of the Interior. I am pleased to be 

here today to testify on western water issues and the role the Department plays in 

managing and enhancing these important resources. 

OVERVIEW OF WATER IN THE WEST

As I begin my testimony, I believe it would be helpful to first step back and examine the broad scope of issues related to water in the West. As we work to resolve 

the many individual water problems from the Federal perspective, we must remember to do so within the context of this broader picture, continuing to rely upon important guiding principles in the process. This Administration is committed to working hard on these issues at the local level as well as with the Congress, and in particular, the Members of this Committee. We must find sensible, affordable, and balanced solutions to the West’s water problems in order to provide the certainty necessary for Western communities, industries, farms, and environment to all thrive. 

Almost all bureaus within Interior are involved with water issues, but my testimony 

today will center on the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey and 

their proud histories, recent accomplishments, and vision for the future. 

In 1888 USGS began the process of gaging the rivers of the West when it developed the methods for streamgaging at Embudo, New Mexico. In fact, the staff at 

USGS who began this quantification of the resource became the Irrigation Survey, 

and in 1902, became the Bureau of Reclamation. And the Bureau of Reclamation 

was there, beginning in 1902 to build water projects in support of this effort to ‘‘reclaim’’ the arid lands of the West. 

Reclamation began constructing projects that, at the time, were considered ‘‘impossible’’ to construct huge dams, hydroelectric generators, and vast networks of canals diverting water from rivers and streams to turn dry, nonproductive lands into 

the fertile and productive farms and ranches that continue to be the envy of the 

world. Reclamation dams created water supply reservoirs that allowed water to be 

managed. Floods were controlled and water was stored and released when needed, 

making electricity in the process. These facilities made irrigated agriculture possible 

in the West by creating a more stable supply of water that could be delivered during 

the prime growing season. They also provided a new source of water and power to 

cities and industries year round. 

As the demand for water increased in these early years, so did conflict over its 

use, resulting in a system of water rights developed by the Western states to deal 

with these escalating water problems. The federal government recognizes the primacy of each state to establish its own system of water rights and regulations. And 

while the primary purpose of this regulation is to insure certainty and predictability 

in water management, conflict continues. A common element of this conflict across 

the West is that available water supplies are often inadequate to meet the demand 

for water for farming, cities, tribes, and the environment. 

The good news is that we can look back over the years and see countless water 

conflicts, large and small, that have been resolved by people of good will. We know 

that conflict can be destructive to everyone’s best interest and we have, over time, 

found innovative solutions to these complex challenges. Quantification and understanding of the resource have been and continue to be crucial to sound management. 

The USGS is responsible for this scientific process through its streamgages, observaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Jun 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\93903.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
8

* All illustrations have been retained in committee files. 

tion wells, statistical analyses, and hydrologic models. They do this in cooperation 

with 607 State, local, and Tribal agencies in the Reclamation States. 

Reclamation projects continue to provide the important water supplies critical to 

the traditional water uses for which they were originally designed and built. However, the West has become the fastest growing area of the country. Environmental 

demands for water have also increased over the past several decades. Restoration 

of rivers and streams to support habitat for species of fish and wildlife listed as endangered or threatened by Federal laws have created even more pressure on the 

West’s already stretched water resources. Compounding the demand picture is the 

current protracted period of drought conditions across the inter-mountain west that 

we are currently in. 

CURRENT HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS

In comparing precipitation this year to the same time last year, we see substantial improvement in many areas of the West which bodes well for the upcoming 

water year. The dark red areas in the following Drought Monitor and USGS monthly average streamflow illustrations* represents the worst conditions where drought 

is predicted to be most severe. As you can see, they are more dispersed and localized 

this season than last year. We continue to see improvement in snowpack and rainfall, even in areas where we predict shortages. In much of the West, streamflows 

are currently averaging near normal. The exceptions are the Great Basin, Upper 

and Lower Colorado, and the Rio Grande regions, where the multiyear run of below 

normal flows persists. Over the past month, the lowest streamflows have been observed by the USGS in the Great Salt Lake, North Platte, Salt, Upper Canadian, 

and Upper Cimarron basins. Overall, although it is too early to accurately predict 

drought conditions, we are encouraged by recent precipitation and are monitoring 

all areas of the West for drought conditions on a regular basis. 

To further illustrate, the following are the relatively current conditions in the 

major basins of the Western United States: 

Mid-Pacific Region (Northern CA, Southern OR, Northern NV). Central Valley 

Project reservoir storage levels remain above the 15-year average. Accumulative 

inflows for the water year to date range from 112 percent in the Trinity Basin, 106 

percent in the Shasta Basin, to 66 percent in the American Basin, 70 percent in 

the Stanislaus Basin, and 76 percent in the Upper San Joaquin Basin. 

Great Plains Region (CO, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK & TX). Temperatures 

are slightly above normal for this time of the year with precipitation below normal. 

Reclamation reservoirs are at extremely low levels, and inflows have been at record 

low levels. Available storage in Reclamation facilities in NE and KS, as well as at 

several locations in MT and WY has reached minimum levels. 

Upper Colorado Region (NM, UT, Western CO, Southern WY). The Upper Colorado Region is heading into its fifth consecutive dry year. Following a promising 

start, snowpack levels are generally declining in UT and CO, and are improving 

from a very poor start in NM. Reservoir storage is low from four prior years of 

drought, and precipitation is generally below average for most areas so far this year. 

A series of heavy storms is needed to replenish the snowpacks before spring, when 

parched soils will likely absorb much of the runoff. 

Pacific Northwest Region (ID, OR, WA, Western WY & Western MT) February 

precipitation was near normal in most of Oregon and Idaho, but has lagged behind 

in the Yakima (WA), Flathead (MT), and Upper Snake (ID/WY) basins. As a whole, 

Oregon snowpacks are in the 125% of normal range, which promises relief for the 

Crooked, Malheur, Powder, and Owyhee basins where it is needed most. Despite 

this, new runoff forecasts should remain near to slightly below normal in most of 

the Region due to dry soil conditions. 

Lower Colorado Region (Southern NV, AZ, Southern CA). The Lower Colorado region has been experiencing significant precipitation in recent weeks. While that will 

do little to mitigate the Colorado River drought, the same storms are also providing 

precipitation in the southern portion of the Rocky Mountains which could increase 

runoff volumes. 

How much longer will this drought persist? How much worse might it get? Although these questions cannot be answered simply or with certainty, we know that 

multiyear droughts in the United States are frequently associated with long-term 

shifts in Pacific and Atlantic Ocean temperatures. Recent research by the USGS indicates that much of the long-term predictability of drought frequency may reside 

in the multidecadal behavior of the North Atlantic Ocean. Should the current warm 

conditions in the North Atlantic persist into the coming decade, it is possible that 

9

drought conditions resembling the continental-scale patterns of the 1930s and the 

1950s are possible. 

EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE YEARS OF DROUGHT

The western U.S. has seen several large swings in climate during the past century. These swings are defined by dry spells during 1898-1904, 1946-1972, and wet 

periods during 1905-1924 and 1976-1998. Since 1999, the southwestern U.S., the 

southern and central Rockies and the western Great Plains have been gripped by 

persistent drought, particularly in 2002. Water year 2002 (October 2001-October 

2002) was the driest of the last century in Arizona (45% of the normal from 1895-

2002) and second driest for the Southwest (AZ, NM, CO, UT). Still, the four-year 

average from 1999-2002 (77.8% of normal) was not as dry as 1953-1956 (76.6%) or 

1901-1904 (71.9%). Regardless of ranking, the ongoing drought has produced remarkable phenomena on the southwestern landscape, creating conditions that contributed to a half-a-million-acre fire on the Mogollon Rim to more than a million 

acres of pinyon and ponderosa tree dieoffs in Arizona and New Mexico. In the Colorado River Basin, the four years from 2000 to 2003 rival the years 1953 through 

1956, which were previously the driest four years in the Basin. If we have another 

similar dry year in 2004, we will surpass the driest five years in the 100-years of 

historic records have been kept in the Basin. While precipitation in the Basin so 

far this year is near normal, the dry soil conditions will reduce actual runoff to a 

current projection of 76% of average. In spite of the drought, the Colorado River reservoir system is still 53% full and will allow limited surplus water deliveries in the 

lower Basin this year. 

The Klamath Basin has been a central focus for water issues in the West during 

the past few years. In 2001 because of extremely dry conditions and the requirements of an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Biological Opinion and Tribal trust responsibilities, the Klamath farmers were unable to receive water for agriculture for 

the first time in 96 years. Later season releases of 75,000 acre-feet of water were 

insufficient to mitigate the impacts to many of the farms and the 5 Klamath wildlife 

refuges in the Basin. In short, the Klamath Basin suffers from too much demand 

for water. Drought conditions exacerbate the situation with the only remedy being 

to reduce that demand. 

The Middle Rio Grande has been under drought conditions since 1996, and the 

Rio Grande Compact storage restrictions, engaged in 2002, continue to greatly impact storage capability for farmers. Heron, El Vado, and Elephant Butte reservoirs 

averaged 83 percent capacity in 1999. Today, the three reservoirs average about 15 

percent capacity. The Six Middle Rio Grande Pueblos, Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, Elephant Butte Irrigation District, El Paso Water Improvement District #1, and Mexico all received full water supplies in 1999. Today, the Six Middle 

Rio Grande Pueblos are on a strict rotation schedule. The Middle Rio Grange Conservancy District is also on a strict rotation schedule and anticipates non-Indian 

farmers being able to irrigate through mid-July. The other water Districts are projected to receive a 59 percent supply. 

WATER 2025: PREVENTING CRISIS AND CONFLICT IN THE WEST

Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton has made Water 2025 a key focus for the 

Department of the Interior because water truly is the ‘‘lifeblood’’ of the American 

West. Water 2025 is based on the reality that the economic, social, and environmental health of the West is important to the people of this nation. Water 2025 is 

also based on the reality that the demands for water in many basins of the West 

exceed the available supply even in normal years. 

These realities, when combined with the fact that the West is home to some of 

the fastest growing communities in the nation, guarantee that water supply-related 

crises will become more frequent if we do not take action now. Unlike the past century, when water crises were intense, but typically occurred in drought years and 

only affected resources and economies of local and regional importance, water supply-related crises in this century will affect economies and resources of national and 

international importance unless we take action now. 

Water 2025 has been ‘‘road-tested’’ with 3000 people attending one of ten meetings throughout the West. The bottom line is that, while there was a significant debate over what should or should not be added to Water 2025, almost all participants 

endorsed Water 2025 as an approach that will unite, not divide, very divergent interests. 

Our ‘‘hot spots map’’ shows where we believe the next crises and conflict over 

water exist, and identifies the areas where we should concentrate our resources. 

10

The red areas are where conflict potential over water is highly likely; orange 

areas where conflict potential is substantial; and yellow areas where conflict potential is moderate. Reclamation will periodically update these designations and use it 

to help prioritize areas of the West where Water 2025 could be implemented to prevent conflict and crises. 

With the support of Congress in the FY 2004 Budget, Secretary Norton has moved 

forward with Water 2025 with the announcement of the Secretary’s Water 2025 

Challenge Grants. These grants will be made throughout the West in the summer 

of 2004 on a cost-share basis for projects that make real progress towards avoiding 

water crises in the West.

‘‘I have initiated what I call the Four C’s as the cornerstone of my tenure: 

Consultation, Communication, and Cooperation, all in the service of Conservation. At the heart of the Four C’s is the belief that for conservation 

to be successful, the government must involve the people who live and work 

on the land.’’—Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior. 

WATER 2025: PREVENTING CRISIS AND CONFLICT IN THE WEST

Water 2025 is based on realities that will shape, if not control, policy level water 

supply decisions over the next 25 years. 

WATER 2025 REALITIES

1. Explosive Population growth is occurring in some of the driest areas of the 

West. Likewise, there is a substantial demand for water to attain the goals of the 

Endangered Species Act or environmental restoration programs in some of these 

arid regions. 

2. Over the next 25 years, the demand for water for people, tribes, farms, and the 

environment will exceed the available supply in many basins in the West. 

3. If we are to meet the demand for additional water supplies in the future, existing water supply facilities must be maintained and modernized so they will continue 

to provide the water and power that is a part of the existing inventory. Otherwise, 

we will be moving backwards instead of forwards. 

4. Unlike the last century, water supply crises in the next 25 years in the West 

will not be drought-driven and limited to local and regional impacts. Unless we act 

now, water supply crises will occur in normal years and affect economies and resources of national and international significance. 

5. Most solutions to water supply crises, regardless of whether they are institutional in nature or include new or additional infrastructure, take years, if not decades to implement. Endless process, without actual progress towards implementing 

solutions that work, simply guarantees that there will be fewer options to deal with 

the inevitable crises. 

6. In some areas, the development of alternative water supplies such as brackish 

and seawater desalinization can reduce the pressure on surface water supplies. 

7. There is no broad support for extremist positions on water policy that would 

destroy irrigated agriculture, ignore tribal water needs, prevent economic growth 

and development, or fail to protect the environment. The question then becomes one 

of how to provide for the shift of water between competing uses. At a conceptual 

level the debate is between the use of governmental authority to redefine rights or 

reallocate the use of water, or the use of market-based mechanisms to meet unmet 

or emerging needs.

Water 2025 is based on principles that must be recognized if we are to minimize 

or avoid water supply related crises. 

WATER 2025 PRINCIPLES

1. Solutions must be based on and recognize interstate compacts and United 

States Supreme Court decrees that allocate water among states, water rights established under state and federal law, tribal water rights, and contracts for the use of 

water. 

2. The implementation of water monitoring, measuring, conservation and management technologies will provide some of the most cost-effective gains in our ability 

to meet the demand for water in the future. 

3. The attainment of economic, social, and environmental goals relating to water 

supply requires long-term stability that is more likely to be provided by collaborative solutions than by litigation. 

11

4. Market-based tools that rely on willing buyer willing seller transactions are far 

more likely to provide stability and avoid conflict than are regulatory or litigationbased alternatives for meeting unmet and emerging needs for water.

Water 2025 proposes not rhetoric, but pragmatic, reality-based tools that have 

been tested in the crucible of the real world. 

WATER 2025 TOOLS

1. Water conservation and efficiency. The increased use of simple tools like water 

measurement structures, automated control structures, and computer-based system 

monitoring can allow water users to either stretch their water supplies further or 

make part of their supplies available on a willing seller-willing buyer basis for otherwise unmet demands. 

2. Markets. Explosive population growth and the emergence of the demand for 

water for environmental restoration and attainment of the goals of the Endangered 

Species Act will typically define the extent and severity of water supply-related conflicts. The experience of the Klamath basin in 2001 provides an example of the consequences of an attempt to use regulatory mechanisms to reallocate water from existing uses to emerging needs. The value of market-based approaches as an alternative is proven by the success of CalFed, the new Klamath water bank, the operation of the Central Valley Project in California, the ag-to-urban transfers in Southern California, and the 50 year-old water market in Northern Colorado. 

3. Collaboration. When it comes to water, people, farms, and the environment all 

need certainty in order to plan for and meet long-term objectives. Endless litigation 

rarely, if ever, achieves this goal. In particular, long-term or multi-year Biological 

Opinions under the Endangered Species Act provide the predictability that is necessary in order to make the rational decisions and investments that are required 

to provide water for people, water for farms, and water for the environment. 

4. Technology. In some areas, demands on limited surface water supplies can be 

reduced through the development of alternative water supplies. A range of alternative water supply technologies exist, including desalinization, advanced water 

treatment and reuse, and water recycling. Interior will seek to facilitate the implementation of desalination and advanced water treatment through improved interagency coordination of research and focused investment to areas most needing planning support. 

5. System Optimization. While it is clear that in some regions it will be necessary 

to develop new surface water supplies and infrastructure, the fiscal, legal, and political hurdles to the development of significant new supplies make it imperative that 

existing water supply infrastructure be fully utilized within the framework of existing treaties, interstate compacts, water rights, and contracts.

FY 2004

As a first step in implementing Water 2025, Secretary Norton has announced the 

creation of a Challenge Grant Program. The request for proposals is now available 

on the Water 2025 website (www.doi.gov/water2025). We have identified for this 

program $4.0 million of the $8.4 million appropriated in Fiscal Year 2004 for the 

Western Water Initiative. The Western Water Initiative is the first step toward 

Water 2025. This program targets irrigation and water districts in the West who 

are willing to leverage their money and resources with the Federal government on 

projects that make more efficient and effective use of existing water supplies 

through water conservation, efficiency and water markets. 

Projects will be selected through a competitive process that focuses on achieving 

the outcomes identified in Water 2025, specifically conservation, efficiency, and 

water marketing.. We will accept proposals until April 8 of this year and award the 

grants by July, with implementation commencing around the first of August. 

A grant program on water treatment is also underway in FY 2004. Wastewater, 

salty and other impaired water can be purified to increase their utility. Water 

2025’s goal is to significantly aid technological advances and identify new supplies. 

Reclamation can facilitate research to reduce the high costs that slow adoption of 

new water treatment technologies, such as desalination technologies. Proposals that 

demonstrate ways to help avoid crises and conflict over water supplies in the West 

will be selected through the current competitive process in the Reclamation Science 

and Technology Program. 

The Bureau of Reclamation is also collaborating with the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District [$1.750 million] to identify water conservation efficiency improvements projects, such as flow measurement devices, data collection and water manVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Jun 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\93903.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
12

agement stations, diversion dam rehabilitation, and other tools identified in Water 

2025. 

Rounding out the FY 2004 Western Water Initiative funding provided by the Congress, the Bureau of Reclamation is working closely with Ohio View Consortium 

[$1.0 million] and Desert Research Institute [$1.0 million] to match their capabilities with the need for new technology to address future water supply problems in 

the West. 

FY 2005

In keeping with the spirit of Secretary Norton’s 4C’s—Cooperation, Communication and Consultation in the service of Conservation, Interior agencies, in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, plan to closely monitor the western basins 

experiencing drought conditions. We will also continue to coordinate existing programs with other federal agencies, such as the Corps of Engineers and Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Other activities highlighted in the FY 2005 budget request that are designed to 

address the water problems in the West are as follows: 

Klamath Project in Oregon and California ($25.0 million). This funding would provide for on-the-ground initiatives to improve water supplies to meet agricultural, 

tribal, wildlife refuge, and environmental needs in the Klamath Basin and to improve fish passage and habitat. This is part of a $67.2 million Department of the 

Interior request spread across several bureaus, focused on making immediate onthe-ground impacts. The Department, in consultation with the Klamath River Basin 

Federal Working Group, is developing a long-term resolution to conflict in the Basin 

that will provide water to farmers and tribes while protecting and enhancing the 

health of fish populations, and meeting other water needs, such as those of the adjacent National Wildlife Refuge. 

Middle Rio Grande ($18.0 million). This request continues funding in support of 

the Endangered Species Collaborative Program. In addition, the request continues 

funding for acquiring supplemental water, channel maintenance, and pursuing government-to-government consultations with Pueblos and Tribes. Finally, the funding 

would continue efforts that support the protection and contribute to the recovery of 

the Rio Grande silvery minnow and southwestern willow flycatcher. 

Animas-La Plata in Colorado and New Mexico ($52.0 million). This request includes $52.0 million for the continued construction of Ridges Basin Dam and Durango Pumping Plant and pre-construction activities for Navajo Nation Municipal 

Pipeline, Ridges Basin Inlet Conduit, utility relocations, and project support activities. 

Columbia-Snake River Salmon Recovery in Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Washington ($17.5 million) addresses the implementation of Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) included in two Biological Opinions issued in December 2000. The 

FY 2005 funding would address significantly increased regional coordination, off-site 

mitigation activities in selected sub-basins to offset hydrosystem impacts, and continue research, monitoring and evaluation efforts. 

Rural Water ($67.5 million). The funding request for rural water projects emphasizes a commitment to completing ongoing municipal, rural, and industrial systems. 

Funding is included for Mni Wiconi, Mid-Dakota, Garrison, Lewis and Clark and 

Perkins County projects. Funding required for Mid-Dakota is sufficient to complete 

the project. I am pleased to announce that the Department’s Rural Water supply 

program legislative proposal was sent to Congress on March 3. The program established under this proposed legislation will allow Reclamation, the Department, and 

the Administration to provide a much needed and demanded service to the American people in the Reclamation States, while exercising the type of project oversight 

and development that has been lacking in some of the individually authorized 

projects we have seen in the past. 

Hydropower Direct Financing ($30.0 million). The FY 2005 budget proposes to finance the costs of operation and maintenance of certain Reclamation hydropower facilities directly from receipts collected by the Western Area Power Administration 

from the sale of electricity. 

Safety of Dams ($64.0 million). The safety and reliability of Reclamation dams is 

one of Reclamation’s highest priorities. Approximately 50 percent of Reclamation’s 

dams were built between 1900 and 1950, and 90 percent of those dams were built 

before the advent of current state-of-the-art foundation treatment, and before filter 

techniques were incorporated in embankment dams to control seepage. 

Central Valley Project Restoration Fund ($54.7 million) this request includes 

funds for the CVP Restoration Fund and is expected to be offset by discretionary 

receipts totaling $46.4 million collected from project beneficiaries under provisions 

13

of Section 3407(d) of the Act. These funds will be used for habitat restoration, improvement and acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the 

Central Valley Project area of California. The requested level and the amount of offsets are determined by formulas contained in the 1992 authorizing legislation. California Bay-Delta Restoration. ($15.0 million) The funds would be used consistent with a commitment to find long-term solutions in improving water quality; 

habitat and ecological functions; and water supply reliability; while reducing the 

risk of catastrophic breaching of Delta levees. 

In addition to these activities in Reclamation’s FY 2005 budget, the USGS is pro- posing two new budget initiatives related to Water 2025. The first is a $1 million 

water availability and use initiative focusing on water data and information needed 

to help communities address critical and increasingly complex water-availability 

issues. This initiative proposes work over a 5 year period, based on the USGS Future Science Directions and the USGS Report to Congress, Concepts for National 

Assessment of Water Availability and Use. The second is a $2.8 million initiative 

focused on improving the understanding of two endangered sucker species in Upper 

Klamath Lake and how their survival is affected by changes in water quality, natural climatic cycles, lake-level management, and habitat for spawning and rearing. The FY 2005 budget for the USGS Water Program proposes $202.7 million to con- tinue water resources work. This includes an increase of $1.4 million for research 

into the water quality in the Klamath Basin. In addition, $1 million is proposed for 

implementation of a new five-year initiative concerned with water availability and 

use as part of Water 2025. 

In FY 2005, the USGS will focus research on the Klamath River basin in southern 

Oregon and northern California, where water supply is currently inadequate to 

meet demands for irrigating 250,000 acres of farmland, sustaining habitat in several 

critical wildlife refuges, and maintaining in-stream flows and lake levels in order 

to protect three threatened and endangered fish species. In the Klamath Basin, 

where water is in extremely short supply, it is particularly important that seasonal 

runoff forecasts are very accurate. In this regard, USGS is working closely with the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Bureau of Reclamation, to improve 

seasonal flow forecasts by incorporating ground-water conditions into the forecast 

model. The FY 2005 budget requests $1.4 million dedicated to improving the quality 

and quantity of water entering Agency and Upper Klamath Lakes, to model 

hydrodynamics and heat transport in the Lakes, and to monitor nutrient loadings 

and algal ecology. An additional $1.4 million is requested for biological studies to 

focus on the ecology of two endangered sucker species in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. This information will improve the forecasts of resource-management decisions 

being made by Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Klamath Tribes. The total USGS FY 2005 request for Klamath 

studies is $3.7 million, a $2.8 million increase over 2004. 

The total Administration request for Klamath is $105 million, including $67.2 million contributed by Interior Bureaus. 

In related studies with California’s North Coast Regional Water Quality Control 

Board, the USGS has documented the data needs for water-quality models of the 

Klamath River between Upper Klamath Lake and the Pacific Ocean. The models 

would be used to develop the total maximum daily load (TMDLs) for temperature, 

nutrients, and dissolved oxygen, the role of natural and anthropogenic source loadings for temperature, dissolved oxygen, and nutrients. A key consideration is protection of fall-run salmon, including the endangered Coho, in the Lower Klamath 

River. 

There is a heightened need for using science and technology to understand and 

manage our Nation’s water resources. The USGS and Reclamation will build upon 

their partnership on the Watershed and River System Management Program. This 

program has already resulted in models that improve the efficiency of water system 

operations. The USGS provides the science related to atmospheric and watershed 

processes, while the Reclamation provides the engineering expertise related to river, 

reservoir and irrigation management. This partnership has resulted in a coupling 

of USGS watershed models with Reclamation operations models. 

The FY 2005 budget requests I just highlighted demonstrate the Department’s 

commitment in meeting the water and power needs of the West in a fiscally responsible manner. 

Finally, I would like to end my testimony by sharing with the Committee some 

of our accomplishments in addressing the water supply problems in the West. 

On October 16th, 2003, Secretary Norton celebrated the signing of the historic 

Colorado River Water Delivery Agreement with representatives of all of the Colorado River basin states, the San Diego County Water Authority, Imperial Irrigation 

District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Coachella 

14

Valley Water District. This Agreement marked the resolution of a 75 year old dispute over the allocation of California’s share of the Colorado River. California has 

agreed to take specific, incremental steps that will reduce its over-reliance on the 

Colorado River water in the next 14 years, allowing the state to live within its authorized annual share of 4.4 million acre-feet. The agreement allows the six other 

Colorado River Basin States to protect their ability to use their Colorado River allocations to meet future needs. 

In the lower Colorado River Basin, despite the fourth consecutive year of substantial drought on the Colorado River in 2003, Reclamation delivered Arizona, California and Nevada their full basic annual apportionment of river water. The United 

States’ obligation to deliver 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water to Mexico 

was also met. Since the completion of Hoover Dam in 1935, Reclamation has delivered to each of these states and to Mexico, at a minimum, their basic annual apportionment of Colorado River water, despite several periodic and severe droughts. 

Many projects, such as the Central Valley Project (CVP) in California, are operated to address different demands simultaneously. For example, in 2003, the CVP 

made available about 7,200,000 acre-feet of water for agriculture, 540,000 acre-feet 

for municipal and industrial water users, 400,000 acre-feet for wildlife refuges, and 

800,000 acre-feet to protect and restore the San Francisco Bay-Delta fishery, as required by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. 

The Department negotiated two agreements (Conservation Water Agreement and 

the Emergency Drought Water Agreement) with the State of New Mexico and other 

entities, and acquired about 90,000 acre feet of water from willing contractors to 

provide supplemental water flows for the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow. 

Interior agencies work with other Federal agencies, and State, and local governments, partners, and stakeholders, to determine innovative ways to address unmet 

demands.

• In 2003, Reclamation rented storage water and natural flows from willing irrigation districts and individuals in the Snake, Boise, Payette, Lemhi and John 

Day Basins of Idaho and Oregon. This resulted in a win-win situation irrigators 

received economic support in return for the water they provided to enhance 

river flows for endangered salmon. • Reclamation developed streamflow simulation models and water quality simulation models for the Weber River System in the Ogden, Utah area, and the Ashley and Brush Creeks which are tributary to the Green and Colorado Rivers. 

These models work together to enable water managers to simulate and analyze 

proposed water management scenarios to better meet existing water demands 

and meet future increased demands.

Reclamation is also exploring ways to enhance the current water supply.

• With cost-sharing from the Colorado River Basin States, Reclamation has expended $45 million on salinity control projects during 2001-2003. The cost effectiveness of these projects has improved dramatically to about $30/year/ton of 

salt controlled. This is nearly a three-fold reduction in cost per ton of salt removed compared to earlier projects at $80 per ton. It is estimated that these 

projects will control nearly 500,000 tons/year of salt from reaching the Colorado 

River. • Working with the State of Utah, local governments, and water districts, Reclamation has reduced the total phosphorus loading into Deer Creek Reservoir 

by more than 50 percent. The largest source of drinking water to the Wasatch 

Front from the Provo River was very contaminated and Deer Creek Reservoir 

was dominated by toxin, taste, and odor producing blue green algae. The 1994 

completion of Jordanelle Dam provided an opportunity to clean up some of the 

problems. For the past 2 years, even with major drought and water shortages, 

Deer Creek Reservoir has provided the cleanest water to the Wasatch Front 

since it was constructed. 

• Throughout 2003, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the direction of the Department of the 

Interior, helped balance the needs of water users and endangered species that 

depend on the Rio Grande for their survival. The two endangered species are 

the Rio Grande silvery minnow and the Southwestern willow flycatcher. Efforts 

to preserve and protect the species occurred in the following areas: water acquisition and management, habitat restoration, listed species population management, fish passage, and water quality improvement. 

• In 2003, Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Indian 

Affairs continued participation in the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species 

Act Collaborative Program, and cooperation on ESA, National Environmental 

Policy Act and other environmental compliance requirements. These agencies 

15

continued government-to-government consultations with the pueblos and tribes 

living in the Rio Grande Basin. • Reclamation and Collaborative Program participants are restoring the Rio 

Grande to a wider, shallower channel with a sandy bottom, and removing 

invasive plant species from the bosque and replacing them with cottonwoods 

and willows to benefit the endangered species. Seven projects covering 415 acres 

have been completed, and an additional seven projects covering 413 acres will 

soon be under way. Four pueblos are participating in these restoration efforts. • Reclamation has supported activities aimed at increasing the population of the 

silvery minnow including: developing a master plan for management, increasing 

the numbers of silvery minnow through captive breeding and rearing (propagation) and re-introducing (augmentation) silvery minnows into the Rio Grande, 

monitoring silvery minnow populations in the wild, and rescuing fish from dry 

river reaches and moving them to other parts of the river when appropriate. • Reclamation, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Bonneville Power Administration submitted their first ‘‘check-in’’ report to NOAA Fisheries on October 1, 

2003, as required by the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion of 2000. The three agencies stated that the overall implementation of the 

Biological Opinion (BO) is on track and that the status of the Columbia River 

basin salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act is improved over the conditions prior to the BO three years ago. The 2003 CheckIn Report acknowledges that good ocean conditions are a major contributor to 

the good returns, but improved fish passage at Columbia and Snake River dams 

and better habitat, hatchery and harvest practices are also contributing. Reclamation’s primary contribution to this success has been working with private 

landowners to remove or modify in-stream barriers to migrating fish, such as 

temporary gravel diversion dams. • Reclamation completed the A Canal fish screen on the Klamath Project in 

southern Oregon. The fish screen facility is a key requirement of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion to recover endangered Shortnose and 

Lost River Suckers in Upper Klamath Lake. During a typical irrigation season, 

the A Canal transports nearly 250,000 acre-feet of irrigation water used on 

Klamath Project farms. Without these fish screens, water deliveries could have 

been susceptible to cutbacks to prevent fish losses. • A reserve of water was made available for release down the Trinity River during the summer of 2003 in case it was needed to prevent a reoccurrence of conditions that led to fish mortalities in the Klamath River the previous year. • The Department, the States of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado, along with 

Nebraska water users, continue to work on a Cooperative Recovery Program for 

Platte River endangered species. The Department funded a review by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of the science and conclusions which underpin 

the need for a recovery program for the four threatened and endangered species 

that use the Platte River. An expedited schedule of review by NAS was negotiated so it will not delay a Record of Decision on the Platte EIS by the end 

of calendar year 2004. 

• On May 19, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the Kansas v. Nebraska 

settlement which was filed with the Special Master December 16, 2002. While 

Reclamation was not a party to the suit, it was assigned by the court as amicus 

curiae (friend of the court) and was a full partner in helping successfully negotiate the settlement. 

• Reclamation signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the San Diego River 

Park Foundation and the City of San Diego for Phase I of the San Diego River 

Restoration Project. This project, to which Reclamation is contributing $500,000, 

will upgrade natural riparian habitat, improve water quality and enhance recreational opportunities along the river. It also may enhance groundwater quality and improve water quality for downstream recreational users and others. 

• Reclamation began the Los Angeles Basin County Watershed Study, which will 

help determine the practicability of recharging urban stormwater runoff; develop a stakeholder-supported strategy to identify locations for projects to recharge water throughout the basin; develop tools that will help decision-makers 

determine where, when and how to recharge urban runoff; and develop costsharing agreements among agencies benefiting from the project. 

• Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife Service formulated a plan for river management on the Pecos, resulting in a non-jeopardy opinion for the threatened Pecos 

bluntnose shiner. 

• A fish passage was constructed in the Public Service Company of New Mexico 

diversion dam on the San Juan River. The passage re-linked critical habitat in 

the upper San Juan River basin. The passage was an immediate success: endanVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Jun 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\93903.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
16

gered fish and other native fish species began using the facility within the first 

month of operation. This effort was made possible through the cooperation of 

the Navajo Nation, Public Service Company of New Mexico, and the San Juan 

River Recovery Implementation Program.

Reclamation continues to work with partners through habitat joint ventures conducted under programs such as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

including:

• Working with the Yakama Nation to restore wetlands on the Yakama Reservation; 

• Partnering with Ducks Unlimited, the Washington State Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, and the Intermountain West Joint Venture to create and enhance 

wetlands along the Winchester Wasteway in the Columbia Basin; 

• and Participating in a joint venture with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

Ducks Unlimited to create a brood marsh at the Hansen Waterfowl Management Area as part of the Prairie Potholes Joint Venture in North Dakota.

Aquatic invasive species clog canals and waterways, causing widespread water delivery problems. Salt Cedar (Tamarisk) is a particularly harmful invasive plant. In 

2003, Reclamation started an aggressive salt cedar control program, the largest and 

most successful eradication program in New Mexico, along the Pecos River. The Department is also co-sponsoring a Tamarisk Workshop in Albuquerque, NM later this 

month. Senator Domenici, Senator Campbell, Senator Bingaman and other members 

of the Senate are to be commended for their legislative efforts to address this problem. 

Reclamation continues to work under the Reclamation States Drought Relief Act 

of 1991 to respond to drought conditions in Western States. During FY 2003, Reclamation:

• Allowed storage of non-project water in Reclamation facilities. 

• Provided emergency assistance for Indian and non-Indian domestic water supplies in Montana, New Mexico and Arizona. 

• Purchased water for endangered species requirements under the Endangered 

Species Act, thus allowing deliveries to continue to contractors.

Reclamation operates and maintains 58 hydroelectric powerplants that provide 

about 10 percent of the electric power in the Western United States. Reclamation 

plants generate nearly $1 billion in power revenues annually and lead the hydropower industry with low costs and high reliability. 

Many of Reclamation’s projects are home to recreation opportunities. Visitors to 

Reclamation lakes and facilities contribute about $6 billion a year to local and regional economies and provide some 27,000 non-Federal jobs. Reclamation continues 

to work with other Federal land management agencies, state, county, and local partners to develop, manage and cost-share recreation projects. 

The Department also contributes to resolution of drought and water supply issues 

in the west through the scientific work of the USGS. Examples of this include the 

recently completed Middle Rio Grande ground water study, the southwest ground 

water initiative (which has significantly advanced capabilities to estimate ground 

water recharge), improved real-time coverage of surface-water and ground-water 

conditions (through Waterwatch and Groundwater Watch), the recently completed 

study of the impact of irrigation in the Methow Valley of Washington, new hydrologic and river systems models of the Yakima basin in conjunction with the Bureau 

of Reclamation, and scientific leadership of the upper San Pedro River partnership 

in southern Arizona. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee today. I will be happy 

to answer any questions that you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Bingaman, did you want to comment? 

Senator BINGAMAN. Mr. Chairman, since I am late, let me just 

put my opening statement in the record, and we will go ahead and 

I will just ask questions when the opportunity arises. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bingaman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

Good morning. I want to Join in welcoming the witnesses to today’s hearing on 

the important topic of water supply in the arid West. We all know that the West 

has been faced with a severe, multi-year drought. I understand that the focus of this 

17

hearing is status and trends in water use and needs in the West. It is crucial that 

we ensure that there will be water supplies available in the future for our communities, for our ranches and farms, and for the environment. 

I would like to register a note of concern this morning. The Administration is 

widely touting its ‘‘Water 2025’’ initiative—and it’s my view that the initiative, at 

least in concept, is worthy of support. The Secretary has conducted a series of wellpublicized meetings throughout the West, seeking input of stakeholders on future 

needs in an effort to avoid future crises. I certainly endorse these collaborative efforts. 

Unfortunately, while the Administration proposes an $11.6 million increase in Water 2025 for the Bureau of Reclamation, it is also proposing over $25 million in 

cuts from other Reclamation programsthat support conservation, efficiency, collaboration, and technology initiatives. On top of that, the budget proposes a 64 percent 

cut for Title16 water reclamation and reuse projects, despite the endorsement of 

water reuse in Water 2025. These cuts represent a lack of meaningful commitment 

to address the West’s water issues, and in my view render Water 2025 an exercise 

in form over substance. 

Moreover, cuts in Reclamation’s budget could have serious repercussions in New 

Mexico. Drought and competing demands for water, including endangered species 

needs, have resulted in water use in the Middle Rio Grande basin degenerating into 

an annual rite of crisis management. Addressing this situation requires compliance 

with a Fish & Wildlife Service 10-year biological opinion that Interior estimates will 

cost $230 million. Yet Reclamation’s 2005 budget reduces funding for ESA compliance activities by $9.5 million from FY 2004 levels. At the requested FY2005 level 

of $5.9 million, we can expect to satisfy the biological opinion in no less than 30 

years. The Secretary recently issued a press release stating that ‘‘[t]he issues in the 

Middle Rio Grande Basin have been a priority since the beginning of my tenure as 

Secretary. . . .’’ My only response is that actions speak louder than words. 

I would also like to focus on the issue of groundwater depletion in the West—and 

in particular, the depletion of the groundwater resources of the High Plains Aquifer 

which underlies eight states, including a portion of eastern New Mexico. This aquifer provides water for irrigation and also for drinking water supplies for several 

communities in my State. It is being depleted at an alarming rate. For example, 

areas of the aquifer in New Mexico and Texas had from 50 to 175 feet of waterlevel decline from 1950 to 1980, and more than 60 feet of water-level decline from 

1980 to 1999. 

Last Congress, I was pleased that the Farm Bill included an initiative to provide 

funding for an incentive program to encourage the use of more efficient irrigation 

equipment and less water-intensive cropping patterns. This year, the Senate has 

passed legislation introduced by Senators Brownback, Domenici and myself, to provide enhanced mapping, characterization and modeling with respect to the groundwater resources of the High Plains Aquifer. I hope that we will see this legislation 

enacted into public law. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for conducting this hearing. I also want to state my appreciation for your willingness to include a representative of the Western States and 

the Tribes at today’s hearing. I look forward to the witnesses’ testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bingaman, one of the thoughts that I expressed prior to your arrival was that if you look out in our State 

and some of the adjoining States that we get to see, one of the biggest shortages is the lack of any basic resource for small, rural 

towns and their water needs and sewage needs. Things are just literally falling apart. These towns have to grow. They are growing. 

They do not have any money. There are no revolving funds, and I 

just wonder when we are finally going to come around to doing 

that. 

I myself keep reading that the Government wants to, but everything I see is too minuscule for the size of the problem. I might solicit your help in putting together a major effort and just see what 

happens to it, where we ask the Federal Government to put more 

than a few billion dollars in a revolving fund so that the States and 

localities can draw on it. You and I could spend 15 minutes and 

tick off 25 little communities in our State that there is no way they 

are going to get anywhere because they do not have any money and 

18

nobody has any money to give them and we have no program. And 

without water, they are in pretty bad shape. 

Mr. Secretary, thanks for your comments. Now, let us just move 

back this way and we will talk to Brigadier General Grisoli, Commander of the Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. General. 

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM. T. GRISOLI, 

COMMANDER, NORTHWESTERN DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS 

OF ENGINEERS 

General GRISOLI. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 

Senator Bingaman. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Good morning. 

General GRISOLI. It is an honor for me today to testify before you 

on behalf of the Corps of Engineers on the matter of water supply 

in the Western States. 

The committee has asked the Corps to address four issues regarding drought in the Western States: first, the drought conditions in the Western States over the last 4 or 5 years and projections used by the Corps to prepare for future operations; second, 

how the data may change predictions for the potential of floods and 

water flows; third, the drought’s impact on navigation and flood 

control and other reservoir water management responsibilities in 

the Western States; and finally, activities to alleviate drought impacts on water supply and other Corps responsibilities. 

The Western States have been in drought since 2000, and the 

Southwestern part of the Nation has been in continual drought for 

the past few decades. 

Although the Corps’ primary mission at reservoir projects is flood 

control, the Corps, to the extent permissible under our project authorities, attempts to manage the projects in a manner which protects water supplies and the environment. 

The continuing drought has caused reservoir levels throughout 

the region to be severely depleted. This has negatively impacted all 

project purposes except for flood control, which is positively impacted because of the increased capability to store flood waters. 

The management of the water stored in all Corps reservoir 

projects is guided by the congressionally authorized purposes set 

out for each project and the requirements of other legislation such 

as the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies ensure that their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of their critical habitat. 

While the Corps does not attempt to make long-term drought 

forecasts, we develop annual reservoir control plans based on models that predict stream flow and reservoir levels and work with 

other State and Federal agencies to evaluate conditions. The Corps 

collaborates with meteorological experts at the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration to make use of the most updated 

research and use that information to help operate our reservoir 

projects. 

To help make decisions about reservoir storage and releases for 

multi-purpose projects and environmental needs in the Columbia 

19

Basin, the Corps relies on the Northwest River Forecast Center to 

prepare water supply and streamflow forecasts. The Northwest 

River Forecast Center is part of the National Weather Service. 

The Corps also relies upon the Rocky Mountain North snowpack 

data collected by the Natural Resource Conservation Service to facilitate runoff forecasts in the Missouri River basin. 

In the Colorado River basin, the Corps is a part of a multi-agency team called the Colorado River Forecast Service Technical Committee. This committee of technical experts shares technological advances and expertise to track and evaluate conditions on the Colorado River. 

On the Rio Grande, a joint agency water operations model has 

been developed and implemented to manage water supply, flood 

control, and environmental purposes. The Corps is working very 

closely with the Bureau of Reclamation to use this model to develop 

annual operating plans that reflect forecasts for reservoirs and 

river operations. 

Many of the reservoirs in the California Central Valley are 

multi-purpose with the varied owners and operators. During flood 

operations the Corps has the responsibility for managing the water 

stored in a designated flood control space. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and private owners, on the other hand, are responsible for 

allocating the water reserved for municipal and irrigation purposes 

and stored below the flood control pool. The Corps, with cooperation from our partners, uses our latest hydrologic and reservoir 

simulation computer modeling to evaluate water management decisions pertaining to flood control and environmental issues. 

Lastly in southern California, in addition to managing for our 

multi-purpose needs, daily reservoir operations are designated to 

also provide for groundwater recharge. 

Now, as you have heard today, drought throughout the Western 

States place extreme challenges on the Corps’ ability to meet all 

the congressionally authorized purposes and comply with the Endangered Species Act. To address drought conditions, the Corps includes contingencies for drought in our water management plans 

that seek to balance these competing requirements. 

In addition, the Corps, in collaboration with our partners, monitors and alleviates other impacts of drought to the community 

within our existing authority. Throughout the western region, we 

partner with Federal, State, and local agencies and stakeholders to 

maximize project operation for water supply and other purposes. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing me the opportunity to 

provide you this initial statement. I am prepared to now answer 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Grisoli follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BG WILLIAM T. GRISOLI, COMMANDER, NORTHWESTERN

DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, subcommittee members, and distinguished guests, I am Brigadier 

General William T. Grisoli, the Commander of the Northwestern Division of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). I am honored to be here today to testify on 

the matter of Water Supply in the Western United States. 

You asked that we address four issues regarding drought in the Western United 

States: first, the drought conditions in the Western United States over the last 4-

20

5 years and projections used by the Corps to prepare for future operations; second, 

how these data may change predictions or the potential of floods and water flows; 

third, the impact on navigation and flood control and other responsibilities (reservoir water management) of the drought and related issues in the Western United 

States; and, finally, activities to alleviate drought impacts on water supply and 

other Corps responsibilities. The following provides more specific information related to these four issues for each of the following river basins in the Western 

United States: the Colorado, Rio Grande, Sacramento, and San Joaquin River basins, and the watersheds associated with the Colorado Aqueduct of the Metropolitan 

Water District of Southern California and the Los Angeles Aqueducts of the City 

of LA Department of Water and Power, in the South Pacific Division of the Corps 

and the Columbia and Missouri River basins in the Northwestern Division of the 

Corps. 

The management of the water stored in all Corps reservoir projects is guided by 

the Congressionally authorized purposes set out for each project and the requirements of other legislation such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA requires that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any Federally listed threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. 

SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION BASINS

The arid west is the fastest growing region in the United States. The coastal rivers are home to threatened and/or endangered fisheries that require a certain level 

of flow to sustain them. This coupled with the demands for water by the agricultural 

industry that presents us all with a great challenge. The southwestern part of the 

nation has experienced drought for much of the past few decades. 

Although the Corps primary mission at our reservoir projects is flood control, the 

Corps, to the extent permissible under our project authorities, attempts to manage 

these projects in a manner that protects water supplies. We sometimes perform this 

balancing act in a non-traditional way by holding back water after rainstorms or 

snowmelts, and releasing it at a slow enough rate such that it seeps it into the 

ground for use later in the year when it may be more valuable. 

Colorado River Basin 

In the Colorado River basin the Corps is involved in partnerships with other Federal water resource agencies. For example, the Corps is part of a multi-agency team 

called the Colorado River Forecast Service Technical Committee. Other Federal 

agencies on that committee include the Natural Resource Conservation Service 

(NRCS), the United State Geological Survey (USGS), the National Weather Service 

(NWS), the Western Area Power Administration of the Department of Energy 

(WAPA), and the upper and lower Colorado basins regions of the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). This committee of technical experts shares technological advances and expertise to track and evaluate conditions on the Colorado 

River to balance the national interests of water supply, energy needs, environmental 

interests, and flood control. 

The Corps is also teaming with meteorological experts at the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to make use of the most updated research, 

to relate to them our technical needs, and to use that information to help our sponsors study new ways to operate our reservoir projects that can help reduce the impacts of water shortage. 

Rio Grande River Basin 

The Rio Grande basin in Colorado and New Mexico is generally considered to be 

in the midst of a long-term drought. This region experienced extreme drought conditions during 2002 and 2003 causing reservoir storage levels to be severely depleted. 

The snowmelt runoff forecasts for 2004 are much brighter with runoff forecasts in 

the range of 70 to 100 percent of average. This runoff combined with water stored 

under the Emergency Drought Water Agreement will assure sufficient water to 

meet the 2003 Biological Opinion flow requirements to sustain the endangered Rio 

Grande silvery minnow. The multi-agency agreement is part of a 3-year deviation 

agreed upon to provide water for the endangered minnow. 

The Corps is actively involved in the comprehensive water management and related planning activities, where we have multi-purpose reservoirs. On the Rio 

Grande, a joint-agency water-operations model, the ‘‘Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model’’ or ‘‘URGWOM’’ has been developed and implemented to help guide 

multi-agency operational decision-making. This tool is used to support studies related to water accounting and annual operating plans for the Rio Grande from the 

Colorado/New Mexico border to El Paso, Texas. The Corps is working very closely 

21

with the USBR to develop an Annual Operating Plan, using URGWOM, which reflects forecasted reservoir and river operations. We are also working with the New 

Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, the Middle Rio Grande Pueblos, and 

other stakeholders to provide the most efficient water management possible. 

URGWOM is also providing the capability to analyze 40-years of key flow and storage projections as we examine numerous alternatives within existing authorities for 

optimal future water management. The results of this study will be presented in the 

‘‘Upper Rio Grande Water Operations (URGWOPS) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)’’. 

The Albuquerque District of the Corps is a joint lead agency in both of these efforts, providing the funding and human resources to complete them, along with providing the model development site and the center of activities. The modeling brings 

together the operational knowledge and the respective interests of the agencies, to 

allow detailed examinations of the effects of varying operations. It allows the collaborating agencies to coordinate their water management during drought conditions, and regulate the various projects to preserve listed endangered species such 

as the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow, while supplying water to meet existing public 

needs. URGWOM is a very important technical tool that will significantly contribute 

to our understanding of the effects of water management decisions and improve our 

capability to respond to the needs of the various stakeholders in the desert southwest. It is a great example of effective partnering that will allow the Corps to provide the best possible public service. 

Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins 

In California’s Central Valley the water contained in the reservoirs under the jurisdiction of the Corps is generally managed, but is not allocated by the Corps. Specifically, during flood control operations the Corps has the responsibility for managing the waters contained in the designated flood control space. At many Corps 

projects in the Western United States, the USBR is responsible for allocating water 

reserved for irrigation purposes and contained below the flood control pool. 

The Corps typically determines the appropriate flood control volume required for 

each project. This volume is established during the planning and design of each 

project before a project is approved by Congress for construction. 

In concert with operations for flood control, certain flood control projects are also 

operated for other project purposes including environmental considerations. For instance, releases from flood control storage are made at certain ramping rates, are 

designed to allow operation of these projects for flood control while ameliorating particular environmental concerns such as those associated with endangered species. 

The Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins Comprehensive Study (Comp 

Study) included the development of a hydrologic computer model to facilitate the 

water management decision-making process. The Comp Study evaluated a large 

number of operational alternatives for several flood control projects utilizing this 

model, which was developed specifically for the study. The simulation model was developed using the Corps’ HEC-5 reservoir simulation computer software. These analyses investigated the change in flood control benefits associated with potential 

changes in particular operational criteria for either a single reservoir, or combinations of reservoirs. These analyses were intended solely to evaluate flood control operations in the Central Valley and provide ‘‘what-if’’ scenarios pertaining to flood 

control, not water supply. 

There have also been computer simulations completed to investigate the benefits 

of conjunctive-use technologies and additional off-stream storage to further reduce 

the impacts of flooding in certain locations. 

Current conditions provide some hope for this year. A series of heavy winter 

storms 2 weeks ago improved the Sierra Nevada Mountain snow depths to above 

normal levels, with a month remaining to improve on that snowpack. Snow depths 

in the northern Sierra’s from Mount Shasta to the Feather River was at 141 percent 

of normal, with around 3 feet of water equivalent. The central Sierra’s, from the 

Yuba River and Lake Tahoe basin to the Merced River, was at 112 percent of normal, and from the San Joaquin River south the snowpack was at 108 percent of normal. Across the entire range the depth was 127 percent of average, an increase from 

last month’s measurement of 115 percent. More than a third of the state’s drinking 

and irrigation water comes from Sierra runoff from snowpack, which also powers 

hydroelectric plants that produce about a quarter of California’s power. 

22

Colorado Aqueduct Of The Metropolitan Water District Of Southern California and 

The Los Angeles Aqueducts Of The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and 

Power 

In southern California daily reservoir operations are designed to provide groundwater recharge through the use of buffer pools. This saves water districts tens of 

millions of dollars annually ($12 million per year at Whittier Narrows Dam alone), 

and is an important supplement to water imported via the USBR’s Central Valley 

Project, the State Department of Water Resource’s State Water Project, the Colorado Aqueduct of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Los 

Angeles Aqueducts of the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Also, 

in the Central Valley, daily reservoir operations are keyed to forecasted water 

needs, snowpack, and runoff forecasts to improve benefits derived from those reservoirs. Planning studies are also underway to increase seasonal water storage at 

our ‘dry’ flood control basins and wet reservoirs, and re-operation studies are underway to investigate increasing water stored for multipurpose needs. These studies 

will need to take into account competing needs for the available water uses. 

Research by NOAA into more accurate and advanced quantitative precipitation 

forecasts (QPFs) may further allow maximization of project operation for water supply. The Corps has partnered with NOAA’s Environmental Technology Laboratory, 

the Nevada Desert Research Institute, and the Corps’ Hydrologic Engineering Center, in sharing information on that research. 

NORTHWESTERN DIVISION BASINS

Columbia River Basin 

The Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) in the Columbia River basin 

is a very large and extremely complex system designed to meet multiple uses for 

a multitude of stakeholders. Operational decisions are not only designed to meet the 

many authorized project uses and other statutory and regulatory requirements, but 

are also influenced by and have to accommodate changes in weather and water supply. 

Most of the annual precipitation of the Columbia River basin is concentrated in 

the winter months with the bulk of the precipitation falling in mountainous areas 

as snow stored in deep snowpack awaiting the warmth of spring for its release. As 

a result, winter streamflows are generally low with high, sustained runoff flows occurring in the spring and early summer. This Columbia River runoff pattern exemplifies a major seasonal variation of flow with about 60 percent of the natural runoff 

of the Columbia occurring during the months of May, June, and July. The Columbia 

has an average annual runoff at the mouth of about 198 million acre-fee (MAF) 

making it second only to the Missouri-Mississippi River System in the United States 

in average annual runoff. 

A long-range strategy for the operation of storage reservoirs must be developed 

up to six months in advance in order to provide for the multiple purpose uses of 

the Columbia River. Embedded within long-range operational strategies, water managers must respond to changes and deviations within the operational period. Short 

duration rain events, flood events, warm weather, or snowmelt within any sub-basin 

of the Columbia River requires water managers to adjust the overall operational 

strategy throughout the system. These short duration events may only last for a 

week or less, yet they are significant and require constant coordination and cooperation among state and federal agencies to best determine how these short duration 

events may affect the overall ability to meet the long range operational strategy and 

multiple purpose uses of the FCRPS. These events are significant enough that realtime adaptive management to meet fish needs under the current Biological Opinion 

occurs at least every other Wednesday on a formal basis and often occur on an informal basis each Wednesday to respond to changing conditions. 

The FCRPS operates as a system with some limited flexibility at individual storage reservoirs to meet immediate needs downstream of that reservoir. As a system 

there is a general annual cycle of operation and strategy for setting priorities. 

By August 31 most federal reservoirs are drafted somewhat below full to augment 

flow for Federally listed threatened and endangered fish species. Since September 

through December is generally a dry period with limited inflow to the reservoirs, 

they do not fill significantly from their summer levels. By November, the USBR’s 

Grand Coulee Dam begins to release water to meet downstream flow at the Corps 

Bonneville Dam to maintain sufficient water in spawning areas for the Federally 

listed chum salmon. In January, the Northwest River Forecast Center develops the 

region’s first water supply forecast. This is the first official glimpse into the future 

and whether the spring season will be a drought or a season of high flow. From January through April 10, the reservoirs operate to refill to flood control draft limits. 

23

The object of this strategy is to have the federal reservoirs as full as possible to 

begin releasing water in spring for flow augmentation for Federally listed fish species in the Snake and Columbia Rivers. The federal reservoirs then operate to fill 

by June 30, while augmenting flow for downstream fish needs, and not causing 

flooding. In July and August the federal reservoirs draft to specific elevations to 

augment flow for listed fall Chinook salmon. Although no two water years are alike, 

the current National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS or NOAA Fisheries) Biological Opinion acknowledges and has a plan for accommodating changing seasonal 

strategies. The 2000 BiOp is a key element in the long-range operational strategy 

for the Columbia River basin. 

The current Biological Opinion (BiOp) provides guidance for the long-range strategy and basic framework to operate and fine-tune the complex Columbia River basin 

system. The BiOp provides guidance to benefit fish migration, and acknowledges the 

need to meet other interdependent objectives. The BiOp considers meeting regional 

and local flood control needs, as well as regional power needs. The BiOp offers a 

forum to gather information and provide the real-time adaptive management needed 

to respond to ever changing water conditions. Development of the existing BiOp required the concerted effort of numerous biologists, water managers, and power marketers and took many years to develop. 

The Technical Management Team (TMT) is the regional technical forum that was 

developed under the NMFS BiOp to monitor water and fish conditions and provide 

the adaptive management mechanism for operation. The TMT has been meeting 

since 1996 to provide federal project operators with recommendations for operations 

to best meet the needs of fish. The TMT provides a process to develop consensus 

recommendations and reconcile disparate scientific views. 

The first official water supply forecast is made in January each year. This is the 

region’s first indication that a drought may affect operational needs in that year. 

Since the reservoirs had been drafted the previous year for flow augmentation for 

fish, a drought condition does not offer enough inflow to reservoirs so they can refill 

to April 10 flood control elevations per the 2000 Biological Opinion and provide augmentation water for fish in the spring. During drought years, flow from April 10 

through the end of June will likely be insufficient to fully satisfy all needs, i.e. meet 

flow objectives for Federally listed fish species, and refill reservoirs, and meet other 

needs in the basin, such as power generation. If reservoirs are unable to refill by 

the end of June, there will be limited water for flow augmentation in July and August as the federal reservoirs draft for summer flow augmentation for listed fish. 

In the Columbia River basin, 2001 was the most recent year of drought-like low 

water supply. The Corps is responsible for the operation of reservoirs in the Columbia River to meet the congressionally authorized multiple purposes of the dams. To 

make decisions about reservoir storage and releases, the Corps relies on the Northwest River Forecast Center to prepare water supply forecasts, and streamflow forecasts. The Northwest River Forecast Center is a part of the National Weather Service. The projections prepared by the Northwest River Forecast Center are used to 

plan future operations. The expected water supply (runoff) is predicted for the basin 

using estimated snowpack in the Rocky Mountains, and the snowpack does not 

begin to build significantly until December. The Northwest River Forecast Center 

does not begin forecasting water supply until January. There are long-term tools 

being developed by some agencies to allow predictions earlier than January, or to 

predict water supply several years into the future, however, they have not yet been 

accepted as reliable enough to guide reservoir operations. Reservoir operations in 

the Columbia River basin are planned on an annual basis. A relatively small 

amount of storage is available in the Columbia basin reservoirs compared to the annual water supply. There is approximately 40 million acre-fee (MAF) of reservoir 

storage as compared to the average annual runoff of 198 MAF (measured at the 

mouth of the Columbia). About one half of the storage in the basin is in Canada 

and is operated by British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro). In the 

United States, the USBR and the Corps combined operate about half of the storage, 

with each agency operating around a quarter of the total basin storage. There are 

several private operators, but the quantity of storage they manage is very small. Because of the small amount of storage available compared to water supply, reservoir 

management is not planned on a multi-year basis. Storage reservoirs are planned 

to operate to fill in summer. When water is plentiful this allows reservoirs to release 

water in winter to generate power, and to fill in spring and capture floodwaters. 

When water is more limited operations address multiple needs as established in 

project authorizations and under the Endangered Species Act. 

The water supply forecasts prepared by the Northwest River Forecast Center are 

updated every month from January through June. The Corps uses the updated 

water supply forecasts to determine the required flood control draft at storage resVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Jun 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\93903.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
24

ervoirs throughout the Columbia River basin and assures flood control drafts are 

met. The Corps oversees all the reservoirs in the basin, whether they are operated 

by private or federal agencies, which includes the Canadian reservoirs. Each month 

from January through April, when the water supply forecast is updated, and the 

resultant flood control drafts at reservoirs change, the reservoirs operations and resultant water releases are managed adaptively to meet future needs. In addition to 

using the water supply forecasts, at lease once each week the Northwest River Forecast Center prepares expected streamflow predictions for the Columbia River basin. 

The Corps uses these streamflow predictions to analyze flood potential during the 

spring snowmelt season and the system’s ability to meet the multiple purposes uses 

of the dams. In years of drought, flood risk because of rapid snowmelt is minimal. 

Rain events that occur during May and June when reservoirs are nearly full may 

cause floods in drought years. 

The Corps managed the navigation channel from the mouth of the Columbia River 

inland 453 miles to Lewiston, Idaho. In 2001, to conserve water, recreational navigation lockages were limited to only a few times each day. The Corps was prepared, 

as part of its drought contingency planning, to transport potable water to meet public health and welfare needs. The Corps participated in the Interim National 

Drought Council Meeting in June. Regional coordination at technical levels through 

the executive level was ongoing to assure the multiple purpose uses of the resource 

were met. The agencies most heavily involved were the Corps, the USBR, the Bonneville Power Administration, NOAA Fisheries, the US Fish and Wildlife, and representatives from the States of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana and Columbia basin Tribes. Technical and executive level coordination and cooperation had 

been in place prior to the drought and continues through the present. Regular coordination meetings will continue into the future under the National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion. 

Missouri River Basin 

In contrast to the Columbia basin, the Missouri River basin has a tremendous 

amount of storage capacity compared to average annual runoff because of the existence of the largest system of reservoirs in the United States. The Missouri River 

Mainstem Reservoir System (System) is comprised of six large dams and reservoirs 

with a total storage capacity of 73.4 million acre-feet (MAF). Average annual runoff 

into the System is around 25 MAF. The six System dams stretch along the main 

stem of the Missouri River from Montana through North and South Dakota. The 

System was designed specifically to support the Congressionally authorized project 

purposes of flood control, navigation, hydropower, irrigation, water supply, water 

quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife under varying runoff conditions, including 

an extended drought like that experienced in the 1930’s. Around 39 MAF of System 

storage is identified to for use during extended droughts. 

Construction of the System dams occurred from the 1930’s through the mid1960’s. The highest dam in the System, Fort Peck, was constructed in the 1930’s 

as a Work Progress Administration project. The 1944 Flood Control Act, commonly 

referred to as the Pick-Sloan Act, authorized the remaining five dams. The entire 

System first filled to operating levels in 1967. 

The Corps has also constructed numerous other projects on the Lower River 

downstream from the System, including the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and 

Navigation Project (BSNP) from Sioux City, Iowa, to St. Louis, Missouri. The navigation and bank stabilization projects were authorized under various Congressional 

acts. The navigation channel in the Lower Missouri River was first authorized as 

a 6 foot channel from Kansas City, Missouri, to the mouth of the river in the Rivers 

and Harbors Act of 1912. Several subsequent acts modified the navigation project. 

The latest modification, the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 1945, authorized construction of a 9-foot-deep by 300-foot-wide channel from Sioux City to the mouth. 

The release of water from the System serves the navigation purpose by providing 

water to the navigation channel at navigation target flow rates. The Flood Control 

Acts of 1941, 1946, 1948, 1963, 1968, 1974, and 1978 authorized additional bank 

stabilization projects. Further streambank erosion controls were authorized under 

the Water Resources Development Acts of 1974, 1986, and 1988. 

Since the System first filled in 1967, there have been two moderate to severe 

droughts in the Missouri River basin; one from 1987 until the flood of 1993, and 

the current drought that began in the year 2000. As the Missouri River basin enters 

its 5th year of drought (6th in Montana), the impact on the System becomes increasingly severe. The upper three reservoirs behind Fort Peck, Garrison, and Oahe 

Dams, which contain 88 percent of the total storage, are drawn down 23 to 30 feet, 

and last month the System as a whole reached an all time record low since it first 

filled in 1967. This has negatively impacted all project purposes except for flood conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Jun 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\93903.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
25

trol, which is positively impacted because of increased capability to store floodwaters. 

Examples of the negative impacts include lack of access for recreational craft at 

the upper three System reservoirs due to low reservoir pool levels (boat ramps out 

of water). Also, shortened navigation season lengths and lower releases to conserve 

stored water have negatively impacted navigation on the Missouri River from Sioux 

City, Iowa to the mouth at St. Louis. Lower releases have also negatively impacted 

hydropower production at the six System dams, and caused concern, and in a few 

cases, reduced power generation at thermal powerplants that use Missouri River 

water for once-through cooling. Water supply intakes have also been affected, most 

notably in the current drought a USBR intake for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

at Fort Yates and a municipal intake at the Town of Parshall, both in North Dakota. Irrigation has also been negatively impacted due to difficulties accessing the 

System reservoir pools due to their low levels. 

The Corps has taken several steps to alleviate the negative impacts due to the 

drought. For recreational interests, the Corps has extended boat ramps at the upper 

three System reservoirs. We have completed emergency work at the Parshall, North 

Dakota intake that will ensure continued operation through this year. The USBR 

has implemented measures that have returned the Fort Yates intake to service. The 

Corps provided technical assistance to users to assist them in their planning for 

mitigation of drought impacts. 

The Corps does not attempt to predict multi-year droughts on the Missouri, but 

does track snowpack in the Rocky Mountains each winter season to facilitate runoff 

forecasts for that year. This snowpack data is collected by NRCS ‘‘snowtel’’ sites located throughout the mountainous areas that drain into the System. The Corps runoff forecasts are updated at the beginning of each month of the year as new data 

is received and is then used as input to computer models that simulate reservoir 

regulation. These reservoir regulation simulation models return data on anticipated 

System reservoir pool levels and river flows between the reservoirs and downstream 

of the System. Along with a ‘‘most-likely’’ runoff forecast for the year, the Corps inputs a range of possible runoff scenarios into the reservoir regulation simulation 

models to provide a range of potential reservoir pool levels and river flows for use 

by all river interest in planning their respective activities for the year. 

Regarding long-term drought planning, the anticipated management of the water 

stored in Corps dam and reservoir projects, such as the System, is presented in 

what are known as water control manuals. The Missouri River Master Water Control Manual (Master Manual) presents the water control plan and operational objectives for the integrated operation of the System. This includes drought conservation 

measure to be implemented during low runoff periods. The Master Manual was first 

published in December 1960 and was later revised in 1973, 1975, and 1979. The 

first Master Manual and its subsequent versions were developed in consultation 

with State governments within the Missouri River basin and Federal agencies having related authorities and responsibilities. 

In 1989, the Corps initiated a review of the Master Manual with consideration 

of other laws and regulations to include the following: ESA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the President’s Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations pertaining to NEPA. A Final EIS has been published for the Master Manual Review and Update. We are currently in a review time period for the 

Final EIS and I expect to sign a Record of Decision for the Master Manual Review 

and Update shortly. 

As previously stated, in accordance with the ESA, the Corps must insure, in consultation with the USFWS, that any action carried out by the Corps is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of any Federally listed endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction for adverse modification of their critical 

habitat. The Federal (Corps) action subject to ESA consultation is the management 

of storage and release of water, or ‘‘operation’’ of the System, the operation of the 

Kansas River Reservoir projects, and the operation and maintenance of the Bank 

Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP). The species of interest in regard to 

these projects are the pallid sturgeon (endangered), the interior least tern (endangered), and the piping plover (threatened). 

The Corps entered into formal consultation with the USFWS pursuant to the ESA 

on the operation of the Missouri basin projects culminating in the USFWS Missouri 

River Biological Opinion issued in November 2000 (2000 BiOp). The 2000 BiOp concluded that the Corps’ proposed action jeopardized the continued existence of the 

listed pallid sturgeon, piping plover, and the interior least tern, and recommended 

a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) to avoid jeopardy. 

Subsequently, the Corps and the USFWS have continued coordination and entered into both informal and formal consultation over the Corps’ operation of the 

26

System and other actions addressed by the 2000 BiOp designed to avoid jeopardy 

and conserve the Federally listed species. On November 3, 2003, the Corps requested reinitiation of formal ESA consultation on the operation of the System, the 

Kansas Reservoir Projects, and the BSNP. On December 16, 2003 the USFWS 

issued an amendment to its 2000 BiOp. 

The 2003 Amended BiOp concluded that the Corps’ proposed action would not 

jeopardize the continued existence of the interior least tern or piping plover. It also 

includes a ‘‘reasonable and prudent alternative’’ (‘‘RPA’’) for the Corps’ proposed operations that, according to USFWS, if implemented, will avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the endangered pallid sturgeon. The Corps is currently working 

with the USFWS to coordinate implementation of the requirements of the 2003 

Amended BiOp. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any 

questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, General. Your statement 

is in the record. 

Now, Dr. Louis Uccellini. Is that correct? 

STATEMENT OF DR. LOUIS UCCELLINI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

CENTERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PREDICTION, NATIONAL 

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

Dr. UCCELLINI. Uccellini. 

The CHAIRMAN. Uccellini. Boy, here I am with a name like 

Domenici and I cannot say yours. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. UCCELLINI. My family has trouble with it too. 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Bingaman. I thank 

you for inviting me to discuss the ongoing drought in the Western 

United States. 

I am Louis Uccellini, Director of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, which is part of NOAA’s National Weather 

Service. Two of the National Weather Service centers, namely the 

Climate Prediction Center and the Hydrometeorological Prediction 

Center, are closely involved with forecasting weather and climate 

variation related to drought. 

Today I will emphasize the current drought status, provide a historical perspective, and discuss the most recent outlook, which was 

created jointly with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I will also 

summarize research activities, including the role of the President’s 

Climate Change Research initiative. 

Now, the current drought status, which was provided in the 

longer testimony, shows that there has been some improvement. 

Nevertheless, severe to extreme drought covers most of the interior 

sections of the Western United States, as well as parts of the High 

Plains, with exceptional droughts centered in New Mexico and 

western Montana. The current situation involves a multi-year 

drought which began in 1999 across much of the West, worsened 

in 2000, and continued with some interruptions into 2004. This 

winter season has seen improvement in many locations. Snowpack 

and snow water content have been running close to normal during 

the winter snow season in many places, especially in the Great 

Basin and the Northwest, and are much improved since last year. 

Continued improvement in water supplies depends largely on 

snowfall continuing into spring, as snowpack contributes to 50 to 

80 percent of the region’s water supply. 

27

Now, despite the recent snowpack improvement, some reservoirs 

remain disturbingly low across most of the region. As of March 1, 

2004, four States—Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona—report storage at or below 50 percent of normal. Impressive deficits 

in precipitation have built up over the past 4 to 5 years, a factor 

bound to swell any reservoir replenishment, which will be limited 

as snowmelt runoff is absorbed by the parched soils. 

From a historical perspective, some drought indicators show the 

current multiyear drought in parts of the interior West as one of 

the most severe in the past 40 to 100 years. This drought is comparable to the severe droughts in the 1950’s and 1930’s in some 

areas, while not quite as severe in others. For example, the Colorado River basin storage this winter has been the lowest in more 

than 30 years, with Lake Powell at its lowest since 1970, when it 

was actually being filled, and Lake Mead at its lowest since 1968. 

A new outlook for the short-term changes in drought has been 

released and is shown in figure 2. The precipitation from recent 

storms has been encouraging, boosting valuable snowpacks in the 

Southwest. The outlook for March suggests at least parts of the 

Southwest may experience above-normal precipitation. However, 

the latest streamflow forecasts from the USDA and National 

Weather Service for the spring and summer show that although 

there will be some improvement towards near-normal in many 

areas, we will still be below normal for the Southwest, especially 

Arizona and New Mexico. 

The latest seasonal drought outlook shows improvements in 

drought conditions over the Great Basin and in the Great Plains. 

Limited improvement is possible in central and southern New Mexico and from western Colorado and eastern Utah, northward 

through Wyoming into Montana. We emphasize, however, that improvement does not mean total relief. As summer approaches, 

many reservoir levels are expected to remain below normal. 

The seasonal forecast through the next 12 months shows no 

strong signals for either above or below normal precipitation. 

As far as the research activities that we wish to summarize, we 

want to emphasize that as our understanding and skill improve, 

the ability to fine tune long-term climate models will increase. 

However, predictions for long-term climate at the regional level 

carry an increased level of uncertainty. To reduce this uncertainty, 

NOAA continues to invest in the advanced hydrological prediction 

services and also to applied research to better understand the 

interdependencies of the ocean and the land and the combined influence on climate and related impact on drought. 

Recent data shows a warming trend for the past several decades 

over much of the West. Some climate models accurately predict a 

temperature increase consistent with this warming trend. These 

models project the warming trend will continue this century. However, neither the climate model predictions nor observations show 

any identifiable trend in precipitation. 

NOAA continues to invest in research on the causes of decadal 

oscillations in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and the role they 

play behind the long-term drought. In addition, NOAA, the National Science Foundation, and sister science agencies in Mexico 

are co-leading the North American Monsoon Experiment, an interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Jun 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\93903.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
28

* Retained in committee folder. 

national effort to enhance understanding of the sources and limits 

of predictability of warm season precipitation over North America, 

with a focus on the monsoon precipitation over the Southwest. This 

is critical for water resource management in the region. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to bring your attention to the 

important work begun under the President’s Climate Change Research initiative and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 

The President’s call to advance climate change science and focus on 

the key uncertainties came to fruition in July 2003 when Secretary 

of Commerce, Donald Evans, and Secretary of Energy, Spencer 

Abraham, unveiled the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program, a 10-year management plan for climate research 

in the Federal Government that, for the first time, introduces 

goals, deadlines, and deliverables. 

The strategic plan includes goals in the following areas that are 

relevant to drought research: the global water cycle, including 

measurably improved forecasts of precipitation and other water 

cycle variables for water managers, and increases in the efficiency 

of water use through better water models for policy and planning; 

land use and land cover and their relationship to the climate 

change; and ecosystems in developing information to support management decisions for agricultural lands, forests, fisheries, and 

other ecosystems under conditions of environmental change. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify before this committee. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Uccellini follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. LOUIS UCCELLINI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTERS FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL PREDICTION, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to discuss the ongoing drought in the Western United States. To complement its long-standing water supply forecasting done jointly with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has greatly expanded its 

role in monitoring and forecasting droughts in recent years. I am happy to have the 

opportunity to talk to you about the current drought situation, its impacts on water 

supplies, the summer outlook, research, and how NOAA interacts with other agencies to deliver these drought products and related services. 

I am Louis Uccellini, Director of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, which is part of NOAA’s National Weather Service (NWS). Two of our Centers are closely involved with forecasting weather and short-term seasonal and climate variations, namely the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center (HPC) and the 

Climate Prediction Center (CPC). The latter center is involved with drought monitoring and forecasting, and currently produces the seasonal drought outlooks and 

continues to play a key role in producing the U.S. Drought Monitor while working 

with other agencies to improve the tools used to monitor drought. In addition, the 

NWS’ Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Services (ADPS) program leverages climate 

outlooks to provide improved water supply forecasts, and NOAA’s Climate 

Diagnostics Center collaborates with the NWS to incorporate the latest research results into drought forecasting. 

CURRENT DROUGHT STATUS

The current status of the western drought is shown in Figure 1.* Severe to extreme drought covers most of the interior sections of the Western United States, 

(herein referred to as the West) as well as parts of the High Plains. The current 

situation involves a multi-year drought which began in 1999 across much of the 

West, worsened in 2000, and continued, with some interruptions, into 2004. However, this winter season has seen improvement in many locations. Snowpack and 

29

snow water content have been running close to normal during this winter snow season in many places, especially in the Great Basin and Northwest, and are much improved since last year. Numerous winter storms have been dropping heavy snow 

over central and northern areas since December and over the Southwest since late 

February. The Southwest is still lagging, but the drought condition is improving. 

Continued improvement in water supplies depends largely on snowfall continuing 

into spring. Furthermore, the pace of spring snow melt is important in relieving 

drought conditions with a gradual snowmelt preferred over sudden melting. 

Mountain snowpack is like money in the bank for western water supplies, as the 

snowpack contributes anywhere from 50 to 80% of the water supply in this region. 

Despite recent improvement in the snow conditions, reservoirs remain disturbingly 

low across most of the region. This is due to the long-term nature of the drought. 

Impressive deficits in precipitation have built up over the past four to five years. 

Deficits of 10 to 15 inches of liquid precipitation have occurred over a large area, 

and in some cases have exceeded over 20 inches, which is more than a year’s worth 

of precipitation. As a result, soils have become exceedingly dry. Reservoir replenishment will be limited as snow melt runoff is absorbed by parched soils. 

Reservoirs remain significantly below normal in every western state except California. As of February 1, 2004, four states—Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Oregon 

report storage at or below 50% of normal. As a consequence, water restrictions are 

in place in a number of locations. Water managers expect farmers in the hardest 

hit areas of the drought region to have reduced access to water for agriculture this 

spring and summer, as difficult decisions are made to balance the needs of water 

users—consumers, the environment, farmers, ranchers, and recreational users. Illustrating the difficult decisions these water managers face, as of January 31, Colorado River Basin water storage stood at 68% of normal, with Lake Powell in Utah 

at just 57% of normal storage, which is near the 5-year low for water storage. 

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

From an historical perspective of droughts in the interior West, some indicators 

of drought depict the current multi-year drought as one of the most severe in the 

past 40 to 100 years, comparable to the severe droughts in the 1950s and 1930s in 

some areas, while not quite as severe in others. For California’s water supply/reservoir storage, this drought is not as bad as the 1988-93 drought. 

Colorado River Basin storage this winter has been the lowest in more than 30 

years, with Lake Powell at its lowest since 1970, and Lake Mead its lowest since 

1968. Since Lake Mead began declining in late 1999, water storage has dropped 

nearly 40%. Water supply experts in New Mexico are telling us that serious shortages will persist in the state even with above-normal rain and snow this season, 

and some reservoirs may not even be restored by normal precipitation during the 

next winter season. 

The West is largely a semi-arid region, and water supplies there are especially 

vulnerable to long-term shortages of precipitation. Historically, there have been long 

periods with enhanced precipitation as well as long periods with reduced precipitation, often lasting 20 or 30 or more years. Given the recent period from the 1980s 

into the 1990s had precipitation amounts above historical averages in the Colorado 

River Basin and the Southwest, it is only natural to expect there will be periods 

with lesser amounts of precipitation. In addition, population growth has placed increased demands on water supplies, so drought vulnerability has increased because 

of greater numbers of water users. 

THE OUTLOOK

In order to fully appreciate the long-term outlook for the drought, it is helpful to 

understand the meteorological causes and ongoing research issues. Recent research, 

much of it coming from NOAA laboratories or from NOAA funded projects in universities, gives us some insight into the factors that we believe contributed to the 

multi-year drought. Studies based on collections of statistical and physical models 

show the important role that existing ocean and ground conditions play in establishing wind patterns leading to ‘‘blocking’’ in the atmosphere, an important factor 

in setting up the weather conditions which cause prolonged warm and dry conditions and cause reduced rainfall and above-normal warmth. Climate trends should 

also be considered when forecasting the future evolution of a drought. The West’s 

climate has been getting warmer for about 20-25 years, especially in the winter and 

spring. These conditions contribute to the drought by increasing the rate of snow 

melt in the spring and early summer, and also increase water evaporation. 

For the shorter-term drought outlook, trends in mountain snowpack and winter 

storms, as well as the medium and long-range forecasts of precipitation from CPC 

30

are emphasized. The spring-summer streamflow forecasts from USDA/NRCS and 

NWS hydrologists are an important consideration for the water supply outlook in 

the West. Precipitation from recent storms has been encouraging, boosting valuable 

snow packs in the Southwest, an area which missed most of the storms before late 

February. The recent improvement in the Southwest follows the improvement in 

moisture conditions farther north earlier this winter, which resulted in some 

drought relief across much of the Northwest. The official monthly CPC outlook for 

March suggests at least parts of the Southwest may experience above-normal precipitation. The latest streamflow forecasts for this spring and summer produced by 

USDA’s NRCS show an improvement to near normal for many central and northern 

areas of the West, but below normal for the Southwest. However, we expect the 

March Outlook will reflect the enhanced snowpack and show some improvement in 

the drought conditions for the Southwest. 

Over the medium-term, seasonal forecasts through the next 12 months show no 

strong signals for above or below normal precipitation. The lack of El Nin ̃ o or La 

Nin ̃ a development creates much uncertainty in the seasonal outlooks, but the fact 

that the current Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) pattern does not greatly resemble patterns associated with historical western droughts (e.g., cold water in the 

eastern Pacific) makes us somewhat more optimistic. The latest seasonal drought 

outlook (Figure 2), which combines forecasts for all time periods out to the end of 

May and considers recent trends in snowpack, presents a fairly optimistic picture, 

with likely drought improvement over the Great Basin and in the Great Plains. 

Limited improvement is possible in central and southern New Mexico and from 

western Colorado and eastern Utah northward through Wyoming into Montana. Of 

course, we always emphasize that improvement does not mean total relief. As summer approaches, reservoir levels are expected to remain below normal in many parts 

of the West. 

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

As our understanding of, and skill in forecasting, the seasonal to interannual climate range improves, the ability to fine tune long term climate models increases 

as well. However, predictions for long-term climate (herein defined as more than 1 

year) at the regional level carry an increased level of uncertainty. In order to reduce 

that uncertainty, NOAA continues to invest in research to better understand the 

interdependencies of the ocean and land and the combined influence on climate. Recent data shows a warming trend for the past several decades over much of the 

West, especially during the winter season. Climate models, using historical data, accurately predict temperature increases consistent with this observed long term 

warming trend. These models project the general warming trend will continue for 

the remainder of this century. However, neither climate model predictions nor observations show any identifiable trend in precipitation. 

Research at NOAA’s Climate Diagnostics Center indicates recent decadal swings 

in precipitation in the West may be largely attributable to decadal variations in 

ocean temperatures, especially in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans. The causes 

of these ocean temperature variations are themselves not fully understood, but undoubtedly due in part to strong natural variability in the coupled atmosphere-ocean 

system, such as occurs with El Nin ̃ o-Southern Oscillation. Even with unchanging 

total precipitation in this region, changes in temperatures may significantly influence the annual water cycle as well as water demand, with subsequent implications 

for water management. 

NOAA continues to invest in research on the causes of decadal oscillations in the 

Pacific and Atlantic oceans and the role they play behind long-term drought. In addition, NOAA and sister science agencies in Mexico are co-leading the North American Monsoon Experiment (NAME), an international effort to enhance understanding of the sources and limits of predictability of warm season precipitations 

over North America, with emphasis on time scales from seasonal to interannual. Improved understanding and prediction of monsoon rainfall in the southwestern U.S. 

and Mexico is critical for water resource management in the region. 

NOAA also supports four university-based Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISAs) programs in the Western U.S. that develop and provide improved 

drought information for decision-makers. Each of the four RISAs (located in Washington, California, Arizona and Colorado) focuses on regional issues related to assessing drought impacts, and improving the use and usefulness of forecasts and 

monitoring products for impact mitigation and cost reduction. 

31

THE ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH INITIATIVE

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to bring your attention to the important work 

begun under the President’s Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) and the 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). Our ability to understand the large 

and complex forces at work on the planet will enable us to help develop high quality 

information for operational use by public works officials, city and county planners, 

forestry experts, and others charged with the responsibility of managing natural resources in communities across the nation. Furthering the science of climate change 

also helps policymakers on the local, state, and national levels make informed decisions. 

The President’s call to advance climate change science and focus on the key uncertainties came to fruition in July 2003 when Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans 

and Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham unveiled the Strategic Plan of the U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program, a ten year management plan for climate research 

in the federal government that, for the first time, introduces goals, deadlines, and 

deliverables. 

The Strategic Plan is also a milestone for drought and water research. Contained 

within it are research goals for the following areas:

• Global water cycle, including measurably improved forecasts of precipitation 

and other water cycle variables for water managers, and increases in the efficiency of water use through better water models for policy and planning; 

• Land use and land cover change: identifying past and projected trends in land 

cover or land use that are attributable to changes in climate, and identifying 

U.S. regions where climate change may have the greatest implications for land 

management; 

• Ecosystems: developing information to support management decisions for agricultural lands, forests, fisheries, and other ecosystems under conditions of environmental change.

When one takes into consideration the increase in population in the western 

United States and the challenges this expansion poses for resource management, 

the Administration’s Strategic Plan comes at a critical juncture and will hopefully 

advance the state of knowledge for drought and water research in a way that assists 

resource managers and policymakers in their planning and policymaking. 

COLLABORATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES

NOAA collaborates with many state and Federal agencies (e.g., NASA, EPA, 

USGS, and others) and universities to monitor, understand and predict drought. For 

example, NOAA works with USDA and the National Drought Mitigation Center in 

Lincoln, Nebraska to produce the weekly U.S. Drought Monitor, which also uses 

input from many other Federal and state agencies as well as feedback from a network of over 100 experts around the nation. NOAA works closely with USDA/NRCS 

on water supply forecasting in the western U.S., and relies on the USGS for 

streamflow data critical to both water supply and flood forecasting. NOAA also recently began collaborating with Canadian and Mexican meteorologists to produce an 

experimental North American Drought Monitor. 

NOAA’s National Weather Service is modernizing its network of cooperative observation sites to provide better coverage and more accurate measurements to aid 

in measuring drought. We are working with the Western Governors’ Association to 

plan an ambitious program—the National Integrated Drought Information System 

(NIDIS)—to significantly enhance our ability to monitor drought across the country. 

Although the biggest challenge for NIDIS is to establish a modern, dense network 

of observing locations to observe and monitor all aspects of drought (a national integrated mesonet), the plan envisions greatly enhanced access to an entire range of 

data and information on drought conditions, impacts, and forecasts, and supported 

by a focused drought research program. NIDIS involves collaborating with many 

agencies to accomplish its goal, but NOAA will provide key leadership to establish 

NIDIS. We expect that this plan will be presented to the western governors at the 

annual WGA meeting in June 2004. 

For drought forecasting, NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center is developing techniques to forecast drought over seasonal periods. It issues outlooks at least once 

each month covering the next three and one-half months. CPC drought forecasters 

have been meeting with forecasters and researchers both inside and outside the U.S. 

to explore methods to improve the drought outlooks. Advanced forecast methods 

based on statistical and global numerical models will continue to be incorporated 

into drought outlooks, using the best forecasting tools and research available. 

32

As part of NOAA’s Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service, the NWS will leverage increasing skill in climate forecasts to provide state of the art water supply forecasts for water management and other state and regional agencies. 

Outside the West, where many areas depend on water stored in large reservoirs, 

summertime drought forecasts rely on long-term precipitation forecasts, and the 

usefulness of these forecasts will always be greatly limited by the arbitrary nature 

(‘‘hit and miss’’) of summertime showers and thunderstorms over the U.S. Much 

work is needed to upgrade seasonal and longer-term outlooks. NOAA’s research 

community will continue to interact with researchers throughout the country and 

the world in programs, such as this year’s North American Monsoon Experiment 

(NAME) activity, to improve climate and statistical models, enabling a steady increase in our understanding of the causes of drought. Learning the mechanisms 

triggering drought will enable us to better forecast the likelihood of drought development months and years ahead of time. 

We are encouraged by recent research that helps to explain the reasons behind 

drought development. It is a continuing challenge to produce seasonal forecasts that 

are consistently accurate. However, as with our weather forecasts, we believe we 

can keep improving. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I thank you for the opportunity to 

discuss drought and water supply in the West and the role NOAA plays in drought 

monitoring, forecasting and research. This topic is critical given the increasing population in the West and the increasing demand for drought information to help manage the demand for water. I would be happy to answer any questions you or other 

Members of the Committee may have.

Senator MURKOWSKI [presiding]. Thank you, and we will next go 

to Floyd Gaibler. Good morning. 

STATEMENT OF FLOYD GAIBLER, DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY 

FOR FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES,

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. GAIBLER. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Senator Bingaman. It is a pleasure to appear before the committee on behalf of 

the Department of Agriculture and discuss what our role has been 

in terms of assisting farmers and ranchers in rural communities 

during times of drought and other natural disasters. 

Clearly drought is agriculture’s most expensive, frequent, and 

widespread form of natural disaster. Each time drought occurs, 

several questions arise on how best to address the losses that are 

inflicted and how best to prevent, or at least mitigate, their costs 

in the future. There have been a number of attempts to address 

these various serious questions. 

For example, in 1998, Congress passed the National Drought Policy Act that created the National Drought Policy Commission. The 

report from that commission stated that this Nation would benefit 

from a national drought policy based on preparedness and mitigation to reduce the need for emergency relief. 

An outgrowth of that report was the establishment of an interim 

drought council and that council has met several times, most recently last October in Albuquerque. The purpose was to establish 

a coordinated approach to address the impacts of drought through 

preparedness, monitoring, risk management, and response to 

drought emergencies. And among other things, the council has developed a web site to increase communications between agencies 

and awareness of what is being done on the State and local level. 

While the drought in 2003 was not all-encompassing nationwide, 

it clearly remained entrenched in and across much of the Western 

half of the United States. Several Western States, in fact, experienced significant drought conditions at the local level. 

33

The Department has closely monitored the drought through collaboration with other Federal agencies that are appearing here on 

this panel today. 

Regarding the current drought status and water supply situation, clearly some regional snowpacks have improved significantly, 

but at the same time, others, particularly in parts of Arizona, continue to be below average. 

Again, looking at reservoir storage for all Western States, except 

California, it is running below historic averages, reflecting the carryover dryness of the continuing drought. While a majority of the 

basins are forecast to receive average or slightly above average 

spring and summer streamflows, a number of critical basins are 

running either below or well below. 

In response to these drought conditions, last year Secretary 

Veneman directed the formation of a departmental Drought Coordinating Council to more closely monitor these conditions and coordinate our resources to assist drought-affected producers and rural 

communities. We have in place a number of programs to help producers during losses attributable to drought. One example is a 

partnership we have with the State departments of agriculture to 

distribute surplus non-fat dry milk for use in livestock foundation 

herds in drought-stricken States. 

In another innovative partnership, USDA agencies have worked 

with the Department of the Interior and the State of Oregon to deliver badly needed water to the Klamath Basin producers. 

We also have several agencies that have worked to mitigate the 

impacts of drought on grazing land and croplands. 

Through other various programs, the Department has provided 

low-interest emergency loans, funding for non-insurable crop losses, 

cost share assistance to rehabilitate farmland, and loan programs 

for rural areas for new water sources, backup source, and new 

wells. 

Finally, the Department has focused ongoing drought research in 

areas such as mitigation, plant stress, and water efficiency, water 

conservation, soil moisture, and weather prediction and remote 

sensing. We feel that the drought council has had a successful program and all of its partnering agencies have played a crucial role 

in improving the capabilities of predicting and mitigating the forces 

of nature. 

In summary, USDA has long supported efforts to mitigate the effects of drought on America’s farmers and ranchers in rural communities. We look forward to working with this committee and the 

Congress to address the many concerns associated with the remaining challenging issues surrounding drought and related disasters. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee and we would be happy to entertain any questions. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaibler follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FLOYD GAIBLER, DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY FOR FARM AND

FOREIGN AGRICULTURE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting the Department of Agriculture to testify before this committee. I appreciate the opportunity to 

34

come before you today to share with you what the USDA is doing to help farmers 

and ranchers in this country during times of drought and other natural disasters. 

America’s farmers and ranchers play an important role in providing stable, safe, 

and affordable food supplies to the citizens of this country. 

USDA helps ensure the well-being of U.S. agriculture through efficient and equitable administration of farm commodity programs; loans; conservation and environmental programs; federal crop insurance; and emergency and disaster assistance 

programs. These programs are major components of USDA’s farm safety net, which 

helps producers maintain viable operations, compete for sales of commodities, and 

contribute to the year-round availability of low-cost, safe and nutritious foods. 

Drought is agriculture’s most expensive, frequent, and widespread form of natural 

disaster. Drought will occur at some time every year somewhere in the United 

States resulting in substantial losses each year. USDA’s Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation (FCIC) payments alone for drought losses have averaged $462 million 

annually (33 percent of total FCIC payments), since 1989. Over half of the total $4.1 

billion in 2002-crop insurance indemnity payments, or some $2.5 billion, were for 

drought related causes. 

One-half to two-thirds of the counties in the United States have been designated 

as disaster areas in each of the past several years. Each time drought occurs, many 

of the same issues are raised. Principally, how much damage was inflicted, on 

whom, and where? Who is going to pay for it? How can we prevent or at least mitigate damages and their costs in the future? There have been a number of attempts 

to address these very serious questions. 

For example, in 1998, Congress passed the National Drought Policy Act that created the National Drought Policy Commission. The Commission submitted its report 

to the President and Congress in May of 2002. The report stated that this nation 

would benefit from a national drought policy based on preparedness and mitigation 

to reduce the need for emergency relief. The Commission’s report identified 83 

drought-related federal programs, including 41 within USDA. 

In October, USDA and non-Federal partners, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, jointly 

hosted the Interim National Drought Council meeting. Representatives from 

drought impacted groups, state/local governments, congressional offices, Department 

of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Commerce, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Small Business Administration, Department 

of the Army, and USDA worked to establish a coordinated approach to address the 

impacts of drought through preparedness, monitoring, risk management, and response to drought emergencies. 

2003 DROUGHT IN REVIEW

During 2003, drought remained entrenched across much of the western half of the 

U.S. and in the northern and western Corn Belt, but thankfully did not spread nationwide. A lack of moisture for winter wheat emergence and establishment also occurred in several key-producing areas, particularly across the northern and central 

High Plains and the Northwest. Elsewhere, drought was primarily hydrological, lowering reservoir levels and reducing irrigation supplies. 

Even though the drought was not all-encompassing nationwide, there were still 

quite a number of States and counties that experienced significant drought conditions at a localized level. For example, seven entire States (Arizona, Arkansas, 

Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, South Carolina, and Utah) received disaster designations by Secretary Veneman in 2003. In total, 2,351 counties received disaster designations in 2003. Of this total, 1,596 counties across 32 States received disaster 

declarations due to drought conditions. 

For a county to qualify for a Secretarial disaster designation it must have sustained a 30 percent production loss in a single major enterprise, or there must be 

at least one producer in the county that sustained a 30 percent production loss in 

a single major enterprise and is unable to get financing with other lenders in the 

area at reasonable rates and terms. 

In 2004, counties in 25 States, including Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, 

Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, 

New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 

South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, have applied 

for Secretarial disaster declarations for drought. 

As of March 1, a total of 217 counties in eleven States have been designated as 

primary natural disaster areas by the Secretary due to production losses from all 

causes, during calendar year 2004 to date. An additional 248 counties, in 27 States, 

have been named as contiguous counties during the same period. 

35

In addition, 173 of the 217 primary counties have been designated, due to drought 

and drought related causes during calendar year 2004 to date. Those 173 counties 

represent 5 States. Also, 138 of 2487 contiguous counties have been named, due to 

drought during the same period. Those 138 counties represent 15 States. 

Lastly, while the economic effects of the 2003 drought have been significant for 

some producers, national crop and livestock returns have shown little effect. Despite 

widespread hot, dry conditions last summer, aggregate U.S. yields were up for 

wheat and feed grains in 2003. National average corn yields were a record and up 

more than 9 percent from 2002. With a rebound in world market prices, crop revenues in 2004 are projected at a record $114 billion, compared to $107 billion in 2003 

and $99 billion in 2002. Likewise, despite persistent poor forage conditions in the 

Mountain West and the discovery of a BSE-infected cow in Washington state, the 

value of livestock production is forecast to be $101 billion in 2004, which would be 

only the third year in which it has exceeded $100 billion. 

WESTERN DROUGHT STATUS AND WATER SUPPLY SITUATION

The current drought in the interior West is part of a multi-year drought that 

began in 1999, worsened in 2000, and has continued, with some interruptions thus 

far into 2004. As a result, the drought in the West was slow to develop, and likewise, will be slow to recede. 

The current drought in the West is primarily hydrological, lowering reservoir levels and reducing irrigation supplies. The USDA collaborates with several federal 

and non-federal agencies to produce the ‘‘U.S. Drought Monitor’’ report. The 

Drought Monitor is an operational product that is released weekly. The product 

serves as a useful tool in depicting the intensity, spatial extent, and potential impacts of drought across the country. 

From the February 24, 2004 ‘‘U.S. Drought Monitor’’, most of the Intermountain 

West is experiencing some degree of drought. ‘‘Moderate Drought’’ affects a large 

portion of the Intermountain West, with ‘‘Extreme Drought’’ affecting the Rocky 

Mountain States. ‘‘Exceptional Drought’’ is affecting southeastern Idaho and southwestern Montana, a small portion of southwest Wyoming, a small portion of northeast Utah and parts of southern Utah, northeastern New Mexico, and southern New 

Mexico. The magnitude of the drought in the West is highly unusual. ‘‘Exceptional 

Droughts’’ typically have less than a 2 percent chance of occurrence, while ‘‘Extreme 

Droughts’’ have a 2 to 5 percent chance of occurrence. 

Snowmelt provides approximately 80 percent of the streamflow in the West. Precipitation, accumulated as snow in the winter months, melts and runs off during 

the months of April through July. This snowmelt is captured in reservoirs for use 

during the irrigation season of May through September. Data is collected on the 

amount of precipitation, runoff, and snowpack content in a given year to anticipate 

the approximate amount of water that will be available. 

USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Snow Survey and Water 

Supply Forecast Program installs, operates, and maintains an extensive, automated 

system to collect snowpack and related climatic data in the Western United States 

called SNOTEL (for SNOwpack TELemetry). The system evolved from a NRCS’s 

Congressional mandate ‘‘to measure snowpack in the mountains of the West and 

forecast the water supply.’’

In cooperation with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National 

Weather Service, NRCS collects snow information through a network of about 680 

SNOTEL sites and 900 traditional snow courses. Using the data collected, NRCS 

issues over 11,000 water supply forecasts annually for water users in 11 western 

states and Alaska. Agricultural, municipal, industrial, hydropower, and recreational 

water users are the primary recipients of these forecasts. Water supply forecasts 

and climate information help irrigators make the most effective use of available 

water supplies for achieving their agricultural production goals. Farmers who collectively irrigate more than 10 million acres of land in the western U.S. benefit from 

these information products. Other Federal agencies and private organizations also 

use water supply forecast information to help them carry out their missions. 

Seasonal snowpacks for the period October 1, 2003 through the present, improved 

significantly in the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain West when compared to 

last year’s snowpack, which was 40% to 70% of average. Current snowpacks are 

above normal, averaging 125% in Oregon and northwestern Nevada. Snowpacks remain near average in the Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, 

and northern New Mexico. In spite of recent storms, snowpacks continue to be below 

average in central Arizona and southern New Mexico, ranging from 65% to 80%. 

As of February 1, 2004, reservoir storage for all western States except California 

is running below historic February averages, with Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, 

36

Utah and Wyoming reporting the largest storage deficits. Low storage values reflect 

carryover dryness of the continuing drought in the Intermountain West, Southwest, 

and southern Rockies and last year’s below average seasonal runoff. 

As of February 1, 2004 a majority of basins in the Pacific Northwest, northern 

Rockies of Montana and Idaho and central California are forecast to receive average, 

or slightly above average, spring and summer streamflows. Conversely, many basins 

in Arizona, New Mexico, the south Platte River of Colorado, and the Bear River of 

southeastern Idaho are forecast to receive well below average spring streamflows, 

less than 50% of average. Most basins in the Intermountain West and eastern slopes 

of the Rockies in Wyoming and Colorado are forecast to receive below average 

spring and summer streamflow, 50% to 90% of average. 

USDA EFFORTS TO ADDRESS DROUGHT

Secretary Veneman formed a departmental Drought Coordinating Council on 

April 8, 2003, within the USDA, to monitor conditions and coordinate resources to 

assist drought-affected agricultural producers and rural communities. The Council 

is comprised of key USDA senior level officials and is chaired by the Deputy Secretary. The Council continues to meet on a regular basis. The Council monitors 

drought conditions and coordinates resources to assist affected agricultural producers and rural communities. 

We at USDA recognize that drought has resulted in periodic degradation to our 

natural resources and has devastated many farming and ranching operations across 

the country. USDA leads the nation’s efforts to minimize risks associated with farming and ranching and provides critical assistance when drought occurs. We currently 

have in place several programs to help producers enduring losses that are attributable to drought. Some of USDA’s disaster programs are mandated and funded annually by Congress. Access to FSA’s low-interest emergency farm loans is just one 

example of such assistance. 

To best meet producers’ diverse needs, USDA agencies often collaborate with each 

other and outside partners to deliver dynamic, adaptable, disaster assistance programs. One example of this is the Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) partnership with 

State Departments of Agriculture (SDA) to distribute nonfat dry milk for use in livestock foundation herds to twelve drought-stricken States and one tribe. 

In another innovative partnership FSA worked with the Department of Interior 

and the State of Oregon to deliver badly needed water to Klamath Basin irrigators. 

The agencies recharged a principal canal to assist farmers and restore the health 

of the ecosystem. Also, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has 

worked with farmers, ranchers and other partnerships in the Klamath Basin to conserve water on irrigated farm and ranchlands in the Basin. These measures, including converting farmland from flood to sprinkler irrigation, have been implemented 

on over 16,000 acres, resulting in 6,700 acre-feet of water being conserved on-farm. 

USDA has developed other innovative ways to help farmers and ranchers. USDA 

provided $857 million Livestock Compensation Programs (LCP) I, and provided 253 

million pounds of non-fat dry milk to cattle under the Cattle Feed Program. Congress later appropriated funds of $252 million for LCP II. 

Several USDA agencies work aggressively to expedite drought assistance and 

mitigate impacts. Last year the NRCS stepped up pre-drought planning and mitigation by applying 30,500 new resource management systems on 16.8 million acres of 

grazing land and, at the same time, installing 15,600 irrigation management measures on 1.9 million acres of cropland. 

The USDA’s NRCS implements numerous conservation programs that are beneficial for drought mitigation, including conservation and watershed planning measures. In addition, cost-share program assistance helps agricultural producers experiencing drought. For example, the Environmental Quality Improvement Program 

(EQIP) can address resource impairments that are the result of drought. EQIP 

funds are being used to fund the establishment of cover crops or conservation tillage, in order to keep wind erosion under control. Other examples include incentive 

payments for prescribed grazing and management of drought-related pests such as 

grasshoppers. 

The Ground and Surface Water Conservation component of EQIP is utilized to directly assist producers make more efficient use of water resources. Examples include 

converting irrigation systems to less water-intensive practices such as drip irrigation, and in some cases switching a producer to dryland farming. This program in 

past years has been targeted specifically to assist states experiencing drought. The 

NRCS also provides several conservation programs that are beneficial for drought 

mitigation, including conservation and watershed planning measures. 

37

In 2002, the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) paid out ap- proximately $220 million dollars of which it is estimated that $147 million was associated to drought. The Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), which provides 

cost-share assistance to agricultural producers to rehabilitate farmland damaged or 

destroyed by natural disaster and to provide emergency water conservation measures in times of severe drought, provided $17.4 million in drought-related assistance 

to 27 States. 

Drought conditions also brought additional help from the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Last year, APHIS had treatment money available to eradicate grasshoppers and Mormon crickets. Increased populations of these 

insects go hand-in-hand with increased drought conditions. APHIS provided treatment assistance in nine states, protecting a total of 1.2 million acres. 

In addition, USDA’s Rural Utilities Service provides direct and guaranteed loans 

and up to 75% grants for water, waste disposal, and solid waste facilities in rural 

areas. Drought related programs include new water source, backup source, and new 

wells. Fiscal year 2003 funding totaled $1.4 billion, with $813 million for water purposes. While Agricultural Research Service’s (ARS) funding for fiscal year 2003 research was $23 million dollars. ARS focuses on four major areas of drought research: Mitigation, Plant Stress and Water Use Efficiency, Water Conservation and 

Soil Moisture, and Weather Prediction and Remote Sensing. 

Information on USDA disaster assistance is also available at:

http://disaster.fsa.usda.gov. Reducing this nation’s vulnerability to the consequences of drought is the cornerstone of USDA’s national drought policy. The Drought Council is a proactive partnership helping to improve drought planning, preparation, and mitigation. The 

Drought Council and all its partnering agencies have played a crucial role in improving capabilities for predicting and mitigating the forces of nature. But when 

drought or other natural disasters do strike, USDA is continuing to help farmers 

survive and overcome adversity. 

CONCLUSION

Drought is perhaps the most obstinate and pernicious of the dramatic events that 

Nature conjures up. At its most severe, dust bowls once eroded the American landscape, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, and dashing hopes and 

dreams for thousands of families. Today drought is still agriculture’s most expensive, frequent, and widespread form of natural disaster that continues to perplex 

and inflict its misery on our nation’s farmers and ranchers. 

The National Drought Policy Act of 1998 presented this country with a significant 

opportunity. The law recognized the need to prepare for and lesson the severe impacts of drought on the American people and the environment. It created the National Drought Policy Commission to advise Congress on formulation of national 

drought policy based on preparedness, mitigation, and risk management, rather 

than on crisis management. 

Oftentimes, USDA’s role lies at the forefront of disaster relief and management 

for producers throughout the nation. When disaster strikes, USDA has programs 

and assistance that can be made available to help producers recover crop losses, the 

cost of rehabilitating farmlands, and for emergency water assistance. 

In summary, USDA has long supported efforts to mitigate the effects of drought 

on America’s ranchers and farmers. We look forward to working with Members of 

Congress to address the many concerns associated with the challenging issues surrounding drought and related disasters.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you all, gentlemen. I appreciate 

your testimony here this morning. 

As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, I 

have an opportunity to spend a lot of time focusing on this issue, 

and I appreciate you coming before the full Energy Committee this 

morning to give this update. 

In our subcommittee, we have been looking at very specific 

projects, the CALFED/Bay Delta Authorization Act, the Gila River 

water settlement. We are going to be taking up rural water supply 

legislation next week, and we are also going to be looking at proposals for desalinization projects, as well as hearings on dam safety. I think some of you will be joining us at those upcoming hearings. 

38

But as you certainly have recognized in your testimony today, 

the issues of supply and demand as they relate to water and how 

that affects economy, how it affects our agriculture, really how it 

affects how we live in this country is quite key. So I appreciate all 

that you do in bringing your perspectives this morning. 

The first question is more a general one to those of you who 

would choose to speak up on it. You have each testified about key 

data collection and resource assessment activities. You have certainly brought a good deal of insight from your perspective, but the 

interaction between the various agencies—one could suggest that 

there is a haphazard approach or coordination between agencies, 

States. I guess I would ask if it is fair to characterize the cumulative Federal effort to understand water resources, predict future 

water resource needs and supplies and build a basis for the best 

possible management—would you suggest that it is poorly coordinated? Give me your perspective on that coordination between the 

various agencies on this. 

Mr. Raley, do you want to go first? 

Mr. RALEY. Thank you, Senator. A pleasure to be here. 

Yes, I would say it is poorly coordinated not through the fault of 

any individual, but as we have developed a water policy particularly in the West for the last 100 years, there have been assignments given by Congress to a wide range of different agencies. As 

much as all try, we have difficulty keeping each other up to speed 

on the latest developments. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. How can we improve it? 

Mr. RALEY. Well, I am aware of efforts to have, in essence, onestop shopping on the web using the President’s e-gov initiative and 

drought research and tools that are largely driven by and the responsibility of agencies outside of the Department of the Interior. 

We looked at it because the USGS, which is a part of Interior, has 

a role in this in terms of gauging and some research, but concluded 

that it would be counterproductive for us to assume that the Interior Department should be the focal point for that data collection, 

that we should coordinate with USDA and NOAA because they 

were working with the Western States Governors Association, pulling together this goal of one-stop shopping in terms of information. 

So I think continued focus by all agencies, with assistance from 

Congress in terms of helping us keep that focus, would be helpful. 

As to planning for drought, I would observe that we have a longstanding and deeply rooted policy of federalism with respect to 

Western water issues, which means that the Federal Government’s 

proper role is to some degree subservient to the States that have 

the lead role on water policy and allocation. That inherently means 

that we have 17 subsets of Federal water policy, and that is the 

way the West has wanted it. And at Interior, we certainly support 

that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Anybody else? Any comments on how we 

can improve the coordination? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. Yes, I would like a few comments. I think it is 

fair to say that there have been improvements over the past 10, 15, 

20 years in terms of coordinating on data amongst the, for example, National Weather Service and the Department of Agriculture 

and USGS in terms of receiving data that we need to make foreVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Jun 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\93903.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
39

casts and us providing data and information that people need to 

make decisions. 

But having stated that, it is also clear that much more needs to 

be done in terms of coordinating existing and planned data, especially remotely sensed data and how the information is used in the 

decision-making process. It not only influences the decision-makers 

but influences those who are providing that information, especially 

as we are working towards improving our forecasts and trying to 

describe the uncertainties in those forecasts to those who have to 

make decisions. 

So a focused effort on a problem like drought helps bring this together both in terms of data that goes in to analysis and forecast 

systems and how the information then comes out of the forecast 

system and is used by decision-makers. 

There is an ongoing activity that is actually coordinated through 

the Western Governors Association. It is a National Integrated 

Drought Information System, NIDIS. It is in a draft phase. It is a 

drought early warning system for the 21st century and it is trying 

to bring these issues together in terms of how we best use the observations, how we make that coordination function happen more 

efficiently and bringing all these observations together, and then 

again, getting the forecasts out to the decision-makers in a more 

effective manner. 

Mr. GAIBLER. I would just make the observation that from our 

experience the Interim Drought Council I mentioned is a good vehicle to try and bring together everything that is being done across 

our various agencies to attempt to broadly address the drought 

issues and also to build a better relationship with the States and 

the affected communities and producers that are directly impacted 

by that. I believe that there could be better and closer coordination 

and efforts behind that council process. It is one area, at least from 

our perspective, that we could recommend that could be improved. 

General GRISOLI. Senator, I would like to agree with my colleagues on their comments so far. 

I would like to add that the more I got into this particular area, 

having been serving in the Pacific Northwest in the Missouri River 

and the Columbia River basins, the basins are done differently, 

each handled a little differently with the Federal agencies, and I 

can see that we probably could learn from each other a little bit 

more about how we interact with State, Federal, and our other 

stakeholders by sharing information between the basins, handling 

some of the many challenges. They are very different and complex, 

but some things they share which are the same, which is making 

sure we share information and we work together as a team to solve 

problems. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Raley. 

Mr. RALEY. Senator, if I could add. When Secretary Norton decided to look at these water policy issues that are within the purview of Interior, we were very aware of the recent history of what 

was, I believe, started by Senator Hatfield from Oregon of the 

Western Water Policy Review Commission. That was a well-intended effort. As I understood it, the goal for that effort was to attain coordination between the agencies, the heart of your question. 

My personal observation is that a lot of people put a lot of time and 

40

put a lot of money into that effort, and I would say that it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify any consequence of all that 

work. 

Secretary Norton and the Interior Department were very aware 

of that well-intended effort and the fact that it has had virtually 

no impact on water policy, and that is why Water 2025 focuses on 

things that we know can be done on the ground to make a difference. There is something in the middle there, I recognize, between the laudable and absolutely essential objective of having coordination which will always fail that no matter how hard we try, 

but we have to make that effort. Moving forward with reality and 

dealing with things on the ground, there is something in the middle there. 

But we are quite reticent as a Department, particularly given our 

strong adherence of principles of federalism to tread the same path 

as was trod for the last 8 years because we are not sure that we 

would end up with a different result, and we are fairly certain that 

even if we came to a different conclusion in theory, the consequences on the ground might be the same as they were and are 

of the Western Water Policy Review Commission, which is virtually 

nothing. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I will come back. I want to ask a 

question or two about the Water 2025. 

Senator Bingaman, would you like to ask a couple questions 

here? 

Senator BINGAMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Let me start just trying to follow up on the same line of questioning. I am struck by a couple of different statements contained 

in the testimony. Dr. Uccellini, you have this statement in your testimony where you say mountain snowpack is like money in the 

bank for Western water supplies as the snowpack contributes anywhere from 50 to 80 percent of the water supply in the region. I 

do not think anybody who has seen the benefits of a good snowpack 

would disagree with that. 

There was an article that was put out last month by the Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory where they reported on a study 

that one of their scientists did where they concluded global warming will diminish the amount of water stored as snow in the Western United States by up to 70 percent in the coastal mountains 

over the next 50 years. 

So it strikes me that we seem to have agreement we ought to 

have a policy to deal with the problems of drought. Most of the 

problems of drought are directly related or going to be directly related to whatever this phenomenon is of global warming, the 

warming of temperatures and the elimination of snowpack that results from that. 

Would you agree that is a big part of the problem which is leading to this prospect of sustained drought throughout the West? 

Dr. UCCELLINI. Well, it is very clear that the climate pattern dictates the long-term precipitation regimes and the weather features 

that produce these snows and rains that we need for our water resources. So as that climate changes, there will be changes in such 

things as storm tracks which produce snow and rain. One of the 

areas of very intense research is linking these climate changes to 

41

these types of weather features that will produce your winter 

snows, the spring and summer rainfall. 

There is a lot of controversy involved in how one goes about modeling these factors, but there is increasing progress being made in 

getting consistent, say, postmortems done over, let us say, the past 

30–40 years in terms of how things have evolved with respect to 

what we have been able to observe and then try to use those same 

models and project out into the future. 

What we are seeing is that the models are converging towards 

a warming atmosphere, especially in the mid latitudes and up towards the poles. But the effect on the precipitation is still indeterminate in the sense that there are still wide variations in the 

weather patterns within the climate changes. As our testimony indicates, we are being cautious in how to extract what we have been 

able to learn about the use of the models for temperature forecasts 

out into the future in terms of making precipitation forecasts. 

One other factor that we are——. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Finish up quickly because I am going to be 

out of time before you finish answering that first question. 

Dr. UCCELLINI. We cannot discount the importance of the oceans 

and the ocean evolution in terms of what is going to happen with 

the climate and respective storm tracks. We are really just coming 

to grips with the ocean atmospheric coupling which we have shown 

is important for our rainfall and snowfall over the Western United 

States, but exactly how to use that and project into the future is 

still uncertain at this time. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Let me shift to another issue. Secretary 

Raley, I wanted to ask you. The Department’s publications, particularly with regard to Water 2025, constantly mention Klamath River 

and the Middle Rio Grande basins as serious problem areas that 

you need to deal with. Unfortunately, it seems to me that your 

treatment of the two basins is extremely different. 

In the fiscal year 2005 budget, the Department has proposed a cross-cut budget of $67 million to address problems in the Klamath 

Basin, using resources from Reclamation and the USGS and the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM and the BIA and even the 

Park Service. And so you have that cross-cut budget. 

In the case of the Middle Rio Grande, as I read what you are proposing, it is a cut of $9.5 million from Reclamation’s budget for the 

Middle Rio Grande ESA compliance, leaving only $5.9 million for 

fiscal year 2005. And to add salt to the wound, the Fish and Wildlife Service has eliminated any funding for the Middle Rio Grande 

bosque initiative. 

Why is it not appropriate to do a cross-cut budget for the Middle 

Rio Grande like you do a cross-cut budget for the Klamath Basin 

and try to provide adequate funding to actually do what this 2025 

initiative says needs to be done? 

Mr. RALEY. Senator, you make a point that is quite appropriate 

in terms of timing because, as you know, we are working through 

the next budget cycle, and I think it would be entirely appropriate 

to have, for the next budget cycle, a cross-cut budget that focuses 

within the Department on identifying all opportunities in the Department to deal with the complex issues in the Middle Rio 

Grande. 

42

I would suggest one of the issues is we have wanted to be very 

respectful in the Middle Rio Grande of local complexities, and we 

are waiting for some of the processes that are ongoing, have been 

ongoing for some time, to ripen further so that we do not put ourselves in a place of the Department of the Interior telling the people of New Mexico what the answer is. As you know, your constituents have quite diverse opinions, and I think they are making 

progress towards finding a common ground, but more work is yet 

to be done on the ground. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Well, I can assure you even those who are 

jealous of their prerogatives are not offended when resources are 

provided, and so I would urge that you look at that again. Thank 

you. 

Mr. RALEY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Let me also ask about the Ogallala Aquifer. 

This is not an issue which I think was dealt with in any of the testimony. At least, I did not hear it. I have been concerned for some 

time about the depletion in the groundwater in the Ogallala Aquifer, particularly in eastern New Mexico and west Texas and some 

of the other States in that area. We passed legislation through the 

Senate to provide additional authority to the Geological Survey to 

work in cooperation with the States to map and characterize and 

model the High Plains Aquifer. 

I would ask you, Secretary Raley, is this something that you in 

the Department of the Interior could get behind and help us persuade the House to pass? 

Mr. RALEY. Senator, this effort is actually something that I have 

some nominal experience with, going back to a job I had in college, 

which was working out on the ground interviewing people about 

declining aquifer rates. I have watched that issue in the studies 

over time. 

One of the policy issues that we have raised, understanding that 

there are very severe consequences in local communities to the rate 

of drawdown is what the marginal return is for greater specificity 

in the modeling—in other words, what we can produce—and I have 

no lack of confidence that the USGS can always produce yet more 

models, better models, and provide more predictive tools. 

Given that these decisions, with respect to groundwater management, are made by the States, we are wondering what the added 

value is for yet a better model when, quite frankly, we understand 

the trends. We understand what drives the trends of drawdown for 

this resource. It tends to be agricultural prices and energy prices 

and the profitability of drawing the water. We are trying to make 

sure that the money that is spent on this effort results in information the decision-makers like you can use, and that is what we are 

struggling with. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Well, let me give you an example of how we 

could use that information here in the Congress. Last Congress, in 

the farm bill, we included a provision for an incentive program for 

groundwater conservation. We put in there some funding to assist 

farmers who would be willing to shift to more efficient methods of 

irrigation. 

I was going to ask Mr. Gaibler, if you could tell us whether or 

not this program is working in your view, whether this demand for 

43

funding is what you expected, if additional funding is needed, and 

how many upgrades of irrigation equipment have occurred? Do you 

have any kind of report you could give us on any of that? 

Mr. GAIBLER. Yes, Senator. We do have some information that 

was provided in my testimony that describes various irrigation 

measures, management measures, that have been implemented, as 

well as installing 15,600 irrigation measures on about 2 million 

acres of cropland. Through another one of our programs, the environmental quality incentive program, cost-share assistance funds 

have been provided for the establishment of cover crops and use of 

conservation tillage to keep wind erosion under control. Other 

areas of increased focus of water-intensive practices such as using 

drip irrigation and in some cases trying to provide farmers incentives to produce crops that have less water-intense use. 

As to the specific levels of funding, I would be happy to provide 

you more specifics, and further identify if there are shortfalls 

where we are not able to meet those demands. 

Senator BINGAMAN. Let me just make one other comment and 

then I will stop, since I assume my time is up, although we do not 

seem to have a timer operating today. 

I do think that if we are going to have good forward-looking policies adopted at the State level or at the Federal level or at the local 

level, with regard to water use out of these aquifers, we need the 

best information we can get. This is one small example of what the 

Federal Government might be doing and it possibly could do much 

better. Clearly the States and localities could do a better job if they 

had more reliable and timely information about the extent of the 

depletion of that underground aquifer. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Raley, just quickly on Water 2025. Obviously, some very good, very positive things coming out of the administration there, the Challenge Grants program. I am pleased 

with the administration’s efforts to expand the management of the 

invasive plants like the salt cedar and the Russian olive. 

The desire to provide new technology is also exciting, but there 

is an aspect of funding that when one looks at it, you say, well, this 

is a little bit troublesome here, and this specifically as it relates to 

funding desalinization, reuse, and a few of the other programs. In 

2004, it seemed that we were looking at some increases in funding, 

but the administration’s 2005 budget clearly has devalued certain 

of these programs and eliminates much, if not all, of the previous 

year’s gains. 

So I would ask whether the administration supports the desalination and other water purification technology development as a 

key to one of our long-term solutions, and if that support is there, 

why we have seen the decreased support for the desalination R&D 

and other programs that would expand these water supplies. 

Mr. RALEY. Senator, we are very supportive of Interior’s role as 

a participant in driving the research for desalinization as far and 

as fast as possible. Our understanding is that the primary factors 

affecting the economic viability of desalinization, whether it be sea 

water desalinization or brackish groundwater desalinization, which 

is also of interest to the Department, given the vast areas, some 

of which need clean drinking water, that Interior deals with—the 

44

two drivers are energy costs and disposal costs of the brine or 

whatever else that is taken out of the water so that it is drinkable. 

There are gains to be made in technology that we do not want 

to look past, but our assessment was that, to be very blunt, Interior’s ability or appropriate role on desal is to contribute its part 

with respect to funding the research to drive it as fast as possible 

so that the benefits of that could be shared nationwide and even 

internationally. People are interested in these technologies from 

basically all the southern coastal States. So Florida is interested. 

Texas is interested, clearly California, as well as areas inland. 

Given that we have other demands, our intent all along has been 

to take what we have, focus it on research, and let other agencies, 

some of whom are sitting at this table, take the lead on other aspects of alternative water supply development, all of which are 

great. It is just that Interior cannot be all things to all people, and 

it does not have an inherent role or capability, say, to be the best 

waste water treatment plant engineers in the world. That is expertise that is either at the State and local level or at EPA or elsewhere in the Federal Government. And we thought it appropriate 

and most effective to let them take the lead and that we would 

focus on the research side in desalinization, and then within that 

policy parameter, we want to stretch people’s money as far as we 

can and spend it most effectively. That is why the President sends 

a budget to you so we can engage on exactly how we achieve that 

common goal. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. As far as the other goals set out in Water 

2025, are there additional authorities that are needed by the administration in order for these to be effective? 

Mr. RALEY. We believe we have adequate authority with respect 

to research, although depending on how the research road map 

that I believe Senator Domenici had a role in and others on this 

committee in having Interior proceed, depending on the direction 

that that research road map goes, it may be possible we would 

need additional authority in the future. We think we can continue 

to play the role that we think is appropriate for Interior. 

Again, there are six to nine agencies in the Government that 

deal with desalinization. We do not see desalinization as one that 

inherently should or has to be an Interior function. If it can be 

done more effectively in the Department of Energy or by the Department of Defense, we just want the job done and are not trying 

to protect a program just because it happens to, for historic reasons, live within Interior. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Now, I am assuming that Water 2025 will 

overlap with the administration’s proposed rural water program, 

and I am hoping that we have got your commitment that we will 

work together to refine these legislative proposals for rural water 

and get those worked through. 

Mr. RALEY. Absolutely, Senator. We have been quite anxious to 

get this legislation up to you. We understand that from an Interior 

standpoint and obviously from the perspective of members of your 

committee, this is an important issue. The legislation that has been 

forwarded to you is our attempt to proceed with this issue from an 

Interior perspective. 

45

I would note, though, that this is another issue that, first of all, 

has got national applicability, and Interior’s water supply role is 

limited to the 17 Western States. There are many communities 

that have an interest in this and Interior does not necessarily have 

a role in those areas and probably should not. 

If we were to look for progress in good government, over time I 

think that the administration, any administration, is going to need 

to engage with the Senate and the House in figuring out what we 

as a Nation are going to do about these rural areas that need 

drinking water and perhaps rethink this scattering of something 

like nine programs that do it to see if there is an opportunity to 

do it more effectively. We have just provided you with our slice of 

it. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony 

this morning. There are other questions that we have here and we 

will submit those to you in writing for your response. I appreciate 

your time in joining the committee this morning. Thank you. 

With that, we will call up the second panel, Mr. Craig Bell, executive director of the Western States Water Council, and Mr. Tex 

Hall, president of the National Congress of American Indians. 

Good morning, gentlemen, welcome to the committee. Thank you 

for joining us. Mr. Bell, if you would like to proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG BELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL 

Mr. BELL. Okay, thank you. The council that I represent consists 

of representatives appointed by the Governors of 18 Western 

States. We work closely with the Western Governors Association, 

and so we have a vital interest in the subject of this hearing. In 

fact, a letter was prepared by the Western Governors Association 

to accompany this testimony and is attached to my written statement. We commend it to you. 

We think this is, of course, a very important subject as we grapple with the conditions of extended drought in the West. States in 

the West are the primary managers of water, and so we show keenly the impacts of the drought and have witnessed firsthand the extent of the drought over these several years now. 

I remember last year, when we were visiting at a council meeting 

in Nevada, we went around the table and talked about drought 

conditions, as is our wont these years. The State engineer from Nevada remarked that things had been so dry in Nevada that he had 

3-year-old fish who had not learned to swim. 

[Laughter.] 

That sort of summed things up in terms of how things are going 

in the West. Similar stories could be reflected. 

We find that drought, of course, is not uncommon in the West. 

It is sort of the state of affairs from time to time. It is the nature 

of things in the West. But this drought, in particular, is of historic 

proportions, and part of the reason is the West has changed since 

the drought of the 1930’s and the 1950’s, to which this drought is 

comparable. The West has grown significantly. Growth has been 

phenomenal. It continues. So the challenges for the West have 

grown commensurately. The cities have grown. Rural communities 

46

continue to need supplies. So the challenge has grown tremendously in terms of providing a water supply, and that of course, is 

exacerbated when there is a shortage, when drought occurs. 

We have noticed that drought affects virtually every sector of the 

economy. The agricultural sector has been hit very significantly, 

but also the environment. There have been very detrimental effects 

to the environment and to many other areas of the economy. Virtually everything is dependent on water in the West, and so you 

can imagine that virtually every sector and interest in the West is 

affected when we do not have enough water. 

What I thought I would focus on today is some of the effects that 

are not sometimes discussed. That is, we are generally aware of the 

economic impacts. They are in the billions of dollars and, as I say, 

attached to every sector of the economy. 

But there are also other kinds of impacts that are not so easy 

to quantify. These are exemplified, as this committee knows, in situations that occurred in the Klamath River basin and the Middle 

Rio Grande. 

Many will disagree about the factors that led to those situations. 

The Endangered Species Act, of course, plays a significant role. But 

while people will disagree about the factors that led to those situations in the Klamath and the Middle Rio Grande, I think everyone 

agrees that they were precipitated in large part by drought conditions, that is, there was a severe and sustained drought which led 

to those conditions in the Klamath and the Middle Rio Grande. 

So I guess one of the things I would say is that one of the things 

that drought leads to in the West and elsewhere is conflict among 

competing uses of water. As I mentioned, cities have grown tremendously. That growth continues. But also there have been other 

kinds of demands that have increased, that is, demands for 

instream uses, for fish and wildlife habitat, for the environment, 

for aesthetic values. Often those values are represented by Federal 

laws. 

So one of the things that water managers in the West must deal 

with is the integration of Federal and State responsibilities for 

water management. That is a difficult task at best. It becomes 

more difficult in times of drought. We saw that in the Klamath and 

the Middle Rio Grande. 

We as the Western States Water Council, consisting of States, 

working with the Western Governors Association, have endeavored 

to provide a forum where people, State water managers in particular, could learn to integrate Federal and State responsibilities, 

those interests that are reflected in Federal law, as well as State 

law, in water in the West. But we have found that that becomes 

very difficult during times of drought. So that is one of the impacts 

that are sometimes not identified with respect to drought. 

We have some ideas generated about how that might improve. 

We, like Assistant Secretary Raley, have found that the Federal response has been poor in terms of coordination, not because of their 

best efforts and intentions, but because of the nature of their authorities. There is no coordinated system for addressing drought, 

and we think that is a need that needs to be addressed. 

We also feel that we need better information. Part of the problem 

is that we lack information about vital information that affects 

47

drought, that impacts the West because of drought. That could be 

remedied if we could improve those programs that provide information to western water managers. 

Two programs that we would single out are the U.S. Geological 

Survey’s cooperative water program and the Natural Resource Conservation Services snow survey program. Both those programs provide vital information, especially in terms of drought. And we hope 

the Congress might give them appropriate attention as they are 

asked to make decisions about the budget for those programs. They 

are of vital interest to the West. 

Lastly, I would commend to the Congress support for passage of 

S. 1454, the Drought Preparedness Act of 2003. The letter from the 

Governors that you will find is to that effect. We think that it has 

much to commend it. We think that would offer a number of things 

that would be helpful in preparing for and responding to drought. 

It would get us away from this ad hoc, fragmented approach to 

drought to a proactive approach that relies on preparedness as 

much as response. It would help deliver more effectively current 

drought programs at the Federal level. It would provide new tools 

for drought planning and preparedness, relying on existing processes and watershed councils, and it would also establish a national integrated drought information system, a bill that would create a vastly improved drought monitoring and forecasting system. 

In other words, in summarizing my statement, I would say that 

the drought preparedness bill, as fashioned by members of this 

committee and others, would help us not only improve our ability 

to respond to emergency conditions but also to manage water in the 

West more effectively and efficiently. It would provide us leverage 

to deal with this greater problem of water supply for the future. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CRAIG BELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL

My name is Craig Bell. I am Executive Director of the Western States Water 

Council (the Council). The Council is comprised of representatives appointed by the 

governors of eighteen western states. The Council has been charged with fostering 

interstate cooperation in water resources and protecting vital state prerogatives 

with regard to the management of water resources in the West. In so doing, we are 

a formal affiliate and work closely with the Western Governors’ Association (WGA). 

Both organizations have followed closely drought conditions over the past five years, 

examined the impacts of these conditions, and have formulated proposals to help the 

West strengthen its capacity to cope with such conditions. 

In preface to my statement, I wish to join the WGA in commending the Committee for holding this hearing. As you know, and as the testimony at this hearing 

will confirm, the impacts from the drought in the West—and across the Nation—

have been enormous. I further wish to express appreciation for this invitation to 

participate at the hearing. States in the West continue to play the pivotal role with 

regard to water management. Given that role, states are acutely aware of the impacts of the significant drought conditions that have plagued the West in recent 

years. These impacts include low water supply conditions, leaving many localities 

to request or require water restrictions, low well levels or dried up wells, widespread record or near-record low stream flows and dismal snowpack in many parts 

of the West, devastating wildfires, and billions in losses to the agricultural sector, 

to the environment (endangered species, water quality, soil erosion/degradation), 

recreation, tourism, and energy, to name some. 

This year has brought some relief, but precipitation has not been sufficient to ease 

drought conditions in many core drought areas, where significant moisture deficits 

have built up over the past several years. According to NOAA’s Climate Prediction 

48

1Western States Water, Issue #1338, January 7, 2000. 

Center, some improvement through May can be anticipated, and some impacts are 

likely to ease. ‘‘However, deficient precipitation has impacted much of this 

region... from the Rockies to the West Coast states... for several years now, 

and accumulated long-term deficits remain quite large in many areas, equaling 

more than a typical year’s worth of rainfall in some places,’’ according to the most 

recent Drought Monitor, an interagency report (on March 4, 2004). It is important 

to note that it will likely take substantial above normal precipitation for an extended period before the West can recover from the current multi-year drought. 

In the arid West drought is not uncommon and significant fluctuations in water 

supply are the norm. Nevertheless, the current drought is of major proportion. Further, the West has changed significantly since the droughts of the 1930s and 50s, 

with which the current drought is comparable. The West is no longer a predominantly rural area, but the most urbanized in the country. While growth is occurring 

throughout the West, much of it is occurring in the West’s urban centers. 

In 2000, the estimated population for the seventeen western states, plus Alaska 

and Hawaii, stood at over 90 million with accompanying demands for food, fiber and 

power. In addition to many rural communities, cities across the West have entered 

the new millennium with an old challenge—finding the water necessary for present 

and future uses.1

As a result, cities exercise more influence regarding water allocation, particularly 

in time of drought. Further, public support has increased significantly for instream 

values, water for fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and aesthetic values. Many 

of these values are represented by various federal laws which must be considered 

as part of the responsibilities of state water managers in allocating this precious resource. Thus, the job of water managers in the West is becoming increasingly challenging. This challenge is substantially exacerbated during times of drought. Water 

scarcity—in the face of increasing demands—has led to growing conflicts between 

and among different categories of water users. Two examples may be illustrative. 

I’m sure everyone here is aware of what happened in the Klamath River Basin 

in 2001. Water to the Klamath Project was shut off under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act, after biological opinions by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service determined that low water 

levels in the basin were threatening endangered sucker fish and threatened Coho 

salmon. As the head of the Oregon Water Resources Department said recently: 

‘‘While it may be argued that these [federal] laws just ‘overlay’ but do not displace 

state water allocation primacy, there is no question that they have yet to be 

seamlessly integrated into state allocation systems and thus have fueled the conflicts. . . .’’ He further categorized the 2001 Klamath Project water supply cut-off 

as perhaps ‘‘the best example of a chaotic, inequitable, lose-lose outcome in Oregon. 

As a result, Klamath farmers lost water and livelihoods; wildlife refuges lost water 

and biological functions; tribes lost support for habitat improvements and reservation land restoration; government agencies lost credibility and partnerships; and 

conservation interests lost support for a species recovery and the ESA. Time, energy 

and money were diverted from the resource restoration mission and needlessly expanded in the combat.’’

In Oregon and elsewhere in the West, efforts are being made to better integrate 

and coordinate state and federal environmental and resource management laws. But 

this challenge is made significantly more difficult in the presence of drought. While 

many may argue about the factors that resulted in the Klamath Project disaster, 

everyone agrees that a substantial contributing factor was the drought with about 

55% of normal precipitation. 

A federal district court judge in New Mexico likewise ordered reductions last year 

in deliveries to traditional water users to preserve the endangered silvery minnow. 

While subsequent actions precluded this action from taking place, it underscored not 

only the complexity of the task of integrating federal and state laws relating to 

water resource management in the West, but also the impacts of drought. The Middle Rio Grande had experienced severe drought conditions leading to the federal 

judge’s unprecedented order. The merits of that order, as well as other factors associated with efforts to preserve the habitat of the silvery minnow, have been and will 

continue to be debated. However, no one debates that the situation was precipitated 

in large part by significant and extended drought conditions. In this way, drought, 

in addition to causing direct economic impacts to various sectors of the economy, exacerbates the difficulty of efforts to integrate appropriate federal and state responsibilities throughout the West. 

Notwithstanding the difficulty, state water resources agencies have taken many 

innovative steps to facilitate the movement of water from areas of relative abunVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Jun 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\93903.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
49

dance to areas where water is more scarce during times of need. Sometimes such 

actions have been taken on a temporary basis, in response to drought or other emergencies, while other changes in the nature of use have been made permanent. During times of drought, when surface waters are even more scarce, water users of all 

types seek different alternatives. Some can access ground water reserves less vulnerable to drought in the short term. Some increase conservation efforts and make 

do with less or simply must do without. Others may seek temporary changes in the 

place or purpose of use. Water moves between users on both a formal and informal 

basis. Many users have found the use of dry-year leases and other legal mechanisms 

useful in providing greater certainty during times of drought. Not all states have 

access to the same mechanisms. However, states can expedite permitting of temporary uses, such as wells, and temporary transfers among or between different 

users. Where necessary and possible, states facilitate emergency uses. 

Ground water recharge and banking are of growing importance in leveling out 

temporal differences in surface water supplies. Water reuse and desalting technologies are increasing access to previously unavailable or excessively expensive alternatives. Surface water storage has long proven its benefit to the West and continues to do so during these times of drought. Of note, a Western States Water 

Council survey of state needs for the Western Water Policy Advisory Commission 

in 1996 identified an almost universal need for more water storage. While the economic and environmental costs of major new surface water storage dams and reservoirs is often prohibitive, new projects have been built, sometimes privately, to secure public water supplies. 

In this context, the Western States Water Council serves as a forum for ongoing 

efforts to try to integrate state water rights law and administration of that law with 

federal reserved rights and the requirements of federal environmental laws. In so 

doing, the Council has actively and consistently supported adequate funding for 

state and federal water resources related data collection and dissemination programs. This information is vital and even more important during drought when decisions regarding the use of available waters are especially critical. Decision makers 

remain hobbled by a lack of sound data in many areas sometimes stumbling towards necessary actions in response to drought and other instances where water 

uses must be balanced with supplies. Many state and local agencies are cooperators 

in federal water resources data collection and analysis programs. Two of particular 

importance to state water administrators are the U.S. Geological Survey’s Cooperative Water Program and the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Snow Survey 

Program. 

The latter a few years ago was almost in ruins, due to flat federal funding in the 

face of ever increasing costs. The Congress, with the urging of the Council, added 

a small amount (about $2.5 million) that went a long way towards rehabilitating 

aging information collection infrastructure in order to keep this irreplaceable data 

available for myriad water users and decision makers. Still, internal agency budget 

restructuring and accounting for federal employees benefits sometimes threatens 

adequate continued funding. Similarly, the USGS Cooperative Water Program and 

other water programs face continual cost increases that are sometimes beyond their 

control and flat federal funding that has led to a long-term decline in the quantity 

and quality of data on streamflows available to decision makers. State and local 

agencies under the Coop Program now fund two-thirds of what was once a 50%-50% 

federal matching program, and many streamgages have been abandoned, including 

irreplaceable gages with over 30-years of continuous data monitoring, due to increasing costs and a lack of federal funding. Given the myriad federal and non-federal users of this data the cost-benefit ratios can be impressive. A study of the 

NRCS Snow Survey program in 1979 estimated the cost-benefit ratio to be around 

30-1. Clearly this is a wise investment of federal funds that provides national benefits, and critical information, particularly during drought. 

Without sound information on snowpack, rainfall, streamflows, soil moisture, 

ground water, reservoir levels and other climatological and hydrological data, decision makers cannot take the most effective actions in planning, mitigating and responding to drought and its impacts. Indeed, reliable water data is crucial to all aspects of decision making, and so we also hope that, as Congress considers the budget, it will recognize the serious need for adequate and consistent federal funding to 

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

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

a primary focus on coordinated data collection and dissemination. 

Also, of note, the Western States Water Council is working under the auspices of 

the Western Governors’ Association with numerous federal agencies towards a National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), under a NOAA grant, to 

50

* The resolutions have been retained in committee files. 

make the best use of existing information and related programs. A draft report is 

being circulated for public review and comment. As part of this effort, it has been 

recognized that there is no integrated system for the reporting of much of the information available on drought impacts. Moreover, while there is considerable data collected on economic impacts, particularly agricultural impacts, there is less information on the environmental and social impacts of drought. Much of what has been 

gathered is necessarily anecdotal and is generally compiled long after the drought 

has passed. The NIDIS effort is looking into ways of better identifying, assessing 

and reporting such impacts. 

Lastly, despite the enormous impacts of drought, as the attached Governors’ letter 

notes, ‘‘. . . there still does not exist a permanent national policy to prepare for and 

respond to drought disasters. This lack of a coordinated, integrated federal drought 

policy causes confusion at the state and local levels and results in actions being 

taken mainly through special legislation and ad hoc measures, rather than through 

a systematic and permanent process, as occurs with other natural disasters that fall 

under the Stafford Act.’’

I therefore wish to reiterate the Council’s and the Western Governors’ support for 

passage of S. 1454, the Drought Preparedness Act of 2003. The Domenici-BaucusBingaman bill would move the country away from costly ad hoc approaches to 

drought response in favor of proactive preparedness, improve delivery of federal 

drought programs, and provide new tools for drought preparedness planning, building on existing water policy and watershed planning processes. Through establishment of the National Integrated Drought Information System, the bill would create 

a vastly improved drought monitoring and forecasting system. 

By helping the West, and other parts of the nation, to improve the ability to prepare for and respond to drought, I believe the benefits of the Drought Preparedness 

Act would accrue beyond improved response to emergency conditions. By helping us 

mitigate the impacts of drought though cooperative planning and action, the West 

would be better prepared to respond to the ongoing challenges of this arid region. 

In other words enacting this legislation would strengthen our capacity generally to 

manage water resources for the future, and avoid the debilitating conflicts exemplified by the situations in the Klamath and Middle Rio Grande basins. 

Thank you again for the invitation. I would be happy to respond to any questions.

Senator TALENT [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Bell. 

The next witness is Mr. Tex Hall, who is the president of the National Congress of American Indians. Mr. Hall. 

STATEMENT OF TEX G. HALL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS, AND CHAIRMAN, MANDAN, 

HIDATSA AND ARIKARA NATION 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Dorgan. 

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. I would like to submit my written statement and two NCAI 

resolutions for the record.* 

Senator TALENT. That would be great. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

It is the National Congress of American Indians position this 

morning that water issues threaten the health and future of Indian 

tribes, communities, and families across the West, and in many 

parts of the country, there is a lack of cooperation amongst the 

Federal, State, and tribal governments over water issues. 

It is also our position and my duty as president of this organization to stand up for the water rights of Indian country. The 

drought we know that has gripped the West is a national problem. 

We have heard today of the terrible scourge this has placed upon 

our western communities and States and tribes, but if this problem 

is national in scope, then the solution must be national in scope as 

well. 

51

First of all and foremost, I would like to recognize that water is 

a sacred right of Indian tribes and an integral part of our culture, 

and in establishment of the reservations, tribes were located along 

their rivers. So water is necessary to sustain our life on our reservation communities today, especially when many of our reservations were established in the most desolate, remote areas of the 

Western United States. So, obviously, if tribes do not have water 

to sustain their members and their economies, the land base that 

was provided to us becomes basically worthless. 

The Federal Government must acknowledge the seniority of Indian tribes’ reserved water rights and that it has a Federal trust 

responsibility to ensure that adequate water resources are maintained for Indian tribes to sustain themselves on reservations. Federal law needs to impose the highest trust duties of the highest 

standards on the United States and require the United States to 

take all actions necessary to protect and maintain Indian water 

rights. Federal law requires a measurement and preservation of 

tribal water rights that will provide enough water for the present 

and future homeland needs of the tribes. 

And as we know, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld this as law, 

and that said, I find it sadly ironic that tribes are now the most 

vulnerable group of people due to the drought. This committee 

must recognize and ask yourself why is it that tribes, those with 

the most superior water rights, are the first to suffer when drought 

hits and suffer most in these times. I cannot help but wonder out 

loud if this country’s water laws and policies will not make Indian 

tribes an endangered species. 

Tribes must be placed on an equal footing with the rest of the 

Nation. I believe it is time that the United States recognize tribes’ 

superior rights to water in this country and fund tribes at levels 

that will allow them to sustain and protect our economies and uphold our superior water rights, enable us to provide safe drinking 

water for our members that are enjoyed by many communities surrounding us today. 

I would like to briefly tell you about the drought that is affecting 

our tribes along the Missouri River basin. The protection and management of tribal water and land resources in the Missouri River 

watershed are among the most critical priorities facing the 28 Indian tribes within the Missouri River basin. These tribes are geographically distributed from headwaters in Montana to the mouth 

of the Missouri River in Kansas and Missouri and control more 

than 15 million acres of land within this watershed. Despite their 

proximity to this great body of water, they feel the effects of the 

drought. Especially those tribes located on the upper Missouri 

River basin are in danger right now. 

Obviously, the drought has a negative impact on our entire communities for drinking water, for livestock, for crops, but it also has 

a negative impact, in turn, on our cold water fisheries and recreation in these lakes. 

We do not feel that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is effectively managing the upper basin lakes, including Lake Owyhee and 

Lake Sacagawea during this time of drought. The Corps is discharging so much water from these lakes, that these lakes and the 

reservoir are at their lowest levels in the last 50 years. The low 

52

levels of these lakes are critical and are threatening our drinking 

water supplies. 

In January this year, the town of Parshall, North Dakota, on the 

Fort Berthold Reservation had to have an emergency pipeline built 

so that they could continue to draw water from Lake Sacagawea 

to provide drinking water for that entire community. A permanent 

fix is needed and it is estimated that a permanent fix will cost $3 

million to $4 million. 

Just last week, the town of Garrison, North Dakota, which is located right next to Garrison Dam, experienced a water supply 

emergency. Full funding for Garrison diversion projects that allow 

for continued development of critical municipal, rural, and industrial water projects on our Indian reservations is needed badly. 

We have not been fully compensated for the effects of six 

mainstem dams that were built along the Missouri. So even though 

the Dakota Water Resources Act is an authorization act passed in 

the year 2000, we are still waiting for adequate appropriations dollars for our tribe and all of the tribes along the Missouri basin to 

fully fund their drinking water systems to be established, and that 

will take millions of dollars. 

So the bottom line on this is we feel that legislation needs to be 

enacted to protect the drinking water rights of tribes. We feel this 

is a human rights issue, that access to drinking water is not provided for our Indian communities. This should be the first priority 

for us. 

We can continue on with other regions of the country. In New 

Mexico, the Rio Grande, Pueblos being deprived of valuable water 

supplies. We could talk about the California tribes, the Bishop, Big 

Pine, and Lone Pine Paiute tribes of Owens Valley, California suffering devastating loss to plant and animal life and also in the Columbia basin. When nearly 7 percent of tribal homes continue to 

lack running water, a figure that is 14 times higher than the national average, and in the EPA region 9 alone, which encompasses 

the Western-most Indian tribes, an estimated 68,000 tribal homes 

lack access to safe drinking water. This figure includes the 40 percent of the families on the Navajo Reservation that must haul or 

otherwise obtain their drinking water from unregulated resources. 

So based on the EPA needs survey, it is estimated that drinking 

water system construction and rehab and upgrades in Indian country are estimated between $350 million and $500 million. 

I realize my time has run out, so I will conclude my comments 

and be prepared to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TEX G. HALL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF

AMERICAN INDIANS AND CHAIRMAN, MANDAN, HIDATSA AND ARIKARA NATION

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Domenici, Ranking Member Bingaman, and members of the Committee, thank you for your invitation to testify today on the devastating impact the 

Western drought has had on Indian tribes. It is the NCAI’s position that through 

cooperation and collaboration between the federal, state, and tribal governments, 

the impact of the drought can be alleviated. The most important need we have is 

for increased funding that will strengthen the abilities of these governments to enhance infrastructure and programs, and adhere to well-established principles of federal law. However, I want to make it very clear that it is also the position of the 

53

NCAI that this funding must not come from the already dwindling Bureau of Indian 

Affairs budget or existing programs. 

THE DROUGHT’S IMPACT ON INDIAN TRIBES

Indigenous people have experienced natural drought cycles for thousands of years. 

In modern times however, these natural drought cycles are extremely exacerbated 

by the inappropriate management of scarce water resources. As I am sure you are 

aware, the Indian tribes of this country are very diverse in culture, geography, and 

economy. As such, the drought has impacted the tribes in very different ways. For 

agrarian cultures it means reduced farm crops or modifying farming practices. For 

fishing cultures it could mean a stressed fishery that forces tribes to modify their 

harvests. However, in the case of the present water crisis, Indian tribes have already altered their practices to accommodate for the lack of water resources. It has 

been through the action or inaction of the federal or state governments that Indian 

tribes have been affected. I want to share with you specific instances of how the 

Western drought has had a profound impact on Indian tribes throughout the region. 

In northern California, drought has brought out the worst-case scenario of water 

allocation at the expense of the Tribal fisheries in the Klamath Basin. The federal 

government’s water management practices over the past century have taxed the federally reserved fishing rights of tribes in the region, culminating in devastating effects on both the tribes and the surrounding agricultural community. The upper 

Klamath Basin historically was an arid region, yet development of irrigation and 

reclamation projects have created a non-sustainable situation of producing crops 

such as potatoes and alfalfa that require high volumes of water. Likewise, on the 

Trinity River, a major tributary to the Klamath system, water has been exported 

out of the basin for decades causing a stressed fishery and over-dependence by agriculture. This development contributed to the many factors causing the decline of 

tribal fisheries and the eventual listing of several fish species on the federal endangered species list. Drought in 2001 forced the federal government to curtail irrigation deliveries in order to uphold its responsibilities under the Endangered Species 

Act. Political backlash to this decision in the following drought year contributed to 

curtailed river and lake levels resulting in a tragic unprecedented fish kill of over 

35,000 adult salmon. This massive fish kill was devastating to the Klamath Basin 

tribes, specifically the Yurok Tribe. 

In New Mexico, the Middle Rio Grande Pueblos are being deprived of valuable 

water needed to continue traditional farming and related ceremonies due to the 

drought. This deprivation not only threatens the Pueblo economies and social structure, but also the very basis of traditional Pueblo lifeways. Because the Rio Grande 

has been seriously over-engineered with many dams and reservoirs, the federal and 

state governments have been required to enforce senior water rights in accordance 

with the prior appropriations system. They have had to resort to this strict enforcement in order to protect the silvery minnow, which is listed as an endangered species. Despite the Pueblo’s senior water rights, many traditional farming families are 

not able to use their lands for subsistence farming because of a lack of available 

water. The Pueblos should not be deprived of water at the expense of the silvery 

minnow. Under well-established principles of water law, the federal and state governments must apportion the water based on seniority. The Pueblos should be the 

first entity to receive what they need to continue their existence as self-sustaining 

subsistence farmers and carry on their traditional ways of life. 

The Bishop, Big Pine, and Lone Pine Tribes of Owens Valley, California have suffered devastating loss to plant and animal life in their tribal homelands due to the 

drought. Owens Valley is on the east side of the Sierra Nevada Mountain range, 

which supplies the City of Los Angeles with approximately 70% of its drinking 

water which comes from run-off and groundwater pumping. Last year, the City of 

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) pumped over 86,000 acre 

feet of groundwater from the Owens Valley. This tremendous amount of groundwater pumping—coupled with current drought conditions—has resulted in increased 

adverse impacts on tribes in the Owens Valley. The tribes in the Owens Valley are 

in desperate need of financial and technical resources to monitor the water tables 

and vegetation status to ensure that conditions do not further deteriorate. 

In Arizona, traditional Hopi farmers are known to grow beautiful, bountiful crops 

even in the driest of climates. However, recently, Hopi tribal farmers have witnessed a dramatic decrease in productivity and sustainability of their crops. The 

canyon country of the Colorado Plateau is currently suffering from one the most severe, prolonged droughts in history. The drought, coupled with the draining of the 

Navajo Aquifer (N-Aquifer), is threatening the ancient farming traditions of the 

Hopi people. Also in Arizona, the White Mountain Apache Tribe has been affected 

54

by the wildfires in the White Mountains. The fires significantly impacted this 

Tribe’s economic viability since forestry is a major source of revenue for the Tribe. 

In my home State of North Dakota and all along the Missouri River Basin in 

Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska, the protection and management of tribal 

water and land resources in the Missouri River watershed are among the most critical priorities facing the twenty-eight basin Indian tribes. Indian tribes control more 

than 15 million acres of land within this watershed, geographically distributed from 

the headwaters in Montana to the mouth of the Missouri River in Kansas and Missouri. Yet despite their proximity to this great body of water, the Standing Rock reservation ran out of water this year because of mismanagement of the Missouri River 

Basin. The drought that has gripped the northern Plains has given us record breaking high temperatures year after year, and resulted in a greatly reduced snowpack 

in the Northern Rockies that drastically reduces stream flows all along the Missouri 

River. North Dakota has been operating under a Drought Emergency Proclamation 

issued by Governor Hoeven since 2002. The drought directly impacts tribal members’ livestock, crops, and is threatening the health of the cold water fisheries in 

Lake Sacagawea. In January, the town of Parshall on the Fort Berthold Reservation 

had to have an emergency pipeline built just so they could continue to draw water 

from Lake Sacagawea, but will need a permanent fix that will cost $3 to $4 million 

dollars. 

Despite historical and legal rights to the water, Missouri River Basin tribes have 

been excluded from the benefits of the Missouri River water resources and its tributaries. Twenty-three percent of the 1,499,759 acres taken for the construction of the 

dams and reservoirs under the Pick-Sloan plan were Tribal lands. More than 350 

families—1,700 from my Tribe alone—were relocated because of the flooding caused 

by the Garrison Dam. Although the federal government promised irrigation development and participation in electricity generation over fifty years ago when these 

lands were taken, the Tribes are only now beginning to receive some of these benefits. The Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Nation never received the 20,000 kilowatts of 

free power we were promised nor did the United States ever rebuild the hospital 

we lost, a promise that was made over 50 years ago. My grandfather was Vice 

Chairman and present at the signing of agreement in 1948 that took away our lands 

so I have a strong personal commitment to seeing that the United States honors 

its word. The flooding caused by the Dam took away so much. It was more than 

just the land—it was the language, it was the culture, it was the history. It was 

more than just a simple flooding. Although our reservation was promised $70 million in water development projects, my tribal members still must haul their drinking water. We now estimate it will take $86 million to provide adequate drinking 

water throughout the reservation, but funding when it comes seems like it is only 

a few dollars at a time. 

The tribes seek meaningful participation in resource management within the Missouri River Basin, but lack the resources to do so. Our tribes’ natural resource and 

water resource offices depend on discretionary funding from federal agencies for 

maintenance of their operations. Like most tribal programs throughout Indian country, they derive the bulk of this funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and other 

governmental agencies, with annual funding priorities mandated by Congress. The 

tribes are vulnerable to annual fluctuations in federal funding, which inhibit longterm planning. Congress should also appropriate full funding for Garrison Diversion 

projects that allow for the continued development of critical municipal, rural and 

industrial (MR&I) water projects on our Indian Reservations. 

LEGAL BACKGROUND

Federal law requires a measurement of tribal water rights that will provide 

enough water for the present and future homeland needs of Indian tribes. The 

United States Supreme Court has long held that federal Indian reservations were 

set aside as permanent homelands for Indian people to live upon in a self-sustaining 

fashion into the indefinite future, with enough water reserved for tribal use now 

and for all the future generations. 

In the landmark case of Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), the United 

States Supreme Court held that Congress by creating the Indian reservation, 

impliedly reserved ‘‘all of the waters of the river necessary for the purposes for 

which the reservation was created.’’ Winters, 207 U.S. at 576. The Court further declared that this reservation of water was not only for the present needs of the tribe, 

but ‘‘for a use which would be necessarily continued through the years.’’ Winters, 

207 U.S. at 577. 

This principle outlined in Winters is now well-established in federal water rights 

jurisprudence: the United States, in establishing Indian or other federal reservaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Jun 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\93903.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
55

tions, impliedly reserves enough water to fulfill the purpose of each federal reservation, including the residential, economic development, and governmental needs of 

Indian tribes. See Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 599-601 (1963), Cappaert v. 

United States, 426 U.S. 128, 138 (1976); United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, 

700 (1978); In re The General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water In the Gila 

River System and Source, 35 P.3d 68 (2001). Importantly, this type of federal reserved water right is ‘‘superior to the rights of future appropriators.’’ Cappaert, 426 

U.S. at 138. 

Not only must the federal government acknowledge the seniority of Indian tribes’ 

reserved water right, it also has a trust responsibility to ensure that water resources are maintained for the Indian tribes. Federal law imposes trust duties of 

the highest standard on the United States that require the Department of Interior 

to take all actions necessary to protect and maintain Indian water rights. The 

United States Supreme Court has long held that, as Indian tribes’ trustee, the 

United States must act to ‘‘preserve and maintain trust assets,’’ using ‘‘reasonable 

care and skill to preserve trust property.’’ United States v. White Mountain Apache 

Tribe, 123 S.Ct. 1126, 1133-34 (2003). See also United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 

206 (1983). These trust duties require protection in circumstances such as ours 

where ‘‘water rights constitute the trust property’’ which the federal government has 

the duty to preserve by performing ‘‘all acts necessary.’’ Fort Mojave Indian Tribe

v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 417, 426 (1991). Failure to comply with these federal 

trust duties will result in a monetary award against the United States for breach 

of trust. 

As the Supreme Court recently explained, the United States’ federal trust duties 

are substantial when the United States exercises direct control over tribal trust assets on a daily basis. In such circumstances, ‘‘a fiduciary actually administering 

trust property may not allow it to fall into ruin on his watch.’’ White Mountain 

Apache, 123 S.Ct. 1126, 1133. Since the Department of Interior has direct control 

over the manner in which tribal water resources are maintained, utilized, and managed, it is the Secretary’s responsibility to protect tribal use of those waters. Additionally, she has the trust obligation to take the affirmative steps necessary to settle 

and permanently protect tribal water rights in a comprehensive manner. In all of 

the examples that I gave you of how Indian tribes are affected due to the Western 

drought, in every instance, the federal government has had the duty and obligation 

to protect the Tribe’s interest and ensure use for future generations. In these examples, the federal government has breached that duty by allowing diversion of water 

for non-Indian and commercial use, apportioning the water to protect an endangered 

species, not consulting with the affected tribes, and neglecting to adequately fund 

the tribal environmental programs needed to ensure healthy, sustainable communities. 

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

Nearly 7% of tribal homes continue to lack running water, a figure that is 14 

times higher than the national average. In EPA Region 9 alone, which encompasses 

the westernmost Indian tribes, an estimated 68,000 tribal homes lack access to safe 

drinking water (including 40% of the families on the Navajo Nation that must haul 

or otherwise obtain their drinking water from unregulated sources), and there is 

only a 50% certainty that a tap turned on in a tribal home will consistently produce 

water in compliance with bacteriological monitoring and testing requirements. 

Based on the EPA Needs Survey, it is estimated that drinking water system construction and rehabilitation and upgrade needs in Indian Country have been estimated to be approximately $350-$550 million. 

Lack of funding for operations and maintenance for the continuing health and 

welfare of the tribal public water system is also a major concern for Indian tribes. 

The Western drought puts pressure on resources available to public water systems, 

thus implicating the funding for tribal water infrastructure needs. Routine water 

quality monitoring and operation and maintenance activities are absolutely essential to ensure the continued safety of drinking water in Indian country. Additionally, 

the absence of financial, managerial, and technical capacity often results in violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act and puts the public health at risk. 

New federal requirements for drinking water protection, solid waste control, nonpoint source pollution abatement, and hazardous waste have affected Indian reservations. Tribes have been charged with implementing these legislative regulations 

and rules with inadequate federal funding. The tribes stand ready to take the lead 

in the development of these codes and regulations, but need the critical skills to 

carry out these programs pursuant to federal laws. Such skills include sound technical capabilities and administration, policy, and managerial skills. 

56

SOLUTIONS—THE ARIZONA WATER SETTLEMENTS ACT AS AN EXAMPLE

Under well-established principles of federal water law, Indian tribes hold senior, 

federally reserved water rights that must be fulfilled before water is allocated to 

junior users such as municipalities and non-Indian farmers. These rights must be 

acknowledged and adhered to by the federal and state governments. One way of acknowledging these rights is by entering into settlement with willing Indian tribes 

in order to have water claims finally adjudicated. These adjudications will also clear 

up the confusion surrounding the delivery of water during times of drought in the 

future. 

The Arizona Water Settlements Act is pending before your Committee to resolve 

permanently the water rights claims of the Gila River Indian Community. As you 

are aware, the quantification of rights to water and development of facilities needed 

to use tribal water supplies in an effective manner is essential to the development 

of viable Indian reservation economies, particularly in arid western States. Importantly, S. 437 recognizes the need to find sources of funding for Indian water settlements, and the construction of tribal water delivery systems authorized by those 

settlements, outside of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In S. 437, the payments made 

by the State of Arizona to meet its repayment obligations to the federal government 

for the construction of the Central Arizona Project are deposited into the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. The money will be made available directly 

from the Fund to tribal settlement costs, both those authorized in the bill and others such as those of the Hopi and other Arizona tribes that have not yet been enacted by Congress. This distribution will not be associated with the annual Congressional appropriations process and will not come from the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

budget. NCAI supports, as you do, creative approaches to funding Indian water settlements to allow Indian water settlements to be funded and bring certainty to 

water rights in western states without diluting the availability of much-needed BIA 

funds for critical Indian programs. 

CONCLUSION

On behalf of NCAI, I would like to thank the members of this Committee for the 

opportunity to testify on how the drought has affected the Indian tribes of the West. 

Like federal, state, and local entities, many Indian tribes have been adversely affected by the drought. It is the NCAI’s position that the impact of the drought can 

be decreased by providing more funding for tribal water infrastructure. Also, there 

is a need for an increase of funding for tribal, state and federal governmental agencies to ensure that the federal government’s trust obligation is fulfilled even during 

these times of crisis. Settlement of tribal water claims such as the Arizona Water 

Claims Settlement Act are critical to creating and sustaining viable economies in 

Indian country and eliminating uncertainty of water apportionment during times of 

drought. Finally, any new funding should come from new sources and not from the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs budget. 

Lastly, the notice I received concerning this hearing was very short and I have 

only given you examples of the effect of the drought on tribes that were able to respond on such short notice. I know there are other tribes that are suffering from 

the drought. It is my understanding that this Committee will have additional hearings on this subject and I would appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

again to provide additional input to this Committee on tribes’ view of the drought 

and water management in the West.

Senator TALENT. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Of course, your statement 

is in the record, and we appreciate your being here. We appreciate 

both the witnesses very much. 

And I will recognize Senator Dorgan for any statement or questions he may have. 

Senator DORGAN. Senator Talent, thank you very much. I have 

been attending a Commerce Committee markup all morning, so I 

was only just now able to arrive here. 

Let me thank Mr. Bell for being here, and especially let me 

thank Tex Hall. We in North Dakota are very proud of his leadership. He is the National Chairman of the Congress of American Indians. 

Mr. Hall, let me ask you a series of questions. 

57

First of all, let me ask consent to put my opening statement in 

the record. 

Senator TALENT. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Dorgan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this very timely hearing on a topic of great 

importance: water supplies in the arid West. This is a subject on which I have been 

spending a great deal of time, because drought, and all of its repercussions, has hit 

hard in North Dakota. 

We have had a water supply crisis in my state. Over the last year, due to drought 

conditions and the mismanagement of the reservoirs on the Missouri River, North 

Dakota has experienced severe water shortage problems. Last October, I became 

aware that the City of Parshall was facing the prospects of losing its water supply 

if something was not immediately done to extend its water intake pipes. Then, in 

November, Ft. Yates actually lost their water supply when lake levels became too 

low to supply critical water needs. 

These experiences have shown there is an immediate and serious need to evaluate 

and address our water infrastructure needs in rural areas of our country. Notwithstanding what was done on behalf of these towns to mitigate the impact of their 

loss, the fact is these losses could have been avoided. The Army Corps of Engineers 

was well-aware of the adverse consequences that would result when lake levels 

reached a certain point. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on this important topic. I am particularly pleased that Chairman Tex Hall is here today, and we appreciate his making 

the effort to come to appear before the Committee. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you 

for conducting this hearing.

Senator DORGAN. Chairman Hall, do you have people on your 

reservation that are now hauling water? 

Mr. HALL. Unfortunately, Senator Dorgan, we do. We feel between 20 to 25 percent of all tribal residents on Fort Berthold are 

currently hauling water. I myself, as tribal Chairman, am supposed 

to be considered one of the people that should not have to, but I 

haul drinking water every day. 

Our water is of such poor quality, and the sanitation conditions 

many times are really challenging, especially when you are hauling 

water in the back of a pickup truck for those hundreds of families 

that are on Fort Berthold. 

Senator DORGAN. And that is much more vulnerable to contamination when you are hauling water, as opposed to having water in 

a closed system in which the water is treated? 

The reason I ask you that question is that I have sat with families on reservations particularly who describe the day-to-day requirement to haul water. People forget about this and what it 

means when you are actually having to go find a pickup truck or 

a truck and put water in a tank and haul it to your storage facility 

on your premises. Then the question of taking a shower or using 

water in your daily activities is an entirely different question because then you have to be concerned about how much water do you 

have, how much must you conserve, in addition to the issue of contamination. 

I am surprised by the percentage you described to me. I despair 

at that percentage because that is a lot of families who cannot take 

for granted that which we take for granted every single day. Water 

comes out of a tap. You turn on the faucet and you get water. But 

having to haul water is an enormous problem for a lot of families 

58

and we really need to find a way to address that and fix that. I 

know that you are working hard to do it. 

Do you want to comment more on that subject? 

Mr. HALL. Senator Dorgan, I would like to add the Indian country faces a higher rate of diabetes, a 7 times higher rate of diabetes 

than the national average. So as we are looking to dialysize patients, these same patients that we are looking for cleanliness 

when they get on a chair and hooked to become dialysized, those 

same principles are not practiced at home because they have, in 

many situations, unclean water and unhealthy water. 

So lack of access to quality drinking water we feel is not going 

to turn around the negative impacts of diabetes. So our tribe and 

many tribes have actually declared a war on diabetes, but part of 

that war has to have access to quality, treated drinking water to 

help our people become healthy. That is something that is not 

going to turn around unless we can turn around access to treated 

drinking water. 

Senator DORGAN. This may not be a great place to be talking 

about the management of the Missouri River because the Senator 

on my right lives downstream. 

Senator TALENT. I was hoping, Senator, the subject would not 

come up until you had left, and then I could rant and rave on behalf of Missouri. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DORGAN. So anticipating his ranting and raving, let me 

get in front of it just a bit. Mr. Hall, have you taken a look at the 

proposed management of the Missouri River? The new, revised 

management program that the Corps of Engineers has recently released? They have talked about revising the master manual for 

121⁄2 or 13 years. They finally, after 121⁄2 or 13 years, produced this 

product, which is horribly deficient in my judgment. Have you had 

a chance to look at it? 

Mr. HALL. Yes, I have, Senator Dorgan, and we feel it does not 

protect the rights and the issues of a higher lake level for tribes 

to have access to those water systems. If we were to look at a chart 

in the Bureau of Reclamation—our tribal water directors could provide that—of all of our communities that are located—of course, indigenously our people always lived by the river, and so now communities are by the river. So when that lake level drops—and of 

course, we do not believe the new master manual addresses that 

issue—there are going to be entire communities without water, as 

we have seen with Standing Rock and Fort Yates, an entire community without water and now Garrison without water. 

The solutions are temporary and that does not address the permanent need to fix these, but part of the solution has to be to provide more water in the upper basin in order for us to use the lake 

and use the river like we always have, since the beginning of time 

and before the Army Corps of Engineers managed the lake. So we 

do not think it really addresses our concerns. 

There will be more money spent on the back end trying to fix crises instead of trying to fix it on the front end. So I agree that the 

manual is deficient and we are going to have more families and 

more communities entirely without water that is going to cost a lot 

more money later on. 

59

Senator DORGAN. Well, the revised manual is really almost irrelevant. It does not really make any substantive changes that addresses the upstream States’ interests, in my judgment. I guess I 

am probably not very surprised by that, but I am very disappointed 

in it. 

What has been the economic consequences to your tribe in North 

Dakota, the three affiliated tribes, with respect to recreation and 

tourism and all the other things that relate to the loss of boat 

ramps and the declining level of the reservoir? 

Mr. HALL. It is in the millions, Senator Dorgan. Of course, the 

lake and the river are right between our million-acre reservation, 

as you know. In western North Dakota, we are very rural and we 

depend on recreation and fishing. Last summer—and it is not going 

to get any better for this year and for next year and the year after 

that. The majority of recreation sites have lost access with their 

boat ramps because of the droppage. 

So we are scrambling now to find the ramp that would be most 

cheaply fixed to make an adjustment to have access to the water 

because if you do not, the fishing industry is going to dry up, and 

that is a multi-million dollar industry for our reservation and for 

the entire State, as you know. So that really has a potentially devastating effect on our economy. People will not come to the hotels. 

They will not come to the stores, and there is going to be a huge 

loss of industry and local businesses are simply going to go out of 

business and go bankrupt. 

Senator DORGAN. There is less water in the Missouri River system. There is less snowpack and going to be less coming into the 

system again this year. We understand when the Corps of Engineers says we have to make do with less and therefore the reservoirs are drawn down. But that is a question that is separate 

from how you manage the river and how much you release from 

the reservoirs. My own view is that the Corps of Engineers has 

fumbled this miserably. 

In North Dakota, as you know, Chairman Hall, over 7,000–8,000 

citizens on the Fort Yates Reservation during Thanksgiving week 

lost their supply of water. Parshall would have lost its water last 

month, in the month of February, were the intake not extended by 

the Bureau or had it not been extended. 

So we have some very significant challenges. One can hope that 

we get through this drought period and see more water enter the 

system, but even when that happens, we still need a reasonable 

management scheme for the Missouri River system. 

Your reservation is a very large reservation geographically and 

it is intersected by the reservoir and the river system. My father, 

when he was a young man, herded horses and lived in Elbow 

Woods, North Dakota. Elbow Woods no longer exists. Elbow Woods 

is under a reservoir, so it is a town that is now gone. 

From that experience, the members of your tribe especially, but 

others as well, have been displaced, moved to higher ground. Their 

diets changed. They developed diabetes. I held a hearing on your 

reservation and the rate of diabetes on your reservation is 12 

times—not double, triple, or quadruple—12 times the national average. It is devastating. As you said, the issue of water and the reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Jun 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\93903.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
60

quirement to haul water is completely counter to what we need to 

be doing to address the health needs of those with diabetes. 

So your testimony is very helpful, Chairman Hall, and again we 

are very proud of your national leadership. We have a lot to do not 

just on this committee but on the Indian Affairs Committee, on 

which I serve, and also the Interior Subcommittee of Appropriations where we actually appropriate the money for all of these Indian programs. I think your leadership is going to be instrumental 

in our trying to address these in as thoughtful a way as we can. 

Did you have any other comments about the Missouri River system? I know that you have consulted the chairman of the Standing 

Rock Sioux Tribe with respect to their intake issues as well. 

Mr. HALL. Senator Dorgan, thank you for the question, for the 

follow-up. I would just like to say it is the first time I have heard 

of the Department of the Interior’s plan for Water 2025, and I have 

not heard tribes mentioned in 2025. The Department of the Interior should know they have a trust responsibility to tribes. That 

land is held in trust and because of the treaty obligations and the 

allotments from the Dawes Act in 1887 and the Winters doctrine 

of water rights established in 1932, they clearly have a trust responsibility. It disturbs me that we are not mentioned in Water 

2025. 

So I would also further ask the committee that tribes need to be 

involved if there are further hearings down the road to make sure 

that our issues are being addressed in this proposed Water 2025 

or any Federal policies regarding water issues. 

Senator DORGAN. Let me just say on that point we have had this 

dispute with the Corps and others about Indian water rights. You 

have Indian water rights that exist. They are not quantified and 

they should be, but they nonetheless exist. I do not think there is 

great debate about that. It is not sufficient for the Corps simply to 

say that we consulted because they told you what they were doing, 

and that is too often the case. There needs to be full consultation 

with respect to tribes because those tribes have inherent water 

rights that exist in law. They are not, in my judgment, negotiable. 

They currently exist and I think the Corps has not done the tribes 

justice by their failure to consult the way they should have been 

consulting along the way. 

So these discussions will continue as well. I know that you and 

the National Congress and others will be actively involved in them, 

and really, you must because we have discovered the Corps of Engineers tends to move in its own direction and it is pretty impervious and oblivious to other interests from time to time. We try 

here in Congress to give it a huge, swift kick on occasion and it 

seems to have almost no impact at all. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DORGAN. When we have a flood, they are great flood 

fighters and God bless them for that. But on issues like management of the Missouri River system, shame on them for taking 13 

years and then coming up with such a miserable product. We will 

have more to say. 

Now, because I have to go somewhere else, I am not able to hear 

the comments from my distinguished colleague from Missouri on 

the Missouri River system. 

61

We must, it seems to me, all of us, find a way to address these 

issues, and addressing them includes addressing the rights of Indian country as well. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for being patient. 

Senator TALENT. Well, I sure thank the Senator, and as usual, 

he has argued his case with a vigor and an eloquence worthy of a 

better cause I may say, but certainly well done. 

Senator DORGAN. Wait until I leave to say those things. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator TALENT. Let me get a couple of housekeeping details out 

of the way, and I want to ask Mr. Bell about the rural water bill, 

get his opinion on that. 

The record will remain open for statements and questions for any 

of the witnesses until close of business tomorrow and all documents 

should be directed to the committee staff. 

Mr. Bell, we would like to know if you have reviewed the current 

rural water bills currently before the committee. Do you have any 

comments on the current Federal programs, how well they are 

meeting rural community needs in Western States, and do you 

have any changes or improvements you want to suggest either to 

the bill or to current programs? 

Mr. BELL. We do not have a position on the current bill. I will 

say, however, that we do have a consensus about greater need for 

meeting rural water supply needs. There is a consensus among the 

States that we need to do more as a country. We took a survey in 

connection with the study done by the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission, and many of our States were concerned 

about the situation in our rural communities. So we are very supportive of the concept at least of providing sufficient water for our 

rural communities. We recognize the need. 

Senator TALENT. If you have anything more specific you would 

like to offer in writing, the committee would be glad to have it. 

Mr. BELL. Thank you. 

Senator TALENT. I appreciated very much the testimony of both 

the witnesses. Mr. Bell, if I can sum up yours, what I hear you saying is that we need to fund information collection. We have got to 

know where we are with water resources and water quality. 

Mr. BELL. Indeed. 

Senator TALENT. This is a problem, by the way, in Missouri, particularly in southwest Missouri. Missouri is an interesting State because it is like five States all coming together in one. The whole 

country meets in the middle of Missouri. Southeast Missouri and 

southwest Missouri are different, St. Louis, Kansas City. And 

southwest Missouri is very much like a Western State in terms of 

water issues. We have real supply issues there. So we certainly 

sympathize with what the Western States have been going 

through. 

One of the things that we are trying to do is to get a handle on 

just what the situation is in the aquifers, what water quality issues 

are, and there is not enough good information. And that is a problem all through the West. 

Mr. BELL. I agree. I certainly do. 

Senator TALENT. Certainly, Mr. Hall, feel free to offer comments 

on any of this. 

62

We have got to get the right information. We have got to begin 

emphasizing preparedness rather than ad hoc responses. I think 

we are all in agreement with that too. 

And we need to find a way to develop an integrated approach 

rather than waiting until there is a crisis and then the States and 

localities all go off on their own trying to catch as catch can. That 

is going to be hard because it is going to mean—and we are all jealous of what we have got because we are worried about losing that, 

and agreeing to an integrated approach raises at least a specter 

that maybe we will not have as much control over what we have 

got. 

That is really the problem with the Missouri River. In Missouri, 

we are concerned about a number of things flooding in the spring 

because we have so much good farmland right around the river, 

but we are also concerned about navigation. We have gone from 3 

million commercial tons of navigation in 1980 to 1.3 million in 1990 

to a little over 1 million last year. And this is bad for everybody 

because barge traffic is often the cheapest and certainly the environmentally most safe way of getting product to market. 

I mention this because when I hear from my friends in the West 

on the river, it is impossible to deny the validity of the interests 

that you are representing. I mean, safe drinking water, tourism. 

Tourism, along with agriculture and agribusiness, is the biggest 

part of Missouri’s economy. So we are all sort of fighting over this 

water and we all need it. 

That is why it bothers those of us in Missouri when we feel valuable interests are being sacrificed not necessarily on behalf of upstream economic interests, but in order to protect, let us say, the 

pallid sturgeon or the least tern when the science regarding that, 

on top of everything else, is very dubious. You can understand I 

think at least how we feel about that because it is one thing to say, 

well, no, we have to reserve it for the economic interests upstream, 

but it is another thing to have a court coming in, sequeing in and 

grabbing it on behalf of that particular interest. And this is the integrated approach you mentioned where we all get around a table 

and balance these interests. 

So I felt I needed to say that since Senator Dorgan raised that 

issue. 

I really do not have a lot to add. Do you all have any further 

comments you want to make on that issue or any other? I will let 

you get the last word in. Well, maybe not on the Missouri River, 

but anything else. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Senator Talent. I agree with a lot of what 

you said. It does need to happen and, Mr. Bell, we do need to have 

that integrated approach, but tribes need to be at the table because 

of our rights to the water and to the river. Our main concern is 

drinking water, access to that drinking water and protecting our 

rights in that regard. 

On tourism, though, I will——. 

Senator TALENT. Let me say, Mr. Hall, in terms of hauling water, 

my mom was raised on a dairy farm in Jefferson County, Missouri 

and was a big gardener her whole life. She always had a big vegeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Jun 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\93903.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
63

table garden. And she hauled water when she was a girl. And 

when my brother and I would complain——. 

Mr. HALL. Good for her. 

Senator TALENT. I mean, she told us what it was like, and when 

my brother and I would complain about having to haul the hoses 

out and spend some time watering her vegetable garden, she would 

give us a lecture about what it was like when she was a girl hauling that water. So I do not know from personal experience, but I 

know that it is difficult. The water is not as safe, and boy, if you 

have not hauled water, you do not know what it entails. So I can 

sympathize. 

Please go ahead. 

Mr. HALL. I was just going to say that I appreciate your story 

about your mother because my father had an eighth grade education, but I say he had a Ph.D. in just everyday smarts. But he 

told me, make sure you go to college because I do not want you to 

come back and be a cattle rancher like me and have to haul water. 

I went to college. I came back. I am a cattle rancher and I still haul 

water. He told me I would be a damn fool. 

Senator TALENT. My mom was German. She used to say we grow 

too soon old and too late ‘‘schmart.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HALL. I will be in your home State on I believe Sunday, the 

13th of March, on the Lewis and Clark bicentennial. 

Senator TALENT. Yes. 

Mr. HALL. So I will be there to help lobby an ad for your tourism 

issues and to bring attention to the historic Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Trail of Discovery, 200 years ago. 

Senator TALENT. And maybe in the spirit of Lewis and Clark, 

which all of us along the river can take pride in, that expedition, 

maybe we can come together on some of these water issues. 

The larger issue on this information, Mr. Bell, that you raised, 

I increasingly have faith that technology and innovation, if we understand a problem well enough, will dig us out from under a fair 

amount of it if we know what the situation is and will honestly 

look at it. So this is it, here are our alternatives with technology, 

and if everybody can be at that table, we may be able to get our 

way out of a lot of this. 

Mr. BELL. Yes. I have found so many circumstances where technology and innovation have helped us greatly in terms of these 

kinds of problems. 

Senator TALENT. Yes. Well, I am grateful for your testimony. It 

has been a good hearing. Certainly you all know that the committee, whatever Senators’ particular interests may be, wants to 

make certain that there is enough water available for everybody in 

the Western States, as well as the Midwestern States, if I may say 

so. So we are grateful that you are here today. 

I have already given the announcement about further submissions for the record, so the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[The following statement was received for the record.]

64

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) is greatly interested in the issue 

of the future of water supplies in the West. We are pleased to submit this statement 

for the hearing record. 

Water is the scarcest and most important resource in the Western United States. 

It is vitally important to the farmers and ranchers who settled the West and who 

provide food and fiber for the country and the world. Agricultural production depends on the timely availability of water supplies. For example, 75 percent of the 

total value of Colorado’s $1.3 billion in agricultural crop production comes from irrigation. New Mexico produces $2.2 billion annually in agricultural products and agriculturally-related industries employ more than 47,000 people statewide. 

Furthermore, the economies of most rural communities in the West are built 

around farm and ranch activities. No water means no local food production further 

eroding the economic base of many of these communities. Since the earliest days of 

Western settlement, a system of state-based water rights laws have been developed 

to meet the particular needs of the arid Western states and their growing populations. AFBF supports this system that has served the needs of this rapidly developing area while preserving water resources for a large and productive agricultural 

economy. State water laws have provided an orderly system for allocation of scarce 

water supplies. 

State water laws and the availability of water for the production of food and fiber 

have come under attack in the West. The fastest growing area in the country, western cities and municipalities, are increasing their demands for available water. Activist organizations are using the courts to apply federal statutes such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act to effect a re-allocation of scarce 

water supplies away from the holders of legitimate water rights pursuant to state 

water law to listed species and to instream water flows. All this is occurring in a 

prolonged drought that has left western reservoirs at record low levels. 

Farming and ranching are crucial if the character of the West is to be maintained. 

Western farmers and ranchers not only provide food and fiber for the world, but 

they provide many other benefits as well. Often, the only thing standing between 

open spaces and urban sprawl is agriculture. 

In 2001 over 1,400 farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Basin area of Oregon 

and California had their irrigation water shut off and were deprived of a crop and 

their water used instead for two endangered fish. A similar situation was experienced on a smaller scale in New Mexico in the Middle Rio Grande River area near 

Albuquerque when the Bureau of Reclamation was required to use irrigation water 

for the silvery minnow. 

1. WATER 2025

To address these issues and to try and prevent similar situations from occurring, 

the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) began an initiative it calls ‘‘Water 2025.’’ The 

purpose of the initiative is to anticipate potential ‘‘hot spots’’ such as Klamath and 

New Mexico that are likely to occur in the next 20 years and plan strategies to avoid 

them. 

Water 2025 is a comprehensive, well thought out blueprint for helping agriculture, industries, municipalities and wildlife to meet their water needs for years 

to come. AFBF and affected state Farm Bureaus have had significant involvement 

with the DOI on Water 2025. 

Water 2025 contains a lot of points that AFBF agrees with. For example, we support the policy of seeking new innovative technologies such as desalination for increasing the supply of water available to westerners. It is extremely important that 

this technology be made affordable for the West. 

We also support the apparent thrust of the initiative to preserve state water 

rights laws and to respect private property rights. Water is a resource that is under 

the jurisdiction of state law. As previously mentioned the western states have developed a process for the adjudication of water rights within the state that has served 

water users well for many years. It is appropriate that any solutions to water shortage issues currently facing the West should be addressed at the state level. 

We also support efforts to make water use more efficient. Agriculture is doing its 

part. Every five years the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publishes a report of 

water use in the United States; the last report is from 1995. Irrigation application 

rates vary from year to year depending upon rainfall, surface water availability, energy costs, commodity prices, application technologies and conservation practices. 

According to the USGS, the average amount of water applied per acre for irrigation 

was 2.1 acre-feet, a drop from the 1980 average of 2.5 acre-feet. The amount of irrigated acres in the United States is 58 million. Irrigated acreage, according to the 

65

USGS report, is increasing in the Eastern United States and declining in the West. 

Irrigated acres in the 19 Western states have declined due to urban development 

and the sale of irrigation water rights to municipal water suppliers. 

We further support the encouragement of local solutions to local water issues. Involvement at the local level by affected parties is critical to the development of any 

workable water plan. ‘‘One-size-fits-all’’ solutions are not the answer. 

Voluntary, temporary, market based water banks hold some promise to create solutions to temporary water shortages in particular areas. Such programs must be 

voluntary, not result in the permanent loss of water rights, and be market based. 

A puzzling and glaring omission from the suggestions made in Water 2025 is the 

issue of additional water storage. Farm Bureau strongly believes that increased 

water storage is essential in order to solve many of the water issues in the West. 

Demand for water continues to increase and the rising demand cannot be met without additional supplies. 

States such as Colorado and Montana are headwater states, meaning that their 

water generally runs through rivers and streams to other states. Colorado, for example, is entitled to the use of more water than it is currently able to capture. Additional storage is vital for Colorado to meet the rising demand from Denver and its 

environments. 

Additional water storage will not only allow for states to meet the needs of their 

residents, but it will provide a measure of certainty in times of drought. New storage facilities will bring water supplies to areas that need it most. Additional storage 

can occur in non-intrusive ways and could mean new dams and reservoirs, adding 

a foot to existing reservoirs in order to increase capacity or underground water storage. We urge the committee to consider additional storage as a possible solution to 

the water crisis in the arid west. 

Another issue that in theory sounds good, but has some practicality concerns is 

making canals and delivery systems more efficient. For example, lining canals 

would result in less water being lost allowing for more water to be available for 

other uses. The practical application is not that easy. Water return flows resulting 

from such leakage is very important for agriculture. Additional water rights are derived from return flows, and many farms, ranches and other enterprises depend on 

such return flows. Making canals impervious to water loss will decrease these return flows, causing economic harm to a lot of farmers, ranchers and others. 

Many rivers and streams across the West are lined with salt cedar or other water 

draining vegetation. One salt cedar, for example, can consume upwards of 200 gallons per day. These plants spread rapidly, drying up rivers and streams. We are 

pleased that the DOI and Department of Agriculture have embarked on an aggressive campaign to remove salt cedar from western waterways. A successful control 

program will not only make more water available, but will also address an invasive 

species problem. 

2. MISSOURI RIVER WATER FLOWS

Agriculture needs the continuing operation of the Missouri River for the purposes 

of flood control, navigation, irrigation and hydropower production. Management of 

the Missouri river must recognize and support these objectives. Agriculture is a 

major land use activity in the Missouri River basin. Farm Bureau policy encourages 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to protect agricultural land use by providing flood control for the 1.4 million acres of productive farmland at risk from Missouri River flooding. We are opposed to a spring rise on the Missouri River and believe that the Corps can achieve species protection without putting farmland and 

other property at risk. Flows must also be managed so that land drainage patterns 

are not disrupted in order for spring planting to occur on time while soil moisture 

and temperature can be managed for effective crop production. The Corps must also 

continue the hydropower generation necessary for rural towns and businesses and 

maintain navigation on the river for the commercial shipping of farm inputs and 

production outputs. 

The contributions of the Missouri River to the Mississippi River are critical for 

maintaining the flows necessary for continuous navigation for commercial shipping. 

Over 60 percent of U.S. grain exports use the Mississippi River to efficiently reach 

foreign markets in a cost competitive manner. Flows must be maintained throughout the navigation season to ensure that barge traffic is not halted due to low water 

conditions. 

We believe that the Corps should maintain the current Master Water Control 

Manual and not deviate from those standards and policies. 

Western water issues are challenging and complex. However, they are also critical 

to farmers and ranchers and the rural economies that depend on their success. SoluVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Jun 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\93903.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
66

tions to these issues are not easy. Any solutions must include and preserve a strong 

and vital agricultural base. 

We appreciate the Committee’s concerns and interest in these issues, and we look 

forward to working with the Committee on solutions that will benefit everyone. 

(67)

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC, March 31, 2004. 

Hon. PETE DOMENICI

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, 

DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) responses to questions for the record relating to the Committee’s 

March 9, 2004 hearing regarding water issues in the arid West. 

Please feel free to contact me should you require additional information. 

Sincerely, 

DEBBIE LARSON, 

Director. 

[Enclosure.] 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

Question 1. Does NOAA engage in longer-term climatic predictions for periods of 

years or decades? 

Answer. Currently, NOAA does not issue operational seasonal climate forecasts 

beyond 13 months, nor drought outlooks beyond a season. However, NOAA does 

have an active program in climate research and modeling at its Geophysical Fluid 

Dynamics Laboratory and its Climate Diagnostics Center that is directed at extending prediction capabilities decades in advance, as well as improving those capabilities. As scientific advances are confirmed, these improved capabilities in annual to 

decadal-forecasts will be transferred to the National Weather Service’s National 

Centers for Environmental Prediction for improved operational forecasts of climate 

variability. 

Question 2. What is NOAA’s impression of the tree-ring and other long-term climatic record data in terms of helping us understand and predict long-term 

droughts? 

Answer. Tree ring and other long-term climate records provide an understanding 

of climate fluctuations over the past several thousand years, including some insight 

into the magnitude, duration, and location of droughts. These records suggest that 

‘‘mega’’ droughts are a natural fluctuation of climate. The challenge is to understand 

and be able to model the origins of these droughts in order to assess the likelihood 

of future occurrences. 

Question 3. What do we need to do to expand the time horizon of our weather 

and climate prediction capability? 

Answer. To expand the time horizon of weather and climate prediction requires: 

1) a global observation network which includes observations for ocean, land, atmosphere, snow, and ice, 2) additional supercomputing capabilities which would allow 

the research and operational meteorological communities to assimilate the global 

data into numerical models and to simulate the interaction of ocean, atmosphere 

and land processes in order to predict climate variability, and 3) research that leads 

to a better understanding of climate variability—past, present, and future. 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. Climate Change—The GAO notes in a July 2003 report that the potential effects of climate change ‘‘create uncertainty about future water availability 

and use.’’ Last month the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory issued a report 

based on a new climate change model that predicted a change in precipitation patVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:16 Jun 04, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\93903.TXT SENERGY3 PsN: SENE3
68

terns that would play havoc with the West’s agriculture, fisheries and hydropower 

industry. 

Answer. The report by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is consistent 

with previous research in indicating the strong likelihood of a warmer climate, 

which in turn will lead to more rain (instead of snow) in the west. The net result 

is less total snow pack and, consequently, earlier spring runoffs. However, caution 

should be used when interpreting these model results, given the uncertainty inherent within long-term model simulations, especially in the prediction of precipitation 

patterns. 

Question 2. Has your organization done any in-depth modeling of the effects of 

climate change on precipitation patterns? If not, what has been the focus of your 

research related to climate prediction models?‘ Does the President’s Climate Change 

Research Initiative provide for any in-depth research and modeling of the impacts 

of climate change on precipitation patterns in the United States? If not, why not? 

Answer. Yes, NOAH continues to conduct in-depth research and related modeling 

of the effects of climate change on precipitation patterns. NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid 

Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) and Climate Diagnostic Center (CDC) have worked 

together and with other external researchers to assess the impacts of climate change 

on precipitation. NOAA also has pioneered seasonal climate forecasting and continues to be an international leader in this area with a strong focus on water cycle/

drought monitoring and forecasting. The research results to date generally point to 

a greater uncertainty in the precipitation patterns related to climate change than 

we see in the temperature patterns. The Administration’s Climate Change Research 

Initiative (CCRI) has a specific focus for reducing the uncertainty in projections of 

future climate and the relationship to precipitation patterns over the United States. 

The main modeling efforts in the United States that support the CCRI are at 

NOAA’s GFDL and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), whose 

primary sponsor is the National Science Foundation. 

QUESTION FROM SENATOR DORGAN

Question 1. What do you see as the outlook for drought in the Upper Great 

Plains? 

Answer. The seasonal outlook through June calls for improvement in the Upper 

Great Plains, including Minnesota, North Dakota, and eastern parts of South Dakota, Nebraska, and Montana. Some improvement (with drought ongoing) is called 

for in western portions of Nebraska and central and southwestern South Dakota. 

Because there are no strong forecast signals that point to either a wet or dry upcoming season, our predictions are largely based on average precipitation levels and average temperatures. Our prediction of limited improvement in these western areas 

is based on this area’s experiencing greater precipitation deficits in the past than 

the eastern portions. These precipitation deficits in western areas will be hard to 

overcome as most of the precipitation that may fall will be absorbed by the parched 

soil. As examples of the magnitude of the precipitation deficits from past years, deficits since March 2001 exceed 12 inches in central South Dakota and parts of Nebraska. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, 

Washington, DC, April 6, 2004. 

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI,

Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN DOMENICI: Thank you for inviting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to provide testimony on water issues in the arid West. In your letter 

of March 16, 2004, you asked that we respond to three questions submitted for the 

record. The questions address three issues: first, the Corps’ capability and authority 

related to rural water supply; second, how the Corps is addressing specific community needs in the Missouri River Basin, and, finally, the Corps’ authority to provide 

emergency response to drought. Our response to each question follows. 

Question 1. Does the Army Corps feel that they have capability, competence, and/

or authority to contribute to solving rural community water supply issues, in the 

west and if so how? Does the Corps role for rural communities change for eastern 

communities? 

Answer. The Corps has the technical capability and competence to contribute to 

solving rural community water supply issues. However, this is not considered part 

of our core mission, and the degree of our participation is somewhat limited by current legislative policies and authorities. The legal authorities and programs through 

69

which the Corps is able to help address water supply issues vary by location and 

all require that certain conditions of non-Federal participation are met. This limits 

the Corps’ ability to respond in a consistent manner to regional or national water 

supply issues. Our ability to respond to a community’s needs, to some extent, depends on the location of the community. In terms of large-scale programmatic efforts, the Corps does not have a current role. 

We have worked with our many military customers to design and construct water 

supply, delivery, and sewerage facilities at military bases throughout the West. In 

the civil works arena, we have both planning and design capabilities at a number 

of our district offices, skills that can be leveraged to serve any location in the nation 

because of our regional business center concepts. In managing our reservoirs to supplement water supplies, we are in partnership with many agencies and non-governmental organizations, sharing technology advances in modeling and maximizing use 

of our scarce natural resources, including water supply and water quality, which go 

hand in hand. 

There are several existing authorities and programs through which the Corps is 

able to help address water supply issues. Each has specific conditions, application, 

and limitations. They are: 1) Civil Works program (multi-purpose vs. single purpose 

projects); 2) Water-Related Environmental Infrastructure Authorities (site specific); 

3) Reservoir reallocations (or deviations from water control plans); 4) Planning Assistance to the States; and 5) Emergencies. Items 1 through 4 are explained in the 

following paragraphs. The final item, Emergencies, is explained in response to Question 3. 

Civil Works Program. Under current guidance, Section 301 of the Water Supply 

Act of 1958, 43 U.S.C. § 390b, the Corps may only include water storage for present 

or future municipal or industrial water supply as an added feature to a project that 

has other outputs, such as a flood control project. Water quality and water supply 

projects are not currently considered primary project outputs. When water supply 

outputs are included in projects, the additional water storage cost is borne by the 

beneficiary. The Corps currently does not have general authority to carry out a single-purpose water quality and water supply project; nor does the Corps currently 

have a general authority vested in the Secretary to carry out wastewater infrastructure projects, wastewater reclamation projects, or water supply infrastructure 

projects, even if the Secretary determines that such a project is in the public interest; produces general water quality, environmental, and public health and safety 

benefits; and is cost effective. 

Water-Related Environmental Infrastructure Authorities. The Corps’ standing authorities to contribute to solving water supply issues are limited to certain specified 

localities, States, or regions. For example, the Corps may provide design and construction assistance for environmental infrastructure including wastewater treatment facilities, and water supply, storage, treatment and distribution facilities, to 

designated localities with funds that are appropriated in accordance with Section 

219 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1992, Public Law 102-580, 

as amended. The 1999 WRDA, Public Law 106-53, as amended, contains similar regional authorities such as Section 593, which is applicable to projects in central New 

Mexico and Section 595, which is applicable to projects in rural Nevada, Montana, 

Idaho, rural Utah, and New Mexico. Existing authorities vary from State to State, 

in their scope, and to some extent, in the credit granted. The existing authorities 

are being expanded by Congress to include new geographic areas, as evidenced by 

the recent expansion of Section 219 authority in Northern California and Section 

595 authority to include rural Utah and New Mexico and proposed similar legislation for southern Colorado and west Texas. We are utilizing these authorities in the 

West to construct water related facilities as appropriated funds become available. 

Reservoir reallocations. In the West, one common method to help regions deal 

with water shortages is to supplement the recharge of the groundwater basins 

through use of existing reservoir projects, either through the water control plan, 

through implementation of the drought contingency plan, or through temporary deviation from the approved water control plan on a short-term basis. Example benefits are reflected in annual recharge of over $15 million dollars worth of surface 

water to the aquifers of southern California. However, as such activities are only 

undertaken to the extent permitted by our current statutory authorities, the Corps’ 

ability to fully implement this concept is limited; 

Planning Assistance to the States. One of the Corps’ programs that many smaller 

communities take advantage of to help solve water supply issues is the program 

known as Planning Assistance to the States. In this program, the Corps can study 

a wide range of water resource issues under the general recommendations of the 

State water resources department. These cost-shared studies constitute technical assistance and do not result in construction, but provide an excellent start to helping 

70

local communities analyze their specific resource challenges, including that of water 

supply. Over the past few years, funding for this program has been exceeded by demand. 

Question 2. I am extremely frustrated by the Federal Government’s actions, or 

lack thereof, relating to the Missouri River. The people of the Missouri River Basin 

have been waiting since 1989 for a resolution regarding the Master Manual. But 

now the latest action from the Corps has yet to offer a permanent solution for communities facing water shortage. What are you going to do to address the needs of 

communities like Fort Yates and Parshall? 

Answer. On March 19, 2004, the Corps of Engineers released its Record of Decision on the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the operation of the Missouri 

River dams and reservoirs, the new Master Water Control Manual and the final 

2004 Annual Operating Plan. While these documents do not specifically address solutions for communities facing water shortages, we are continuing to closely monitor 

the Parshall, North Dakota situation and will help develop the necessary plans to 

deal with the temporary water intake based upon the projected lake levels. The 

Corps is working closely with the Bureau of Reclamation, which is the lead agency 

for resolution of the Fort Yates, North Dakota intake issue. 

Question 3. Over the past few months, we have had in North Dakota what I will 

call a water supply crisis. The drought has been so devastating that water actually 

had to be cut off to one of our communities. Other communities have been threatened with the same outcome. What authorities does the Corps of Engineers have 

to provide emergency response to drought? Do these authorities need to be expanded? 

Answer. The Corps may provide temporary emergency water assistance for 

human consumption or usage to a drought distressed area to meet minimum public 

health and welfare requirements under the authority of Public Law 84-99, as 

amended, 33 U.S.C. § 701 n. This authority is temporary in nature, and assistance 

is supplemental to State and local efforts. Currently, it does not appear necessary 

to expand this emergency authority. 

In conclusion, the Corps knows that water is our most precious natural resource. 

We recognize the growing rural water supply challenges but have very limited authority to address these challenges. The Corps is available to contribute to solutions 

consistent with these authorities and administration policy.

THOMAS F. CAVER, JR., P.E., 

Deputy Director of Civil Works.

Æ