U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–277 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

THE STATE OF WATER SUPPLY 

RELIABILITY IN THE 21st CENTURY 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND 

WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Tuesday, February 26, 2019 

Serial No. 116–6 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair 

DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

TJ Cox, CA 

Joe Neguse, CO 

Mike Levin, CA 

Debra A. Haaland, NM 

Jefferson Van Drew, NJ 

Joe Cunningham, SC 

Nydia M. Vela ́zquez, NY 

Diana DeGette, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Darren Soto, FL 

Ed Case, HI 

Steven Horsford, NV 

Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Paul Tonko, NY 

Vacancy 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Kevin Hern, OK 

Russ Fulcher, ID 

David Watkins, Chief of Staff 

Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel 

Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director 

http://naturalresources.house.gov 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE 

JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Chair 

TOM MCCLINTOCK, CA, Ranking Republican Member 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Jefferson Van Drew, NJ 

Nydia M. Vela ́zquez, NY 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Ed Case, HI 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

TJ Cox, CA 

Joe Neguse, CO 

Mike Levin, CA 

Joe Cunningham, SC 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

Russ Fulcher, ID 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 
(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, February 26, 2019 ....................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

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

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

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

of California ................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Diedrich, Bill, Family Farm Alliance, Los Banos, California ....................... 34 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 35 

Ibach, Harrison, President, Humboldt Fishermen’s Marketing Association, Humboldt, California ........................................................................... 47 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 48 

Nelson, Jonathan, Policy Director, Community Water Center, Visalia, 

California ....................................................................................................... 19 

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

Udall, Brad, Senior Water and Climate Research Scientist, Colorado 

Water Institute, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado ........ 7 

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

Willardson, Tony, Executive Director, Western States Water Council, 

Murray, Utah ................................................................................................ 23 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 32 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

Rep. Cox Submission 

South Valley Water Association, statement for the record .................... 64 

Rep. Napolitano Submission 

Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., Letter to Secretary of the Interior, dated 

August 28, 2009 ..................................................................................... 65 

Rep. Van Drew Submission 

Van Drew, Hon. Jefferson, Letter to Chairman Grijalva, dated 

February 26, 2019 .................................................................................. 69 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE STATE OF 

WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY IN THE 21st 

CENTURY 

Tuesday, February 26, 2019 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 

room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jared Huffman 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Huffman, Napolitano, Costa, Sablan, 

Cox, Neguse, Levin, Cunningham; McClintock, Hice, Radewagen, 

and Fulcher. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on 

Water, Oceans, and Wildlife will come to order. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the 

state of water supply reliability in the 21st century. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any opening statements at this hearing will be limited to the Chairman, the Ranking Member, the Vice 

Chair, and the Vice Ranking Member. This allows us to hear from 

our witnesses sooner and helps keep Members on schedule. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other Members’ opening 

statements be made part of the record if they are submitted to the 

Committee Clerk by 5 p.m. today, or the close of the hearing, 

whichever comes first. 

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thanks, everyone, for joining us today. I believe 

this is an important hearing, an important chance to examine the 

state of water supply reliability in our Nation. 

As I mentioned at our last WOW Subcommittee hearing, one of 

my goals this Congress is to focus on the factual and the scientific 

baseline for natural resource issues in this Subcommittee’s jurisdiction through what I informally referred to as ‘‘WOW 101’’ hearings. 

This is the second one. 

Finding consensus on tough issues, of course, is hard. But I 

believe we can make progress on that front if we can develop a 

common understanding of the baseline facts and science before 

jumping right into the most contentious policy debates. And that 

is why we are having these hearings. 

I am also personally meeting with every member of this 

Subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, to get feedback and explore areas where we can work together. Thanks to the members 

that have met with me so far. I truly believe that there are good 
2 

ideas on both sides of the aisle, and I am hopeful this 

Subcommittee will disprove that old notion that ‘‘water is for 

fighting over,’’ and instead work to come up with common-sense, 

scientifically-based solutions to the challenges we face. 

So, let’s get started. Today, we will be looking at the state of our 

Nation’s water supply and water supply challenges. As many here 

know, the western United States has been suffering from frequent 

and increasingly severe drought in recent years. 

For example, in my home state of California, we recently 

emerged from the state’s worst drought in 1,200 years, according 

to some credible scientific reports. In the northern Great Plains, we 

recently experienced an extreme drought that NOAA categorized as 

a ‘‘$1 billion disaster.’’ And the Colorado River, which supplies 

water to 40 million people and 5.5 million acres of farmland in 

seven western states and Mexico, is currently going through its 

19th year of drought, with no end in sight. 

Today, we will hear from witnesses about the specific challenges 

caused by these water shortages. We will hear today from community voices about what happens when rural communities literally 

run out of water for basic human needs because of drying wells. We 

will hear how water shortages have impacted coastal communities 

and thousands of fishermen. In my district and along the Pacific 

Coast, fishing families have been dealt multi-million-dollar blows 

in recent years because of water shortages that have battered our 

salmon fisheries. 

We will also hear about the great costs of water shortages to 

agriculture, cities, tribes, and western states. 

And, finally, we will hear today what the science says about how 

climate pressures will make our water challenges more difficult in 

the future. Climate pressures, including warming temperatures, 

shrinking snowpack, more volatile precipitation, rising seas, just to 

name a few, will reduce our water supply and impact millions of 

Americans. It is important that this Subcommittee soberly assess 

and plan for these challenges. 

Part of that process requires a thoughtful evaluation of policy 

options. I look forward to a thorough examination of the policy options that this Subcommittee can pursue to promote water supply 

reliability and resilience now and in the years to come. 

One policy option that we will hopefully agree on is the need to 

invest in water infrastructure. Much of our existing infrastructure 

is nearing the end of its design life and is in great need of maintenance and repair. 

Last Congress, I worked across the aisle with Representative 

Gosar on a bill that would regularly require the Bureau of 

Reclamation to assess and publicly disclose major repair and rehabilitation needs for Reclamation projects. That bill recently passed 

the Senate as part of the omnibus public lands package, and I 

think it is a good first step in working across the aisle to address 

our repair and maintenance needs. I hope we will see it move 

through the House and signed by the President soon. 

I will also commit to work across the aisle on other areas of 

bipartisan agreement, such as the need to construct new water infrastructure to grow our water supply. That new infrastructure can 

include a variety of projects, including smart storage, water reuse, 
3 

desalination, and water-use efficiency projects. It is imperative that 

this Subcommittee work on these kinds of common-sense projects 

that will promote water supply reliability for all stakeholders. 

To conclude, I look forward to this Subcommittee evaluating and 

addressing our water challenges in a deliberative and open way. 

Communities need clean water to drink. Farmers need water to 

irrigate their crops. Fish and wildlife and the people whose livelihood depend on them need water to survive and to thrive. This 

Subcommittee will work hard to ensure water supply reliability for 

all of these important stakeholders. 

Finally, I would like to welcome members of the Association of 

California Water Agencies, ACWA. I see several in the crowd here 

this morning. We look forward to working with you on all of these 

issues to promote water supply sustainability and reliability. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE

Thank you everyone for joining us today for an important hearing examining the 

state of water supply reliability in our Nation. 

As I mentioned at our last ‘‘WOW’’ hearing, one of my goals this Congress is to 

work to reset the factual and scientific baseline for natural resources issues in this 

Subcommittee’s jurisdiction through what I informally refer to as ‘‘WOW 101.’’ 

Finding consensus on tough issues is a formidable task. But I believe we can 

make progress on that front if we can develop a common understanding of the baseline facts and science before jumping right into the most contentious policy debates. 

That’s why we’re having these 101 hearings. 

I am also personally meeting with every member of this Subcommittee, on both 

sides of the aisle, to solicit feedback and explore areas where we can work together. 

I truly believe there are good ideas on both sides of the aisle. And I’m hopeful that 

this Subcommittee can work together to disprove that old notion that ‘‘water is for 

fighting over,’’ and instead work to come up with common-sense, scientifically-based 

solutions to the challenges before us. 

So, let’s get started. Today, we’ll be looking at the state of our Nation’s water 

supply and the water supply challenges we’ll face in the 21st century. 

As many here know, the western United States has been suffering from frequent 

and increasingly severe drought in recent years: 

For example, in my home state of California, we recently emerged from the state’s 

worst drought in 1,200 years, according to some scientific reports. 

In the northern Great Plains, we recently experienced an extreme drought that 

NOAA categorized as a ‘‘billion-dollar disaster.’’ 

And the Colorado River—which supplies water to 40 million people and 5.5 

million acres of farmland in seven western states and Mexico—is currently going 

through its 19th year of drought, with no end in sight. 

Today, we’ll hear from witnesses about the specific challenges caused by these 

water shortages. 

We’ll hear today from community voices about what happens when rural communities literally run out of water for basic human needs because of drying wells. We’ll 

hear how water shortages have impacted coastal communities and thousands of 

fishermen. In my district and along the Pacific Coast, fishing families have been 

dealt multi-million-dollar blows in recent years because of water shortages that 

have battered our fisheries. We’ll also hear about the great costs of water shortages 

to agriculture, cities, tribes, and western states. 

And finally, we’ll hear today what the science says about how climate pressures 

will make our water challenges more difficult in the future. Climate pressures— 

including warming temperatures, shrinking snowpack, more volatile precipitation, 

and rising seas, to name a few—will reduce our water supply and impact millions 

of Americans. It’s important that this Subcommittee soberly assess and plan for 

these challenges. 

Part of that planning requires a thoughtful evaluation of policy options. I look forward to a thorough examination of the policy options that this Subcommittee can 

pursue to promote water supply reliability now and in the years to come. 
4 

One policy option that we’ll all hopefully agree on is the need to invest in our 

water infrastructure. Much of our existing water infrastructure is nearing the end 

of its design life and is in great need of maintenance and repair. 

Last Congress, I worked across the aisle with Representative Gosar on a bill that 

would regularly require the Bureau of Reclamation to assess and publicly disclose 

major repair and rehabilitation needs for Reclamation water projects. That bill recently passed the Senate as part of the omnibus public lands package, and I think 

it is a good first step in working across the aisle to address our repair and maintenance needs. I hope we see it move through the House and signed by the President 

soon. 

I’ll also commit to work across the aisle on other areas of bipartisan agreement— 

such as the need to construct new water infrastructure to grow our water supply. 

That new infrastructure can include a variety of projects, including smart storage, 

water reuse, desalination, and water-use efficiency projects. It’s imperative that this 

Subcommittee work on these kinds of common-sense projects that will promote 

water supply reliability for all stakeholders. 

So, to conclude, I look forward to using my role on this Subcommittee to evaluate 

and address our water challenges in a deliberative and open way. Communities 

need clean water to drink. Farmers need water to irrigate their crops. Fish and 

wildlife and the people whose livelihoods depend on them need water to survive and 

thrive. This Subcommittee will work hard to ensure water supply reliability for all 

of these important stakeholders. 

Ranking Member McClintock, I hope we can find opportunities to work together 

to get things done. While we may have some differences in outlook, there are many 

common-sense solutions that Republicans and Democrats can pursue on this 

Subcommittee, and I hope you’ll join us in that effort. 

Finally, I would like to welcome members of the Association of California Water 

Agencies in the audience today—we look forward to hearing from you and working 

with you as well to promote water supply reliability. 

With that, I want to invite the Ranking Member to say a few remarks, and then 

we will welcome and introduce our witnesses. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. With that, I want to invite the Ranking Member 

to say a few remarks, and then we will welcome and introduce our 

witnesses. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM MCCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. According to the 

EPA, since 1901, global precipitation has actually increased at an 

average rate of roughly one-tenth of an inch per decade, while precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of 

nearly two-tenths of an inch per decade. Globally, annual rainfall 

alone produces roughly 18,000 gallons of fresh water every day for 

every man, woman, and child on this planet. The problem is this 

abundance of fresh water is unevenly distributed over time and 

space. 

Throughout the 20th century, it was the policy of this government to guarantee abundant water for all the people and regions 

of our country. We built reservoirs to transfer water from wet years 

to dry years, and we built canals to transfer water from wet 

regions to dry ones. By doing so, we made the deserts bloom, we 

protected our communities from floods and droughts, and we 

opened up vast tracts of land to support a prosperous population 

made possible by water abundance. 

Sadly, these policies were reversed over the last 45 years. In my 

region, 4 years of drought, combined with massive pulse-flow water 

releases mandated by environmental laws, drained our reservoirs 

to nearly deadpool levels. The next year, an atmospheric river 
5 

opened up, requiring the loss of massive amounts of water to the 

ocean, because we had no place to store it—not for lack of suitable 

sites, but because of inaction in using them. 

The climate is constantly changing, which requires constant 

adaptation. Up until 5,000 years ago, the Sahara was one of the 

wetter regions of our planet, with frequent monsoons that produced 

the largest freshwater lake in the world. During the Roman warm 

period, much of the Roman grain supply was grown in North 

Africa. 

The foresight of America’s 20th century water engineers should 

be more apparent today. In the modern warm period, water will be 

stored for less time as snow in the mountains, which means that 

without new reservoirs to capture this runoff, it will be lost to the 

ocean. 

During the last several Congresses, the House sent major legislation to the Senate to expedite and reform the permitting process 

that has made the construction of new reservoirs endlessly time 

consuming and ultimately cost-prohibitive. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to act. 

As one example, the Shasta Dam was built to an elevation of 600 

feet and stores about 41⁄2 million acre-feet of water. But it was designed to an elevation of 800 feet. The difference is 9 million acrefeet of water storage. Yet, less than 20 feet of additional elevation, 

about 600,000 acre-feet of additional storage, has been stalled for 

decades in an endless cycle of environmental studies with no end 

in sight. 

Droughts are nature’s fault. They happen. But water shortages 

are our fault. They are a choice that we made when we stopped 

building adequate storage to meet the needs of the next generation. 

We are told that reservoirs are old-fashioned, and we must look 

to solutions like conservation, recycling, and desalination. Well, we 

need to understand what that actually means. 

Conservation does not add a drop to our water supply, it merely 

copes with the shortage that our own policies have imposed. And 

there is a limit to how much conservation can be mandated before 

it begins to have a significant negative impact on the quality of life 

for our people. Californians are soon to get a major lesson in this 

when mandated, year-round water rationing signed by Governor 

Brown takes effect in a few years. 

Recycling and desalination makes sense in deserts where water 

is scarce and can’t be imported. Fortunately, most regions of our 

country are blessed with abundant water. According to the 

California Energy Commission, surface water storage costs between 

$400 and $800 per acre-foot; while water desalination costs between $1,800 and $2,800 per acre-foot; and water recycling between 

$1,200 and $1,800 per acre-foot. 

In other words, storing water before it is lost to the ocean costs 

a mean of $600, while reclaiming it once it has been lost to the 

ocean costs about $2,300. Water desalination is a great idea if you 

don’t mind your water bill quadrupling. 
6 

We should be looking at the most cost-effective ways to produce 

water abundance, not the most expensive. That is the difference between abundance and scarcity, the difference between prosperity 

and rationing, and the difference between the policies before us 

today. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM MCCLINTOCK, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, OCEANS, AND WILDLIFE

According to the EPA, since 1901, global precipitation has increased at an average 

rate of 0.08 inches per decade, while precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has 

increased at a rate of 0.17 inches per decade. Globally, annual rainfall alone produces roughly 18,000 gallons of fresh water every day for every man, woman and 

child on this planet. 

The problem is that this abundance of fresh water is unevenly distributed over 

space and time. Throughout the 20th century, it was the policy of this government 

to guarantee abundant water for all the people and regions of our country. We built 

reservoirs to transfer water from wet years to dry years and we built canals to 

transfer water from wet regions to dry ones. By doing so, we made the deserts 

bloom and opened up vast tracts of land to support a prosperous population made 

possible by water abundance. 

Sadly, these policies were reversed over the last 45 years. In my region, 4 years 

of drought, combined with massive pulse flow water releases mandated by environmental laws, drained our reservoirs nearly to dead-pool levels. The next year, an 

atmospheric river opened up, requiring the loss of massive amounts of water to the 

ocean because we had no place to store it—not for lack of suitable sites, but for lack 

of action in utilizing them. 

The climate is constantly changing, which requires constant adaptation. Up until 

5,000 years ago, the Sahara was one of the wetter regions of the planet, with frequent monsoons that produced the largest freshwater lake in the world. During the 

Roman Warm Period, much of the Roman grain supply was grown in North Africa. 

The foresight of America’s 20th century water engineers should be more apparent 

today. In the Modern Warm Period, water will be stored for less time as snow in 

the mountains, which means that without new reservoirs to capture this runoff, it 

will be lost to the ocean. 

During the last several Congresses, the House sent major legislation to the Senate 

to expedite and reform the permitting process that has made the construction of 

new reservoirs endlessly time consuming and ultimately cost-prohibitive. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to act. 

As one example, the Shasta Dam was built to an elevation of 600 feet and stores 

more than 41⁄2 million acre-feet of water. But it was designed to an elevation of 800 

feet. The difference is 9 million acre-feet of water storage. Yet less than 20 feet of 

additional elevation—about 630,000 acre-feet of additional storage—has been stalled 

for more than 20 years in an endless cycle of environmental studies with no end 

in sight. 

Droughts are nature’s fault. They happen. But water shortages are our fault. 

They are a choice we made when we stopped building adequate storage to meet the 

needs of the next generation. 

We are told that reservoirs are old-fashioned, and that we must look to solutions 

like conservation, recycling and desalination. We need to understand that this actually means. 

Conservation does not add a drop to our water supply—it merely copes with a 

shortage that our own policies have imposed. And there is a limit to how much conservation can be mandated before it begins to have a significant negative impact on 

the quality of life for our people. Californians are soon going to get a major lesson 

in this when mandated year-round water rationing signed by Governor Brown takes 

effect in a few years. 

Recycling and desalination make sense in deserts where water is scarce and can’t 

be imported. Fortunately, most regions of our country are blessed with abundant 

water. According to the California Energy Commission, surface water storage costs 

between $400 and $800 per acre foot while water desalination costs $1,800 to $2,800 

per foot and water recycling $1,200 to $1,800 per foot. In other words, storing water 

before it is lost to the ocean costs a mean of $600 while reclaiming it once it’s been 
7 

lost to the ocean costs $2,300. Water desalination is a great idea if you don’t mind 

your water bill quadrupling. 

We should be looking at the most cost-effective ways to produce water 

abundance—not the most expensive. That is the difference between abundance and 

scarcity—the difference between prosperity and rationing—and the difference 

between the policies before us. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. McClintock. We will now hear 

from our witnesses. 

Let me remind the witnesses that under our Committee Rules, 

they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes. But their entire 

statement will still appear in the hearing record. 

When you begin, the lights on the witness table will turn green. 

After 4 minutes, you will see the yellow light come on. Your time 

will have expired when the red light comes on, and I will ask you 

to please complete your statement. 

I will also allow the entire panel to testify before we turn to 

questions from the Members. 

I will now begin with the witnesses. I see that Mr. Neguse is 

here. Our first witness is from Colorado. We will invite the gentleman from Colorado to introduce his home state constituent. 

Mr. NEGUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to do that. And I am so honored and pleased to introduce 

Mr. Bradley H. Udall from my district, the Colorado 2nd District. 

Brad currently serves as the Senior Water and Climate Research 

Scientist for Colorado State University’s Colorado Water Institute. 

He helped author the Fourth National Climate Assessment, and he 

is an expert, literally in the sense of the word, in anything related 

to western water. 

I also would be remiss if I didn’t point out the weight, certainly, 

that we all feel, and that certainly Brad must be feeling, in testifying in this room. If you all look to the back of the room, you can 

see the picture of his father, the legendary Mr. Morris Udall. 

Brad, it is such an honor to have you here today, and I certainly 

know that your father would be very proud, as is the state of 

Colorado. Thank you for taking the time to come testify and help 

us learn about a topic that is extremely important to our district, 

our state, and our country. 

I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. 

It is an honor to have you, Mr. Udall. 

STATEMENT OF BRAD UDALL, SENIOR WATER AND CLIMATE 

RESEARCH SCIENTIST, COLORADO WATER INSTITUTE, 

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 

Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member 

McClintock, and other members of the panel. Thank you for providing me an opportunity to speak. I am a senior scientist at 

Colorado State University, where I study how climate change will 

affect Western U.S. water supplies. Today, I want to focus on the 

Colorado River. 

After 19 years of unprecedented low flows and over-use in the 

lower basin, the Nation’s two largest reservoirs, Lakes Mead and 

Powell, are now barely 40 percent full. Without major action by the 
8 

Colorado River Basin states, there is a substantial risk of draining 

Lake Mead to deadpool in the next 7 years, an event that would 

prove to be very challenging. 

Since 2000, Colorado River flows have been 19 percent below the 

20th century average. Temperatures in the basin are now 2 degrees 

Fahrenheit warmer, and those temperatures are certain to continue rising. Scientists have begun using aridification to describe 

the ongoing hot and dry climate in the basin, rather than just 

drought. 

In 2017, Jonathan Overpeck and I found that higher temperatures due to climate change had reduced the flow of the Colorado 

River by approximately 6 percent, and that additional warming 

could reduce flows by approximately 20 percent by 2050, and up to 

35 percent by 2100, should precipitation remain the same. 

Higher temperatures increase evaporation from soils and water 

bodies, increase sublimation from snowpacks, and increase water 

use by plants, due to a longer growing season and more warmth 

on any given day. Other studies have come to similar conclusions. 

The 2018 National Climate Assessment found that snowpacks 

are being reduced, so melt runoff is occurring earlier in the year, 

and flows in the fall are lower. More of our precipitation is occurring as rain, rather than snow. 

The not-yet-approved Drought Contingency Plan is an important 

first step to solving the basin’s problems. It significantly reduces 

the chance of emptying Lake Mead. Most critically, the DCP buys 

us time to implement more permanent solutions. However, it leaves 

many hard decisions for the next plan. 

Negotiations for that replacement plan should begin next year. 

This plan needs to be a climate change plan for the basin. The 

planning process should be open and inclusive. It should solve the 

over-use problem in the lower basin and prepare for extended and 

unprecedented low flows. It should also re-visit a number of longstanding assumptions about how the river is being managed, including the upper basin’s so-called delivery obligation, who bears 

the burden of solving the lower basin’s over-use, and how the 

reservoirs are operated. 

I want to offer a few suggestions for how the Federal Government might help ensure water security in the basin. Additional 

ideas are in my written testimony. 

With climate change, the past is no longer a guide to the future. 

This makes planning very difficult. Scientists need to devise new 

ways to predict future runoff, and find other ways, including 

scenarios to help decision makers grapple with this very different 

future. 

Agriculture will be at the center of additional water shortages in 

the basin, because of its approximately 70 percent of total water 

use. Deficit irrigation, rotational fallowing, crop switching, irrigation efficiency all offer opportunities to save water, while keeping 

Ag. in production. There is much that a coordinated effort, between 

Interior with WaterSMART and USDA with its Farm Bill, can do 

to ensure that the harm to Ag. is minimized. 

The Salton Sea deserves significant Federal resources. Without a 

functioning Salton Sea, the Imperial Irrigation District’s ability to 

contribute to a meaningful resolution of the lower basin’s over-use 
9 

1 In addition to my position at Colorado State University, I am a co-investigator with the DOI 

Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Center, and a member of the Colorado River Research 

Group. (www.coloradoriverresearchgroup.org). 2 January 2019 Projections from Reclamation’s Mid-Term Operations Model (MTOM) model 

here: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/riverops/crss-5year-projections.html. Note that these 

projections use the full 111 years of historical hydrology (1906–2016) which includes the pluvial 

at the beginning of the 20th century. The actual risk using some form of ‘stress test’ hydrology 

without the wet period would be substantially higher. 

will be seriously constrained. Interior needs to continue to fund our 

National Streamgage Network. Congress should continue to 

support existing programs like NOAA’s RISA, Interior’s Climate 

Adaptation Science Centers, and the USDA Climate Hubs. 

Finally, any solution must aim at the root cause of these 

temperature-induced flow reductions. The ultimate goal must be 

net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as is practical, ideally 

net zero by 2050, but no later than 2070. Greenhouse gas reductions must be pursued through a suite of actions, including carbon 

pricing, investments in technology, tax credits, and other 

techniques. 

In conclusion, climate change is water change, and it is already 

impacting the Colorado River. My father was a member of this 

Committee for over 30 years, and he chaired it for 14. This very 

hearing room is named for him. That generation did not shy away 

from solving the great problems of its day, including how to provide 

reliable water supplies for the American Southwest. 

Similarly, this generation should not shy away from solving the 

great problems of today, which include how do we adapt to climate 

change, and how do we stop it? Climate change threatens all we 

hold dear. This is especially clear when it reduces our life-giving 

water supplies. 

Climate change is the key threat to 21st century water supply 

reliability. To minimize this threat we must act now by adapting 

to the coming changes with smart water management policy, with 

technology, with science, and also by reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions as quickly as we can. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRAD UDALL,1 SENIOR WATER AND CLIMATE RESEARCH

SCIENTIST/SCHOLAR, COLORADO WATER INSTITUTE, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member McClintock, and other members of the 

panel, thank you for providing me an opportunity to speak on this important issue. 

I am a senior scientist at Colorado State University where I study how climate 

change will affect western U.S. water supplies. For over 15 years, I have published 

and spoken extensively on the impacts of climate change on western rivers, and how 

we might reduce those impacts. Today I want to use my time to focus on the 

Colorado River. 

1. THE 21ST CENTURY CLIMATE CHALLENGE FOR THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN

Nineteen years of unprecedented drought in the gaged record have brought the 

Colorado River basin to the brink of the first ever major water delivery reductions 

in the Lower Basin. The combined contents of the two largest reservoirs in the 

United States, Lakes Mead and Powell, are now barely 40 percent full (Figure 1). 

Last month the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation said that there is a 69 percent chance 

for the first-ever shortage in 2020 and a 21 percent chance that Lake Mead will be 

less than 25 percent full in 2023 2 (Figure 2). At this level, the reservoir’s ability 

to supply water to Nevada, California, Arizona and Mexico is at risk. 
10 

Figure 1: Combined Contents of Lakes Powell and Mead 2000 to January 

31, 2019. 

Figure 2: Shortage Probabilities for 2019 to 2023 from Reclamation’s 

January 2019 study. 
11 

3 It should be noted that it is possible that the Colorado River may see a decade or more of 

higher flows in the 21st century—our enhanced water cycle is now capable of generating very 

large flows. But on balance, the science tells us that over the course of the 21st century the 

greatest risk is for flow reductions and ongoing aridification. 

Since 2000 flows have been 19 percent below the 20th century average (Figure 

3). 2018 was the hottest and driest year in the 4-Corners region since records were 

first kept in 1895 (Figure 4). Temperatures in the basin are now over 2°F warmer 

than the 20th century average, and those temperatures are certain to continue 

rising. Because the term drought implies a temporary condition, and this 19-year 

drought has been anything but that, scientists have begun using ‘‘aridification’’ to 

describe the ongoing hot and dry climate in the basin.3

Figure 3: Reservoir Contents, Upper Basin Natural (undepleted) Flows, 

Precipitation, and Temperature for various periods to end of September 

2018. 
12 

4 An acre-foot is 1 foot of water depth over an area of 1 acre or about 325,000 gallons. This 

is enough water for 2 to 4 families per year. 

Figure 4. 2018 was a record setting hot and dry year in large parts of the 

American Southwest. 

In addition to climate change, overuse has also contributed to the problem. Water 

users in the Lower Basin states consume roughly 10.2 million acre-feet 4 (maf) annually, while inflows from upstream average 9 maf leaving an imbalance of 1.2 maf/ 

year, or about 7 percent of the total flow in the system. This imbalance, known as 

the ‘‘Structural Deficit,’’ along with the low flows, has helped to drive both Lakes 

Mead and Powell lower (Figures 1 and 5). 

Figure 5. Contents in millions of acre-feet of Lakes Powell and Mead, 

January 1, 2000 to January 31, 2019. 
13 

5Dr. Overpeck is Now Dean of the University of Michigan School for Environment and 

Sustainability. At the time of the paper he was the Director of the Institute of the Environment 

at the University of Arizona and the Thomas R. Brown Distinguished Professor of Science. 6 Udall and Overpeck, 2017, The 21st century Colorado River hot drought and implications 

for the future. 7 In the paper these numbers all have ranges on them. The range of current flow reduction 

was from 3% to 10%; 6% is roughly the mid-point of this range. The range in 2050 was from 

8% to nearly 30%, using 3 different temperature sensitivities and a broad range of future emissions. In 2100 the range was from 12% to 55%. In the text above, I round to the middle of these 

ranges. 8Distinguished Professor of Geography at the University of California at Los Angeles. 

9 Xiao, Udall and Lettenmaier, 2018. On the Causes of Declining Colorado River Streamflows. 

10See Dettinger, Udall, & Georgakakos, 2015; McCabe, et al., 2017; Overpeck & Udall, 2010; 

Vano, Das, & Lettenmaier, 2012; Vano et al., 2014; Vano & Lettenmaier, 2014; Woodhouse, et 

al., 2016. 11 Ault, et al., 2016; Cook, Ault, & Smerdon, 2015. 12https://nca2018.globalchange.gov. 13https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/12/05/we-are-trouble-globalcarbon-emissionsreached-new-record-high/?utm_term=.874be32b4d7b. 14The DCP is actually a set of agreements. https://www.usbr.gov/dcp/. 

2. THE SALIENCE OF WARMING TEMPERATURES

In 2017, Dr. Jonathan Overpeck 5 and I published a peer-reviewed paper 6 which 

said that higher temperatures due to climate change had reduced the flow of the 

Colorado River by approximately 6 percent, and that additional warming could reduce flows by approximately 20 percent in 2050, and up to 35 percent by 2100, 

should precipitation remain the same.7 Higher temperatures increase evaporation 

from soils and water bodies, increase sublimation from snowpacks, and increase 

water use by plants due to a longer growing season and more warmth on any given 

day. A thirstier atmosphere which can now hold more moisture due to higher 

temperatures also contributes to the problem. Given the large 2°F warming in the 

basin, we called the current period a ‘‘hot drought’’ and the flow losses 

‘‘temperature-induced flow reductions’’ to distinguish them from a more normal ‘‘dry 

drought’’ that causes precipitation-related flow reductions. 

Last year Dr. Dennis Lettenmaier,8 his doctoral student Mu Xiao, and I published 

another peer-reviewed paper 9 showing that 50 percent of the flow reduction from 

2000 to 2014 was due to higher temperatures and the remaining 50 percent was 

due to shifting precipitation patterns. 

Other recent papers have also found significant impacts of temperatures on 

Colorado River flows 10 and other western rivers. Southwestern U.S. 

megadroughts—droughts lasting decades-have been shown to be much more likely 

in the 21st century as it warms, even if precipitation increases.11

The 2018 4th National Climate Assessment 12 found that the hydrologic cycle has 

already been profoundly modified by climate change. In the West, snowpacks are 

being reduced, snowmelt runoff is occurring earlier in the year, and flows in the fall 

are lower. More of our precipitation is occurring as rain rather than snow. Previous 

National Assessments in 2009 and 2014 reported similar results. Studies also note 

that past hydrology is no longer a suitable guide to future hydrology, a concept 

sometimes known as the ‘‘Death of Stationarity.’’ 

It is clear the Colorado River, and the entire Southwest, has shifted to a new hotter and drier climate, and, equally important, will continue to shift to a hotter and 

drier climate for several decades after we stop emitting greenhouse gasses. Last 

year humans emitted over 37 billion tons of CO2, an increase of 2.7 percent over 

2017.13 Given these unprecedented changes to our climate and water supplies, our 

20th century water management systems will need fundamental modifications to ensure that humans, our economy, and our environment suffer the least harm from 

likely future reductions in water supplies. 

3. THE DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN (DCP)

The seven Basin states are close to a ‘‘Drought Contingency Agreement 14’’ that 

will implement large proactive reductions in deliveries in the basin to protect Lakes 

Mead and Powell from reaching dangerously low volumes. In the Lower Basin, 

Central Arizona agriculture will be especially hit hard along with more manageable 

shortages for Las Vegas and central Arizona municipalities. If flows remain low, 

California agriculture and municipalities in Southern California will be impacted in 

future years. 

The states, the Central Arizona Project, irrigation districts, NGOs, Indian tribes 

and others deserve recognition for the hard work needed to agree on very difficult 
14 

15https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/strategies/RecordofDecision.pdf. 

reductions in water use. And Reclamation has been within its rights to strongly 

encourage all of the parties to finish these agreements soon. 

The agreement is an important first step. To be sure, it significantly reduces the 

chance of emptying Lake Mead, an event that would prove to be very challenging 

for the entire Southwest. Most critically, the DCP buys us time to implement more 

permanent solutions. And on paper the DCP ‘solves’ the Structural Deficit. It is, 

however, not perfect. It has mechanisms to account for and repay any shortages 

should flows later partially refill reservoirs. These paybacks have the potential to 

put the reservoirs back into precarious territory just when they show signs of recovery. Although the agreement has not been finalized, I am very optimistic that it will 

be completed soon. 

This agreement will only last 7 years. New negotiations will need to begin by the 

end of 2020 to replace the existing 2007 agreement on shortage sharing and 

reservoir operations 15 which expires in 2026. Hard issues left unresolved by the 

DCP will make the coming negotiations even more challenging. 

4. THE 2020–2026 NEGOTIATIONS LEADING TO THE 2026 AGREEMENT

In the long term, the Basin states need not just a Drought Contingency Plan, but 

a Climate Change Plan that accounts for likely future declines in flows. Should 

flows continue to drop, as the science suggests is likely, additional reductions in consumption will be needed. Agreeing on reductions that cause the least harm to water 

users, the overall economy and the environment will be an exceedingly difficult task, 

much harder to come by than those achieved in the DCP. To ensure water reliability 

in the 21st century, planning for major flow reductions should be the main charge 

for those leading the negotiations for the new 2026 agreement. 

4.1. An Open, Inclusive EIS Process Needed 

The negotiations will need a full Environmental Impact Statement including the 

transparency that such a process requires. (With the exception of Arizona, the DCP 

process lacked transparency and inclusion.) This process should allow for alternatives supplied by the states, tribes, municipalities, academia, NGOs and others. 

The 2007 process, for example, incorporated an NGO-sponsored ‘Conservation Before 

Shortage’ alternative that provided some of the ideas implemented in the 2007 

agreement and later in the DCP. Reclamation should support making modeling tools 

available to interested parties; modeling allows for thinking with numbers in much 

the same fashion that writing allows for thinking with words. Without these open 

access tools, some stakeholders will be unable to fully participate in the process. 

4.2. Permanent Structural Deficit Solution Needed and Plans for Extended Low 

Flows 

A permanent solution to the Structural Deficit should be part of the 2026 negotiations. The negotiation also needs to consider how water management will respond 

to potential future unprecedented low flows that require reductions in additional to 

those needed to solve the Structural Deficit. The current rules, laws and agreements 

imply solutions that may lead to litigation, may be undesirable and perhaps even 

impractical. Rules, laws and agreements around ‘‘equalization,’’ who bears the burden of solving the Structural Deficit, and the agreement around the Upper Basin 

delivery ‘obligation’ will all need to be considered. 

With each passing year, the existing 2007 reservoir rules reduce the possibility 

of ‘equalization releases’ from Lake Powell to Lake Mead. It has been these large 

(e.g., 3–5 maf in 1 year) releases that have allowed the Structural Deficit to persist. 

The combination of future large temperature-induced flow reductions and the likely 

continuation of the existing high bar for equalization means that it is very likely 

that at least 1.2 maf/year of demand will need to be permanently removed from the 

river in the 2026 agreement with provisions for additional reductions if needed. 

Contrary to what the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act says, the Central 

Arizona Project (and to a much lesser degree, Nevada) should not have to bear the 

entire burden of solving the Structural Deficit. This is because 5m people in Phoenix 

and 1m people in Tucson rely at least to some extent on this surface water. (Tucson 

has no surface water, although it does sit atop a large but not infinite supply of 

groundwater.) This fact has been acknowledged implicitly by inclusion of shortages 

to California in the DCP. It is extremely likely that additional shared sacrifice by 

all Lower Basin entities will be needed. 

Since 1922, the Lower Basin has relied on Section III(d) of the Colorado River 

Compact which appears to obligate the Upper Basin to deliver 75 maf every 10 running years as a backstop to future potential low flow conditions. That wording of 
15 

16Milly et al., ‘‘Stationarity Is Dead.’’ 

that clause says that the Upper Basin shall not cause the flow to decline below 75 

maf. However, if climate change causes those flow reductions, and if the Upper 

Basin is well under their Compact Section III(a) consumptive use limit as they currently are, the Upper Basin has a strong case to make that Section III(d) does not 

apply. Were this to occur, the Upper Basin would have been in serious drought for 

a number of years and its reservoirs would likely be empty. In addition, water to 

meet such a ‘compact call’ would come disproportionately from already suffering 

Upper Basin municipalities including Colorado’s Front Range, Albuquerque, and 

Salt Lake City. This could lead to lengthy litigation, an outcome that would do little 

to provide either water or an immediate solution. In such a situation, the Lower 

Basin would need to reduce uses well beyond that needed to solve the Structural 

Deficit. 

4.3. The Tension between Water Conservation to Raise Lake Levels and Later 

Recovery 

Well-meaning existing efforts (‘‘Intentionally Created Surplus’’ and variants) 

allowed by the 2007 agreement to prop up Lake Mead with unused conserved water 

may have an implicit flaw, which is that these waters are accounted for and are 

later allowed to be withdrawn from the system, potentially at times when the system is more exposed. This year Metropolitan Water District announced plans to 

withdraw its previously stored water rather than have it stranded by the existing 

rules which prevent withdrawals at low lake elevations. This is the water management equivalent of a bank run, and without a surefire mechanism of deposit insurance, such untimely withdrawals may happen in the future. 

To be sure, these efforts were designed to encourage water conservation and this 

has occurred. But there remains a tension between encouraging conservation and 

at the same time allowing the recovery of this water later which actually means 

that no real conservation occurred—the storer merely shifted water use in time. 

These water storage efforts allow us to push the problem forward in time, hoping 

that Mother Nature will rescue us. But they can make low flow years worse, with 

storing entities desiring to recover these saved supplies during such low years exactly when the reservoirs are bottoming out. Unfortunately, there is no clear way 

to provide the equivalent of deposit insurance, which in this case would be a supply 

of emergency water to prop up either the reservoir or the depositor. 

These rules might make sense in a system where a reasonable expectation is that 

a better future will soon occur. In a declining system, however, these rules push difficult decisions to the future when those decisions will be even more challenging. 

It is not clear how to solve this problem, but at least shedding light on it may help 

identify solutions. 

4.4. Developing Future Hydrology that accounts for Warming and Non-Stationarity 

One of the most difficult aspects of water resource management in the era of 

climate change is that the past is no longer a guide to the future.16 Current floods 

and droughts are now routinely exceeding the envelope of the historic record. This 

makes planning, including probabilistic modeling, very difficult. 

Current projections for the future of the basin often use the full range of historical 

hydrology from 1906 onward to generate probabilities of future delivery reductions. 

Yet we know these probabilities are understated because of a very wet period at the 

beginning of the 20th century that will likely not reoccur. In these modeling efforts, 

the wet years refill reservoirs and bail out the system. In recent years Reclamation 

has investigated using shorter periods (‘‘stress test hydrology’’) that remove this wet 

period and use only the more recent dry period. It is possible that even these efforts 

understate the future risk. Other work is ongoing to understand the increasing influence of temperature on streamflows, including the physical mechanisms for the 

uncoupling of runoff from precipitation. Much more work needs to be done. 

Reclamation has also been experimenting with future hydrology scenarios that 

step back from probabilities. These scenario-based efforts attempt to provide plausible futures for decision makers without explicit, overly precise and misleading 

probabilities. Additional work is needed in this area and Reclamation needs to be 

given the resources to pursue all of this work. This is a national problem as well. 

5. OTHER ACTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

5.1. Agricultural Solutions 

Agriculture will be at the center of additional water shortages in the basin because of its approximately 70 percent of total water use. The Drought Contingency 
16 

17http://www.cwi.colostate.edu/media/publications/cr/232.pdf. 18 Improperly done, irrigation efficiency measures can paradoxically increase water consumption. Properly done, irrigation efficiency can provide needed flexibility and save water. See 

(Grafton et al., 2018; Ward & Pulido-Velazquez, 2008). 19https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/. 20https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/2019/02/08/salton-sea-california-fish-bird-die-offwinter/2818025002/. 

Plan provides money and a plan to replace Colorado River water with groundwater 

to partially mitigate harm to Arizona irrigators. With potential cuts to locations outside of central Arizona and in California, groundwater is unlikely to be available 

as a replacement source. 

In 2017 Greg Peterson and I published a study 17 on how agriculture might adapt 

to lower flows. We looked at deficit irrigation of alfalfa, rotational fallowing, crop 

switching, irrigation efficiency 18 and water conservation. All of these water saving 

techniques offer the promise of at least some water savings, although each also has 

distinct costs. Perhaps the most promising of these techniques is switching to less 

water intensive crops, although it is also the least known and least tried. Crop 

switching requires growers to change labor, equipment, markets, transportation, 

storage and more. For crop switching to work, growers will need assistance and 

assurance that these new products will be financially viable. 

There is much the Federal Government can do to assist with such a transformation. The U.S. government should help facilitate all of these techniques 

through programs at Reclamation such as WaterSMART,19 and through the Farm 

Bill. The Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture need 

to ensure that inter-departmental coordination occurs so that programs can be integrated as much as possible. Given that agriculture will bear much of the brunt of 

coming reductions, it is imperative that USDA be as active as possible in mitigating 

the impacts to agricultural users. In addition, Reclamation should consider a broad 

study to see where its large backlog of infrastructure needs might overlap with 

opportunities to pursue irrigation efficiency and water conservation. 

5.2. The Salton Sea 

The Salton Sea stands out as an area of special concern—2017 marked the last 

year of extra flows into the sea to mitigate transfers to San Diego. It has now begun 

to decline rapidly, falling 1.7 feet in the past 2 years, threatening both a critical 

ecological resource and human health in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys. 

Impacts are already being noted.20 There are a number of reasonably simple actions 

that could be taken to resolve problems, and also importantly, to allow future 

Colorado River problems to be solved. Without a functioning Salton Sea, the 

Imperial Irrigation District’s ability to contribute to a meaningful resolution of the 

existing Structural Deficit, and additional demand reduction if necessary, will be 

seriously constrained. 

Plans exist to minimize the developing impacts at the sea; what has been missing 

is resources to implement these ideas. The USGS Salton Sea Science Office needs 

a full-time director based near the sea. Reclamation could support hydrologic studies, engineering review and general construction management for Salton Sea habitat 

projects. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Salton Sea Wildlife Refuge should be fully 

staffed and funded, including money for the Red Hill Bay project. 

Despite its size and apparent last minute nature, the Imperial Irrigation District’s 

recent $200m request is reasonable. There is a need for long-term funding for Salton 

Sea monitoring and O&M which is largely unmet by California’s bond funding. 

5.3. New Diversions in the Basin 

Despite the ongoing aridification and warning signs that the river is overallocated 

and overused, additional diversions are still being planned in the Basin. Given all 

that we know, these plans should be delayed or if built only allowed to divert when 

the harm to existing users will be very low, such as when Lakes Powell and Mead 

are full or nearly full. With serious shortages already possible, the last thing this 

basin should consider is additional diversions. 

5.4. The Federal Role in Policy 

The Federal Government through Reclamation has long played an important role 

in the basin. Historically, that role has been primarily to build and run the massive 

infrastructure. In recent years, Reclamation has provided important scientific support to the Basin states in their negotiation of new water agreements. The agency 

has played a critical convening and process role, while letting the states lead on policy, as is appropriate given state ownership of most water rights. However, when 

the states fail to lead, Reclamation has rightly threatened, scared and cajoled the 
17 

21 I have served as the Director of the Western Water Assessment RISA, am a co-investigator 

for the Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Center and serve as one of Colorado State 

University’s liaisons to the Northern Plains Climate Hub. 22These are the recommendations from the recent IPPC 1.5 Degree Special Report. 23 Colorado State University has a new Climate Smart Agriculture initiative and works with 

the USDA Climate Hubs. Climate Smart Agriculture was initially conceived by the Food and 

Agriculture Organization in 2013. See Lipper et al, 2014. 24 Risser & Wehner, 2017; Trenberth, et al., 2018. 25Diffenbaugh, Swain, & Touma, 2015. 26 Chavarria & Gutzler, 2018. 

states back to their proper role. This is as it should be and Reclamation should continue to provide scientific support, management and the appropriate leadership on 

new water agreements including a willingness to impose solutions if the states are 

unable or unwilling to make the difficult choices required. 

5.5. Science and Data Collection 

Interior through the USGS and its partners needs to continue to fund our 

national stream gage network, and expand that network where scientists and decision makers agree that additional gaging is necessary. To use a navigation analogy, 

climate change puts us in uncharted territory. With less than complete ‘‘maps’’ of 

our climate future, we need to make sure that our instruments are working and providing the very best information on our location. 

Congress should continue to support existing programs like the NOAA-funded 

Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessment (RISA) programs, the Department of 

Interior Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASC), Reclamation’s water science 

efforts and the USDA Climate Hubs,21 all of which serve to connect scientists with 

decision makers so that useful science can be created and understood. These programs have a known track record of knowledge coproduction, which includes the 

breaking down of barriers between scientists and decision makers. The RISA and 

CASC programs have been especially good at assessing the state of science for 

stakeholders. The Climate Hubs are much newer, show great promise with helping 

agriculture adapt to climate change, but need more resources. Reclamation’s 

scientist-engineers are very talented and deserve recognition and support for moving 

emerging science into useful engineering. 

Note that these actions will have widespread national benefits beyond the 

Colorado River. 

5.6. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts 

Finally, any solution set must aim at the root cause of the temperature-induced 

flow reductions. Climate change is as serious a problem as humans have ever faced 

and thus requires not one, but a vast set of solutions. The ultimate goal must be 

net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as is practical, ideally with net zero reductions by 2050 but no later than by 2070.22 This is achievable but will take great 

leadership. To the extent we fail to do this, we will impose great costs on ourselves, 

our youth, and especially on future generations. Greenhouse gas reductions must be 

pursued through a suite of actions including carbon pricing, investments in technology, tax credits, and even thru Climate Smart Agriculture 23 which aims to increase farm yields while sequestering carbon in soil. 

6. CONCLUSIONS

Scientists have attributed changes in the global water cycle to human caused 

climate change including enhanced precipitation in hurricanes like Harvey which 

dropped 50+ inches of rain in 4 days,24 record-setting droughts like the one in 

California from 2012 to 2017,25 and recent flow declines in the Rio Grande.26

Climate change is also clearly impacting river flows in the Colorado River, too. 

Simply put, climate change is water change. 

My father was a member of this Committee for over 30 years and chaired it for 

14 years. This very hearing room is named for him, and his portrait overlooks us 

all. His generation, the greatest generation, revered science and the knowledge it 

provided that allowed us to build the amazing water supply infrastructure that now 

exists on the Colorado River. 

That generation did not shy from solving the great problems of its day, including 

how to provide reliable water supplies for the American Southwest and how to clean 

up our environment. My best guess is that in this very room the ground breaking 

1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act was passed out of Committee. 

Similarly, this generation should not shy away from solving the great problems 

of today, which include how do we adapt to climate change and how do we stop it. 

The science on climate change is now 200 years old, and is very, very clear. When 
18 

27https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oil-giant-accepts-climate-consensus-deniesresponsibility-forwarming/. 28https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/Energy-and-environment/Environmental-protection/ 

Climate-change; http://reports.shell.com/sustainability-report/2015/energy-transition/addressingclimate-change.html. 

major oil companies accept the science 27 and say we must act, as they have,28 the 

debate should be over. It is over in every other major country. 

Climate change threatens all we hold dear—our economic well-being, our culture, 

our way of life, our environment, our kids and future generations. This is especially 

clear when it reduces our life-giving water supplies as it is now doing in the 

Colorado River Basin. Climate change is the key threat to 21st century water supply 

reliability. 

To minimize this threat, we must act now by adapting to the coming changes with 

smart water management and policy, with technology, with science and also by 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as we can. 

Thank you for your time. 

REFERENCES

Ault, T.R., et al. (2016). Relative impacts of mitigation, temperature, and precipitation on 21st-century megadrought risk in the American Southwest. Science 

Advances, 2(10), e1600873. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600873. 

Chavarria, S.B. & Gutzler, D.S. (2018). Observed Changes in Climate and 

Streamflow in the Upper Rio Grande Basin. JAWRA Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association, 54(3), 644–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12640. 

Cook, B.I., Ault, T.R., & Smerdon, J.E. (2015). Unprecedented 21st century drought 

risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains. Science Advances, 1(1), 

e1400082. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400082. 

Dettinger, M., Udall, B., & Georgakakos, A. (2015). Western water and climate 

change. Ecological Applications, 25(8), 2069–2093. 

Diffenbaugh, N.S., Swain, D.L., & Touma, D. (2015). Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(13), 3931–3936. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1422385112. 

Grafton, R.Q., et al. (2018). The paradox of irrigation efficiency. Science, 361(6404), 

748–750. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat9314. 

McCabe, G.J., et al. (2017). Evidence that Recent Warming is Reducing Upper 

Colorado River Flows. Earth Interactions, 21(10), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1175/EI-D17-0007.1. 

Overpeck, J. & Udall, B. (2010). Dry times ahead. Science, 328(5986), 1642–1643. 

Risser, M.D. & Wehner, M.F. (2017). Attributable Human-Induced Changes in the 

Likelihood and Magnitude of the Observed Extreme Precipitation during Hurricane 

Harvey: Changes in Extreme Precipitation in TX. Geophysical Research Letters, 

44(24), 12,457–12,464. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075888. 

Trenberth, K.E., et al. (2018). Hurricane Harvey Links to Ocean Heat Content and 

Climate Change Adaptation. Earth’s Future, 6(5), 730–744. https://doi.org/10.1029/ 

2018EF000825. 

Vano, J.A., Das, T., & Lettenmaier, D.P. (2012). Hydrologic Sensitivities of Colorado 

River Runoff to Changes in Precipitation and Temperature*. Journal of 

Hydrometeorology, 13(3), 932–949. https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-11-069.1. 

Vano, J.A. & Lettenmaier, D.P. (2014). A sensitivity-based approach to evaluating 

future changes in Colorado River discharge. Climatic Change, 122(4), 621–634. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1023-x. 

Vano, J.A., et al. (2014). Understanding Uncertainties in Future Colorado River 

streamflow. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95(1), 59–78. 

Ward, F.A. & Pulido-Velazquez, M. (2008). Water conservation in irrigation can 

increase water use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(47), 

18215–18220. 

Woodhouse, C.A., et al. (2016). Increasing influence of air temperature on upper 

Colorado River streamflow. Geophysical Research Letters, 2015GL067613. https:// 

doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067613. 
19 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Udall. The next witness is Mr. 

Jonathan Nelson from the Community Water Center, a non-profit 

environmental justice organization based in California’s San 

Joaquin Valley. The Community Water Center works to ensure 

that all communities have access to safe, clean, and affordable 

drinking water. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Nelson to testify. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN NELSON, POLICY DIRECTOR, 

COMMUNITY WATER CENTER, VISALIA, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member 

McClintock, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is 

Jonathan Nelson. I am the policy director of the Community Water 

Center, or CWC, an environmental justice organization that works 

in the southern San Joaquin Valley and central coast of California, 

whose vision is to ensure that all communities in California and in 

America can have access to safe, clean, and affordable water, 

through organizing education and advocacy. 

CWC also works as part of national coalitions to address issues 

related to safe and affordable drinking water supply across 

America. 

At CWC, we believe that access to safe drinking water is a basic 

human right. Yet, each year, millions of Americans are impacted 

by unsafe water supply, including more than 1 million in 

California. The data shows toxic drinking water disproportionately 

impacts low-income communities of color. Access to safe drinking 

water supply is a public health crisis, and it is happening under 

our watch. 

With this as quick background, I would like to offer two points 

at the intersection of climate change and water supply. 

First, climate change is already hurting access to safe water supply in our communities. Climate science is clear that droughts have 

the potential to become more frequent, longer, and more severe. We 

saw that during the recent historic drought in California, where 

over 10,000 Californians were impacted by loss of water supply. 

Communities like East Porterville, which had already faced 

inequitable development and contaminated water, went dry as 

farmers increasingly tapped into groundwater at unsustainable 

rates, resulting in a reality where low-income communities simply 

could not afford to chase the falling groundwater table. It was a 

human catastrophe. Just imagine going home at the end of today 

and not having water in your house, and having to have your 

family rely on portable community showers and tanked water. 

What is worse, Stanford has documented the negative relationship between stressed water supply and water quality. The takeaway is that climate change and more severe droughts are the new 

normal, and we cannot look at issues of water supply and water 

quality in isolation; they are fundamentally connected. 

The second point I would like to offer is to take proactive action 

now to protect water supply for our most vulnerable communities 

before the next water shortage crisis hits. CWC has worked with 

others in California to recently pass proactive drought preparedness legislation that would require more advance drought emergency planning, and that also requires the state of California to 
20 

1Maura Allaire et al., National trends in drinking water quality violations, 115 Proc. Nat’l 

Acad. of Sci., U.S. 2078, 2078 (2018), https://perma.cc/Y9FU-SC7C (‘‘[I]n 2015, nearly 21 million 

people relied on community water systems that violated health-based quality standards.’’) (this 

number only includes those who rely on water systems and not on private domestic wells). 

proactively identify communities that may be at risk of future 

water supply shortage in the event of a drought. 

CWC is also working to implement legislation that requires better stewarding of our precious groundwater resources, to make sure 

that they last for future generations. 

Finally, as already has been pointed out, we need far greater levels of Federal investment, which has shrunk dramatically in recent 

decades. These are just some of the actions that we can take to 

avoid another climate-caused water catastrophe, and we would like 

to work with this Congress in taking action before it is too late. 

To close, we believe that access to safe and affordable drinking 

water is a basic human right. Yet, millions are impacted by toxic 

water each year. This is not an abstract issue, if you live in one 

of these impacted communities, and it is only going to get worse 

as we move forward into a new normal of climate change. Climate 

change is going to only accelerate the challenges, but we can take 

action now to protect our communities. So, we urge Congress to act. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JONATHAN NELSON, POLICY DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY WATER

CENTER, VISALIA, CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY WATER CENTER

Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member McClintock, and members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony as part of this 

informational hearing. 

My name is Jonathan Nelson and I am the Policy Director of the Community 

Water Center. I am here today to share with you information and our perspective 

on the challenges and solutions regarding access to safe drinking water supply in 

California, and particularly in California’s San Joaquin Valley and Central Coast 

regions. 

As background, the Community Water Center is an Environmental Justice nonprofit founded in 2006 and headquartered in Visalia, California, in the Southern 

San Joaquin Valley. The vision of the Community Water Center, or CWC, is to ensure all communities have access to safe, clean, and affordable water. CWC works 

as a catalyst for community-driven water solutions through organizing, education, 

and advocacy in California’s San Joaquin Valley and Central Coast. We build 

grassroot capacity to address water challenges in small, rural, low-income communities and communities of color, and also engage on statewide drinking water policy. 

CWC also works as part of national coalitions to address issues related to safe and 

affordable drinking water across the country. 

In our view, those directly impacted by water contamination must lead in creating 

and advocating for solutions. At CWC, we strive to reduce barriers that prevent impacted residents from participating effectively in decision making, and we firmly believe that in order to solve California’s drinking water crisis, all stakeholders must 

have a seat at the table. 

BACKGROUND ON OUR DRINKING WATER CRISIS

At CWC, we believe that access to safe drinking water is a basic human right, 

not a privilege. Yet each year millions of people across the country depend on drinking water systems that serve unsafe water 1 and in California alone more than 1 

million Californians are exposed to unsafe drinking water from the taps in their 
21 

2https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2019/feb/14/gavin-newsom/true-more-millioncalifornians-dont-have-clean-dri/. 3http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/communitywatercenter/pages/52/attachments/original/ 

1394398105/Balazsetal_Arsenic.pdf?1394398105. 4 Exceedance/Compliance Status of Public Water Systems, Cal. Water Bd., https://perma.cc/ 

CF55-6XYW (last visited October 13, 2018, 2 PM),; Eli Moore et al., The Human Costs of 

Nitrate-Contaminated Drinking Water in the San Joaquin Valley 11 (2011), https://perma.cc/ 

67GX-3ASC. 5 Carolina Balazs et al., Social Disparities in Nitrate-Contaminated Drinking Water in 

California’s San Joaquin Valley, 119 Envtl. Health Persp. 1272, 1273 (2011), https://perma.cc/ 

JX8V-DHXC. 6http://waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/hr2w/index.shtml. 7http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/communitywatercenter/pages/52/attachments/original/ 

1394397950/assessing-water-affordability.pdf?1394397950. 

homes, schools, and communities.2 Although water problems exist statewide in 

California, they disproportionately impact low income communities and communities 

of color.3

California’s San Joaquin Valley and Central Coast, where we organize in, is 

particularly impacted. The San Joaquin Valley alone hosts some of the most contaminated water basins in the nation,4 yet nearly 95 percent of San Joaquin Valley 

residents rely on groundwater for their domestic needs.5 This results in the San 

Joaquin Valley having the highest rates of drinking water contamination and the 

greatest number of public water systems with Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) 

violations in the state.6

In addition to the acute health risks associated with the Central Valley’s and 

Central Coast’s water contamination, communities face the disproportionate economic burden that stems from a lack of basic urban water infrastructure. Residents 

are often forced to pay twice for water, having to purchase bottled water to supplement the unsafe tap water delivered to their homes. These drinking water costs 

alone can amount to as much as 10 percent of a household’s income.7 In other 

words, those most affected by the lack of safe water are also those least able to afford the extra cost of alternative water sources. 

Droughts and other water supply stressers only exacerbate the challenge. 

California has recently emerged from the most severe drought in the state’s recorded history. Thousands of wells went dry, which forced communities and residents to turn on old, contaminated back-up wells or rely on emergency drinking 

water supplies like trucked water or bottled water. For a long time, many residents 

were filling buckets from their neighbors’ water hoses in order to have enough water 

for basic sanitation. And we still have communities and private well owners whose 

wells remain dry years later. 

Finally, the communities most impacted by unsafe drinking water were for decades continuously and deliberately excluded from full participation in their local 

water decision-making governance. And still today there are challenges in ensuring 

adequate participation by local communities in water governance. 

We know through experience that if you give communities a seat at the table, and 

empower them with the information they need, that they can meaningfully participate in the decision-making process—and that the solutions that result will better 

reflect the needs of communities. 

SOLUTIONS TO SECURE SAFE DRINKING WATER SUPPLY FOR VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES

IN THE FACE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

I would like to spend the remainder of my remarks today outlining a few areas 

of need at the intersection of climate change and access to safe drinking water supply. 

The first point is acknowledging that climate change is already having a 

direct impact on access to safe drinking water supply for vulnerable 

communities. 

The California community of East Porterville was severely and disproportionately 

impacted during the 2011–2017 drought. East Porterville is an unincorporated community of around 7,000 people in Tulare County, California. Up until recently, due 

to inequitable development patterns, nearly all East Porterville residents were 

served by private domestic wells. As many as 300 wells were reported dry over the 

drought years of 2014 and 2015. What is worse, many wells in the area had tested 

positive for nitrates, a dangerous contaminant. As surface water deliveries diminished, farmers increasingly tapped into groundwater at unsustainable rates. This resulted in plummeting groundwater levels, causing land subsidence and a reality 
22 

8https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/What-We-Do/Emergency-Management/ 

Files/East-Porterville/East-Porterville_Feasibility-Study_Public-Draft_Rev_060316-1.pdf—pg. 35. 9https://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/story/news/local/2014/07/28/tulare-county-gets-milliondrought-help/13266557/. 10State of California Household Water Supply Shortage Reporting System. 11https://news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2018/06/05/overpumping-groundwater-increasescontamination-risk/. 

where low-income communities could not afford to keep drilling to chase the falling 

groundwater table—causing domestic and shallow municipal wells to go dry. 

In response, CWC worked collaboratively with both local and state government to 

address what had become a grave public health crisis. The solution involved both 

interim and long-term drinking water solutions. The interim measures included 

emergency bottled water, water tanks, and portable showers—however these bandaid measures came at great financial cost to the state of California, an estimated 

$633,500 per month just for East Porterville—that’s $7.6 million per year.8 The 

long-term solution involved a consolidation for residents on domestic wells into the 

city of Porterville’s water system. CWC conducted large-scale community outreach 

to ensure residents understood their options and what to expect if they chose to connect to the city of Porterville’s water system. Since then, more than 700 East 

Porterville homes have been connected to the city of Porterville’s public water system and now have a source of safe and reliable water for years to come. 

Unfortunately East Porterville was not an isolated incident. In 2014, USDA grant- ed more than $4 million in emergency funding to 11 public water districts in Tulare 

County alone to address water supply shortfalls.9 Over 10,000 Californians suffered 

inadequate access to water supply during the drought.10 Most of these Californians 

resided in low-income communities of color that at worst had experienced historic 

discrimination and at best insufficient levels of funding investment. Climate change 

science tells us there will be more East Porterville type emergencies in the future, 

as droughts become more frequent, longer, and more severe. It is not a question of 

if the next drought strikes, but when. 

The East Porterville story also illustrates what real solutions look like—in this 

case, funding to support consolidation of households to a nearby water agency that 

still had access to water, coordination between multiple levels of government, engagement with community-based organizations. These solutions will continue to be 

needed as we grapple with a new normal at the intersection of climate change, 

drought, and our most vulnerable communities. 

Finally, it is worth noting the relationship between water supply and water quality, which is often not talked about. We repeatedly found increased challenges with 

water quality in California’s Central Valley due to the drought and the resulting 

(even more) stressed water supply as the composition of the aquifers changed. 

6Stanford University has recently released a study 11 documenting the negative relationship between stressed water supply and water quality in the aquifers. The 

takeaway is we cannot look at issues of water supply and water quality in 

isolation—they are fundamentally connected. 

The second point is around proactively building resilient drinking water 

institutions, particularly in our most vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, in order to secure a safe and affordable water supply in the face 

of climate change. 

What do we mean by building resilient drinking water institutions? To us, resilient drinking water institutions are those that have the capacity to provide safe 

drinking water both now and for the long term, in the face of complex challenges 

such as resulting from water contamination, over-depletion of groundwater sources, 

and stressors like population growth—and perhaps most critically, climate change. 

There are a number of actions we are pursuing in California to better prepare for 

when the next drought hits, so that we never again subject so many to such horrific 

conditions. In addition to responding to the real-time impacts of climate change and 

drought emergencies, CWC has worked over the last few years to pass proactive 

drought preparedness legislation. For example, CWC worked collaboratively with 

numerous other organizations to put forward legislation in 2017, California 

Assembly Bill 1668, that would require certain planning measures to be taken before a drought hits so that we can build more resiliency ahead of time for our most 

vulnerable communities. Importantly, the legislation would (1) require the state of 

California to work with the appropriate water and government stakeholders to develop recommended guidelines for drought and water shortage contingency planning/emergency response, and (2) proactively identify communities that may be at 

risk of water shortage in a future drought. This is just one example of policies we 
23 

12https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/assistance/docs/ 

2019/draft_report_ab401.pdf. 

are pursuing in California to build resiliency for our most vulnerable communities 

in response to a future of increased climate change and drought. 

Another important effort in California to prepare for a future of climate change 

and increased drought is to better steward our precious groundwater sources. In 

2014 California passed legislation, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 

or SGMA, to address a reality of over-pumping of groundwater aquifers that directly 

contributed to so many vulnerable Californians losing access to water during the 

drought. SGMA requires the creation of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies and 

Plans in order to achieve sustainability of groundwater use while protecting the 

needs of communities and drinking water. SGMA is still in the early stages of implementation and we have serious concerns that the interests of small communities 

are being overshadowed or even ignored by larger, more powerful interests. That 

said, SGMA does at least offer a pathway toward greater sustainability of how 

groundwater is used—so that it can be preserved and stewarded for the generations 

to come. 

Most importantly it must be noted that lasting change must start within the community and has to be sustained by the community. We must ensure that both funding processes and planning processes allow for meaningful community engagement, 

not just a rubber stamp, so that solutions can best reflect their needs. 

Finally, we need to acknowledge that we need far greater levels of Federal investment. A recent California State Water Board report found that ‘‘the percentage of 

federal support in the total public spending on infrastructure for water utilities has 

fallen from over 30% in the 1970s to less than 5 percent in 2015.’’ 12 Congress must 

invest more into ensuring access to a safe and affordable drinking water supply if 

we are ever to secure every American’s basic human right to water in our country. 

CONCLUSION

To reiterate, we believe that access to safe, clean and affordable drinking water 

is a basic human right. Securing this basic human right for everyone in the United 

States is within reach if we muster the political will and back it with the necessary 

funding investments. The need is more urgent than ever in the face of climate 

change, which is accelerating the set of challenges to ensuring universal access to 

a safe and affordable water supply. We urge Congress to act. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present as part of this hearing, and please 

do not hesitate to reach out if we can be a further resource or of assistance. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Next we will recognize 

Mr. Tony Willardson, who serves as the Executive Director of the 

Western States Water Council. The Council is appointed by the 18 

Republican and Democratic governors of the western states to work 

on water policy issues. 

Thank you for being here, Mr. Willardson. The Chair now 

recognizes you for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TONY WILLARDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL, MURRAY, UTAH 

Mr. WILLARDSON. Thank you, Chairman Huffman and Ranking 

Member McClintock, and other members of the Subcommittee. We 

appreciate the opportunity to testify on positions that the Council 

has adopted. I would point out that we are a government entity. 

We are an instrumentality of each and every participating state, 

which includes the 17 reclamation states and Alaska. 

A secure water future is increasingly uncertain, due to a number 

of factors. This includes limited data regarding water supply, as 

well as demands in existing uses; unpredictable climate extremes, 

such as drought; aging and often inadequate infrastructure; 
24 

competing and poorly defined water rights; changing values and 

regulatory requirements; and integrated collaborative and grass 

roots approaches needed to water resources management. And this 

is going to require stronger cooperation that transcends geographical boundaries between states, Federal agencies, tribes, and 

local communities. 

Emphasizing, obviously, from our state perspective, the states 

have a primary responsibility for water resources management. 

But also we strive to cooperate with national, regional, local, and 

tribal entities with their responsibilities and seek cooperation, 

rather than conflict and litigation. 

Water data is an area where we need to place a high priority. 

There are many vital water data programs, but in 2007, the 

National Science and Technology Council simply stated that quantitative knowledge of U.S. water supply is currently inadequate. 

That remains the case. 

Here, this Committee has jurisdiction over the USGS and their 

Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program, over the 

National Water-Quality Assessment and water use data, as well as 

land imaging and thermal infrared imaging with Landsat. And I 

mentioned the Bureau of Reclamation’s Agrimet weather station 

network, as well. 

We need to invest more in the water data that is critical for decision making. The Council supports state and Federal applied 

research and hydroclimate data collection programs that assist 

water agencies at all levels of government to adapt to climate variability, and make sound scientific decisions. Future decision making will depend on our ability to understand, monitor, predict, and 

adapt to climate variability. It has serious consequences, as has 

been described. 

The Council also supports Reclamation’s drought response program, as well as other Federal programs, including the National 

Integrated Drought Information System. I co-chair the executive 

council for NIDIS. It is a recurring threat, and NOAA estimates between 2015 and 2017, it cost this country $11 billion. We need to 

improve our ability to observe, understand, model, predict, and 

adapt to variability. 

And the Bureau of Reclamation has a rule here, as well, and particularly given their interest in forecasts as part of reservoir operations. Seasonal to sub-seasonal forecasting is an area where we 

need a better understanding of hydro-climatic processes, dynamical 

earth system modeling, and probabilistic outlooks of climate extremes. We need to improve our western observing systems as it 

relates to extreme events. 

The Council also supports integrated energy and water program 

and project planning. We enjoy diverse and abundant energy 

resources in the West that include renewable and non-renewable. 

We need to maintain adequate and sustainable supplies of clean 

water and energy, which are inter-related challenges. 

And I would also mention the Council supports hydropower 

development, a reasonable development that includes protecting 

our environmental resources, consistent with the state’s authority 

under the Clean Water Act section 401. Hydropower is a vital part 

of our energy portfolio. 
25 

I had mentioned briefly infrastructure and the challenges that 

we face there with the aging infrastructure. Many have exceeded 

their design life. Inadequate and untimely funding is increasing 

those costs. The Council particularly supports funding for rural 

water projects, many of which have been unfunded, as well as for 

tribal water projects. 

And I would conclude by mentioning the importance to us of 

using the Reclamation Fund, which was created by Congress in 

1902 with revenues and receipts from water and power sales, from 

Federal land sales, from mineral leasing and oil and gas revenues 

to fund these kinds of projects. Currently, the unobligated balance 

is nearly $16 billion, and that money has been spent for other 

Federal purposes, contrary to the original intent of Congress. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Willardson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TONY WILLARDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WESTERN

STATES WATER COUNCIL

INTRODUCTION/VISION STATEMENT

Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member McClintock and members of the 

Subcommittee: My name is Tony Willardson and I am the Executive Director of the 

Western States Water Council (WSWC). The Council is a bi-partisan government 

entity created by western governors in 1965 as a policy advisory body representing 

18 western states. Our members are appointed by their governors, and we have a 

small staff located in Salt Lake City, Utah. 

My testimony is based on our existing policy position statements covering many 

water issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee and Committee. 

All our policy positions are available online at www.westernstateswater.org/policies2/. 

Water is an increasingly scarce and precious resource and should be a public 

policy priority. In the West, water is critically important to our public health, economy, food security, environment, and western way of life. We must cultivate a water 

conservation ethic through greater understanding of, and appreciation for, water’s 

value. 

Population growth, competing economic and ecological demands, and changing 

social values have stressed surface and groundwater supplies in many areas. As a 

result, the number and complexity of conflicts among users and uses is increasing. 

A secure water future is becoming increasingly uncertain. Numerous factors contribute to the uncertainty, including our unpredictable climate, aging and often 

inadequate infrastructure, data limitations regarding water supplies and demands, 

competing or poorly defined water rights, and a constantly evolving regulatory 

landscape. 

An integrated, collaborative, and grassroots approach to water resources management is essential to ensure an adequate, secure and sustainable supply of water of 

suitable quality to meet our diverse economic and environmental needs now and in 

the future. This will require stronger collaboration and cooperation that transcends 

political and geographic boundaries between states, Federal agencies, tribes, and 

local communities. We should work together to identify water problems and develop 

optimal solutions at the lowest appropriate level of government. Striving for cooperation rather than conflict and litigation, we must recognize and respect 

national, state, regional, local and tribal differences in values related to water 

resources. 

The States’ primary stewardship over water resources is fundamental to a sustainable water future. Federal water planning, policy development, regulation, protection, and management must recognize, defer to, and support state water laws, 

plans, policies, and programs, as well as state water rights administration, adjudication and regulation, compacts and settlements. Rather than attempt to dictate water 

policy, the Federal Government should engage states early in meaningful consultation—avoiding, or at least minimizing, the need for Federal regulatory mandates. 

Further, the Federal Government should contribute its fair share of funding in support of Federal obligations and objectives that may be implemented as part of state 

water planning, management, and protection programs and projects. 
26 

A secure and sustainable water future will be determined by our ability to maintain, replace, expand and make the most efficient use of critical water infrastructure. We must preserve and improve existing infrastructure, as well as encourage 

and support innovative water supply strategies and new storage options to better 

balance supplies with demands. 

All levels of government must prioritize the collection, analysis and open sharing 

of reliable data regarding water availability, quality, and usage given its importance 

to research for sound science and data driven decision making. 

WATER DATA

The Western States Water Council urges the Congress and the Administration to 

give a high priority to the allocation and appropriation of sufficient funds for vital 

water data programs, which benefit so many, yet have been, or are being allowed 

to erode to the point that it threatens the quantity and quality of basic water data 

provided to a myriad, growing and diffuse number of decision makers and stakeholders, with significantly adverse consequences. (WSWC Position #428, October 26, 

2018) 

This includes the Bureau of Reclamation’s Agrimet network of weather stations 

and similar networks that provide data used for improving agricultural water use 

efficiency and ground-truthing, calibrating and validating remote-sensing platforms 

such Landsat. (WSWC Position #418, March 14, 2018) 

Quoting from a 2007 National Science and Technology Council report, A Strategy 

for Federal Science and Technology to Support Water Availability and Quality in 

the United States, September 2007: ‘‘Many effective programs are underway to 

measure aspects of our water resources. However, simply stated quantitative knowledge of U.S. water supply is currently inadequate. A robust process for measuring 

the quantity and quality of the Nation’s water resources requires a systems approach. Surface water, groundwater, rainfall, and snow-pack all represent quantities 

of water to be assessed and managed—from the perspectives of quantity, quality, 

timing, and location.’’ 

Sound decision making demands accurate and timely data on precipitation, temperature, evapo-transpiration, soil moisture, snow depth, snow water content, 

streamflow, groundwater, water quality and similar information. 

The demands for water and related climate data continue to increase, and this 

information is used by Federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies, as well 

as private entities and individuals to: (1) forecast flooding, drought and other 

climate-related events; (2) project future water supplies for agricultural, municipal, 

and industrial uses; (3) estimate streamflows for hydropower production, recreation, 

and environmental purposes, such as for fish and wildlife management, including 

endangered species needs; (4) facilitate water management and administration of 

water rights, decrees, and interstate compacts; and (5) design and construct resilient 

water infrastructure projects. 

Without timely and accurate information, human life, health, welfare, property, 

and environmental and natural resources are at considerably greater risk of loss. 

Data gathering and analysis needs transcend administrative agency boundaries and 

congressional committee jurisdiction requiring collaboration. State-of-the-art 

technology has been and is being developed to provide real or near real-time data 

in formats that can be shared and used by different computer programs with the 

potential to vastly improve the water-related information available to decision 

makers in natural resources and emergency management, and thus better protect 

the public safety, welfare and the environment. 

Vital information is gathered and disseminated through a number of important 

Federal programs that provide useful products to assist in visualizing and interpreting data on water and snow, making water supply and availability information 

more accessible, and easy to interpret. 

These include, but are not limited to: (1) the Snow Survey and Water Supply 

Forecasting Program, administered by the National Water and Climate Center 

(NWCC) in Portland, Oregon, and funded through USDA’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS); (2) NWCC’s Soil and Climate Analysis Network 

(SCAN); (3) the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Groundwater and Streamflow 

Information Program (GWSIP) and National Streamflow Network, which are funded 

through the Department of the Interior; (4) Landsat thermal data, archived and distributed by the USGS, and other remotely sensed data acquired through the 

National Atmospheric and Space Administration (NASA) and its water-related 

missions; (5) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 

National Weather Service and Climate Programs Office; and (6) the Environmental 
27 

Protection Agency’s National Environmental Information Exchange Network 

(NEIEN). 

Over many years, the lack of capital investments in water data programs has led 

to the discontinuance, disrepair, or obsolescence of vital equipment needed to 

maintain existing water resources related data gathering activities. There is a serious need for adequate and consistent Federal funding to maintain, restore, modernize, and upgrade Federal water, weather and climate observation programs, not 

only to avoid the loss or further erosion of critical information and data, but also 

to address emerging needs, with a primary focus on coordinated data collection and 

dissemination. 

CLIMATE ADAPTATION

The Council supports state and Federal applied research and hydroclimate data 

collection programs that would assist water agencies at all levels of government in 

adapting to climate variability and making sound scientific decisions. (WSWC 

Position #421, March 14, 2018) 

Climate variability has serious potential consequences for water supply availability, water resources planning and management, water rights administration, 

flood management, and water quality management. Further, much of the West’s 

water infrastructure was designed and constructed prior to our current understanding of climate variability, often from short hydrologic records from the first 

half of the 20th century. The impacts of climate variability can include increased 

frequency and intensity of severe weather (droughts and floods), reduction of 

mountain snowpacks, changes in timing and amount of snowmelt runoff, and 

changes in plant and crop evapotranspiration resulting in changed water demand 

patterns. 

Climate variability leads to additional stress on western water resources, which 

are already challenged by population growth, competition for scarce resources, increasingly stringent environmental regulations, and other factors. Water resources 

planning and management at all levels of government and sound future decision 

making depend on our ability to understand, monitor, predict, and adapt to climate 

variability. The Council has over the years co-sponsored several workshops to gather 

input on climate adaptation and research needs, including research on extreme 

events. These workshops and various Federal reports have helped in identifying 

knowledge gaps, research needs, opportunities to improve planning capabilities, and 

other activities that would assist in climate adaptation including those that could 

impact water quality and thus, available water supply. 

Applied research needs and improvements to water resources planning capabilities include subjects such as evaluation of modifications to reservoir flood control 

rule curves, evaluation of the adequacy of existing Federal hydroclimate monitoring 

networks, improvements to extreme precipitation observing networks and forecasting capabilities, development and improvement of applications for remote sensing data (satellite imagery), preparation of reconstructed paleoclimate datasets for 

drought analyses, and development of new guidelines for estimation of flood flow 

frequencies. 

DROUGHT PREPAREDNESS

The Council supports the Bureau of Reclamations Drought Response Program, as 

well as other Federal programs including, but not limited to, the National 

Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), under the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other programs designed to improve our 

forecasting and response capabilities. Further, the Council urges and encourages the 

Congress and the Administration to assess and consider the need for a comprehensive national drought preparedness and response program on par with Federal 

efforts to address natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and similar 

extreme events. (WSWC Policy Position #430, October 26, 2018) 

Since its inception the Council has been actively involved in national drought preparedness, planning and response, as well as related policy and program development and implementation. Drought is a recurring threat. According to the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Centers for Environmental Information, from 2015–2017, economic losses due to drought have been 

estimated at $11.1 billion. 

The Bureau of Reclamation’s current Drought Response Program supports a 

proactive approach to drought and provides financial assistance to water managers 

and users via its WaterSMART program to: (1) develop drought contingency plans; 

(2) implement drought resiliency projects to build the capacity of communities to 

mitigate and respond to drought—increasing the reliability of water supplies, 
28 

improving water management and operational flexibility, facilitating voluntary 

sales, transfers or exchanges of water, and providing benefits for fish and wildlife 

and the environment; and (3) undertake emergency actions to minimize losses due 

to drought through temporary construction activities and other activities, including 

water purchases and the use of Reclamation facilities to convey and store water. 

The Council strongly supports legislation to permanently authorize Title I 

activities under the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act and provide 

adequate appropriations to meet priority needs and continue the Reclamation 

Drought Response Program. There is a continuing need for making permanent the 

temporary authority allowing Reclamation the flexibility to continue delivering 

water to meet authorized project purposes, meet environmental requirements, 

respect state water rights, work with all stakeholders, and provide leadership, innovation, and assistance. 

There is a need for maintaining and improving existing monitoring networks that 

help provide drought early warning signals, as well as for tracking the impacts of 

drought. There is a continuing need for developing new monitoring technologies, 

such as remote sensing, that provide more timely data on water availability and better spatial coverage for assessing water supplies and drought impacts. The collection 

of basic monitoring data on streamflow, snow pack, groundwater levels, and weather 

and climate data are essential to understanding water availability and interpreting 

the early signs of drought. (WSWC Position #429, October 26, 2018) 

SUBSEASONAL AND SEASONAL FORECASTING

The Council urges the Federal Government to support and place a priority on research to improve subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) forecasts and research related to 

extreme events, including research on better understanding of hydroclimate processes, paleoflood analysis, design of monitoring networks, and probabilistic outlooks 

of climate extremes. Further, the Council supports development of an improved observing system for Western extreme precipitation events such as atmospheric river 

storms, as well as baseline and enhanced stream, snow and soil moisture monitoring 

capabilities. 

Western states experience great subseasonal, seasonal, and annual variability in 

precipitation, with serious impacts and consequences for water supply planning and 

management, drought and flood preparedness and response, water rights administration, operation of water projects, and aging water infrastructure. Sound decision 

making to protect life and property by reducing flood risks and to inform decisions 

involving billions of dollars of economic activity for urban centers, agriculture, 

hydropower generation, and fisheries depends on our ability to observe, understand, 

model, predict, and adapt to precipitation variability on operational time scales 

ranging from a few weeks to a season or more. Investments in observations, modeling, high-performance computing capabilities, research and operational forecasting 

of precipitation provide an opportunity to significantly improve planning and water 

project operations to reduce flood damages, mitigate economic and environmental 

damages, and maximize water storage and water use efficiency. (WSWC Position 

#399, April 14, 2017) 

The Federal Government should place a priority on continuing Federal research 

to develop new and improved predictive capabilities for precipitation at subseasonal 

to seasonal time scales (as described in the report to Congress prepared by NOAA 

pursuant to Title II of PL 115–25). Our present scientific capability for forecasting 

beyond the weather time domain—beyond the 10-day time horizon—and at the subseasonal to interannual time scales important for water management is not skillful 

enough to support water management decision making. The Council has sponsored 

a number of workshops on hydroclimate data and extreme events, to identify actions 

that can be taken at planning to operational time scales to improve readiness for 

extreme events. Multiple approaches have been identified at these workshops that 

could be employed at the planning time scale, including ensembles of global circulation models, paleoclimate analyses, and improved statistical modeling, to improve 

flood frequency analysis and/or seasonal forecasting. (WSWC Position #407, June 29, 

2017) 

Advances in forecasting research, such as the hydrometeorological testbed 

program on West Coast atmospheric rivers, demonstrate the potential for improving 

extreme event forecasting at an operational time scale. The Federal Government 

should sustain and expand its Hydrometeorology Testbed-West program, in partnership with states and regional centers, to build upon the initial progress made in 

that program for developing and installing new technologies for precipitation 

observations. 
29 

The responsibility for operational weather forecasting rests with the National 

Weather Service (NWS), but improvements through Forecast Informed Reservoir 

Operations (FIRO) is also of particular interest to the Bureau of Reclamation and 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which can also contribute to this effort. 

INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING

The Council supports appropriate Federal investments in water infrastructure 

projects and programs that provide jobs and economic security, while protecting the 

environment—as well as dedicated Federal water infrastructure funding. (WSWC 

Position #419, March 14, 2018) 

The West and the Nation depend on an intricate and aging system of weirs, diversions, dams, reservoirs, pipelines, aqueducts, pumps, canals, laterals, drains, levees, 

wells, stormwater channels, and water and wastewater treatment and hydroelectric 

power plants. Maintaining and delivering sufficient supplies of water of suitable 

quality is key to maintaining the Nation’s and the West’s economic prosperity, meeting our environmental needs, and sustaining our quality of life, both now and in 

the future. Appropriate water-related infrastructure investments ensure our continued ability to store, manage, conserve, and control water during both floods and 

droughts—as well as protect and treat our water resources. Existing and new infrastructure is critical to meet drinking water, wastewater treatment, irrigation, hydropower, flood control, interstate compact, tribal and international treaty, fish and 

wildlife habitat needs. 

Water infrastructure in the West is financed and maintained under a complex 

network of state, tribal, local, private, and Federal ownership, benefiting a broad 

segment of water users and other stakeholders. Aging water infrastructure has 

deteriorated—due to underfunded and deferred maintenance, repair, and replacement needs—and in many cases has exceeded its useful life span, raising public 

health and safety issues, risking loss of life and threatening public and private property. Inconsistent, inadequate, and untimely funding increases project construction 

and financing costs, as well as risk, including the failure of critical infrastructure. 

Substantial and sustained investments in water project construction, maintenance, 

rehabilitation and replacement is necessary and pays long-term dividends to the 

economy, public health and safety, and the environment. The Council supports appropriate infrastructure asset management and capital budgeting. 

Existing Federal, state and local programs to publicly finance water-related 

infrastructure projects are crucial, but insufficient to meet water quality and water 

resources management challenges related to future growth, including municipal, 

industrial, agricultural, environmental, and energy needs. Water infrastructure systems require ongoing, thoughtful investments to account for life cycle costs, and 

should be managed with planned retirement or replacement in mind. 

The Federal Government has a significant role to play in financing and costsharing for water-related infrastructure given Federal economic and environmental 

objectives, Federal tribal trust and treaty obligations, other past commitments, and 

Federal regulatory mandates. Federal financial resources are limited, and many 

authorized Federal water infrastructure projects have not been started or remain 

incomplete for decades due to inconsistent, incremental, or insufficient appropriations; permitting and licensing backlogs; duplicative environmental reviews; 

litigation delays; and oversight by multiple Federal agencies without adequate interagency coordination. 

Further, current Federal budget scoring guidelines assess the full cost of infrastructure investments up front, while disproportionately discounting long-term 

economic, public health and safety, and environmental benefits—sometimes making 

new water project investments challenging to justify financially. 

Local water district and state agency investments, private capital markets, performance-based contracting, and other alternatives offer help to close the Federal 

funding, delivery, and maintenance gaps, and meet some of our national water infrastructure needs in partnership with Federal agencies. Such partnerships have 

the potential to reduce overall project development costs and risks associated with 

such capital investments, expedite project delivery and associated water resource 

benefits, improve efficiencies and cost effectiveness, and maximize the respective 

strengths of the public and private sectors. Opportunities exist to leverage Federal 

and non-Federal funding through grants, loans and credit enhancements, as well as 

provide greater access to private sources of financing. 

One challenge is that Federal agencies often lack legislative authority to dedicate 

a sustained revenue stream to assure non-Federal investors are fairly compensated 

for the costs and risks of constructing or maintaining Federal water projects, sometimes requiring approval through an act of Congress to proceed. The Council 
30 

supports a method of congressional budget scoring that considers the unique timing 

of the costs and benefits of water infrastructure investments, and accounts for longterm public health and safety, economic and environmental benefits, with fair and 

appropriate discounting. 

There is no one-size-fits-all program, but several Federal financial and technical 

assistance programs, grants, loans, cost-share programs, and Federal-state-local or 

public-private partnerships have proven beneficial to the timely completion and ongoing maintenance of infrastructure projects at all scales. 

The Congress and the Administration should work together to ensure adequate, 

stable, and continuing Federal appropriations for constructing, maintaining, and replacing critical Federal water projects and to assist states and local governments as 

they address their water infrastructure needs. Further, they should work together 

and with the states to streamline permitting processes and coordinate environmental and other regulatory reviews to eliminate duplicative procedures, reduce 

costs of compliance and construction, and ensure timely completion, maintenance, 

or relicensing of authorized infrastructure projects so vital to the West and the 

Nation. 

Moreover, the Council supports the creation and maintenance of dedicated water 

infrastructure funding through special accounts with dedicated receipts to be 

promptly appropriated for authorized purposes following their deposit, as well as a 

variety of grant, loan, credit enhancement and other financial incentive programs 

to help meet diverse needs at all scales. 

RURAL WATER PROJECTS

The Council strongly supports congressional action to expedite construction of authorized rural water supply projects in a timely manner, including projects that 

meet tribal trust and other Federal responsibilities—recognizing and continuing to 

defer to the primacy of western water laws and tribal settlements in allocating 

water among users. (WSWC Position #423, August 3, 2018) 

Across the West, rural and tribal communities are experiencing water supply 

shortages due to drought, declining streamflows and groundwater supplies, and inadequate infrastructure, with some communities hauling water over substantial distances to satisfy their potable water needs. Often water supplies that are available 

to these communities are of poor quality and may be impaired by naturally occurring and man-made contaminants, including arsenic and carcinogens, which impact 

communities’ health and their ability to comply with increasingly stringent Federal 

water quality and drinking water mandates. At the same time, many rural and 

tribal communities in the West are suffering from significant levels of unemployment and simply lack the financial capacity and expertise to finance and construct 

needed drinking water system improvements. 

In 2014, the Bureau of Reclamation working with other Federal agencies and the 

Western States Water Council sought to identify and evaluate rural water needs 

and the demand for new rural water supply projects. Reclamation estimated the 

costs for rural potable water supply system improvements in the 17 western states 

to be in the range of $5 billion to $9 billion for non-Indian projects and approximately $1.5 billion for specific Indian water supply projects. Reclamation also estimated that the cost to complete currently authorized projects that are under 

construction rose from the $2 billion originally authorized to $2.4 billion (in 2014) 

and costs continue rising. Given past levels of funding these priority projects will 

not likely be completed until well after 2065 at a cost of more than $4.8 billion. 

Reclamation has not requested funds for grants to undertake additional appraisal 

investigations or feasibility studies for new rural water projects, given the significant backlog of authorized projects and lack of Federal funding. Federal expenditures for rural water projects generate significant returns on the investment 

through increased national and local economic benefits, as well as improvements in 

quality of life. However, project benefits cannot be fully realized until the projects 

are completed. 

RECLAMATION FUND SPENDING

The Council has a long-standing policy in support of fully appropriating receipts 

accruing to the Reclamation Fund for authorized projects, including rural and tribal 

water supply projects, as well as supporting an investigation of converting it to a 

true revolving trust fund. (WSWC Position #408, June 29, 2017) 

Under the Reclamation Act of 1902, the Reclamation Fund was envisioned as the 

principle means for financing Federal western water and power projects with revenues from western resources—but these receipts are only available for expenditure 

pursuant to annual appropriation acts. Receipts are largely derived from water and 
31 

power sales, project repayments, and receipts from public land sales and leases, as 

well as oil and mineral-leasing and related royalties, almost exclusively from 

western lands, many adjacent to rural and tribal communities. With growing 

receipts—in part due to energy development across the rural West—and declining 

Federal appropriations for Reclamation Act purposes, the unobligated balance grows 

larger and larger (and is expected to soon exceed $16 billion), while the money is 

actually spent elsewhere, for other Federal purposes, contrary to the Congress’ 

original intent. 

The Council is committed to continuing to work cooperatively with the Congress, 

the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Reclamation to meet our present rural 

water needs in the West for present and future generations, within the framework 

of state water law. The Council recommends that the Congress and the Administration investigate the advantages of converting the Reclamation Fund from a special 

account to a true revolving trust fund with annual receipts to be appropriated for 

authorized purposes in the year following their deposit (similar to some other 

Federal authorities and trust accounts). 

TRIBAL WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS

The Council has consistently supported negotiated settlement of disputed tribal 

water claims, as well as steps to ensure that settlements, once enacted, will be funded. Unresolved tribal claims leave tribal and non-tribal water supply reliability 

uncertain. (WSWC Position #412, October 20, 2017) 

The settlement of Native American water right claims is one of the most important aspects of the United States’ trust obligation and is of vital importance to the 

country as a whole and not just individual tribes or states. The public interest and 

sound public policy require the resolution of tribal water rights claims in a manner 

that is equitable and least disruptive to existing uses of water. Negotiated quantification of tribal water rights claims is a highly desirable process which can 

achieve quantifications fairly, efficiently, and with the least cost. The advantages of 

negotiated settlements include: (1) the ability to be flexible and to tailor solutions 

to the unique circumstances of each situation; (2) the ability to promote conservation 

and sound water management practices; and (3) the ability to establish a foundation 

for cooperative partnerships between Native American and non-tribal communities. 

The successful resolution of certain claims may require physical solutions, such 

as development of Federal water projects and improved water delivery and application techniques that provide tribes with ‘‘wet water.’’ The United States has developed many major water projects that compete for use of waters claimed by Native 

American and non-tribal communities and has a responsibility to assist in resolving 

such conflicts. Tribal water rights settlements involve a waiver of tribal water right 

claims and tribal breach of trust claims that otherwise could result in court-ordered 

judgments against the United States and increase costs for Federal taxpayers. The 

obligation to fund resulting settlements is analogous to, and no less serious than, 

the obligation of the United States to pay judgments rendered against it. 

Current Federal budgetary pressures and legislative policies make it difficult for 

the Administration, the states and the tribes to negotiate settlements knowing that 

they may not be funded because either they are considered earmarks or because 

funding must be offset by a corresponding reduction in some other expenditure, such 

as another tribal or essential Interior Department program. Tribal water rights 

settlements are not and should not be defined as congressional earmarks. 

Steps should be taken to ensure that any water settlement, once authorized by 

the Congress and approved by the President, will be funded. Congress should expand opportunities to provide funding for the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake 

project construction related to settlements from revenues accruing to the 

Reclamation Fund, recognizing the existence of other legitimate needs that may be 

financed by these reserves. 

ENERGY & WATER PLANNING

The Council supports integrating water and energy program and project planning, 

including promoting conservation and use efficiency, while seeking to minimize economic, environmental and other costs. (WSWC Position #420, March 16, 2018) 

The West enjoys diverse and abundant energy resources, including renewable and 

non-renewable resources, and the West is a leader in the planning, development, diversification, management and protection of the Nation’s water and energy 

resources. Maintaining adequate and sustainable supplies of clean water and energy 

present interrelated challenges. Water is scarce in much of the region and may or 

may not always be sufficient for all proposed uses. Power plant cooling and other 
32 

energy development related water requirements can be significant on state, local 

and westwide scales. 

An integrated approach to water and energy resource planning, development, 

diversification, management and protection is necessary to achieve a thriving and 

sustainable future for the West. Effectively planning for the future requires 

gathering and integrating data and information on past, present and future water 

and energy supplies and demands, including demands by different sectors, uses and 

users. In general, current water use data (especially consumptive water use data) 

are not sufficient for detailed and comprehensive analyses to support many water/ 

energy decisions and policy makers’ needs. The Council has worked collaboratively 

with state and Federal agencies to develop a better understanding of water and 

energy supplies and demands. 

Public-private partnerships are increasingly important in addressing our future 

water and energy challenges; and there is a continuing need for Federal and state 

water and energy resource agencies, public utility commissions, and other planners, 

regulators and policy makers to better define and consider the nexus between water 

and energy resources in their respective areas of jurisdiction. Continuing water and 

energy nexus research and development is needed to further our understanding and 

evaluate the effectiveness of different policies and programs given various future 

scenarios. 

HYDROPOWER

The Council supports Federal legislative and administrative actions to authorize 

and implement reasonable hydropower projects and programs that enhance our electric generation capacity and promote economic development, through streamlined 

permitting processes, while appropriately protecting environmental resources. The 

future development of potential hydropower resources should be appropriately undertaken in compliance with substantive and procedural state water law and interstate compacts, and consistent with the states’ authority under Clean Water Act 

Section 401. Further, all rights and preference privileges of existing water and 

power users should be respected. (WSWC Position #391, March 22, 2016) 

The hydropower resources of the West have been developed through partnerships 

between energy and water users and continue to be inextricably connected. Clean, 

efficient, inexpensive hydropower is a vital part of the energy resources needed to 

meet our present and future energy demands. Hydropower is a prominent component of electricity generation in a number of western states, and important part of 

state renewable portfolio standards. Hydropower is the largest source of renewable 

electricity in the United States, representing about 48 percent of total renewable 

electricity generation, with approximately 101 gigawatts (GW) of capacity and 

nearly 7 percent of total electricity generation. (www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/ 

2016/10/f33/Hydropower-Vision-Chapter-2-10212016.pdf—p. 76) 

The potential exists for further public and private hydropower development by upgrading existing generators, developing small hydro and the power potential from 

existing man-made conduits and canals, as well as hydroelectric pumped storage 

projects. Such development can often be undertaken with little impact on the environmental and important ecological resources, requiring minimal further environmental review. Permitting requirements may be appropriately minimized and 

streamlined so as to promote reasonable development while avoiding unnecessary 

costs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. CUNNINGHAM TO TONY

WILLARDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL

Question 1. This is an issue that is particularly relevant to the folks of South 

Carolina’s 1st District. Down in my district you’ve got the Ashley River and the 

Cooper River coming together to form the Charleston Harbor before discharging into 

the Atlantic Ocean. My district is among the East Coast’s most vulnerable areas 

when it comes to rising sea levels. The lack of infrastructure and drainage systems 

to handle the uncompromising sea level rise often puts our community under water. 

It also leads to habitat loss, seawater encroachment, flooding, and a loss of water 

quality. Scientists expect climate change to increase the frequency of very heavy precipitation events. In my home state of South Carolina, they say that ‘‘When it rains, 

it floods in Charleston.’’ A recent study showed that Charleston is one of the most 

at-risk cities in the United States, and they predict that Charleston could be 
33 

underwater in 80 years. This is a very important issue that doesn’t just affect 

Colorado or the western United States, it affects all of us. 

What emerging technologies and management approaches can communities implement that will help them manage increasingly unpredictable precipitation and flood 

conditions? 

Answer. Thank you for the question Rep. Cunningham. 

Each individual state is unique, and South Carolina faces its own particular challenges. While as a region, the West is generally more concerned with scarcity, 

drought and water supply availability, we are also vulnerable to flooding and other 

unpredictable climate extremes. Sea level rise and its impact on coastal communities is obviously an issue for our West Coast states, and Texas on the Gulf of 

Mexico. In order to improve our resiliency to climate variations, there are both 

short- and long-term actions that the Council supports focused on an integrate, 

collaborative and grassroots approach that will require stronger collaboration and 

cooperation that transcends political and geographic boundaries between states, 

Federal agencies, tribes, and local communities. 

First, we need to invest more to maintain, restore, modernize and upgrade water, 

weather and climate observation networks. We need to be able to better define the 

problems, which requires placing a high priority on funding vital water data monitoring and visualization programs, and related geospatial applications for climate 

adaptation planning. Critical Federal on-the-ground and remote sensing programs 

include the U.S. Geological Survey’s Streamflow Information Program and the 

National Land Imaging Program (and Landsat). The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) uses Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), 

often from aircraft, to gather topographical data supporting activities such as inundation and storm surge modeling, hydrodynamic modeling, sediment transport modeling, shoreline and habitat mapping, emergency response, hydrographic surveying 

and coastal vulnerability analysis. NOAA has also developed and is refining its 

National Water Model, which is primarily designed to predict flooding. Better data 

and science will lead to better decisions, and hopefully allow public and private decision makers to take more informed actions to avoid and/or mitigate adverse 

consequences. 

Second, the Council supports state and Federal applied research programs that 

would assist water and emergency management agencies at all levels of government 

in adapting to climate variability and making sound scientific decisions. More informed decision making depends on our ability to understand, monitor, predict, and 

adapt to climate variability. The West and the Nation experience great subseasonal, seasonal and annual precipitation variability. Decision makers need more 

skilled dynamical and probabilistic modeling to better understand hydroclimate 

processes and improve forecasts of rainfall and runoff. This involves a greater investment in atmospheric and other sciences, as well as high-capacity computing resources for timely and multiple runs of very complex models. 

Third, the West and the Nation depend on an intricate and aging water infrastructure system. Greater investment is needed to maintain its reliability and our 

ability to store, manage, conserve, control, protect and treat our water supplies. As 

our ability to predict precipitation events improves, particularly extreme events, opportunities will become apparent to implement forecast informed reservoir 

operations (FIRO) with more confidence to more efficiently operate projects and time 

reservoir releases to maximize storage for both water supply and flood protection. 

Many water projects have exceeded their design life, and others have deteriorated 

due to underfunded and deferred maintenance, repair and replacement. Inadequate, 

inconsistent, and untimely Federal funding increases construction, maintenance and 

financing costs. Often the lack of a dedicated revenue stream raises costs. Moreover, 

Federal budget scoring assesses the full cost of investments upfront, while disproportionately discounting long-term benefits. 

Existing Federal, state and local programs to publicly finance water infrastructure 

are crucial, but insufficient. The Federal Government will continue to play a significant role in cost sharing and financing projects with national benefits. Further, opportunities also exist to leverage Federal, non-Federal and private capital through 

grants, loans and credit enhancements. 

Long-term difficult decisions and expensive investments may be necessary to 

adapt to climate variability and extreme events related to sea level rise. Speaking 

from personal experience, my home state of Utah is obviously not susceptible to sea 

level rise, but much of our population is located along the Wasatch Front, adjacent 

to the Great Salt Lake. A terminal lake, its levels have dropped to the point that 

it isn’t so great—as a result of multiple years of drought! However, in the 1980s 

the lake rose unrelentingly due to unusually wet weather patterns. I remember 
34 

volunteering to fill sand bags on a Sunday night at midnight, and for days water 

ran in a makeshift channel through downtown Salt Lake City. That year there was 

also significant damage to the spillway outlets at the Federal Glen Canyon Dam as 

Upper Basin flows on the Colorado River peaked. 

In response to the flooding and rising lake levels, communities around the lake 

seriously considered the need to dike around their sewage treatment plants. Salt 

Lake City improved its storm drain system. The state of Utah with Federal funding 

raised I–80 near the lake, not once, but twice. The state also built a pumping plant 

to move lake water into our West Desert to evaporate. The Corps of Engineers completed a long-delayed flood control reservoir above the city, Mountain Dell. The 

Bureau of Reclamation redesigned and rebuilt the outlets at Glen Canyon. Similar 

measures are likely to be needed across the country as we adapt to changing climate 

conditions and increasing variability. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Willardson. Next we recognize 

Mr. Bill Diedrich, who will be testifying on behalf of the Family 

Farm Alliance. 

Thank you for being here, Mr. Diedrich. The Chair recognizes 

you for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BILL DIEDRICH, FAMILY FARM ALLIANCE, 

LOS BANOS, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. DIEDRICH. Good morning, Chairman Huffman, Ranking 

Member McClintock, and members of the Subcommittee. My name 

is Bill Diedrich. On behalf of the Family Farm Alliance, I thank 

you for this opportunity to present this testimony on reliability of 

water supplies in the western United States. 

I am a fourth-generation California farmer, and I cherish the role 

that sustainable, irrigated agriculture plays in producing safe and 

affordable food supply. Those of us who understand say we have 

dirt in our veins. My written testimony illustrates the problems the 

western farmers and ranchers face, in terms of water supply reliability. The testimony outlines what producers like me and others 

across the West are doing to address these challenges, and it provides policy recommendations that we believe lay the foundation 

for more effectively addressing water supply reliability in the 

western United States. 

The most helpful thing that Congress can do for states suffering 

from unreliable water supply is to urge creativity, innovation, and 

flexibility on the part of Federal water management and regulatory 

agencies. 

My state of California is still recovering from the 2012–2016 

drought, the worst drought in its recorded history. Record dry conditions, coupled with water supply reductions related to regulatory 

actions and aging water infrastructure, resulted in water supply reductions or constraints for all beneficial uses of water in California. 

During the height of recent drought, for 3 years in a row, many 

agricultural water users effectively received no allocations at all 

from the Federal Central Valley Project, one of the largest irrigation water projects in the world. These challenges continue, despite 

recent and continued precipitation. As of last week, nearly every 

reservoir in California is at or over its historical average for this 

time of year. Still, CVP farmers south of the delta were given an 

initial allocation of only 35 percent of their contract amounts. 
35 

What this means is that California has plentiful snow, plentiful 

rain, and nearly adequate reservoir levels. Yet, at this time the 

San Joaquin Valley CVP Ag. water service contractor irrigators are 

likely to receive less than half of their contracted water supplies 

when the final allocations are made. These initial allocation numbers are critical to making crop planting decisions. 

California’s groundwater resources are an overdraft, and the 

drought has made this worse. The Sustainable Groundwater 

Management Act passed by the state of California in 2014 will become fully implemented and begin the process of eliminating this 

overdraft by 2040. 

There are only two ways to achieve this: increase supply or reduce demand. This will magnify the surface water shortfall and 

jeopardize the safe and affordable food supply produced in the 

Central Valley of California. This groundwater depletion has 

occurred in the San Joaquin Valley, predominantly as a result of 

reduction in reliability of surface water supplies. 

The recent and current water crisis in California provides a realworld sense of the types of challenges western irrigators face in 

times of reduced water supply reliability. These include competition 

for scarce water supplies, insufficient water infrastructure, growing 

populations, endangered species, and increased climate variability. 

Water management in the West is becoming increasingly complex and inflexible. Water managed for environment is not held to 

an equal standard of accountability as other beneficial uses. The 

Federal Endangered Species Act needs to be implemented in a 

multi-faceted way across agencies to better benefit species, the environment, and rural communities. Considering increased climate 

variability and competing needs, it is obvious the western water 

storage capacity is insufficient. 

Given these challenges, in order to secure future water supply reliability, we must depend on collaborative, science-based water 

management decisions; increase our investments in water infrastructure; and diversify our water portfolio, including water recycling, conservation, reservoir optimization, and weather forecasting 

technologies. What works for one region doesn’t work for all. 

Thank you, and I would stand for any questions members of the 

Subcommittee have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Diedrich follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM DIEDRICH, REPRESENTING THE FAMILY

FARM ALLIANCE

Good morning Chairman Huffman, Ranking Member McClintock, and members of 

the Subcommittee. My name is William Diedrich, and on behalf of the Family Farm 

Alliance (Alliance), I thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony on a 

matter of critical importance to our membership: the reliability of water supplies in 

the western United States. The Alliance is a grassroots organization of family 

farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts, and allied industries in 16 western states. 

The Alliance is focused on one mission: To ensure the availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to western farmers and ranchers. We are also committed to the fundamental proposition that western irrigated agriculture must be 

preserved and protected for a host of economic, sociological, environmental, and 

national security reasons—many of which are often overlooked in the context of 

other national policy decisions. 

The Family Farm Alliance has a long history of collaboration with partners in all 

levels of government, conservation and energy organizations, and Native American 

tribal interests who seek real solutions to water resources challenges in the West. 
36 

We seek to advocate for a proper role for the Federal Government on water matters, 

a vision that focuses on research and development; full integration, coordination and 

maximum sustainable use of resources; and planning that is driven from the 

‘‘ground up.’’ The Alliance also has a well-established relationship with Congress, 

with 70 invitations to testify before congressional committees on Western 

agriculture, water and environmental matters in the past decade. 

This testimony will illustrate the problems Western farmers and ranchers face in 

terms of water supply reliability, outline what producers like me and other 

Westerners are doing to address these challenges, and provide policy recommendations that we believe lay the foundation for effectively addressing water supply 

reliability in the western United States. 

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

I am a fourth-generation California Central Valley farmer and I appreciate the 

role of a sustainable irrigated agriculture industry. I have also been very involved 

in water issues and see the importance of reliable water for the many important 

needs that exist. At my core, I am a Californian and an American, and I believe 

the health of our communities, our ecosystems and our farmers and ranchers are 

directly related to our prosperity as a state and a Nation. Water shortages affect 

all sectors of the Western economy, creating problems for cities and towns, manufacturers, builders, service providers, and individual citizens that are just as challenging as the difficulties faced by farmers and ranchers. The environment, too, is 

stressed by water shortages. In many areas of the West, we see fish and wildlife, 

plentiful or endangered, struggling to adapt and survive in extremely harsh conditions during times of drought. 

Water connects us all—farms, cities and the environment—and while decreased 

water supply reliability presents unique problems for each sector, our solutions 

should be interconnected and mutually beneficial—not divisive. That requires a willingness of all parties, including Federal agencies, to be creative and flexible. That 

is happening in some places. In other places, it’s not. The most helpful thing that 

Congress can do for states suffering from a lack of water supply reliability is to 

encourage, demand, and even mandate, where necessary, creativity, innovation and 

flexibility on the part of Federal water management and regulatory agencies. 

The Family Farm Alliance is an organization made up of farmers and ranchers 

in the West, but the water shortage problems we all face vary by region, topography, climate, soil conditions, hydrology, and crop. These problems have some 

elements in common, including inadequate or deteriorating water storage infrastructure, inflexible or outdated operational requirements and regulatory conditions, and 

government agencies that are not nimble enough, or not motivated, to seek out and 

embrace better ways of doing things to ensure the most benefit for the broadest 

suite of public interests. Solutions also vary by state or by region, but they, too, are 

characterized by certain common elements, including creativity, flexibility and balance. I will discuss water supply reliability issues in a few different areas of the 

West, as well as some examples of successful solutions and potential solutions. Since 

I’m from California, I’ll begin there. 

RECOVERING FROM THE 2012–2016 CALIFORNIA DROUGHT

California is still recovering from the 2012–2016 drought, the worst drought in 

its recorded history. Record dry conditions, coupled with water supply reductions 

related to regulatory actions and aging water storage and conveyance infrastructure, 

resulted in water supply reductions or constraints for most sectors in California. In 

2014, vast areas of farm land in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys received 

no surface water at all—a 100 percent reduction. Those same areas were again zeroed out in 2015. Overall, agricultural water supplies in the Central Valley have had 

their reliability reduced by 65 percent since 1992. During the drought, nearly 75 

percent of the state’s irrigated farm land (7 million acres), received 20 percent or 

less of its normal surface water supply and according to the California Department 

of Water Resources (DWR), nearly 692,000 acres of farmland were fallowed in 2014 

as a result of water shortages. 

During the height of the recent drought, for 2 years in a row, many agricultural 

water users received no allocations at all from the Federal Central Valley Project 

(CVP), one of the largest water projects in the world. Table 1 shows the CVP allocations from 2014–2016. In both 2014 and 2015 no surface water supplies were allocated to water users on the Tehama-Colusa Canal, and in the San Luis Unit and 

Friant Division of the CVP. Settlement contractors, primarily agricultural water 

users, have water rights that pre-date the Federal project, making them priority 
37 

rights on the system, yet even allocations to those senior water rights holders were 

reduced during the drought. 

Table 1. Central Valley Project Water Allocations (2014, 2015 & 2016) 

Source: Bureau of Reclamation 2019 

Almost as large as the Federal CVP, California’s State Water Project (SWP) cut 

agricultural deliveries by 80 percent in 2015. 

In most areas where surface water supplies were severely reduced or eliminated, 

farmers turned to groundwater to maintain their permanent crops—grapes, tree 

fruits, nuts, citrus—that represent a lifetime’s investment. But groundwater supplies are not infinite and were severely depleted during the drought in areas that 

received no surface water. Groundwater also isn’t cheap. Wells cost upwards of 

$200,000 each and they are expensive to run, so many farmers pump only enough 

water to keep their trees alive, but not producing. Often, farmers tear out mature, 

productive trees and vines and replace them with saplings that won’t produce a crop 

for years, but require far less water to keep alive in challenging conditions. And in 

some places like the citrus belt in the Friant Division of the CVP, there is no 

groundwater at all. The many small farms there, which produce most of the 

Nation’s oranges, had their surface water cut off for the first time in 60 years in 

2014 and 2015. 

Many of my neighbors in 2014 and 2015 were forced to abandon or fallow portions 

of their farms. When one hears that land is ‘‘fallowed’’ it might only seem that the 

impact is to the farmer, but that is definitely not the case. Every acre of farmed 

land generates jobs, economic activity and products. That is why the reduction in 

the water supply reliability of the CVP is so devastating to the rural agricultural 

communities of the Central Valley. 

For every acre fallowed, workers have less work and tractors are used less. If I 

use my tractor less, I buy less fuel, lubricants and parts and tires, which means 

the local businesses that supply these things sell less and their companies suffer. 

When I don’t purchase inputs for the land (fertilizer, seeds, amendments, etc.), the 

local companies that sell these items suffer reduced sales and the truck drivers who 

deliver these items have less work. With fewer trucks running fewer routes, fuel 

and parts purchases are reduced. If that one fallowed acre was intended to be a 

tomato field, those tomatoes would not be trucked to market or the processing plant. 

As you can see, there is a direct interconnection between agriculture and many other industries. Press reports will acknowledge that California agriculture is a $50 

billion industry, but then attempt to minimize this impact by suggesting that it is 

‘‘only’’ 2 percent of the GDP of the state. The oft-reported $50 billion number is only 

the farm gate value of the products. It does not include all the other industries that 

benefit from the trucking and processing of the agricultural products (and all the 

fuel, parts, etc., from the activities). Clearly, agriculture is a huge economic driver 

for my state, particularly in rural communities. A report by the University of 
38 

1http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are-update/files/articles/V18N4_3.pdf. 2 California Department of Food and Agriculture, Gianinni Foundation of Agricultural 

Economics—University of California, USDA, Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development and the Economy. 3 California Department of Food and Agriculture, California Agricultural Statistical Review, 

2017–2018. 4 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, California Department of Water Resources. 

California shows that the food and beverage industry contributed $82 billion and 

760,000 jobs that are directly and indirectly linked to agricultural products.1

This is a very concerning time for me, my family, and my neighbors, since substantial investments are being made, primarily with the intent of converting more 

of our operation to drip irrigation, which we hope will stretch limited water supplies. This conversion creates an electrical demand as we move from gravity irrigation to pressurized subsurface irrigation. My friend Cannon Michael, who serves on 

the Family Farm Alliance board of directors, recently installed 1 megawatt of solar 

panels to offset the impact of the power cost needed to support his drip irrigation 

conversion. Those investments will be for naught if the current lack of reliability 

for surface water deliveries persists into the future and there is no water to conserve or use for groundwater recharge. 

My fellow California farmers are doing their best to offset the devastating loss of 

water. For example, producers have been forced to buy water, when available, from 

other sources. In certain instances, farmers had no choice but to buy water at a rate 

more than 25 times what they normally would pay. In the absence of once reliable 

surface water supplies, California farmers have looked to groundwater, where available, which is not sustainable. Central Valley producers have been trying to get 

ahead of a much feared, but anticipated, drought for years. Notably, they’ve spent 

about $3 billion to install more efficient irrigation systems on almost 2.5 million 

acres from 2003 to 2013, according to information compiled by the California Farm 

Water Coalition. These investments will continue as farmers strive to stretch and 

most efficiently manage their water supply. 

CALIFORNIA DROUGHT: MYTH VS. REALITY

Here are some facts that are often overlooked in media coverage of the recent 

California drought: 

• California agriculture grows more than 50 percent of America’s fresh fruits, 

nuts and vegetables across 78,000 farms, 400 crops and 450,000 jobs. 

California’s value of agricultural output was $50 billion in 2017.2

• California is the country’s largest agricultural producer and exporter. 

Agricultural products were one of California’s top 5 exports in 2017, totaling 

$20.6 billion, over 14.6 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports.3

• Crop production per acre-foot of water rose 43 percent in California between 

1967 and 2010.4

Some media accounts continue to advance the decades-old myth that farmers consume 80 percent of water supplies in California and other parts of the West. But 

if we look at the ‘‘water footprint’’ in the same way as we have come to talk about 

the ‘‘carbon footprint,’’ we get a different picture, particularly in California. 

Numbers from the California DWR provide perspective. According to the Department, statewide water use breaks down as follows: 10 percent urban use; 41 percent 

agricultural use and 49 percent use for environmental management: wetlands, Delta 

outflow, wild and scenic designations, and instream flow requirements. 

We should also recognize that farms transform water into products that are 

needed to sustain the lives of our entire population. We are all part of ‘‘agricultural 

water use’’ every day—multiple times per day. 

Others in the media suggested that the shift toward higher value crops like nuts 

and wine grapes have led to an increase in agricultural water use. During the 2014– 

2015 drought years, almonds were the preferred target of these reports. But according to California DWR, the total amount of agricultural water use has held steady 

since 2000 and has actually declined over the longer term. 

THE CALIFORNIA WATER RELIABILITY CRISIS

California has an incredibly diverse and variable climate, with precipitation and 

snowpack totals varying widely from year to year, with runoff totals ranging from 

a high of 52,830,000 acre-feet in 1983 to the lowest recorded runoff of 6,170,000 

acre-feet in the driest individual year of 1977. While California has natural variability in precipitation and snowpack, water allocations to CVP contractors have been 
39 

5https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/sec_order_no._3343_cal_water_0.pdf. 

disconnected from water year types, predominantly resulting from increased 

requirements for environmental water deliveries. This year is a good example of the 

increasing disconnect between the amount of actual water that California receives 

each year and the ability of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to operate the 

CVP and allocate water to its contractors in a fashion that reflects the actual 

hydrology. 

As of February 22, 2019, nearly every reservoir in California is at or over its historical average for this time of year, snow water content is 115 percent of the April 

1 peak, and precipitation is 120 percent of average, but just last week, south of 

Delta CVP agricultural service contractors received an initial allocation of only 35 

percent of their contract amounts. What this means is that California has plentiful 

snow, plentiful rain, and nearly full reservoirs, yet San Joaquin Valley irrigators are 

likely to receive less than 50 percent of their contracted water supplies when the 

final allocations are made. In order to make decisions about planting crops, a farmer 

must consider the water available to grow the crop. Thus, the initial allocation numbers are critical. Even if the allocation increases in future months, it will be past 

the time when a farmer must make their decision to plant. 

Future Projections 

The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Basin Study released by Reclamation 

indicates that throughout the 21st century, temperatures are projected to increase, 

snowpack will likely decline and snowpack elevation levels will rise, precipitation 

will increase during fall and winter months, and spring runoff will decrease. These 

factors will exacerbate the existing imbalance between the demands in these river 

basins and the ability to deliver reliable water supplies to communities and ecosystems that rely on them. The result of these changes, coupled with expected population growth and changes in land use, is an average annual unmet water demand 

for CVP contractors that is expected to range between 2.7 million and 8.2 million 

acre-feet per year, with most of the unmet demands occurring south of the BayDelta.5

Groundwater 

Groundwater is a critically important part of California’s water supply, accounting 

for 40 percent of total annual agricultural and urban water uses statewide in an 

average year, and up to 65 percent or more in drought years. About three-quarters 

of the state’s residents—around 30 million people—depend on groundwater for at 

least a portion of their water supply; for 6 million residents, it is their only supply. 

California DWR estimates that on average, 2,000,000 acre-feet is withdrawn from 

the state’s aquifers per year more than what is being recharged, and much more 

so during periods of drought. This is nothing new; scientists estimate that since 

California’s development in the late 1800s, the state’s groundwater reserves have 

been reduced by 125,000,000 acre-feet, or 4.5 times the capacity of Lake Mead. Most 

of this groundwater depletion has occurred in the San Joaquin Valley, predominantly as a result of a reduction in the reliability of surface water supplies. 

KEY CHALLENGES FACING WESTERN IRRIGATORS

The key challenges Western irrigators face in times of reduced water supply 

reliability include competition for scarce water supplies, insufficient water infrastructure, growing populations, endangered species and increasing weather 

variability/climate change. Across the West, several key water policy challenges 

stand out: 

Water management in the West is becoming increasingly complex and inflexible 

We need a new way of looking at how we manage our limited water resources, 

one that includes a broader view of how water is used, along with consideration of 

population growth, food production and habitat needs. The goal should be to integrate food production and conservation practices into water management decision 

making and water use priorities, creating a more holistic view of water management 

for multiple uses. We must begin to plan now in order to hold intact current options. 

Planning must allow for flexibility and consider all needs, not just focus on meeting 

future needs from population growth. 

In many parts of the West, litigation stemming from citizen suit provisions of 

environmental laws including the ESA and Clean Water Act (CWA) is producing 

Federal court decisions (or court approved ‘‘settlements’’) that direct Federal agency 

‘‘management’’ of state water resources. Congress should recognize that this type of 

litigation and resulting settlements can actually harm the overall health and 
40 

resilience of landscapes and watersheds by focusing on single species management 

under the ESA. We should seek solutions that reflect a philosophy that the best decisions on water issues take place at the state and local level. Finding ways to 

incentivize landowners to make the ESA work is far more preferable than the ESA 

being used as a means of ‘‘protecting’’ a single species (such as the Sacramento-San 

Joaquin River Delta smelt in California, or the spotted frog, in Oregon) without regard for other impacts, including those on other non-listed or state-listed species. 

Droughts occur routinely in the West; that is why Reclamation made such important investments in water supply infrastructure over the past century. However, 

this infrastructure was never designed to meet the burgeoning demands of growing 

populations and environmental needs in the West, while continuing to support farmers, ranchers and rural communities during periodic droughts. Unfortunately, future 

droughts in the West are predicted to be deeper and longer than we have historically experienced in the 20th century. We believe Congress should provide Federal 

agencies with more flexibility under environmental laws and water management 

regulations to respond to drought conditions when they arise. And where such flexibility currently exists, Congress should demand that agencies use it promptly and 

with a minimum of bureaucratic delay. 

As one example of where innovation, flexibility and creativity are needed, the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) operates dozens of water projects throughout the 

West, and it regulates the operations of many non-Federal dam and reservoir 

projects according to criteria that in many cases were established decades ago and 

have not been updated to reflect changed conditions or new technology. As a result, 

projects are sometimes forced to waste large amounts of water in order to adhere 

to the letter of a flood-control plan that no longer has a basis in reality. The Corps 

now has existing authority to make short-term adjustments to operation criteria 

during droughts, but the agency rarely does so on a proactive basis. 

Environmental water management should be held to an equal standard of accountability as other beneficial uses 

We must manage water to meet all needs but in a manner that ‘‘shares the pain,’’ 

not creates winners and losers, especially when the losers are mostly the very beneficiaries—farmers and rural communities—the Federal water projects were originally built to serve. The past Federal management of water flows in California’s 

Bay-Delta, which has redirected millions of acre feet of water away from human 

uses and toward the environment, with little, if any, documented benefit to the 

ESA-listed fish intended for protection, is a prime example. 

Good water management requires flexibility, as well as adaptive management. 

More regulation usually reduces this flexibility to balance competing demands and 

find a way forward that works for all stakeholders. Federal agencies managing the 

competing demands for water in the West have in some cases failed in creating opportunities for more flexible water management during times of crisis, and rarely 

measure their actual results (good or bad) from their water supply decisions. 

The ESA needs to be implemented in a new way to better benefit species and rural 

communities 

The original intent of the ESA—stated in the Act itself—was to encourage ‘‘the 

states and other interested parties, through Federal financial assistance and a system of incentives, to develop and maintain conservation programs which meet 

national and international standards.’’ Of special importance to the Family Farm 

Alliance is that the ESA explicitly declared that it was the policy of Congress that 

‘‘Federal agencies shall cooperate with state and local agencies to resolve water 

resource issues in concert with conservation of endangered species.’’ 

The authors of the ESA clearly believed in applying the ESA in a way that would 

foster collaboration and efficiency of program delivery, in an incentive-driven 

manner. Unfortunately, implementation of the ESA has developed into an approach 

that is driven by litigation and conflict rather than collaboration. As far as the Act 

itself is concerned, little to no progress has occurred to keep this 40-year-old law 

in step with the challenges facing declining species in an era of climate change. The 

ESA has not been substantially updated since 1988. 

At the heart of the Family Farm Alliance’s concerns with the ESA is the everpresent potential of serious Federal restrictions being placed on the West’s irrigation 

water storage and delivery activities, often using federally developed water infrastructure in protecting listed species. Future endangered species listings are on the 

horizon. That prospect has the Alliance very concerned about potential new Federal 

restrictions being placed on the water supplies that are crucial to the West’s $172- 

billion per year irrigated agricultural economy. 
41 

6P. Henson, R. White, and S.P. Thompson. 2018. Improving Implementation of the 

Endangered Species Act: Finding Common Ground Through Common Sense, BioScience (available at https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy093). 

The ESA, while well intentioned, is a law that is not working as it was originally 

intended. It needs to be more about incentives and collaboration and less about litigation and regulation. Fewer than 2 percent of the species ever listed under the Act 

have been recovered and removed from the list. Meanwhile, the negative economic 

and sociologic impacts of the ESA have been dramatic. 

The Family Farm Alliance for decades has worked to develop specific, practical 

changes to the ESA that we think will make it work effectively today. Application 

of the ESA today must be viewed through the prism of other human needs, including food production. To that end, management of our natural resources should be 

geared toward an approach that views the entire landscape in a more holistic manner regarding its value for wildlife, food production, and other capacities. The flexibility built into the Act has the potential to yield net conservation benefits for 

imperiled species, as ESA practitioners have recognized.6 While a regulatory approach may be necessary for species on the brink of extinction, such an approach 

should be employed sparingly, consistent with congressional intent and sound public 

policy. 

Insufficient Storage and Aging Water Infrastructure Must be Addressed to Protect 

Future Water Supply Reliability 

More surface and groundwater storage is a critical piece of the solution to future 

water shortfalls. Congress should streamline regulatory hurdles and work to facilitate the construction of new and expanded surface storage facilities, providing a 

more effective process to move water storage projects forward. 

Also, new tools to assist in financing major improvements to aging water infrastructure will be needed in the coming years to ensure that farmers and ranchers 

who benefit from these upgrades can afford repayment terms. Water infrastructure 

is a long-term investment, as are farms and ranches, and longer repayment and 

lower interest terms will be crucial to reinvesting in these aging facilities to meet 

the challenges of tomorrow. Such improvements could include investments in everything from new and expanded water storage reservoirs (both on- and off-stream), 

regulating reservoirs, canal lining, computerized water management and delivery 

systems, real-time monitoring of ecosystem functions and river flows for both fish 

and people, and watershed-based integrated regional water management. With the 

creation of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) in the 

WRRDA 2014, the Alliance believes a similar affordable loan program could be instituted at Reclamation to assist in providing capital for such investments. Also, more 

flexibility may be needed to allow for private investments at Reclamation facilities 

in order to attract additional capital to meet future water supply needs. 

Western irrigators need flexible, streamlined policies and new affordable financing 

tools that can provide balance and certainty to support collaborative efforts and 

manage future water infrastructure challenges. Solutions in all of these areas will 

be crucial to future successes in agricultural production, conservation and community outcomes in the West. 

INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS

For family farmers and ranchers, finding solutions to constantly emerging 

challenges is just business as usual. Nature, the markets and the government are 

always finding new problems to throw at farmers, and farmers who are not determined, resourceful and innovative will not succeed. 

Irrigators and their local water agencies are responding to the challenges of reduced water supply reliability with determination, resourcefulness and innovation. 

They also are bringing those attributes to bear in planning for a future where 

‘‘drought’’ may be a long-term or even permanent condition. Throughout the West, 

farmers, ranchers and irrigation agencies have undertaken creative measures to efficiently manage increasingly scarce water resources. Some of these actions were intended to address the immediate crisis of recent western droughts; others have been 

implemented as part of the broad portfolio of actions that successful farmers are employing to stay profitable in today’s fierce economic and regulatory climate. If 

Federal agencies are willing to work collaboratively with farmers and ranchers, the 

result would likely be better management of water for both economic purposes and 

environmental uses. 
42 

The following are real-world examples that Congress and the Administration 

should consider when developing legislation and polices to address the current 

drought and water management for the future: 

Collaboration, Ecosystem Restoration, and New Storage: Yakima Basin (Washington) 

The Yakima River Basin in Washington State does not have enough surface water 

storage facilities, with over 2.4 million-acre feet of water needs annually dependent 

upon only 1 million acre-feet of surface water storage capacity. The Yakima Basin 

is experiencing increased pressures and demands on our 1 million acre-feet of 

reservoir storage capacity, while we are now at above average carryover water storage, current water storage capacity cannot make up for shortages in the snow pack. 

They desperately need increased water storage carrying capacity to meet dry-year 

demands like those we experienced in 2015, with pro-ratable (junior) water rights 

receiving only 47 percent of normal supplies—a dire situation for the significant 

number of permanent crops in the Basin. 

To help plan for expanding access to more irrigation and M&I water storage 

capacity and to help relieve tensions in the Yakima Basin over water supply management for all needs, a large cross-section of the water stakeholder interests and 

the Yakama Nation have worked together over the past several years in developing 

the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan. The Integrated Plan is a well thought out, longterm comprehensive set of solutions to restore ecosystem functions and fish habitat 

and improve long-term reliability of water supplies for stream flows, agricultural irrigation and municipal supply. The Integrated Plan was developed in a public, collaborative process involving local, state, Federal and tribal governments plus 

stakeholders representing environmental, irrigation and business interests. The consensus achieved by this diverse group represents a major and unprecedented accomplishment for the Yakima Basin and for water management in the western United 

States. The Integrated Plan offers a means to avoid a tangle of litigation and hardship for these users in future years. The Yakima Basin Integrated Plan is believed 

to be the first basin-wide integrated plan in the United States to achieve this level 

of success. 

Prior efforts to increase water storage in the Yakima Basin have failed, in part 

due to a lack of consensus among the key stakeholders. The Integrated Plan offers 

the best opportunity in decades to resolve long-standing problems afflicting the 

Basin’s ecosystem and economy. In addition, improving water conservation and 

management, along with making available increased water storage for farms, fish 

and our communities are key components of the Plan. When implemented, the Plan 

will greatly improve operational flexibility to support instream flows while meeting 

the Basin’s basic water supply needs under a wide range of seasonal and annual 

snowpack and runoff conditions, both now and under a wide range of estimated 

future hydrologic and climatic conditions. 

Long-term Environmental Enhancement and Water Supply Reliability: Voluntary 

Settlement Agreements to update the Sacramento San Joaquin Bay-Delta Water 

Quality Control Plan (California) 

The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) oversees water 

rights and water quality in California. The Board is in process of updating its Bay 

Delta Water Quality Control Plan, which identifies beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta, 

water quality objectives for the reasonable protection of those beneficial uses, and 

a program of implementation for achieving those objectives. 

The U.S. Department of the Interior, the California Natural Resources Agency, 

and water rights holders throughout California are working on a separate but related effort to craft voluntary, stakeholder-based outcomes in the watersheds of the 

Sacramento River and major San Joaquin River tributaries. These voluntary settlement agreements (VSAs) are a comprehensive plan to improve water quality and 

habitat conditions with a manageable impact to water users and highlight the positive outcomes that can occur when agencies choose to collaborate with water users. 

Implementation of the VSAs will maintain the viability of native fishes in the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin River watersheds and the Delta ecosystem, while concurrently protecting and enhancing water supply reliability, consistent with the 

statutory requirement of providing reasonable protection for all beneficial uses. 
43 

7Framework Proposal for Voluntary Agreements to Update and Implement the Bay-Delta 

Water Quality Control Plan (https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Blogs/ 

Voluntary-Settlement-Agreement-Meeting-Materials-Dec-12-2018-DWR-CDFW-CNRA.pdf). 8https://www.youngfarmers.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NYFC-template-FINAL_low 

New.pdf. 

The VSA’s have a few key components: 7

• Provide additional instream flows averaging between 740,000 and 1,040,000 

acre-feet in a manner that does not conflict with groundwater management 

requirements under California law, doesn’t reduce flows for wildlife refuges, 

and maintains reliability of water supply for other beneficial uses. 

• Implementation of significant non-flow measures to address the many factors 

negatively impacting fish populations, including predation by non-native 

species, passage barriers, and hatchery productivity. 

• The development of a comprehensive science and monitoring program, incorporating a structured decision-making process, to inform implementation of 

flow and non-flow measures. 

• Dedicated funding for implementation of science and ecosystem and habitat 

improvement measures of approximately $770 million from a per acre-foot fee 

placed on water users. 

It is the Alliance’s position that locally negotiated, stakeholder driven solutions 

are far more durable than those driven through a regulatory process that leads to 

litigation. The Alliance would urge congressional support for Federal efforts to 

implement California’s Voluntary Settlement Agreements. 

Conservation and Drought Resilience: Colorado River Basin 

In Wyoming, ranchers Pat and Sharon O’Toole have always managed their land 

with conservation in mind. Along the way, they’ve built strong partnerships with 

Trout Unlimited, Audubon Wyoming and The Nature Conservancy; organizations 

some ranchers once viewed as adversaries. Further south, in the fertile North Fork 

Valley outside of Paonia, Colorado, Harrison Topp took the leap from annual vegetable production to perennial fruit, growing food in a region with just 15 inches of 

annual average precipitation. 

The Family Farm Alliance report, ‘‘Innovations in Agricultural Stewardship: 

Stories of Conservation & Drought Resilience in the Arid West,’’ 8 focuses on these 

two case studies and three others that profile producers across the Colorado River 

Basin and beyond who—with curiosity, creativity and seasons of trial and error— 

are conserving resources while enhancing productivity. The Alliance teamed up with 

the National Young Farmers Coalition on this report with the aim of elevating the 

voices of farmers and ranchers who are employing smart solutions to build drought 

resilience, steward water and grow good food. 

Some of the farmers highlighted in the Alliance report are integrating efficient 

irrigation technology with soil health to increase both productivity and water savings. Others are navigating conservation within constraints outside of their control, 

such as the operations of the ditches which deliver water to farms. To paint a fuller 

picture of the complexities and nuances of agricultural water conservation in the 

West, the Alliance worked with the engineering firm Applegate Group to create a 

water balance for three of the case studies. These water balances utilize a technical, 

objective approach to assess the producers’ water rights, current conservation efforts, and barriers or opportunities for future conservation. They underscore the reality that conservation practices are different on every operation and unique from 

farm to farm. 

As the pressures of climate variability and drought increase, farmers and ranchers are at the forefront of our national adaptation strategy. Producers are coming 

together to help one another, but they also need support from consumers, policy 

makers, scientists, and service providers. The Alliance hopes that these case studies 

will provide policy makers and other stakeholders with a more nuanced understanding of the diversity and complexity of western agricultural water conservation 

and an appreciation of what continuing to take agricultural lands out of production 

might mean. 

Empower Locals to Develop New Storage: Sites Joint Power Authority (California) 

Growing concerns about the delays and costs associated with the proposed Sites 

off-stream reservoir project in the Sacramento Valley of California, as well as the 

need for a local voice, led to the formation, in August 2010, of the Sites Project Joint 

Powers Authority (Sites JPA). The Sites JPA, which includes Sacramento Valley 

counties and water districts, was formed with the stated purpose of establishing a 
44 

public entity to design, acquire, manage and operate Sites Reservoir and related 

facilities to improve the operation of the state’s water system. 

The Project would also provide improvements in ecosystem and water quality conditions in the Sacramento River system and in the Bay-Delta, as well as provide 

flood control and other benefits to a large area of the state of California. The formation of local JPA’s was included as a key provision in the 2009 California Water 

Package Water Bond legislation for the purposes of pursuing storage projects that 

could be eligible for up to 50 percent of project funding for public benefits. 

As the Sites JPA began working with the Bureau of Reclamation and California 

Department of Water Resources, the JPA took a common-sense approach. The JPA 

worked with Reclamation and DWR to put together Foundational Formulation 

Principles. In other words, first identifying the needs of the water operations system 

and then designing the project that would meet those needs. Local project proponents envisioned a project that would be integrated with the system they already 

had, and one that would also operate effectively regardless of future operational 

changes to the larger system, such as construction of new conveyance to export 

water users located south of the Delta. The JPA wanted to maximize the benefits 

associated with existing infrastructure and provide as much benefit as possible to 

both the existing state and Federal water projects at the lowest feasible cost. 

The JPA has approached the Sites project with the goal of making the best 

possible use of limited resources, and in the end, local irrigators believe they have 

identified a project that is both affordable and will provide significant benefits. The 

proposed project maximizes ecosystem benefits consistent with the state water bond, 

which states that at least 50 percent of the public benefit objectives must be ecosystem improvements. Other benefits include water supply reliability, water quality 

improvements, flexible hydropower generation, more recreation benefits and increased flood damage reduction. In short, the JPA approached the Sites project with 

the goal of generating water for the environment while improving statewide water 

reliability and regional sustainability in Northern California. They believe they are 

achieving that goal. 

Collaboration with Diverse Stakeholders: The Western Agriculture and Conservation 

Coalition (WACCC) 

The Family Farm Alliance sits on the Steering Committee of the Western 

Agriculture and Conservation Coalition (WACC), a diverse group of organizations 

that first came together a decade ago around the Farm Bill conservation title with 

the goal of supporting the common interests of agriculture and conservation. Other 

founding steering committee members included Trout Unlimited, The Nature 

Conservancy, California Farm Bureau, Environmental Defense Fund, Public Lands 

Council, Arizona Cattle Growers Association, Wyoming Stock Growers Association, 

and the Irrigation Association. The group has expanded in recent years; for a 

complete list of members, go to: http://www.waccoalition.org/. 

The WACC is becoming increasingly effective on the narrow list of topics its members engage in, including the farm bill that Congress passed last December, sending 

the compromise legislation to the President’s desk. The new farm bill includes several important provisions—many of them driven by the WACC—that will assist 

Western agricultural irrigators. The new farm bill included expanded authority 

under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) for irrigation districts—for the first time ever—to receive funding as direct applicants for water conservation measures, as well as continued eligibility as partners for conservation 

activities with growers. This language was originally proposed and advocated for by 

the Alliance and other WACC partners starting a decade ago. The new EQIP 

includes funding for water conservation scheduling, water distribution efficiency, 

soil moisture monitoring, irrigation-related structural or other measures that conserve surface water or groundwater, including managed aquifer recovery practices. 

The farm bill also provides improved contracting for partners engaged in work with 

producers, which is intended to be streamlined and made more effective under the 

Regional Conservation Partnership Program. Importantly, the 2018 farm bill preserves existing authorization structure and $50 million in mandatory funding for 

the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, a flexible and useful program 

utilized by Western water managers. The demand for this program is probably at 

least twice as much as what was funded, but the farm bill made this mandatory 

funding, which is encouraging. 

The WACC provides a core that can help policy makers and our collective members remember that the foundation for some true, collaborative solutions that are 

driven from the constructive ‘‘center.’’ The WACC shared perspective on species conservation is rooted in our experience with practical, on-the-ground solutions that 

work well for ranchers, farmers, and other landowners, as well as for fish, wildlife 
45 

and plants. Indeed, maintaining a mosaic of working farms and ranches along with 

lands managed for conservation purposes, represents the best opportunity for conserving the ecosystems upon which species depend so that species do not decline to 

the point where a listing under the ESA is warranted, and so that currently listed 

species can recover. 

Unless the agricultural industry and conservation come together, the public 

policies and resource management strategies necessary to maintain a viable and 

sustainable rural West will be impossible to achieve. There will always be isolated 

instances of successful partnerships. But, these discrete examples of success will not 

suffice. The threats to a viable and sustainable rural West are numerous, complex, 

and variegated. A broad and authoritative voice like that of the WACC is needed 

to effectively address these threats with collaborative solutions. The coalition’s 

recent engagement and success in the farm bill’s conservation title is Exhibit ‘‘A’’ 

toward that end. 

HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN HELP

The Congress and the Federal Government certainly cannot change the hydrology 

of the West, but there is a role it can play to support family farmers and ranchers. 

Policy makers should understand the following observations and principles as they 

develop new solutions to the decreasing long-term reliability of western water 

supplies: 

• State water laws, compacts and decrees must be the foundation for dealing 

with shortages. 

• Water use and related beneficial use data must be accurately measured and 

portrayed. 

• Benefits of water use must reflect all economic/societal/environmental 

impacts. 

• Water conservation can help stretch water supplies, but has its limits in certain situations (impacts to groundwater recharge by moving away from flood 

irrigation). 

• Public sentiment supports water remaining with irrigated agriculture, and 

developing strategic water storage as insurance against shortages. 

• Technologies for water reuse and recycling are proven effective in stretching 

existing supplies for urban, environmental and other uses. 

• Urban growth expansion should be contingent upon sustainable water supplies; using irrigated agriculture as the ‘‘reservoir’’ of water for municipal 

growth is not sustainable in the long run and will permanently damage our 

Nation’s food supply and rural communities. 

• Planning for water shortage in the West must look to the long-term in 

meeting the goals of agriculture, energy, cities, and the environment. 

• A successful water shortage strategy must include a ‘‘portfolio’’ of water 

supply enhancements and improvements, such as water reuse, recycling, conservation, water-sensitive land use planning, and water system improvements. New infrastructure and technologies can help stretch water for all 

uses. 

• Temporary fallowing proposals should be approached in a thoughtful, 

thorough manner only after urban, energy and environmental users of water 

demonstrate a better management of their share of the finite supply. 

• Unintended consequences associated with reducing productive agricultural 

land/groundwater recharge/riparian habitat benefits should be avoided and, if 

unavoidable, minimized and fully mitigated. 

We offer the following specific actions that Federal policy makers can address in 

new water supply legislation: 

Encourage accurate measurement and portrayal of water use and related beneficial 

use data 

As is often the case, what happens in California often has a ripple effect that 

extends to other western states. For example, the common misconception that 

‘‘farmers use 80 percent of the water’’ is applied by critics of irrigated agriculture 

in areas throughout the West. We need to find clear and comparable ways to 

present these types of water use numbers as we struggle with finding the appropriate way to prioritize our water uses among competing demands. And, we need 

a solid understanding of how water used for environmental purposes is really benefiting the species or habitat it is intended to protect, and how to more efficiently 
46 

manage such uses for maximum benefit using less water, the same standard to 

which irrigated agriculture is currently being held. 

Find ways to streamline regulatory hurdles to assist in developing new environmentally sensitive storage projects and other necessary infrastructure 

improvements 

In past Congresses, several bills have been introduced that were intended to facilitate the construction of new surface storage facilities. Congress should work to 

pass legislation to increase water storage throughout the western United States. 

The President and Congress will prioritize whatever Federal funds are available 

to meet existing and future water supply needs. As for the rest of the necessary capital needed to develop and construct this new water infrastructure, it must come 

either from state and local governments or from the private sector. If the Federal 

Government cannot fund the required investments, it should take meaningful steps 

to provide additional incentives for non-Federal entities to fill the void, and remove 

barriers to the new ways of doing business that will be required. 

The Alliance believes that the Federal Government must seriously consider adopting a policy of supporting new projects to enhance water supplies while encouraging 

state and local interests to take the lead in the planning and implementation of 

those projects. Local and state interests (see Sites JPA example above) have shown 

enormous creativity in designing creative water development projects. Water agencies have at times obtained additional Federal funding through the appropriations 

process; however, Reclamation could also supplement this effort by providing funding for local partnership agreements, especially where Reclamation and its water 

contractors are identified as potential beneficiaries. 

Provide additional funding to support WaterSMART and/or other programs that 

provide incentive-driven cost share money for new water conservation projects 

Small Federal investments in cost-shared, competitive grants help irrigation districts make larger investments in water conservation and management technologies 

that can help stretch water supplies to meet unmet needs. The Secure Water Act 

should be reauthorized to extend these grant programs into the future. Additionally, 

legislation should be enacted to authorize Reclamation to develop or access a 

WIFIA-like loan program, which would increase access to affordable, long-term, 

credit-based loans to help support locally developed water projects across the West. 

Require fish and wildlife agencies to set scientifically based priorities and be 

accountable in their effort to manage environmental water 

In the western United States, environmental enhancement and mitigation programs are increasingly competing for existing sources of water. In some instances, 

these actions have caused major conflicts, costly lawsuits and delayed benefits for 

endangered species and the environment. Water is far too important a resource in 

an era of a changing climate to utilize it in an ineffective or inefficient manner. 

Accordingly, the Alliance believes that all users of water should be held to the same 

level of accountability in their water use. Environmental interests, fish and wildlife 

agencies and water managers must set scientifically based priorities and be held accountable in their effort to manage environmental water. Legislative language that 

requires fisheries agencies to demonstrate quantifiable benefits to targeted imperiled fish species would be helpful. An institutional structure that ensures true peer 

review and impartial decision making relative to this objective would also be useful. 

CONCLUSION

California and the West need to manage water as if every year is a drought year. 

We need to invest in new water storage facilities to capture water in wet years, we 

need to look to innovative technology to enhance management of water supplies and 

delivery and we need to maximize the benefits from the water we have available 

to meet multiple needs. The ability to measure, assess and show value for how that 

water is used is incumbent on every water manager—environmental, urban and 

agricultural. 

It will be hard work to reach an agreement and enact legislation to wisely manage 

the West’s water now and in the future, but that’s the kind of work we elected you 

to do. Farmers work hard, and we expect Congress to do the same. We need you— 

all of you, urban and rural, Republican and Democrat—to come together and find 

a way to fix this broken system, now, before it breaks us all. 

Only together can we in California and the West plan and prepare for our collective future. If we don’t, we ensure only that the water supply reliability will 

continue to decline. 

Thank you. 
47 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Diedrich. The Chair will now 

recognize Mr. Harrison Ibach. 

Mr. Ibach is President of the Humboldt Fishermen’s Marketing 

Association and is a commercial fisherman in my district. 

Welcome, Mr. Ibach. In my district and across the Pacific Coast, 

native fisheries provide a livelihood for fishermen and their families and are a key element of our local economy and culture. I want 

to personally thank you, Mr. Ibach. I appreciate you being here to 

tell this Subcommittee how drought and water supply shortages 

have affected fishing communities all along the Pacific Coast. 

Welcome. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HARRISON IBACH, PRESIDENT, HUMBOLDT 

FISHERMEN’S MARKETING ASSOCIATION, HUMBOLDT, 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. IBACH. Good morning Chairman Huffman, members of the 

Committee. It is good to be with you today. My name is Harrison 

Ibach. I am the President of the Humboldt Fishermen’s Marketing 

Association, and I am the owner and captain of the fishing vessel 

Oceana from which 100 percent of my income is generated. I fish 

for salmon, Dungeness crab, and groundfish out of Eureka in 

Northern California. I have come here today so you can hear 

directly from the North Coast about the devastation that water 

mismanagement has caused to my family and my community. 

I am going to give you the salmon industry’s perspective on 

California’s water resources, the ways these resources are being 

managed and abused, and what Congress might do in order to save 

the Central Valley from itself and assure a more equitable use of 

our vital water system to benefit all of the food producers of our 

state who rely on it. 

Salmon are part of a cycle that nature has managed well for 

millions of years. But in the last century, water mismanagement 

in the West has sent our salmon into a death spiral. When I was 

born, in the early 1980s, there were around 4,500 commercial 

salmon fishermen in California. Today, there are fewer than 450 

who can afford the time and the financial investment to fish for 

salmon each summer. It has become so bad that we have lost 90 

percent of our fishery. 

When King Salmon fisheries are healthy, they are an economic 

powerhouse, feeding America. These fish support 23,000 jobs in 

California and 11,000 in Oregon in a normal, non-drought year. 

The industry serving both sport and commercial salmon generates 

about $1.4 billion in economic activity by the time you add in all 

the multipliers, and about half that much again in jobs and dollars 

in Oregon, where as much as 60 percent of their ocean-caught 

salmon originate in California’s Central Valley. 

We haven’t had a decent salmon season since 2013, and the 

fishery hasn’t been reliable since long before. Decisions at the 

Federal level have a tangible impact on salmon stocks and on our 

incomes. I have personally witnessed the devastating effects of mismanagement of water. I saw the largest salmon kill in the western 

United States on the Klamath River in 2002. Up to 70,000 adult 

salmon died when water was diverted away from the river for use 

inland. 
48 

Relaxed regulatory oversight and maximized Delta pumping between 2003 and 2006 led to the complete closure of the salmon 

fishery in 2008 and 2009. Imagine that for a second. For 2 years 

straight, an entire industry was told it could not go to work. This 

shutdown was a nightmare for the fishing industry. We had to rely 

on Federal disaster relief to scrape by. Fishermen don’t favor handouts. We know how to work hard, and we prefer to go to work. 

In 2013, there was a good season because of the strong salmon 

protections coming from the Endangered Species Act’s 2009 salmon 

Biological Opinion and a wet spring in 2011. In the years since, 

California went through the worst drought it has had in decades. 

The 2009 Biological Opinion gave salmon a break for a couple of 

years. If it hadn’t been implemented, the drought would have 

wiped us out for good. The overwhelming success of the 2009 

Biological Opinion was short-lived due to the stressors of the 2012– 

2016 drought. But now the Federal Administration wants to erase 

the gains we made by installing an even more regressive water regime than we had before 2009. And if this Subcommittee doesn’t 

pump the brakes and stop this callous action, we won’t have a 

salmon fishery. And that is the truth. 

Today’s Bureau of Reclamation appears to me to be run more 

like a cash faucet for irrigators than a water agency that owns and 

operates storage and flood-control infrastructure. The Bureau has 

recently released a Biological Assessment for a new Central Valley 

Project Operations Program. According to experts who my organizations work with, this new management regime would be ruinous 

to our salmon. It would certainly bring economic devastation to the 

coastal communities like mine. 

Members of the Subcommittee, this Administration’s war on 

salmon must be stopped in its tracks. We know that water management can make or break a fishing season and can determine if a 

fisherman will be able to provide for his family. Sending water to 

the ocean is not wasting it—it is an investment in biodiversity, in 

the fishing industry, and our coastal communities. The industry is 

looking toward our Federal and state water managers to determine 

the future of salmon and our industry. 

Looking forward, the projects and standards being pursued at 

the Federal level will only help push salmon and West Coast commercial fishermen to extinction. 

Honorable members of the Subcommittee, please make sure 

salmon fishermen are protected so we can continue to share 

nature’s bounty with you and our fellow Americans. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ibach follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. HARRISON IBACH, PRESIDENT, HUMBOLDT

FISHERMEN’S MARKETING ASSOCIATION

Good morning Chairman Huffman, members of the Committee. It’s good to be 

with you today. My name is Harrison Ibach, I’m the President of the Humboldt 

Fishermen’s Marketing Association and I’m the owner and captain of the fishing 

vessel Oceana from which 100 percent of my income is generated. I fish for salmon, 

Dungeness crab, and groundfish out of Eureka in Northern California. I’ve come 

here today so you can hear directly from the North Coast about the devastation that 

water mismanagement has caused to my family and my community. I’m going to 

give you the salmon industry’s perspective on California’s water resources, the ways 

these resources are being managed and abused, and what Congress might do in 
49 

order to save the Central Valley from itself and assure a more equitable use of our 

vital water system to benefit all of the food producers of our state who rely on it. 

Commercial fishing has been a noble occupation since before the founding of this 

country. The ocean’s bounty has been a cultural and culinary mainstay of the West 

Coast for thousands of years. And in our part of the world, salmon is king. Or at 

least it was. 

Salmon are part of a cycle that nature has managed well for millions of years. 

But in the last century, water mismanagement in the West has sent our salmon into 

a death spiral. 

When I was born, in the early 1980s, there were around 4,500 commercial salmon 

fishermen in California. Today, there are fewer than 450 who can afford the time 

and financial investment to fish for salmon each summer. It has become so bad that 

we’ve lost 90 percent of our fishery. 

When king salmon fisheries are healthy, they’re an economic powerhouse, feeding 

America. These fish support 23,000 jobs in California and 11,000 in Oregon in a 

‘‘normal’’ non-drought year. The industry serving both sport and commercial salmon 

generates about $1.4 billion in economic activity by the time you add in all the multipliers, and about half that much again in jobs and dollars in Oregon, where as 

much as 60 percent of their ocean caught salmon originate in California’s Central 

Valley. 

We haven’t had a decent salmon season since 2013, and the fishery hasn’t been 

reliable since long before. Decisions at the Federal level have a tangible impact on 

salmon stocks, and on our incomes. 

I have personally witnessed the devastating effects of mismanagement of water. 

I saw the largest salmon kill in the western United States on the Klamath River 

in 2002. Up to 70,000 adult salmon died when water was diverted away from the 

river for use inland. 

Relaxed regulatory oversight and maximized Delta pumping between 2003 and 

2006 led to the complete closure of the salmon fishery in 2008 and 2009. Imagine 

that for a second. For 2 years straight an entire industry was told it couldn’t go 

to work. This shutdown was a nightmare for the fishing industry. We had to rely 

on Federal disaster relief to scrape by. Fishermen don’t favor handouts—we know 

how to work hard and we prefer to go to work. 

In 2013, there was a good season because of the strong salmon protections coming 

from the Endangered Species Act’s 2009 salmon biological opinion and a wet spring 

in 2011. In the years since, California went through the worst drought it’s had in 

decades. 

The 2009 Biological opinion gave salmon a break for a couple of years. If it hadn’t 

been implemented, the drought would have wiped us out for good. 

The overwhelming success of the 2009 Biological Opinion was short lived due to 

the stressors of the 2012–2016 drought. But now, the Federal Administration wants 

to erase the gains we made by installing an even more regressive water regime than 

we had before 2009. And if this Subcommittee doesn’t pump the brakes and stop 

this callous action, we won’t have a salmon fishery. And that’s the truth. 

Today’s Bureau of Reclamation appears to me to be run more like a cash faucet 

for irrigators than a water agency that owns and operates storage and flood control 

infrastructure. The Bureau has recently released a Biological Assessment for a new 

Central Valley Project operations program. According to experts who my organization works with, this new management regime be ruinous to our salmon. It would 

certainly bring economic devastation to coastal communities like mine. Members of 

the Subcommittee, this Administration’s war on salmon must be stopped in its 

tracks. 

We know that water management can make or break a fishing season and can 

determine if a fisherman will be able to provide for his family. Sending water to 

the ocean is not wasting it—it is an investment in biodiversity, in the fishing industry, and our coastal communities. The industry is looking toward our Federal and 

state water managers to determine the future of salmon, and of our industry. 

Looking forward, the projects and standards being pursued at the Federal level 

will only help push salmon, and West Coast commercial fishermen, to extinction. 

We have a saying in California fisheries: are you here for the salad, or are you 

here for the main course? Honorable members of the Subcommittee, please make 

sure salmon fishermen are protected so we can continue to share nature’s bounty 

with you and our fellow Americans. Thank you. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ibach. I thank the panel for the 

testimony. I want to remind Members that Committee Rule 3(d) 
50 

imposes a 5-minute limit on questions. The Chair will now recognize Members for any questions they may wish to ask the 

witnesses. 

I will start by deferring to Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first like 

to introduce a letter that I sent as Chair of this Committee on 

August 28, 2009 to Mr. Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, on 

recycled water. 

I focus mostly on recycled water because in California we are in 

the desert in the south of California. And we have had a long battle 

with Northern California over the water. And the spectrum is everything. There is no silver bullet to the water wars that we have 

in California. However, I would like to suggest that we refocus on 

making water. By making water I say recycled water, specifically. 

The letter included how to look at the establishment of a 1 

million acre-foot new water program, help farmer irrigation efficiency, and establish a water conservation initiative for urban and 

rural water districts. 

That said, I understand the Committee’s effort to bring it all 

together. I would like to ask a few questions, Mr. Willardson. 

Title XVI has been successful in helping construct water recycling infrastructure and is greatly underfunded. We currently have 

$64 million approved by the Committee, but none funded. There is 

no way to fund these projects with $50 million a year. I introduced 

a bill that increased the authorization to $500 million so we can 

finally start to adequately fund and complete the approved projects. 

I have heard firsthand not only from my water agencies, but 

from up and down California and other states, how vital the program is. Do you believe recycled water projects are the most costeffective solution to drought management or one of the tools in the 

box? 

And to start refocusing investments to our recycled water, do you 

think an increase in Federal funding would help this problem? 

Mr. WILLARDSON. Yes, Representative Napolitano. The Council 

supports an all-of-the-above approach to diversifying our water resources and supplies. Obviously, water reuse is something that is 

being used in many areas, particularly in the Southwest. States are 

making their own investments, as are local communities. 

As I mentioned, with respect to the Reclamation fund, the current receipts are roughly $2 billion, something under that now. We 

are spending about $1 billion on authorized Reclamation programs. 

If all of that money were spent, we could go a long ways to funding 

water reuse projects, or addressing some of the infrastructure 

deferred maintenance backlog, and a number of other projects, including rural and tribal water supply projects. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. We are working in Southern 

California to limit demand for imported water, due to the unpredictability of supply. Can you discuss the predictability that recycled water provides and how that affects the cost in the long run? 

Mr. WILLARDSON. Obviously, it is an area that has sometimes 

been called drought-proof, in that we do have the opportunity to 

reuse it over and over again. I have toured the Orange County 

facility twice. The first time they wouldn’t let me drink the water. 

The second time I did get to try it. 
51 

It is an important area. It is not inexpensive. There are many 

other areas that we have to look at. I can tell you that I have 

looked at conservation early in my career, and that is not inexpensive, either. I think it is one of many important areas that we need 

to look at, particularly in Southern California. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Southern California has long been the leader 

in modernizing water infrastructure. The county recycles more 

than 100 million gallons of water per day for irrigation purposes. 

Has the farming community gone to recycling? 

Mr. WILLARDSON. I can tell you that there are a number of opportunities to capture tailwater and to reuse that water, as well as 

to move toward the appropriate use of different qualities of water. 

Northern water, I think, in Colorado, they are looking to use 

wastewater that has been treated after it has been used for municipal purposes. So, there are changes that are happening, as well, 

of reuse in the agricultural community. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ranking 

Member McClintock for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. Willardson, let me ask you this question. What is better, 

abundance or scarcity? I know that sounds like a trick question, 

but it is a very important one that we are exploring with this last 

line of questioning. What is better, abundance or scarcity? 

Mr. WILLARDSON. Well, obviously, we would like more water or 

more money, or both. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK, so let me go over these figures again. And 

these are from San Diego County. They come to us from the 

California Energy Commission. The mean cost of surface water 

storage for San Diego County was $600 per acre-foot; groundwater 

storage, $737 per acre-foot; importing water, $925; recycling, 

$1,500 per acre-foot; and desalination, which San Diego has made 

an enormous investment in, cost them a staggering $2,300 per 

acre-foot. So, desalination costs us roughly four times what surface 

water storage costs in San Diego, a very dry area of the country. 

The question is, shouldn’t we be focusing on the least expensive 

sources of water before we put money into the most expensive? 

What is better, 1 gallon of water or 4 gallons of water? 

Mr. WILLARDSON. Well, I minored in economics. I know a little 

bit about markets, enough to know I don’t like macro or micro, but 

I can tell you—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. It is pretty much a rhetorical question, 

because I want to go on to another question I think is also very 

important. 

Mr. WILLARDSON. I would state simply that there are many different factors that go into water cost that have to be considered. 

And obviously, as an economist, we look at what are the lower 

costs, but they are not always available. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Again, my time is limited, so I want to go on 

to another question for you. 

We have heard that snowpacks are going to be reduced in the 

future. Precipitation is going to be realized more as rain than as 

snow. We are not going to be able to store precipitation as snow 
52 

in the mountains as long. Doesn’t that suggest that we need to be 

capturing that runoff in reservoirs, rather than lose it to the ocean? 

Mr. WILLARDSON. Obviously, it is going to change the regime in 

which we look at our water supplies. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. If we can’t store it as snow, doesn’t that mean 

we need to store it as water? 

Mr. WILLARDSON. Surface reservoirs are one. Groundwater 

recharge or other opportunities which are being used widely. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Right, so, again, it gets back to a very simple 

question—if we can’t store it as snow, we have to store it as water, 

or we lose it. 

Mr. Diedrich, would you agree? 

Mr. DIEDRICH. I absolutely agree. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. How about the Shasta Dam? That was built in 

the 1940s. It was built to an elevation of 600 feet. It was actually 

designed to be 800 feet. We can’t even get a minor 20-foot 

extension over decades of studies. Would that be an appropriate 

policy avenue to pursue, if our objective is clean, cheap, and abundant water? 

Mr. DIEDRICH. I believe it would. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Udall, what is your view of that? 

Mr. UDALL. I don’t claim to have any particular expertise on 

Shasta and the raising of its elevation. Clearly, in some places raising existing reservoirs makes sense. Other places, it doesn’t. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Your father thought it made sense; he is the 

one who authored the 1980 legislation authorizing the expansion of 

Shasta. 

Mr. Willardson, my limited understanding of meteorology is that 

the El Nin ̃ o is actually triggered by warmer than average temperatures in the Pacific. Doesn’t that mean, if the climate is warming, 

we should be expecting more precipitation overall, not less? 

Mr. WILLARDSON. Again, I am not a climatologist, but I would 

expect that that is the case. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And, certainly, that is what we are observing. 

I cited the EPA study in my opening statement. Just within the 48 

contiguous states, we have seen 17 one-hundredths of an inch per 

decade of increased precipitation. Over 12 decades, that is 2 inches 

of additional precipitation per year, so it seems like we are looking 

at more water, not less. 

The problem is how we are able to store it, transfer it as snow 

in the mountains to water in our reservoirs, to transfer it from wet 

years to dry years, and to transfer it from wet regions to dry 

regions. 

Mr. WILLARDSON. The challenge, really, is where that water is 

going to fall, and how that is going to change. And we do not have 

an understanding of the dynamical earth systems to be able to 

make those predictions. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Diedrich, you testified we are at 115 

percent of snowpack right now. You are getting 35 percent of allocations. Why the difference? 

Mr. DIEDRICH. The difference is because of cold water being held 

in Shasta for salmon, basically. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, let’s look at the salmon, looking at the 

relative numbers for California. Agriculture produces about $50 
53 

billion a year in direct product. The salmon industry, $88 million. 

So, for every dollar that the salmon industry produces, agriculture 

generates $568. Am I in the ballpark there? 

Mr. DIEDRICH. I believe you are. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great, thank you. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Willardson, since you were asked to respond to some 

hypotheticals, let me ask you one. What is more valuable to 

western states, paper water or wet water? 

Mr. WILLARDSON. Wet water. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. And does building new dams make it rain or snow 

any more? 

Mr. WILLARDSON. It does not. It does provide the opportunity to 

store what we do get. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Is it fair to say that over the last century, 

California and other western states have identified the most productive sites for dams, for the most part, and built them? 

Mr. WILLARDSON. We obviously depend now on the investments 

that have been made in the past, and will continue to do so. And 

it has provided a lot of flexibility. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. And with respect to new surface water storage 

projects, the cost estimates that you just heard for dams that were 

built in the previous century, the most productive sites that were 

identified and constructed, these new projects now that are being 

proposed are at a much higher cost, are they not? 

Mr. WILLARDSON. They are at a greater cost, both—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. McClintock has cited some costs in ques- tioning you for recycled water and desalination, over $1,000 an 

acre-foot. I will just say that the new storage projects in California, 

if you back away the public subsidy, are very much in that range. 

And lest we disparage desalination and recycling, let me just 

point out under the new Majority one change you see is that we 

don’t have these little bottled water units at every desk, because 

for the last 6 years, while criticizing recycling and desalination as 

too expensive, our colleagues across the aisle thought that the taxpayer dollars should be spent on bottled water for each Member of 

Congress that, if you pencil it out, is over $3 million an acre-foot. 

So, perspective is also important. 

Let’s go to you, Mr. Udall. Of course we would all like to see 

abundance. But your testimony urged us to plan for increased scarcity and increased volatility because of climate change. What do 

you think is the most prudent baseline assumption as we go forward and think about the infrastructure and the policy solutions 

to build a resilient water supply, and why? 

Mr. UDALL. The Southwest is not homogenous with regard to future water supplies. The southern portion of the United States and 

the southern portion of the Southwest clearly are looking at hotter 

and drier conditions. As you go north—and I would suggest that 

line might be the Colorado-Wyoming border, maybe the middle of 

Colorado—we expect to see increased precipitation. 

Congressman McClintock’s remarks about increased precip 

globally are true, but we have regional winners and losers. And 

unbelievably, we get both more floods and more droughts out of 

climate change. We lose on both sides. 
54 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Nelson, you spoke eloquently about communities that have been impacted by water shortages in the Central 

Valley. If you did away with the Endangered Species Act and all 

the other environmental laws that we have heard criticized in some 

of the testimony and the comments, would that solve the problem 

for the communities that you represent? 

Mr. NELSON. No, it wouldn’t. And, in fact, we would expect that 

it would make the challenge even worse. And we would say that 

it is a false choice to choose between environmental protections 

that in fact do protect our communities and in making sure that 

every American can have access to safe drinking water. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Udall just mentioned the notion of winners 

and losers. And Mr. Ibach, you offered some testimony that was a 

little different than what we often hear in this Committee. When 

there are water shortages for agriculture, I think we are very familiar with the concept of fallowing and the hardships that sometimes are felt. But we haven’t had a chance to hear about what 

happens to fishing communities because of droughts and water 

management decisions. Can you speak specifically about what you 

have seen in your community from those impacts? 

Mr. IBACH. Yes, absolutely. I know in my community we have 

seen a lot of hardship. I have personally witnessed many families 

go through many financial hardships. I have witnessed people not 

only lose their jobs, but forced to sell everything. 

And that is not just in my community. When we are talking 

about coastal communities that are affected by a lack of salmon, it 

is not just our community in Northern California. It extends as far 

south as Santa Barbara in California, and all the way up to the 

Oregon border. And not just up to the Oregon border, it actually 

extends all the way up into Oregon and Washington. And not only 

Washington, it actually extends all the way up into Alaska, as well. 

The fall-run salmon from Sacramento are actually caught up and 

down the entire West Coast of the United States. So, it is not just 

our local communities, it is actually up and down the entire West 

Coast. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hice 

for 5 minutes. 

Dr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I do live in 

what is referred to as Lake Country in Georgia. We have over 800 

miles of shoreline in my district. And just for clarification and simplification, let me just say that dams protect us both from floods 

and drought. I think that is an important thing for us to come to 

just a basic understanding, which I know we know, but it is good 

for it to be restated. 

Mr. Diedrich, let me go to you. I am not an expert, by any 

means, on California. But my basic understanding is, current population there is ballpark 39 million. But the water supply is really 

suited for approximately 22 million. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. DIEDRICH. That is a fair characterization. 

Dr. HICE. A fair characterization, all right. I also am under the 

impression that California is expected to double in size by 2050 and 

have approximately 80 million. If that is the case, what in the 

world are they going to do? What needs to happen to catch up from 

currently being behind in the capacity of water? And what in the 
55 

world needs to happen to be prepared for the influx of population 

growth? 

Mr. DIEDRICH. It is absolutely going to take a portfolio approach 

to every area. 

But Number 1 is that we are going to have to have increased 

storage in the state of California. You cannot put water in the 

ground when there is a flood. You have to put water in the ground 

off season. And in order to do that, you have to store it when it 

comes down. 

So, storage is absolutely vital. We have to find additional storage 

that can be built as soon as possible in the state of California. 

Dr. HICE. Sounds like it is going to require a significant amount 

of storage, as well. 

Going along with that, we also all know how much produce is 

provided for our country that comes out of California, just with 

fruits and nuts and vegetables, all that sort of thing. Probably 50 

percent or so for our country comes out of California. 

If what you just highlighted does not take place, the increase of 

storage capacity for water, how would that impact the rest of the 

country, in terms of produce coming out of California? 

Mr. DIEDRICH. The safe and affordable food supply that comes 

out of the Central Valley and all of California is going to be in jeopardy. I cannot tell you at this time to what degree, other than it 

is going to be significant. 

There are only two ways that you can deal with this. It is to control the demand, which is going to require fallowing, and land 

taken out of production, on top of all of the other things that we 

already are doing, which is conservation, water use efficiency, 

reuse, all of that. Or increase supply. 

And Representative McClintock represented the situation fairly 

when he said it is just a matter of where the precipitation falls and 

the timing of the precipitation. So, in order to control that, we have 

to have additional storage. 

Dr. HICE. I think your point is well taken. And it seems obvious 

to me that you are barking up the right tree, in terms of a solution. 

One of you mentioned a while ago, someone briefly, about the 

Endangered Species Act. How has the Endangered Species Act 

complicated water rights? Or has it? 

Mr. DIEDRICH. I believe that the solution is going to be a collaborative effort. I am in no way proposing that the Endangered 

Species Act be eliminated. What I propose is that it be managed 

and implemented in an equitable, scientific, and fair way. 

I understand that collaboration is required between all of the 

stakeholders and the agencies. There are things that we can do 

that are non-flow projects that will increase habitat and increase 

the viability and the propagation of endangered species that don’t 

have to do with water flow. Water flow is essential, obviously, but 

there are many other projects that we need to undertake to mitigate the harm to the endangered species. 

I believe that some of the characterization today has been unfair, 

although I understand that this is going to be an effort that we all 

are going to be involved in. Mr. Nelson’s problem, Mr. Ibach’s 

problem, and our farm problem are all very much related. 
56 

Dr. HICE. I thank each of our witnesses. Thank you for your 

answers, and I yield back. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hice. The Chair now recognizes 

Mr. Costa for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTA. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member. I 

think this topic is an important part of this Subcommittee’s jurisdiction, and one that we will continue to work on for this Congress. 

Clearly, the sustainability of our water resources, not only for 

California, but for the West and for our Nation, are really a determiner as to whether or not the world can deal with the challenges 

of climate change and the impacts of water availability for the sustainability of not only our Nation, but the world. That is really 

what is at risk here. 

And many of you who I have worked with over the years know 

that I like to make a reference to using all the water tools in our 

toolbox, because there is not, I don’t think, one single solution, but 

it is a combination of strategies and collaborations, as Mr. Diedrich 

was suggesting, I think. 

Let me quickly get to a couple of questions here. Mr. Diedrich, 

you stated in your written testimony—and you restated it just a 

moment ago—that environmental interests, fish and wildlife agencies, and water managers set scientifically-based priorities and to 

be held accountable in the efforts to manage those. And, of course, 

water flow is a key component. No one denies that. But could you 

elaborate more specifically on what kinds of things you think would 

be helpful in increasing fish populations in this effort? 

Mr. DIEDRICH. A lot of that work is going on right now, today. 

Public water agencies that fly farm water are very much engaged. 

There are projects—anybody that is interested, they can Google 

Floodplain Fatties. Right now, we are flooding rice fields to mimic 

the flood plain to produce food for salmon smolt. That is a project 

that we are collaborating with. And we are dropping root balls into 

certain areas of the river to provide habitat and cover for the 

salmon smolt to protect them from predators. There is a tremendous amount of work that is ongoing today to identify the stressors 

that are in the system that are affecting the endangered species. 

Mr. COSTA. I appreciate that. Let me go on, because there are a 

lot of examples, as you noted, and others that I would like to submit for the purpose of the hearing that are collaborative efforts 

that we should acknowledge. 

Mr. Ibach, the impacts of your fishing communities are heartfelt, 

and I know of them from my colleagues. They are very similar to 

the stories that we have had during the height of the drought in 

our farm-working communities, where we have had unemployment 

levels as high as 40 percent, and close to 50 percent. So, the 

drought has had mutual negative impacts. 

When we look at the impacts of climate change, sea levels rising, 

the impacts of water temperatures—and you noted on the 

Sacramento River—and we had a great debate in the last year— 

between 56 and 57 degrees temperature on the cold water pool behind Shasta. I have seen historical maps of the Pacific Coast up to 

the Canadian border, up to Kamchatka Peninsula on salmon runs. 

And clearly, climate change is going to impact, notwithstanding our 

best efforts, would you not agree? 
57 

Mr. IBACH. Yes. I agree that climate change definitely plays a 

role, as well. 

Mr. COSTA. I mean, there are multiple factors in this. We have 

more population, we have rivers down the coast far below San 

Francisco that no longer provide the fishery resource that they 

used to because of a whole combination of factors and decisions 

that were made. Is that not the case? 

Mr. IBACH. Yes, it is multiple factors. But one of the key main 

factors is water. Salmon need water—— 

Mr. COSTA. No, I understand. But 40 years ago, we had 20 

million people in California. Today, we have 40 million people. By 

the year 2030, we are going to have 50 million people. I wish I 

could do something about that. Actually, I have. I have not contributed to that population growth. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COSTA. But the fact is it continues, so we have to deal with 

the reality. 

Mr. Udall, the law of the river—I studied a lot, your father was 

involved—do you think that is going to have to be revisited on the 

Colorado when California gets its water resource from Northern 

California, from the Colorado, and from the east side of the Sierra? 

One of the seven states. What is your thought? 

Mr. UDALL. There is a terrific opportunity with the negotiations 

that come up next year to redo the 2007 interim shortage sharing 

guidelines. And I think we have to look at every aspect of the law 

of the river during that 6-year period. 

Mr. COSTA. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. But obviously, 

this is a discussion that we need to continue. And your opening 

comments about attempting to try to put aside some of the politics 

that have made dealing with these issues difficult and providing 

solutions, I welcome, and I will work with you. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Costa. The Chair now recognizes 

Mr. Fulcher for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FULCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question for Mr. 

Diedrich. 

In my state of Idaho, I get feedback from our stakeholders quite 

frequently in regard to who really is making the decisions on water 

management. And as you know, the Western States Water 

Council—I think it is position 425—says that the state is to be the 

primary decision maker, or more local, on how the allocation, 

administration, and management of that water is to be handled. 

In reality, because of ESA—at least the stakeholders in my state 

frequently come to me and argue that, hey, look, that is really not 

what is happening here. 

So, (a) are you in line with that? Do you see some of those 

conflicts? And (b) if so, what types of reforms to ESA do you think 

we need to make, in order to allow more local control of administration of that water? 

Mr. DIEDRICH. That is a very difficult question. I believe that 

many of our stakeholders feel the same. It is a very complicated 

system, where the state and the Federal cooperate with the Federal 

agencies. In California, we have some very powerful state 

agencies—we have a California State Endangered Species Act also. 

Everybody has to collaborate on making decisions on operation of 
58 

the system. So, we need inter-agency and collaborative effort. They 

all need to work to the same goal. 

One of the things that would be helpful, I believe, is the FISH 

Act. I believe that if we can get Fish and Wildlife to have the anadromous fish species that are in commerce under one roof, it might 

be helpful. 

Mr. COSTA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FULCHER. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA. I think the point that Mr. Diedrich is making is important. And not that California is always a good example, because 

we have our own challenges, I believe. 

But Mr. Diedrich, we have been through this, you and I, for a 

long time. But if you could give some perspective to the gentleman 

as to that collaborative effort over the last 10 years, the last 5 

years, a descriptive as to whether it is getting better, worse, or the 

same. 

Mr. DIEDRICH. Well, I think certainly 5 years ago we had issues 

with—we had section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, for example, where we are managing each species individually. And a lot of 

the times what is good for one is not good for another. And if they 

are at a conflict, it is a problem. We have that problem with smelt 

and with salmon. 

So, we just feel like if we could get this all in one house, it might 

be managed a little bit more effectively. 

Mr. COSTA. Do you think the collaboration is getting better or 

worse? 

Mr. DIEDRICH. I think it is—I went on a Delta tour recently, and 

I was hopeful. I think some of this Biological Assessment and this 

activity that is going on right now with the President’s memo is a 

good thing. It is going to help—— 

Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. FULCHER. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Costa. So—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Reclaiming your time, Mr. Fulcher? 

Mr. FULCHER. I am, thank you, and just more of a statement 

than a question at this point. 

Mr. McClintock made a statement about the economic impact of 

the Ag. community—versus the fish and that component, economically. As I close up my amount of time, I need to echo that sentiment for my home state. 

And I would also like to point out that we have made some 

pretty good progress with salmon flows. Frankly, it has been our 

Native American population and the fisheries and hatcheries that 

have been very integral in developing and managing, and they 

have helped bridge that gap. 

But to think for a moment that we can sidestep the economic engine of our entire state by breaching and those types of things, we 

just simply have to find a smarter way. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you. And Mr. Costa, Mr. McClintock, 

the panel. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Orange County, Mr. Levin—Orange County being a place 

where they actually drink highly treated wastewater as part of 

their baseline water supply. And it looks pretty healthy, looks 

pretty good. 
59 

Mr. LEVIN. I have consumed it myself, Mr. Chairman, and I have 

lived to talk about it. 

I wanted to thank you for holding this hearing. As many of my 

colleagues here on the dais know, California has a complicated 

water system that faces sustainability challenges, given our changing climate. Snowpack is projected to lessen as the climate warms, 

and the state will see a larger percentage of its precipitation in the 

form of rain. 

With these changes and our continually growing population in 

mind, we must consider how to make our water resources more 

sustainable and reliable for our population centers. 

In my district, in North San Diego County, in South Orange 

County, we have a number of projects that are moving our communities toward a sustainable future. I am pleased to say that the 

Bureau of Reclamation recognizes the value of those projects, and 

that the Doheny Ocean Desalination Project and the expansion of 

Oceanside’s Mission Basin Groundwater Purification Facility are 

set to receive a combined $11 million from Reclamation. Together, 

these projects will increase access to locally sourced, great, clean 

drinking water. 

I am proud that the water agencies in my district are building 

toward the future in a way that will allow them to more 

sustainably manage their water supply. I am also encouraged that 

we are finally having a long-overdue discussion on climate change, 

and how it relates to water supplies. 

To Mr. Udall, as a scientist who studies the impact of climate 

change on water supplies, you may have seen reports that 

President Trump plans to establish a group at the White House to 

review climate science. The group would be led by William Happer, 

a physics professor who has no formal training as a climate 

scientist. 

In November 2017, Mr. Happer said—and I quote—‘‘It is not as 

though if you double CO2 you make a big difference. You make a 

barely detectable difference.’’ 

Mr. Udall, do you think Mr. Happer’s statement is scientifically 

accurate? And how would you respond to his assertion? 

Mr. UDALL. That statement is not scientifically accurate. 

When Chevron tells us that the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change is right, as it recently did, and when Exxon 

decides we need a carbon fee, I think the debate is over on whether 

or not this issue is a real issue, and we need to do something about 

it. 

Mr. LEVIN. Another quote from Mr. Happer in March 2016. He 

said, and I quote, ‘‘I am trying to explain to my fellow Americans 

the serious damage that will be done to us and, indeed, to the 

whole world by cockamamie policies to save the planet from CO2.’’ 

As a trained climate scientist, sir, how would you respond to 

that? 

Mr. UDALL. It is not correct. 

Mr. LEVIN. Finally, in November 2015, Mr. Happer said, and I 

quote, ‘‘If plants could vote, they would vote for coal.’’ 

As a trained climate scientist, how would you react to that? 
60 

Mr. UDALL. CO2 does, in fact, fertilize plants. But it causes a 

whole series of other problems, which we are now experiencing, including 50-plus inches from Hurricane Harvey, of which 40 percent 

was due to climate change. 

Mr. LEVIN. I appreciate your good work on behalf of evidence and 

climate science. And I would hope that others would acknowledge 

the overwhelming scientific consensus. And hopefully that will happen eventually in the White House, as well. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the other 

gentleman from the Central Valley, Mr. Cox, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COX. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

everyone, for being here today. 

There is probably no place that feels effects of climate change 

greater than the Central Valley of California. We have seen it in 

our shorter winters, our hotter summers, reduced precipitation, 

and certainly in the unreliability of our water supply. And our 

Nation’s water supply has been clearly impacted by climate change 

in my district, in California’s Central Valley, as Mr. Nelson well 

knows and previously testified. 

Everyone, from our farmers, our ranchers, and, most importantly, our rural communities, have been severely impacted by 

California’s last drought and the ongoing lack of water supply and 

access. 

Water supply reliability is an issue that affects every other issue. 

You can’t talk about health care without talking about lack of access to clean drinking water. You can’t talk about job security, you 

can’t talk about economic growth, or the stability of our communities without talking about a reliable water supply and long-term 

water storage. And the reality of it is that our way of life is completely determined by our access to reliable and clean drinking 

water. 

And this isn’t a partisan issue at all. We must find compromise 

and smart solutions to address our water supply reliability. That 

is why we were elected to Congress, that is why we sit on this 

Committee today, and it is why we are here today. 

So, with that, I have a few questions. 

Mr. Nelson, rural communities, as you pointed out, are especially 

vulnerable to running out of water during times of drought. They 

often rely on groundwater wells that tend to be relatively shallow. 

In recent years, many communities in my district have literally run 

out of drinking water and have had to rely on emergency bottled 

water deliveries. 

What specific impacts have you seen in the communities you 

serve in California from the drought? 

Mr. NELSON. Thank you for that question. It manifests as a 

human catastrophe. I mean, just imagine going home and having 

to take your children to a community portable shower in a trailer. 

That is the reality. 

There are also, as already has been pointed out, economic impacts. How can we expect our communities to thrive, when we can’t 

provide something as basic and fundamental as safe drinking 

water? 
61 

That is a public health crisis of our time, and it needs to be 

addressed. 

Mr. COX. Mr. Ibach, you said something that kind of piqued my 

interest. And if you could provide a little bit more color. When you 

said, ‘‘what Congress must do in order to save the Central Valley 

from itself,’’—could you give me a little more explanation on that 

statement? 

Mr. IBACH. I think that goes right along with the other 

communities. 

Another community that we failed to mention was that the inland community around the Sacramento River also relies on 

salmon, as well. There is a large portion of people, small communities up and down the entire river system, that benefit with more 

salmon in that river. 

Mr. COX. I appreciate that. But how does that go back to the 

Central Valley saving itself from itself? I mean, I am still unclear 

what you meant by that. I am not trying to put you on the spot 

or anything like that, but it is—— 

Mr. IBACH. I think that the point I was trying to make there, is 

that we need to further have better water management, all 

together. And we do need to work together. And the Central Valley, 

I think, obviously, needs to put—in my personal opinion—a lot 

more effort into our salmon stocks, because we are a dying 

industry. 

It has almost been a nail in the coffin for our industry and for 

a lot of people. So, I just can’t emphasize enough how bad we need 

water to really help salmon for—— 

Mr. COX. Well, fair enough. And I could tell you that the people 

I represent, the Ag. community, the rural communities, we are all 

looking for a collaborative approach, so it is not fish versus farms. 

And I think Mr. Diedrich could probably speak a little bit about 

that, with some of the conservation efforts that you are taking. 

And, if you wouldn’t mind, providing a little more color around 

some of the things that you do. 

Mr. DIEDRICH. Absolutely. One of the things Representative 

Napolitano had asked earlier was about whether or not we are engaged in reuse. And I would like to address that, because we are. 

There are some very large water supply projects, where we are 

taking the same water that Orange County is drinking and putting 

it back in the Delta-Mendota Canal. And we are using it for irrigation water, so we are using every available tool in the toolbox, as 

Representative Costa mentioned earlier, to try to produce a reliable 

water supply so we can continue to produce a safe and affordable 

food supply. So, absolutely. 

Mr. COX. Thank you so much. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. And Mr. Cox, just for what it is worth, I took that 

statement about saving the Central Valley from itself to mean that, 

in the absence of better water management, we will continue to see 

chronic groundwater overdraft, and the need for infrastructure 

repairs, and other things. 

But maybe at some point we can go into more depth into that. 

I think that there is a broader explanation of what that might 

mean. 
62 

Mr. COX. Yes. Frankly, it wasn’t a loaded—I wasn’t trying to 

make a point. I was just really trying to understand the context of 

the statement. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Absolutely. Well, let’s do this. We are going to 

close now, and I thank the witnesses and the Members for their 

engagement. 

But one of the things I would like to do before we do that, Mr. 

Gosar, who, I believe, is on this—no, he is not on this 

Subcommittee, but he has been in the past. He has this little thing 

when he chaired this Subcommittee, where he would close by asking each witness, in 1 minute or less, to say what is the question 

you were not asked that you wish you had been asked, and see if 

they can just close out with that 1 minute or less. 

Let’s do that, starting with Mr. Ibach here on the end, and we 

will give Mr. Udall the final word. One minute or less, what do you 

wish you had been asked, and what would you have said? 

Mr. IBACH. I really wish I would have been asked more about the 

impacts on our fishery, honestly, and the people that I represent. 

The fishing community has been in peril. We heavily rely on 

salmon in a big way. And I wish I could just have more time to 

elaborate on how bad our situation is in the fishing industry. 

A lot of salmon rivers, 80 percent of the water is taken away 

from salmon rivers, rivers that have salmon in them. That leaves 

a remaining 20 percent. I just can’t emphasize enough how bad we 

have been struggling, and how bad we need this water. Water 

going to the ocean is not being wasted. That water going to the 

ocean is a crucial key factor for the survival and the longevity of 

keeping salmon around, which we need. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Diedrich, what do you wish you 

had been asked, and what would you have said, in 1 minute or 

less? 

Mr. DIEDRICH. Well, I don’t know if it hasn’t been asked, but I 

have a few other things I can say. The issue for California agriculture is, obviously, the Central Valley, California overall, produces a safe and reliable food supply. 

And we believe that it is a national security issue, not only in 

the economic dollars involved with our production, but having the 

control of our own food supply, and having it be safe, and have it 

being produced under a highly regulated, sustainable system. 

There is no doubt that our water supply reliability is a prime factor 

in our ability to do that. And in order to produce a reliable water 

supply, we are going to have to deal with many, many other issues. 

Ag. has done its part in water conservation, water use 

efficiency—today we produce more food per drop of water than we 

ever have. We have increased our production incredibly. We take 

advantage of every door that we see open. Every tool available, we 

take advantage of. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. DIEDRICH. I just ask that this Committee do their work, do 

their job, and encourage Federal agencies and Federal water management to cooperate with the state and all the regulatory 

agencies. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Willardson? 
63 

Mr. WILLARDSON. I think I would emphasize the collaborative 

nature and the difficult choices that we are going to have to make, 

moving forward. 

I would mention, on the Endangered Species area and changes, 

Governor Kempthorne of Idaho—then Senator—and now the 

Western Governors, have a long list of recommendations for 

addressing endangered species. 

I would also point out that farmers are fishermen. Being in 

Utah, we do have some kokanee, but I don’t fish much for salmon. 

But I used to fish for trout. I think finding these economic and 

environmental balances are important. 

And Representative McClintock, one of my first papers 40 years 

ago, when I went to work for the Council, was on conservation. It 

does not create new water. But it is something that we have to look 

at. And it can be expensive. 

These are very site-specific issues. I live in the Salt Lake Valley. 

Utah is the second-highest per-capita water user, next to Nevada, 

in the West. And in Salt Lake City, I live next to the mountains, 

where we get our snowpack. Our supply is the snowpack. We don’t 

have to move it through large canals, as they do in California. We 

don’t have to treat it much. We live on lots, and we all have large 

families, which contributes to that. 

They are in the process of beginning to discuss metering my secondary water system, which I now have. And I pay a lot less than 

when I was using municipal water to irrigate my property. 

But it is really site-specific when you look at conservation, when 

you look at water supply, and you look at the costs and benefits. 

And we have to do that in a collaborative manner, recognizing 

everyone’s needs. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Willardson. 

Mr. Nelson? 

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Chairman. One question that comes to 

mind is how do we secure every American’s basic human right to 

water? 

As I have already shared, this is a public health crisis. It is happening under our watch. It is an environmental justice crisis. And 

because of climate change, it is only going to become more of a 

challenge. 

So, as already has been mentioned, we do need more funding for 

water infrastructure. But to go back to this concept of a portfolio 

approach, we would say that it needs to be a smart, protective, and 

environmentally just portfolio approach. And we need to act not in 

the future, not in any other moment. We need to act right now. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Very good. 

Mr. Udall, last word. 

Mr. UDALL. My question is what is the risk if the Colorado River 

Drought Contingency Plan is not put into place. And the risk is, 

if we empty Lake Mead, all bets are off. Water rights are meaningless at that point. We will have no rules for how this system operates. And the Federal Government will be in charge of allocation 

decisions, which should scare everyone. And they will be making 

these decisions without full understanding of the consequences. 

The DCP has to get across the finish line. 
64 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Very good. Well, thanks again to all of the 

witnesses. This hearing has helped spotlight some of the challenges 

we will have to manage now, and in the years to come to secure 

our Nation’s water supply. This Subcommittee will work hard and 

thoughtfully to craft policy solutions that promote water supply reliability for all affected stakeholders. And I thank our witnesses for 

joining us to inform that important work. 

Members of the Committee may have some additional questions 

for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing if that is the case. 

Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must 

submit witness questions within 3 business days following the 

hearing, and the hearing record will be held open for 10 business 

days for these responses. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the Committee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Cox 

STATEMENT OF THE SOUTH VALLEY WATER ASSOCIATION

The South Valley Water Association (SVWA) consists of nine irrigation districts 

that wield water for agriculture within the Central Valley Project’s (CVP) Friant 

Division. SVWA represents more than 400,000 acres of the world’s most productive 

farmland in the southern end of the Great Central Valley of California. Farmers in 

SVWA grow a diverse group of agriculture commodities including: cotton, grapes, 

oranges, and a variety of different nuts and dairy products. 

Collectively, the SVWA irrigation districts deliver up to 1 million acre-feet of 

water annually to farmers in the Central Valley. 

Water supply reliability in the San Joaquin Valley will require robust state, 

Federal and local investment in infrastructure, along with coordinated and balanced 

approaches to water management to ensure that one of the world’s most productive 

agricultural regions can continue to provide good jobs and safe, affordable food to 

all of the United States. 

SUBSIDENCE

Subsidence is an issue that plagues the entire state of California but nowhere are 

the impacts as visible as in the San Joaquin Valley. Because of subsidence, the 

Friant-Kern canal, which relies entirely on gravity to deliver water to communities 

and a total of 1 million acres of farmland, has lost roughly 60 percent of its carrying 

capacity, as the canal has literally sunk into the ground creating pinch points upstream of some of the largest users of water. These pinch points prevent the 

efficient movement of water and have caused severe economic impacts. 

As the state of California moves toward implementation of the Sustainable 

Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), the inability to efficiently move water 

through the Friant-Kern canal creates significant hurdles as it limits the ability to 

move water from Millerton Lake through to the southern end of the Friant service 

area. This part of the San Joaquin Valley has significant groundwater recharge 

potential, but it can only be fully realized if the infrastructure exists to deliver 

water during times when excess flows are in the system. 

The double-sided impact of subsidence is not just the inability to deliver irrigation 

and recharge water and gain the resulting benefits, but also that the diversion of 

that water into the Friant-Kern Canal is also part of mitigating flood impacts on 

the levy systems below Friant Dam. 

Subsidence is also not limited to just the Friant-Kern Canal. In 2017, the levies 

of the lower Kings River had sunk enough that flood releases threatened the communities of Huron and Tranquility. Scenarios like that will continue to play out in 

the San Joaquin Valley until the impacts of subsidence are addressed. 
65 

MULTI-BENEFIT PROJECTS

Farmers in the San Joaquin Valley will inevitably have to fallow land in order 

to reduce groundwater demand and meet the requirements of SGMA. Because of 

this, SVWA has developed a unique partnership with The Nature Conservancy 

(TNC) to advance multi-benefit land retirement projects. SVWA and TNC are in the 

process of implementing a strategic land retirement program to ensure that land retirement is done in a way that minimizes impacts to disadvantaged communities 

and creates ecosystem benefits. A scattered approach to land retirement will have 

severe socio-economic impacts and limit habitat connectivity. The program will identify lands for fallowing based on their habitat potential and will create habitat 

connectivity in a region that has historically been characterized by a checkerboard 

of farmland and habitat. 

Strategically retiring and restoring parts of the farming landscape to natural 

habitats, as opposed to leaving them fallow and unused or converting them to 

houses or industrial uses, could significantly increase the potential for recovery of 

dozens of endangered species in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Restoring former agricultural lands to natural habitats can also deliver other environmental benefits that provide tangible services for farmers and San Joaquin 

Valley residents. Restored lands can be a reservoir of abundant native pollinators 

needed for crop production and natural enemies of agricultural pests which can reduce the pest burden in many crops. Reducing the agricultural footprint may also 

help reduce air quality problems that are leading to chronic human health issues 

in the San Joaquin Valley, like high rates of asthma. Retiring and restoring targeted agricultural areas will create the possibility of reducing overall nitrate loading 

in groundwater over time that currently affects rural communities and contributes 

rates of birth defects that are higher than state averages. Further, it could also significantly contribute to helping the state meets its 2030–2050 targets for reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions a potential source of funding for landowners and water 

agencies to help defray the costs of lost production and restoration. 

HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS

SVWA recognizes that healthier fisheries lead to more reliable water supplies and 

that the two are not mutually exclusive. Farmers versus fish is a counterproductive 

approach that only fosters division—the traditional paradigm that more flows lead 

to more fish hinders progress. Science shows that efforts to improve fish populations 

should focus on habitat restoration, predator control and functional flows—flows at 

the right time and place, rather than additional requirements for minimum 

instream flows. Efforts to reactivate floodplains for fish in the Sacramento Valley 

have shown incredible promise and should be replicated on the Lower San Joaquin 

River. 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Napolitano 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515 

August 28, 2009 

Mr. Kenneth Salazar 

Secretary of the Interior 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

As chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, I have grave concerns I felt 

I must share with you. Please forgive the lengthy explanation; I felt it must be 

given. 

Drought in California is polarizing the state, taking up valuable time and 

resources resulting in considerable debate and finger-pointing as to who/what to 

blame. Thank you for recognizing that the issue is big enough and requires you 

dedicating high level staff to addressing the problem. 
66 

The quandary we face is to both reduce demand and increase supply. Historically, 

water developers have focused on increasing the size of the water pie. Developing 

new water supply takes years to accomplish (fifteen years by the Governors own 

estimate), costs billions of dollars, presently lacks public consensus, public and political will, and united support. Addressing the water equation by reducing demand 

has already resulted in extensive efforts in Southern California to reduce water consumption (local regulations), improving conservation efforts (low flow toilets and 

shower heads) and educating the public (PSA’s and notices in water bills). This has 

lessened impacts, but as the population continues to grow and the drought continues, the demand will increase beyond what conservation alone can provide. 

The California Congressional delegation is a diverse group. One thing that we all 

agree on is that the water crisis in California is significant, requires leadership and 

development of a solutions portfolio that builds upon our abilities to confront problems, and uses our innovation and ideas to mobilize the resources necessary to 

addresses the issues. Some of us have been giving the California water issue serious 

review and determined that the Subcommittee needed to explore options. 

What Does a Water Solution Look Like? 

Over the past two months I have had the Water and Power Subcommittee staff 

director, Dave Wegner, researching the issue and our potential roles. I have been 

briefed on initial findings and we will be briefing the subcommittee upon our return 

in September. We are offering our full assistance to address the long, mid and shortterm actions that can be taken to develop water solutions for California and, by 

learning from these efforts, provide opportunities for the rest of the Western United 

States. Our concern is that the drought of the last three years may continue into 

2010, possibly further. We need to implement actions now that will provide the 

ability to let the Department focus on the long-term solutions. 

Solutions to the California water crisis must be based on a diversified and 

dynamic approach, allow for appropriate planning and permitting that will ultimately allow delivery of water in a timely and cost effective manner. There is no 

one single ‘‘silver bullet’’ that will solve the water crisis. The challenge we face is 

to develop a cooperative approach that cumulatively will yield a diversified portfolio 

and strategy that will result in increased supply, reduced risk, and improved water 

security, sooner rather than later. 

It is indisputable and imperative that discussions and efforts directed at longterm solutions continue. At the same time, we must recognize that when creating 

new water from large water projects, all parties and all interests are defined by an 

immutable rule: the last dollar must be spent to get the first drop of water. The 

bottom line is that until we spend the last construction dollar, no one gets the first 

drop of water from any of these proposed projects. 

In the course of our research, we have asked state water leaders when new water 

supplies could be brought on-line, addressing the question, when does California 

achieve that ‘‘first drop?’’ The answers range from 2020 to 2030, depending on a 

plethora of unknown factors. In reality the year doesn’t really matter. The point is 

there is no immediate construction action that can be taken to create new water. 

Creating solutions to water demands must incorporate a range of ideas and approaches. Water managers must continue to explore, and analyze long-term 

solutions associated with the Delta, evaluating new water sources, including storage 

and conveyance. At the same time, it is equally imperative that a plan be adopted 

to address our immediate challenges. 

The Goal: Creating 1 MAF of Water for California in the Near Term 

Let me reiterate again Mr. Secretary, we want and are anxious to work with the 

Department on a portfolio of solutions for the water crisis in California. We want 

to look for solutions and approaches where Congress and the Administration can 

work collaboratively on solutions. As Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water 

and Power, I submit the following recommendations for immediate actions on your 

part, to address challenges to the California water crisis. Each is based on the concept of stretching existing water supplies in order to increase the amount of available water and does not require new legislation, only strong and decisive leadership. 

(1) Bureau of Reclamation to establish a 1 Million Acre Foot new water 

program 

• Grow new water in the State—throughout the State 

• Create, in the next 48–60 months, 1 MAF of new water annually 

• Develop this new water without regional water user or environmental conflict 
67 

• Accomplish this objective utilizing the Bureau’s Title XVI program, identified 

by the Commissioner on July 21, 2009, as part of Reclamation’s core mission. 

(We agree with the Commissioner’s statement made before the Subcommittee 

and believe that by working with 0MB we can develop support for funding.) 

(2) Bureau of Reclamation to establish a ‘‘Farmer Helping Farmer’’ 

Irrigation Efficiency Initiative 

• Make funds available to water districts, water agencies and individual 

irrigators to invest in on-farm irrigation efficiencies to stretch our existing 

available irrigation water. These funds could come from the Reclamation 

Rural Water Program and other funding vehicles identified in previous 

legislation. 

• Consistent with CVPIA and Reclamation law, allow districts or irrigators to 

sell, rent or lease water savings to other irrigators. 

• Implement improved and less bureaucratically cumbersome transfer 

incentives for farmers and water districts to allow the efficient and timely 

movement of water from and through existing facilities. 

(3) Bureau of Reclamation to establish ‘‘Water Conservation’’ Initiative for 

urban and rural water districts 

• Make funds available to water districts, water agencies and others as appropriate to invest in conservation efforts (i.e. irrigation methods, scheduling, 

land leveling, etc.) that stretch existing water supplies. These funds could 

come from the Reclamation Rural Water Program and other funding vehicles 

identified in previous legislation. 

• Consistent with CVPIA and Reclamation law, allow districts and/or irrigators 

to sell, rent or lease water saved to others. 

The objective of these recommendations is to stretch the water supplies we have. 

In the short term, we have adequate water supply to meet the needs of the State 

of California. What is lacking is the bureaucratic ability to efficiently move water, 

incentives for water right holders to allow for the efficient use of water, and leadership to address how to get it done. 

We can implement programs here and now to create 1 MAF of new water 

annually through Title XVI, and supplement that initiative with projects to stretch 

existing supplies throughout the State—from our cities to our farms. 

Recommendations requiring action: 

• The Interior Department and Bureau of Reclamation submit, 

urgently, a $250 million budget amendment to the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s budget for FY 2010 adding funds in the following 

amounts: 

Title XVI ............................................................................. $200 million 

Water Efficiency (Farmer-to-Farmer) .............................. $ 25 million 

Water Conservation Initiative .......................................... $ 25 million 

• OMB, Interior, the Administration, and others as appropriate and 

necessary, work with the House Budget Committee, Appropriations 

Committee, Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, Natural 

Resources Committee, and the Water and Power Subcommittee to 

implement this prior to when the Energy and Water Appropriations 

bill for FY 2010 is finalized in conference. Concurrently, coordinate with 

the appropriate Senate committees and subcommittees. 

• The Title XVI funds should go to develop a new generation of 

projects—throughout the State. The objective is to (a) fund projects 

not funded by the Stimulus Program; and (b) underwrite at least 40 

congressionally approved new recycling projects. Today, projects 

throughout Southern California—in LA, San Diego, Riverside, Orange and 

San Bernadino Counties are on track to develop approximately 500,000 acrefeet of new water annually. This program will double that—to produce 1 MAF 

of new water annually and do so within 48–60 months. 

While California puts 1 MAF water into service and on-line, long-term plans can 

proceed with the efforts of the Department of the Interior leading toward actions. 

California can manage our way through this challenge rather than be overwhelmed 
68 

by it. When the day arrives where California runs short of water, the direct and 

indirect costs will be measured in billions and the bureaucratic stress will increase 

exponentially. We need to act now and act in a concerted, strategic 

approach. 

What can be done immediately? 

Congress has provided tools so we can begin work now to resolve the water crisis. 

First, the Title XVI water recycling and water reclamation program can be the 

centerpiece of a constructive solution. As a result of investment in it, new wet, not 

paper, water can be created and placed in service throughout the State. Recycled 

water developed throughout California relieves pressure on the Delta, and, in turn, 

helps water districts and water users in the San Joaquin Valley, particularly those 

on the West Side, who have junior water rights and water entitlements. 

A $200 million investment in Title XVI automatically leverages an additional 

$600 million from the water districts and financial lenders. By law and policy, water 

districts are eligible for a 25% cost-share, not to exceed $20 million. This is the most 

cost-shared water resources program in the Federal Government. This investment 

stimulates new business, puts people to work, develops green jobs, 

produces 1 MAF of new water annually and helps the State manage its way 

through this water crisis. 

The bottom line to the Water and Power Subcommittee is that we believe that 

Congress has given the Department tools to address the California water crisis. We 

believe that solutions must include near, mid and long-term actions. And finally, we 

believe that cooperatively we can work with the Department to strategically plan 

for and implement actions that will result in water in the faucet, will work with 

local water districts, will put people to work, and will provide leadership in addressing long-term water planning and production. 

What we would like to Suggest. 

We respectfully request a sit down meeting to discuss these ideas with you, identifying what we can do to work with the Department in meeting the water needs of 

California, and doing so in a cost effective and environmentally sensitive manner. 

We look forward to your favorable reply and meeting with you in September. Please 

contact the Water and Power Subcommittee or myself to set up the meeting. 

Warm Regards, 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, CHAIRWOMAN

Water and Power Subcommittee 

***** 

ATTACHMENT 

Supporting Justification for Proposal Suggestions 

This request is consistent with: 

• Bureau of Reclamation Feasibility Study on Water Recycling in Southern 

California 

• Bureau of Reclamation Feasibility Study on Water Recycling in the Bay Area 

• State of California Task Force on Water Recycling 

• DWR’s Bulletin 160 

• MWD and SAWPA approved programs 

• Other? 

Water Recycling Benefits 

• Consistent with stimulus objectives 

• Creates green jobs 

• Provides for continuity of construction jobs in counties most impacted by the 

recession 

• Relieves pressure on the Delta, short-term and long-term 

• Consistent with reduced energy and lower carbon objectives 

• Provides drought relief 

• Consistent with climate change policy objectives 
69 

• Develops new water supplies (and does so without generating political 

conflicts) 

• Projects can be designed, approved, funded, constructed and operated within 

a short time 

• No other alternative can produce 1 MAF as quickly or efficiently. 

Farmer to Farmer Initiative Benefits 

• Allows farmers to develop and implement solutions locally 

• Can be accomplished with days, weeks and months . . . all short term 

• Proven technologies can be applied to modernize and improve water management locally 

• Maximizes flexibility to local districts and irrigators within their immediate 

regions 

Conservation Initiative Benefits 

• Fastest and least expensive way to ‘‘create’’ new water 

• Urban water agencies have a demonstrated capacity 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Van Drew 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515 

February 26, 2019 

Hon. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, Chairman, 

House Committee on Natural Resources, 

1324 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Dear Chairman Grijalva: 

Please excuse my absence for today’s Water, Oceans and Wildlife Subcommittee 

hearing on ‘‘The State of Water Supply Reliability in the 21st Century’’ due to a 

family emergency. 

Sincerely, 

JEFF VAN DREW, 

U.S. Representative, 

New Jersey—District 2 

Æ