U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

38-016 PDF 2008

H.R. 123, H.R. 2498 AND 

H.R. 2535 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 

Serial No. 110-45 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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

or 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Mary Fallin, Oklahoma 

Kevin McCarthy, California 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel 

Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chairwoman 

CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member 

Jim Costa, California 

George Miller, California 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Vacancy 

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

Ken Calvert, California 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Mary Fallin, Oklahoma 

Don Young, Alaska, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 ..................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

McMorris Rodgers, Hon. Cathy, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Washington ..................................................................................... 5 

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

of California ................................................................................................... 2 

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

Nunes, Hon. Devin, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Dreier, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, Oral statement of ....................................................................... 7 

Statement submitted for the record ......................................................... 8 

Garfield, Alec, Director, Water Resources Department, Tule River Tribal 

Council, Porterville, California .................................................................... 44 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2535 ........................................................... 46 

Green, Sargeant J. ‘‘Sarge,’’ Manager, Westside Resource Conservation 

District, and Consultant to the California Water Institute, Fresno, 

California ....................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2498 ........................................................... 33 

Jensen, Donald K., Director of Public Works, City of Santa Fe Springs, 

California ....................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement on H.R. 123 ............................................................. 15 

Larson, Philip Gregg, President, South Tule Independent Ditch Company, 

Porterville, California ................................................................................... 50 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2535 ........................................................... 51 

Moss, Richard M., P.E., Vice President for Water Resources, Provost 

and Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc., Visalia, California ...................... 38 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2498 ........................................................... 40 

Quint, Robert, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. ........................................... 9 

Prepared statement on H.R. 123 ............................................................. 10 

Oral statement on H.R. 2498 and H.R. 2535 ........................................ 52 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2498 ........................................................... 53 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2535 ........................................................... 54 

Whitehead, Michael L., President, San Gabriel Valley Water Company, 

and Board Member of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, 

West Covina, California ................................................................................ 11 

Prepared statement on H.R. 123 ............................................................. 12 

Additional materials supplied: 

Chronology of Events Affect CVP/SWP Water Supplies ............................... 66 

Fuentes, Charles P., City Manager, City of Pico Rivera, California, 

Frederick W. Latham, City Manager, City of Santa Fe Springs, 

California, and Steve Helvey, City Manager, City of Whittier, 

California, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 123 .......................... 67 

Newcomer, Hon. Owen, Mayor, City of Whittier, California, Letter 

submitted for the record on H.R. 123 ......................................................... 69 

Reynolds, David, Director of Federal Relations, Association of California 

Water Associations, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 2498 ......... 70 

Schafer, R.L., Tule River Association, Letter submitted for the record 

on H.R. 2535 ................................................................................................. 71 

Serrano, Hon. Joseph D., Mayor, City of Santa Fe Springs, California, 

Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 123 ............................................. 72 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 123, TO 

AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE 

SAN GABRIEL BASIN RESTORATION 

FUND; H.R. 2498, TO PROVIDE FOR A STUDY 

REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE INTEGRATED REGIONAL 

WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT WOULD 

ADDRESS FOUR GENERAL AREAS OF 

REGIONAL WATER PLANNING IN BOTH THE 

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER HYDROLOGIC REGION 

AND THE TULARE LAKE HYDROLOGIC 

REGION, INCLUSIVE OF KERN, TULARE, 

KINGS, FRESNO, MADERA, MERCED, 

STANISLAUS, AND SAN JOAQUIN COUNTIES, 

CALIFORNIA, AND TO PROVIDE THAT SUCH 

PLAN BE THE GUIDE WHICH THOSE COUNTIES USE AS A MECHANISM TO ADDRESS 

AND SOLVE LONG-TERM WATER NEEDS IN 

A SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE MANNER; 

AND H.R. 2535, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY 

OF THE INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A STUDY 

ON THE FEASIBILITY AND SUITABILITY OF 

CONSTRUCTING A STORAGE RESERVOIR, 

OUTLET WORKS, AND A DELIVERY SYSTEM 

FOR THE TULE RIVER INDIAN TRIBE OF 

CALIFORNIA TO PROVIDE A WATER SUPPLY 

FOR DOMESTIC, MUNICIPAL, INDUSTRIAL, 

AND AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES. (TULE RIVER TRIBE 

WATER DEVELOPMENT ACT) 

2 

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

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

1324, Longworth House Office Building. Hon. Grace F. Napolitano 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Napolitano, McMorris Rodgers, Costa, 

and Baca. 

Also Present: Representative Nunes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Good morning everyone. The meeting of the 

Subcommittee on Water and Power will come to order. The purpose 

of the meeting is to conduct legislative hearings on H.R. 123, a bill 

to authorize appropriations for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration 

Fund introduced by our friend and colleague, Congressman David 

Dreier of San Dimas. 

H.R. 2498, legislation that would provide for a study regarding 

the development of an integrated water management plan in both 

the San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake Hydrologic Regions introduced by our colleague and member of this Subcommittee, Congressman Jim Costa of Fresno. 

And finally, H.R. 2535, the Tule River Tribe Water Development 

Act, introduced by our colleague, Congressman Devin Nunes of 

Tulare County. 

First, let me begin by welcoming our members and especially 

friend and Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Congresswoman 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers. I welcome our guests to the Subcommittee today. Congressman David Dreier, who has been exceedingly helpful to us in getting some water bills introduced and 

passed, is here to introduce our witness to H.R. 123 from the witness table. Welcome, sir. 

Then we have—he is not here yet—Congressman Devin Nunes, 

who will be on the dais, and thank you all for being here. I ask 

unanimous consent that Congressman Nunes be allowed to sit on 

the dais with the Subcommittee this morning to participate in the 

Subcommittee proceedings, and he will abide by the same rules 

that we all have. 

I will begin the hearing with a brief statement and recognize 

members of the Subcommittee for any statement they may have. 

Any member who desires to be heard will be heard, and of course 

any additional material may be submitted for the record by members, by witnesses or by any interested party. The record will be 

kept open for 10 business days following today’s hearing. 

The five-minute rule with our timer will be enforced, and I don’t 

have to tell you that green means go, the yellow means you have 

a minute to wrap it up, and the red means stop, or I will stop you. 

3 

In today’s hearing, we will be considering the three water bills 

I have mentioned, and in my statement, I will focus specifically on 

H.R. 123, the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund, of which I have 

always been and will remain a strong supporter. 

The San Gabriel Restoration Fund was originally authorized in 2000, and since that time, Congress has appropriated over $68 million to aid state and local officials in cleaning up contaminated 

groundwater in the San Gabriel Basin and Central Basin in my 

area of Southern California. 

This critical legislation now seeks to authorize additional Federal 

funds for a number of reasons. They have found new contaminants 

that were not originally stated and the costs have been incremental, and there are several other reasons for this. 

To give you some historical perspective, the San Gabriel Basin 

has been plagued with contamination for over 30 years, and I have 

been involved with it for at least 20 of those 30 years first as a 

councilwoman, then as a state assembly person and now as 

Member of Congress. And for those many years, I have been frustrated by the cleanup activities plagued by in-fighting between 

Federal, state, and local over how to address the issues and who 

was to blame and then bringing those parties, including the PRPs, 

to the table. 

During the time the problem worsened, the plume spread into 

the Central Basin and additional contaminants began to emerge, 

and finally, the financial cost to adequately address the problem 

skyrocketed. 

Today, the basin is considered one of the most contaminated 

areas in the nation. With the authorization of this restoration fund, 

the Federal assistance provided has been a vehicle for Federal, 

state and local entities, including many of the PRPs for the contamination to come together to settle their differences. The restoration fund has helped construction of 13 treatment facilities, treated 

over 84,430 acre feet of groundwater and removed over four tons 

of contaminants and has been a catalyst in securing over $300 million from legal settlements. 

In the basin, the fund has also helped implement the Water 

Quality Protection Project, which has been successful in preventing 

the contamination from spreading further south into the Central 

Basin. Further, the contamination in Central Basin has also been 

at or below the maximum contaminant level for the last two years. 

While great strides have been made in both basins, much 

remains to be done. That is why H.R. 123 is before us today. I was 

very alarmed when I learned earlier this year that Central Basin 

Municipal Water District, the entity responsible for the Water 

Quality Protection Project, intended to shut the project down after 

two years. 

I have also received letters from the Cities of Pico Rivera, Santa 

Fe Springs and Whittier that receive water from the project expressing their position that the water still requires further treatment, and I am accepting these letters for the record. I share their 

concern. 

Groundwater contamination and the threat it poses to our water 

supplies is a top priority for me and the communities I represent, 

and for that matter Southern California, and the economies in 

4 

those areas. California pumps roughly 30 percent of its drinking 

water from groundwater sources. The plight of the cities in Central 

Basin makes me wonder if additional funds should be added to 

H.R. 123 so that the Water Quality Protection Project can continue. 

In today’s hearing, we will hear from the cities in the Central 

Basin as to why water treatment should continue and hopefully 

from the Bureau of Reclamation why they will not support this bill. 

I look forward to their testimony. However, I also want to make 

clear that I am a strong supporter of H.R. 123 in its current form 

and will not support any amendment that will hinder the movement of this bill. 

Finally, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on 

H.R. 2498 and H.R. 2535. And now I am very pleased to yield to 

my friend from Spokane, Ranking Member Congresswoman Cathy 

McMorris Rodgers, for her statement. 

[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Napolitano follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, 

Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Water and Power 

In today’s hearing we will be considering three water bills: H.R. 123, H.R. 2498 

and H.R. 2535. In my statement today, I will focus on H.R. 123, the San Gabriel 

Basin Restoration Fund, of which I am a strong supporter. 

The San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund was originally authorized in 2000, and 

since that time, Congress has appropriated over $68 million to aid state and local 

officials in cleaning up contaminated groundwater in the San Gabriel Basin and 

Central Basin in Southern California. This critical legislation now seeks to authorize additional federal funds. 

To give you some historical perspective on this issue, the San Gabriel Basin has 

been plagued with contamination for nearly 30 years now. I have been involved with 

this issue for 20 years—first as a City Councilwoman, then as a State Assembly 

Member, and now as a Congresswoman. For many of those years I was frustrated 

as cleanup activities were plagued by infighting between federal, state and local entities over how to address the issue and who was to blame. 

During that time the problem only worsened. The plume spread into Central 

Basin, additional contaminants began to emerge, and the financial costs to adequately address the problem skyrocketed. Today, the San Gabriel Basin is considered one of the most contaminated areas in the nation. 

With the authorization of the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund, the federal assistance provided has been a vehicle for federal, state and local entities, including 

many of the Potentially Responsible Parties for the contamination, to come together 

to settle their differences. 

In the San Gabriel Basin, the Restoration Fund has: 

• Helped fund the construction of 13 treatment facilities 

• Treated over 84,430 acre feet of groundwater and removed over 4 tons of contaminants, and 

• Been a catalyst in securing over $300 million in legal settlements. 

In Central Basin, the Restoration Fund helped implement the Water Quality Protection Project, which has been successful in preventing the contamination from 

spreading further south in Central Basin. Further, contamination in Central Basin 

has also been at or below the Maximum Contaminant Level for the last two years. 

While great strides have been made in both the San Gabriel Basin and Central 

Basin, much still needs to be done. That is why H.R. 123 is before us today. I was 

alarmed when I learned earlier this year that the Central Basin Municipal Water 

District, the entity responsible for the Water Quality Protection Project, intended to 

shut the Project down. I also received letters from the cities of Pico Rivera, Santa 

Fe Springs and Whittier that receive water from the Project expressing their position that the water still requires further treatment. I will submit these letters into 

the hearing record. 

I share their concern. Groundwater contamination, and the threat it poses to our 

water supplies, is a top priority for me and the communities I represent. California 

pumps roughly 30% of its drinking water from groundwater sources. The plight of 

5 

the cities in Central Basin makes me wonder if additional funds should be added 

to H.R. 123 so that the Water Quality Protection Project can continue. 

In today’s hearing, we will hear from the cities in Central Basin as to why water 

treatment should continue. I look forward to their testimony. However, I also want 

to make it clear that I am a strong supporter of H.R. 123 in its current form, and 

will not support any amendment that will hinder movement of this bill. 

Finally, I also look forward to hearing from our witnesses on H.R. 2498 and 

H.R. 2535. I am pleased to now yield to my friend from Spokane, Washington, 

Ranking Member Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers for any statement she 

may have. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CATHY McMORRIS 

RODGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am 

not sure what it means, but we kind of dressed alike this morning. 

We are working together. 

Today, we hear testimony on three bills aimed at improving 

water supplies in California. All of our Western states have water 

problems, but California’s water issues are clearly some of the most 

complicated. As we all know, California has major challenges about 

how to resolve long-term water supply problems. Recently, the Governor has proposed some bold initiatives, including water storage, 

to meet the state’s growing thirst. 

While California ponders how it should meet its needs, the Federal government can offer limited and targeted assistance where 

there is a clear Federal nexus. The three bills before us have such 

a nexus or a precedent for Federal involvement. 

Although I have some questions, I look forward to working to resolve these matters and with the bill sponsors move these bills 

through the legislative process. I look forward to hearing from my 

colleagues and from the witnesses who have traveled across the 

country to be with us today. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, ma’am. 

We will proceed to hear from the witnesses, and we have two 

panels. Certainly we have a few opening statements I believe. Mr. 

Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will withhold my 

opening statement to hear the witnesses and open on the measure, 

H.R. 2498. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Nunes, would you have an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DEVIN NUNES, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. NUNES. Madam Chairman, I will submit one for the record, 

but I want to thank you for the opportunity to be before your committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nunes follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Devin Nunes, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, on H.R. 2535 

Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers; 

Madame Chairwoman, thank you for providing me an opportunity to join the 

panel for the day to participate in a hearing on legislation I introduced which would 

meet the dire water needs of the Tule River Tribe. 

6 

The situation on the reservation could not be grimmer. Currently, the Tribe has 

six wells and a spring from which to pull water throughout the year. During lowwater months, the Tribe must truck water miles from the South Fork Tule River. 

This has led the Tribe to review its future water needs. They inevitably concluded 

that they could not meet their water needs without the construction of a reservoir. 

Therefore, the Tribe, together with interested parties, has been able to reach an 

agreement-in-principle on the magnitude of the Tribe’s reserved water rights. Indeed, this legislation has resulted in a unique situation in which the community 

worked together outside of the courts to find a solution to its water needs. This is 

a significant feat considering the highly caustic nature of water policy in California. 

Upon Congressional approval, the Settlement will finally establish the federally reserved water rights of the Tule River Tribe. 

It is important to move this process forward and authorize the study of a reservoir 

to store the negotiated water. Again, thank you for holding this hearing and I look 

forward to working with the members of this committee to address any outstanding 

issues. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You are welcome, sir. 

We will proceed then with the panels. The first panel will be on 

H.R. 123 and the second on H.R. 2498 and H.R. 2535. You will be 

introduced just before testimony, and once we conclude the testimony, we will go with the question and answer prior to proceeding 

to the next panel. 

All your prepared statements will be entered into the record, and 

all witnesses will be asked to summarize the high points of your 

testimony and limit your remarks, please, to five minutes. This 

goes for all the questioning for my colleagues, and if there are any 

additional questions that we don’t get through in the five minutes, 

then we probably will go to a second round. 

First, we will begin with H.R. 123, a bill to authorize additional 

funds for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund. First, we have 

Robert Quint, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Operations for the 

Bureau of Reclamation; Mr. Michael Whitehead, President of San 

Gabriel Valley Water Company and Board Member of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority. This is actually the second 

time you are appearing with us on the issue of groundwater contamination. You testified at a hearing we held in my district in 

April, and we welcome you. 

Third, Mr. Don Jensen, Director of Public Works for Santa Fe 

Springs, the city in my district, and last Mr. Jensen, accompanied 

by Mr. Aguilar, General Manager of the Central Basin Water Municipal District. 

I might remind the Bureau that we have repeatedly requested 

testimony be given to this Subcommittee in time for us to be able 

to read it and absorb it and be able to formulate questions, and 

again, they have not been submitted. May I request one more time, 

sir, that the testimony—and I know OMB may be kind of tied up, 

but let us see if we can’t get it in on time; if not, I want to put 

it in writing. 

Mr. QUINT. I will deliver that message. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

OK. I would like to first of all recognize my colleague, Mr. David 

Dreier, for a statement that he may have. 

7 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID DREIER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let me say 

that I came here to the Congress with Ronald Reagan, and by virtue of that, I am an eternal optimist. I was somewhat saddened 

when last November I lost my gavel as Chairman of the Rules 

Committee and we lost our majority, but I am always striving to 

find a silver cloud within that dark shadow of our having lost our 

majority and I found it this morning. Your silver head of hair there 

is a great silver cloud for me to see you as Chair of the Water and 

Power Subcommittee. 

I will say I am here testifying on behalf of your legislation, not 

my legislation, as I said to you when you came in, and the reason 

I say that is that H.R. 123 is a demonstration of bipartisanship at 

its best. We include our colleagues, Gary Miller, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Linda Sanchez, Hilda Solis, and Adam Schiff as co-sponsors 

of our legislation, and we have done that because of the fact that 

we all recognize that for the Federal government to step up to the 

plate and do what Mrs. McMorris Rodgers correctly said is a small 

part of this with a very important Federal nexus is the right thing 

to do. 

We are talking about $50 million, and about 13.5 percent of the 

share will be provided by the Federal government to deal with 

what clearly has been an issue that has a nexus, again, as Mrs. 

McMorris Rodgers said, to the Federal government. 

Why? Because as you referred to the perchlorate hearing that 

you had in the past, and we have been working together on this 

for a long period of time, it goes back to the 1950s when legally, 

in an attempt to win the Cold War, the Federal government had 

all kinds of defense contractors legally disposing of spent rocket 

fuel. And what happened? We saw that take place, and again, it 

was done legally, and it has created very serious problems. 

Now the cost of dealing with it, and I know this is a challenge 

with which we are all trying to contend, it had initially been projected to be about $320 million, and now it is up to a billion dollars. 

But you very correctly, Madam Chair, have said that we are talking about the lives of literally millions of Southern Californians, 

and we are also talking about the economy and all of the ramifications of that as we deal with it. So I am hoping very much that 

we will again see strong support of this. 

And I appreciate the fact that Mr. Costa, who I know is very intimately involved in dealing with water issues coming from the Central Valley of California, and my colleague, Mr. Nunes, who has 

been in and out of the room as we have proceeded with our work, 

I know you are dealing with their legislation, and I am looking at 

Mr. Quint’s bottle of Deer Park. I wasn’t offered one here. But everyone else has water here except for me, and I am not offended 

by that, but I do know how—thank you very much—I do know how 

important it is, Madam Chair. 

And there is no one who has been harder working at the forefront of dealing with water issues than Mike Whitehead. He is not 

just involved in California here representing the San Gabriel Basin 

Water Quality Authority, he has also been very involved as a leadVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:31 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\38016.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
8 

er in water issues as it relates to Arizona as well, and we are fortunate to have him. And I again congratulate all of you for the commitment to dealing with what is a very important multigovernment 

partnership in addressing a serious problem. So I am happy to welcome and introduce Mr. Whitehead. 

Madam Chair, I hope you will understand I will follow your legislation very closely as I hear about what we are doing here, but I 

hope you will excuse me as I go off to another meeting. And I want 

to thank you for beginning this meeting as punctually as I used to 

begin the Rules Committee meetings for the last eight years, which 

is unusual for this institution, so I appreciate that, and I am happy 

to recognize Mr. Whitehead. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dreier follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable David Dreier, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, on H.R. 123 

Madam Chair, It is great to be with you today. You and I have joined together, 

in a bipartisan way, for many years to deal with the very serious challenge of keeping our groundwater supplies safe for southern Californians. I am very proud to 

have you as an original cosponsor of this bill, and the support of our friends Gary 

Miller, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Adam Schiff, Hilda Solis and Linda Sanchez. I am also 

pleased to be here today to introduce Michael Whitehead, whose name is synonymous with water in the San Gabriel Valley, and so ably serves on the Board of the 

San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority. 

But first, let me just state that this bill before you, H.R. 123, is an important continuation of the successful federal-state-local partnership that already exists in providing one of the most basic necessities of life—clean drinking water. The bill extends the current authorization of the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund by $50 

million. While in the context of the entire federal budget, $50 million is not an overwhelming sum of money, it is still critical to evaluate the need to spend additional 

federal dollars, however great or small the number. 

I am proud to say that this partnership is an example of good stewardship of taxpayer money. Initially in 1999 when we first began the process for creating the Restoration Fund, the total cost of cleaning up the basin was estimated at $320 million. 

Congress created the Restoration Fund in 2000, with an initial authorization of $85 

million, or a 25% investment. To date, a little over $70 million has been appropriated, with approximately 83% of the cleanup provided by local sources and responsible parties, with about 12% federal funding. After recent evaluation of the 

total project, accounting for increased levels of detected contamination, increased 

energy costs and inflation, the total cost of cleanup now almost a decade later is 

approximately $1 billion. With a modest increase of $50 million, bringing the total 

federal investment to $135 million, or 13.5%, the San Gabriel Water Quality Authority and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation can continue jointly administering this 

clean up program. Their outstanding work is why this project is cost effective and 

such a huge success. In working with the WQA and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

over the past decade on this regional solution, there is no doubt that this increase 

is warranted and will be utilized in the most effective way to continue to provide 

safe drinking water. 

Now it is with pleasure I introduce to you, Michael L. Whitehead. Mike serves 

as President and Chief Operating Officer of San Gabriel Valley Water Company, 

headquartered in El Monte, California. Mike is also a member of the Board of Directors of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, having been first elected by 

groundwater producers in 2001. He has served as a member of the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster and Chino Basin Watermaster boards. Mike joined San 

Gabriel Valley Water Company in 1979 as Vice President and General Counsel and 

in 1989 was named president of the company. Since joining the company, he’s been 

actively involved in the management of the company and as General Counsel supervised the company’s general corporate legal matters, having devoted particular attention to matters involving water law, environmental protection, eminent domain, 

and public utility law. Prior to that, he represented Carnation Company in state 

and federal regulatory proceedings. Mike is also an officer and director of Fontana 

Union Water Company, a mutual water company, and Arizona Water Company, one 

of the largest investor-owned water utilities in the state of Arizona. In addition, he 

is a member of American Water Works Association, a director and past President 

9 

of the California Water Association, and is a member of the California Bar Association and its Public Utility Law Section. 

Thank you for holding this hearing, Madam Chair, and I look forward to our continued work on water clean up in the San Gabriel Valley. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir, very much for you presence 

and your comments and for your statement about—Mr. Dreier, 

David, your statement about how it was, and if it hadn’t been for 

you in the leadership beginning the process of the cleanup. You 

can’t take it, can you? 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. You see, we have been working together on a bipartisan basis for a long time on this issue. 

So I will now begin with the testimony from the panel, and I 

would first like to recognize Mr. Quint, the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Operations, and I would like to ask, where is Mr. Johnson 

today? 

Mr. QUINT. Mr. Johnson is in Portland, Oregon, for part of our 

effort to look at our organization. We have a Management for Excellence Stakeholders Meeting out there. It has been scheduled for 

several months, so he apologizes for not being here. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Tell him his apology is accepted, but I would 

like to see his nice shining face in our committee. Thank you. 

Mr. QUINT. I will deliver that message too. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT QUINT, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. QUINT. Madam Chairwoman, members of the Subcommittee, 

I am Bob Quint, Acting Deputy Commissioner for the Bureau of 

Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today to provide testimony 

on H.R. 123. 

Now H.R. 123 proposes to increase the cost ceiling authorization 

for the San Gabriel Restoration Fund by $50 million. The San Gabriel Restoration Fund was established by P.L. 106-554 as part of 

an effort to clean up large portions of the San Gabriel Basin located in Los Angeles County, California, that were designated as 

Superfund sites due to contaminated groundwater. 

The fund is used to reimburse the San Gabriel Basin Water 

Quality Authority and the Central Basin Municipal Water District 

for designing, constructing and 10 years of operating and maintaining groundwater cleanup facilities in the basin. 

Due to budgetary concerns, the administration is unable to support this bill at this time. While the San Gabriel Basin Restoration 

Fund is and will be used for important projects, an additional $50 

million in cost ceiling would further compete with Reclamation’s 

other authorized projects, including the needs of aging water infrastructure, water supply and delivery projects such as rural water, 

Title XVI and environmental restoration projects. 

As you know, our budgetary situation plays a large role in all of 

Reclamation’s testimony on legislation before this Subcommittee. 

To put it in perspective, Reclamation has several billion, with a ‘‘b,’’ 

dollars in current project authorizations that we are trying to fund. 

10 

This includes $2.3 billion in rural water projects, $328 million in 

Title XVI projects and more than $100 million of ecosystem restoration work in California alone. 

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quint follows:] 

Statement of Robert Quint, Acting Deputy Commissioner, 

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 123 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert Quint, Acting Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here 

today to give the Department’s views on H.R. 123, a proposal to increase the ceiling 

on funds authorized to be appropriated to the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund. 

The Administration does not support H.R. 123. 

Groundwater contamination was first detected in the San Gabriel Valley in 1979. 

Following this discovery, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated 

major portions of the region’s groundwater as Superfund sites. Between 1990 and 

1997, EPA identified Potentially Responsible Parties at the site who then engaged 

in negotiations with local water agencies and began initial design work on an EPAdeveloped basin-wide plan to set cleanup priorities. After reaching a detailed agreement with seven local water agencies in March 2002, design work was completed 

and construction work began. Construction of the four planned groundwater extraction and treatment facilities was largely completed in 2006. 

As part of this effort to clean up the groundwater contamination in the San Gabriel Basin and prevent the contamination from spreading into the adjacent Central 

Basin, the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund (Fund) was established in 2001 by 

P.L. 106-554. Originally established as a Defense Department account and subsequently transferred to the Interior Department, this interest-bearing account reimburses the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority (WQA) and the Central 

Basin Municipal Water District (District) for designing and constructing facilities 

that help with groundwater cleanup efforts in the Basin. The Fund is also authorized to reimburse the WQA and District for operating and maintaining these facilities for up to 10 years. A 35 percent non-Federal share is required for projects. This 

cost-share can be met by credits given to the WQA for expenditures used for water 

quality projects that have already been built in the San Gabriel Basin, in lieu of 

depositing the required 35 percent non-Federal share for these projects into the 

Fund. To date, the entire non-Federal share has been met by credits that have been 

certified by Reclamation. In Fiscal Year 2001, Congress appropriated $23 million for deposit into the Fund. 

The Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (P.L. 107-66), transferred administrative responsibility for the fund from the Secretary of the Army to 

the Secretary of the Interior, and appropriated an additional $12 million. Appropriations in Fiscal Years 2003-2006 brought the total deposits to the Fund to $68.75 

million. In addition, the Fund has accumulated over $ 2.5 million in interest. 

Reclamation has executed six grant agreements under the Restoration Fund authority. One grant agreement is with the Central Basin Municipal Water District, 

covering design, construction, operation, and maintenance of their facility, up to the 

$10 million ceiling established by the legislation for this component. The other five 

agreements are with the WQA. Four cover the design and construction of specific 

facilities, and the fifth agreement covers operation and maintenance of those four 

facilities. 

The total estimated cost of the project authorized by the legislation is about $204 

million. Based on this cost estimate, about $69 million would be allocated for the 

completion of the construction of all five facilities, and about $135 million would be 

allocated to fund the operation and maintenance of all five facilities for 10 years, 

as authorized. 

The San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund is and will continue to be used for important local projects. Reclamation must allocate its scarce budget toward funding 

already authorized projects within the agency’s traditional mission of delivering 

water and power in an environmentally responsible and cost-efficient manner, with 

emphasis on the needs of aging infrastructure, the safety of existing facilities and 

dams, and ongoing environmental restoration efforts. The Administration has not 

budgeted for the San Gabriel Restoration Fund in any of the preceding fiscal years. 

The Administration believes that resources should be allocated to achieving priorities within Reclamation’s traditional mission area and does not support the $50 

million cost ceiling increase proposed in H.R. 123. Reclamation, however, will conVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:31 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\38016.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
11 

tinue to work with the WQA and the District when possible to advance the goal of 

groundwater cleanup in the San Gabriel Basin. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity 

to comment on H.R. 123. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir, for your testimony, and I do 

have a lot of questions specifically dealing with why the Bureau 

does not request an increase in budgetary funds to be able to address the issues they have on their table. Thank you so much. 

Now I will move on to our second witness, Mr. Michael Whitehead, President, San Gabriel Valley Water Company, et cetera, et 

cetera. Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WHITEHEAD, PRESIDENT, SAN 

GABRIEL VALLEY WATER COMPANY, AND BOARD MEMBER 

OF THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY, 

WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WHITEHEAD. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and 

thank you to the members of the committee. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you mind, sir, Chairwoman? 

Mr. WHITEHEAD. Chairwoman. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITEHEAD. I am sorry. Madam Chairwoman, yes, indeed. 

Thank you for that welcome. 

It is indeed a privilege to come before your committee today and 

speak in favor of the passage of H.R. 123. As Congressman Dreier 

so eloquently put it, it has been a very important contribution to 

the well-being of the public health and safety of the citizens of the 

San Gabriel Valley. 

I might point out for the committee’s information that the San 

Gabriel Basin groundwater aquifer underlies about 167 square 

miles of the San Gabriel Valley. It is a very rich and abundant renewable and sustainable source of local water supply for over 1 

million people in that part of Los Angeles County. Indeed, it could 

sustain even larger populations as a groundwater storage facility. 

That is the good news. We are blessed with that very abundant 

renewable resource, the good news. The bad news is, as we have 

heard earlier today, that that has been contaminated, and unfortunately, that has been the unfortunate legacy of unregulated discharges from defense and other related industries and a legacy of 

the Cold War era. 

With the adoption of the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund, we 

have been able to begin the process of cleaning that basin, but 

much more work is required, much more work needs to be done. 

The fact of the matter is, and I think other witnesses will bear me 

out on this, is that even though we have initiated some very important groundwater cleanup projects to date with the assistance of 

the restoration fund, much, much more work remains to be done. 

And quite frankly, with the impending limitations of imported 

water from Northern California through the State Water Project 

and the reallocations and the reductions of water supplies available 

from the Colorado River, we have no choice but to make sure we 

rely to the fullest extent possible on local renewable resources like 

the water in the San Gabriel Basin. But we need help to make sure 

12 

that water can be cleaned up and assure to our public that relies 

on that water that it meets all safe drinking water standards. That 

is an absolute imperative. 

Quite frankly, I am concerned. I am concerned with the confluence of water restrictions, drought which appears to have no end 

right now and our lack of access to this local supply that we may 

be facing a clear and present public health and safety crisis. We 

cannot allow this to happen. It is like watching a train wreck about 

to happen. We need to take action. 

I would like to reiterate my extreme gratitude to you, Madam 

Chairwoman, and the members of the committee and Members of 

Congress who have been unwavering in their support for assisting 

us, helping us to help ourselves to restore this very important 

water resource. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitehead follows:] 

Statement of Michael L. Whitehead, Director of the 

San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, on H.R. 123 

Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman, Committee members, and staff. My name 

is Michael Whitehead, and I am a member of the Board of Directors of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority. Let me first express my appreciation to you 

Madam Chairwoman, as well as Representatives David Dreier, Hilda Solis, Adam 

Schiff, Gary Miller, Lucille Roybal-Allard, and Linda Sanchez for your unwavering 

support and assistance in helping to restore the San Gabriel Groundwater Basin. 

The San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority was created and authorized by 

the California State Legislature in 1993 to address the critical need for coordinated 

groundwater cleanup programs in the San Gabriel Basin after harmful amounts of 

contaminants were detected in the region’s groundwater. The Water Quality Authority is committed to protecting public health and safety by prioritizing, facilitating, 

and coordinating groundwater cleanup and supply programs with local water suppliers and the U.S. EPA, while minimizing local financial and economic impacts, including impacts on consumers who rely on local groundwater supplies from the San 

Gabriel Groundwater Basin. 

The San Gabriel Basin underlies 167 square miles of the San Gabriel Valley. The 

San Gabriel Basin holds hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of local, renewable, public drinking water supplies. In fact, the San Gabriel Basin is capable of providing 

a reliable, local drinking water supply for the more than one million people who reside and work in the San Gabriel Valley—as long as we are able to implement effective groundwater cleanup to remove the contaminants. 

In December of 2000, thanks to the leadership of Representative Dreier and the 

other members of the San Gabriel Valley Congressional Delegation, Congress enacted the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Initiative in Congress. Representative 

Dreier and his colleagues moved to establish the Restoration Fund as a means of 

expediting the remediation of groundwater contamination caused by industrial solvents and rocket fuel contaminants such as perchlorate. The Restoration Fund, 

which is administered cooperatively by the Water Quality Authority and the Bureau 

of Reclamation, uses Federal and non-Federal monies contributed to the San Gabriel 

Restoration Fund to design, construct, and operate facilities to contain and treat the 

spreading groundwater contamination in the San Gabriel and Central Groundwater 

Basins. 

The Water Quality Authority has benefited tremendously from the Restoration 

Fund by enabling us to continue the collaborative approach of merging cleanup with 

water supply and allowing us to leverage Federal dollars and local funding to bring 

all parties to the table and work in a manner that addresses multiple issues at the 

same time. The Restoration Fund has provided an incentive for the Responsible Parties in the San Gabriel Basin to participate in the cleanup and to reach funding 

agreements with affected water suppliers. It has also allowed the Water Quality Authority and the affected water suppliers to fund projects even before Responsible 

Parties could be identified or when Responsible Parties are no longer viable, cannot 

be located, or are recalcitrant. Without this Federal funding the likelihood for additional well closures would be great, leaving only the option of turning to costly and 

already overburdened imported water supplies. 

13 

Since the Restoration Fund was made available to the Water Quality Authority, 

we have received $71.5 million through the Bureau of Reclamation’s construction account. The Water Quality Authority has allocated the use of these funds to 32 

projects throughout the Basin, 21 of which have been completed, with another 8 currently under construction. To date these efforts have helped to remove over 20 tons 

of contaminants, and treated nearly 313,000 acre-feet of groundwater. 

For example, with the completion of four major groundwater cleanup projects developed and implemented through the Water Quality Authority with the cooperation 

of local water suppliers, participating Responsible Parties, and the U.S. EPA, we remove perchlorate and other toxic chemicals from groundwater at the rate of 24,000 

gallons per minute on a 24/7 year-round basis. These projects will continue to provide safe drinking water to residents and businesses in Baldwin Park, La Puente, 

West Covina, the City of Industry, and surrounding areas for decades to come without burdening the public with higher water bills. Even so, a great deal more effort 

and cleanup is still required. 

Earlier this year, in recognition of the tremendous success of the Restoration 

Fund and the need to continue the local cleanup efforts, Congressman David Dreier 

and his colleagues in the San Gabriel Valley Congressional Delegation introduced 

H.R. 123. This legislation would increase the authorization ceiling on the Restoration Fund by $50 million from its current level of $85 million. This additional funding would allow us to continue the progress we’ve made and avoid costly litigation 

that only serves to slow down the cleanup. 

Without future Federal assistance for the treatment facilities, local water suppliers would be forced to shut down water wells due to migrating contamination. 

The closures would force purveyors to become reliant on imported water, which 

would come mainly from the Colorado River and the State Water Project. And as 

you may know, California’s water allotment from the Colorado River is being cut 

back, and deliveries from the State Water Project are seriously restricted. This 

would severely impair our ability to provide water for the residents and businesses 

in the San Gabriel Basin. With your help we have the opportunity today to make 

certain these closures don’t occur, while ensuring our water suppliers have a safe, 

abundant, and sustainable water supply to draw from in the years to come. 

Water from wells in the San Gabriel Valley is relatively inexpensive to pump and 

supply to homes and businesses in comparison to imported supplies from the Colorado River or northern California. The current price for an acre-foot of treated, 

ready-to-drink Colorado River water in the high-demand summer period is $549, 

subject, of course, to its availability. The typical cost to pump and treat an acrefoot of local San Gabriel Basin groundwater is $65 to $250 depending on the levels 

and types of contamination being treated. 

It is vital that we continue our efforts to restore the San Gabriel Basin aquifer. 

Once we are able to remediate the contamination, it is our belief that the local 

groundwater basin will be able to meet all of the San Gabriel Valley’s water needs. 

Removing harmful contaminants from our communities’ groundwater supply will 

allow local water suppliers to better meet the needs of local residents at affordable 

rates and make certain that the Basin is able to meet the water supply needs of 

future generations. The Federal assistance provided by the Restoration Fund allows 

us to carry out our mission of facilitating groundwater cleanup and providing a 

clean, reliable, drinking water supply for the over one million residents of the San 

Gabriel Basin. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify on the successes and on-going progress of 

the cleanup of the San Gabriel Basin today and the importance of H.R. 123 to our 

future. I would be happy to answer any questions to that you may have. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Whitehead, and that was very 

well done, sir, within time. 

I do like to again stress the importance of what this project 

means to the whole Southern California area and the facts, as you 

have well stated, of our decrease of take from the Colorado, the 

pending judge’s decision on the Bay Delta, together with the 

drought, you are right, we have no choice. Thank you, sir. 

I will move on to our next witness, Mr. Donald Jensen, Director 

of Public Works from Santa Fe Springs. Your first time, sir. Welcome. 

14 

STATEMENT OF DONALD JENSEN, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC 

WORKS, SANTA FE SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA; ACCOMPANIED BY 

ART AGUILAR, GENERAL MANAGER OF THE CENTRAL BASIN 

MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, AND AL CABLAY, DEPUTY 

DIRECTOR, PICO RIVERA, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. JENSEN. Good morning, Chairwoman Napolitano. It is good 

to see you again, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers and other 

members of the Subcommittee. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear today before you on behalf of the residents of 

Santa Fe Springs, Pico Rivera and Whittier and also the 2 million 

residents that live within the Central Basin Municipal Water District service area. We very much appreciate the committee being a 

strong advocate for clean and safe water for the residents of the 

San Gabriel Valley. 

I would like to recognize Mr. Art Aguilar, who is the General 

Manager of the Central Basin Municipal Water District, and Mr. 

Al Cablay, who is the Deputy Director of Pico Rivera, who have 

joined me today. 

For nearly 30 years, the Federal government and local agencies 

have worked together to address a plume of contaminated water 

moving out of the upper San Gabriel region. The goal of Central 

Basin and its cities continues to be to clean up and contain the 

compounds that are part of this contamination. 

We very much appreciate the efforts of your Subcommittee in helping us achieve the first step, which was to get $10 million in 

appropriations back out of the 106th Congress. Six point five million of that money went toward the construction of the WQPP, with 

the balance going toward operation expenses. But our mission is 

not over, and we respectfully request that you consider including 

additional funding in the amount of $11.2 million so that we may 

keep the WQPP operating. We believe the additional funds would 

fulfill the recommendations made in the EPA 2001 design report. 

As you know, contamination in this area was first found in 1979. 

EPA followed up with a lot of field work, and in 2001, a remedial 

facility was built in the Whittier Narrows area. The purpose of the 

facility was to clean up contamination from the Whittier Narrows 

area and to prevent contaminated groundwater from moving into 

the Central Basin area. 

However, even before the construction of the Whittier Narrows 

plant began, groundwater data showed that PCEs and TCEs exceeded the maximum contaminant level in wells south of the Whittier Narrows Dam. Additionally, the contaminated water had migrated past the site of the Whittier Narrows extraction wells. 

The San Gabriel and Rio Hondo spreading grounds are south of 

the Whittier Narrows. These spreading grounds are operated by 

Los Angeles County and utilize stormwater, imported water and recycled water to replenish the groundwater supply. It is for that 

very purpose that Central Basin and the cities continue to be concerned that the contamination may have a dire impact on the 

water quality for our area. 

The WQPP was constructed to monitor and intercept and treat 

contaminated water. We are pleased to say that over the past two 

years, contamination levels have been below the maximum contaminant level. However, as the plume still exists north of our 

15 

area, we continue to be concerned about its proximity and its potential for harming the Central Basin area and the cities that we 

are in. 

In 2001, the three cities entered into an agreement with Central 

Basin regarding the purchase of treated water from the facility. We 

have made a commitment to take a quantity of water on an annual 

basis that represents almost a $900,000 commitment by the cities. 

In May of 2007, after almost three years of operating the WQPP, 

Central Basin announced that it was considering taking the WQPP 

out of service. They cited two reasons for stoppage and production. 

First, the levels of volatile organic compounds that were originally 

cited to be a concern had not exceeded maximum allowable levels, 

and second, operating costs were found to be higher than expected. 

Central Basin met with the three cities. We agreed to form a 

partnership and try to keep the facility running. Given the financial, the substantial financial investment in the Whittier Narrows 

project and the WQPP, if the WQPP facility is shut down and maximum contaminant levels are exceeded in the future in the area 

south of the Whittier Narrows Dam, it would leave our cities, 

which are essentially on the front line of this battle, without a defense and pose a serious threat to the water quality in the entire 

Central Basin area. 

Therefore, on behalf of the cities of Santa Fe Springs, Pico Rivera 

and Whittier, we respectfully ask that the Subcommittee include 

$11.2 million in additional funding in H.R. 123 for continued operation of the WQPP. The cities believe this funding is critical to the 

continued protection of water quality for the 2 million people in the 

Central Basin area. That concludes my statement, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jensen follows:] 

Statement of Donald K. Jensen, Director of Public Works, 

City of Santa Fe Springs, California, on H.R. 123 

Thank you Madam Chair for that very kind introduction. 

Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member McMorris-Rodgers, and other members 

of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear today on behalf of the 

165, 000 residents of Santa Fe Springs, Pico Rivera and Whittier and the additional 

2,000,000 residents served by the Central Basin Municipal Water District (appendix 

A). 

Thank you for being such strong advocates and fighting for clean and safe water 

for the residents of the San Gabriel Valley. I would also like to recognize Art 

Aguilar, General Manager of Central Basin Municipal Water District and Al Cablay, 

Deputy Director of Public Works for the City of Pico Rivera. 

For nearly 30 years, the federal government and local water agencies have been 

working to address an underground plume of contaminated water that has been 

slowly moving southeast from the Upper San Gabriel Valley region, which is a 

Superfund site (appendix B). The contamination resulted from the release into the 

soil of volatile organic compounds such as chemicals used for degreasing, dry cleaning and metal cleaning. 

The goal of Central Basin and the cities it represents, including Santa Fe Springs, 

Pico Rivera and Whittier continues to be clean up and containment of the compounds. We very much appreciated your efforts during the 106th Congress when we 

initially received authorization to fund containment efforts in the San Gabriel Basin 

and Central Basin. That legislation initially provided $10 million to fund the Central Basin Water Quality Protection Project (WQPP), I have attached for your review a brief summary of how that money was spent over the past six years (appendix C) but approximately $6.5 million went toward construction with the remainder 

of the money going toward operations. That funding was critical to protecting over 

2 million people from the potential contamination migrating south from the upper 

San Gabriel Valley region. But our mission is not over and we respectfully request 

you consider including us for additional funding of $11.2 million as this subVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:31 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\38016.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
16 

committee considers H.R. 123. Our proposed use of these additional funds is detailed in appendix D and would fulfill the recommendation made by the EPA in 

their 2001 design report. 

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the 

initial discovery of contamination occurred in 1979. EPA began investigating 

groundwater in the Whittier Narrows area of the San Gabriel Superfund sites in 

the late 1980s. A remedial investigation was completed in 1992, and from 1997 to 

1998, increasing levels of volatile organic compounds led to additional fieldwork by 

EPA. 

Design of a remedial facility in the Whittier Narrows area was completed by 

USEPA in 2001 and construction of extraction wells, conveyance pipelines, and a 

treatment plant began in 2001 and was completed in May 2002. The purpose of the 

treatment facility was to clean up contamination in the Whittier Narrows and to 

prevent contaminated groundwater from moving into the Central Basin. 

However, even before construction of the Whittier Narrows plant began, groundwater monitoring data showed that the level of PCEs (tetrachloroethylene) exceeded 

the maximum contaminant levels in wells south of the Whittier Narrows Dam. Also, 

the underground plume of contaminated water had already migrated past the site 

of the Whittier Narrows extraction wells. Moreover, the Whittier Narrows treatment 

plant did not become fully operational until December 2005. 

The San Gabriel and Rio Hondo Coastal Spreading Grounds are located south of 

the Whittier Narrows Dam and are adjacent to the cities of Pico Rivera, Whittier, 

and Santa Fe Springs. These spreading grounds, operated by Los Angeles County, 

utilize storm water, imported water and recycled water to replenish the groundwater supply in the Central Basin. Thus, we have been concerned for many years 

that the source of drinking water for these cities as well as the entire Central Basin 

service area could be contaminated by the underground plume of contaminated 

water migrating south from the Whittier Narrows area. 

In response to concerns over the contamination, the Southeast Water Coalition 

(SEWC), a joint powers authority was formed, in part, by local cities and the Water 

Replenishment District (WRD) to advocate for the protection of the regional water 

supply. The Cities of Pico Rivera, Whittier and Santa Fe Springs are still members 

of SEWC. SEWC was then, and is now, very concerned about the migration of the 

underground plume into the Central Basin and the Montebello Forebay service 

areas. SEWC approached Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD) in 2001 and requested the District’s assistance regarding the issue. Subsequently, the $10 million appropriation we received through the Bureau of Reclamation for the WQPP 

meant that local cities and consumers were not penalized for the contamination by 

being required to pay for the WQPP. 

The WQPP was constructed to monitor and intercept water entering the Central 

Basin from Upper San Gabriel Valley region. Central Basin designed and constructed two extraction wells, a treatment facility, and distribution lines, all located 

in the City of Pico Rivera. We work closely with our contract operator and test lab 

firm to conduct monthly testing and we are pleased that over the past two years 

contamination we are seeing is below the maximum contaminant level. However, 

the plume is north of the WQPP which puts us in a position to safeguard the water 

quality if for any reason the Whittier Narrows remediation facility becomes inoperable for any reason. I have attached for your reference data with containment reads 

from 2004 to March of this year (appendix E). Notwithstanding what we have seen 

over the last two years, the unpredictability and location of the contaminant plume 

continues to be a matter of great concern to the Cities of Santa Fe Springs, Pico 

Rivera and Whittier. As our three cities are located at the northern edge of the Central Basin service area, we are literally on the front line in this battle. 

In 2001 the three cities entered into agreements with Central Basin regarding 

purchase of the treated water from the WQPP project. Under the agreement, the 

Cities agreed to convey a certain amount of their water rights to the Central Basin, 

which pumps the conveyed rights from the extraction wells and treats the pumped 

water. Collectively, the three cities have made a commitment to take up to 4600 

acre feet of water annually from the WQPP. This represents a financial commitment 

of approximately $870,000 by the cities. 

In October 2004, Central Basin received its domestic drinking water permit and 

the facility went into operation in and began to distribute in December 2004 the 

treated water to the cities of Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs and Whittier. 

In May 2007, after nearly three years of operating the WQPP, Central Basin announced that it was considering taking the WQPP out of service. Central Basin cited 

two reasons for the stoppage in production: the levels of volatile organic compounds 

that were originally cited to be a concern had not exceeded allowable levels for the 

17 

last two years; and, operating costs were much higher than expected. Central Basin 

met with the three impacted cities and it was evident they were concerned about 

the potential threat to groundwater in the Central Basin. In order to keep the facility in service, the cities and Central Basin agreed to work together regarding formation of a joint powers authority (JPA). 

Groundwater monitoring data from the WQPP shows that allowable levels of volatile organic compounds have not been exceeded during the last two years; however, 

the cities and Central Basin believe the prudent course would be to continue operating the WQPP due to the potential harm to Central Basin and the Montebello 

Forebay from the underground plume of contaminated water. The original 2001 design report for the WQPP recommended continuous pumping would be required for 

up to 7 years assuming that EPA begins operation of the containment extraction 

wells in the Whittier Narrows within 2 years. However, the Whittier Narrows treatment facility did not become fully operational in 2003 as anticipated; as stated previously, that occurred in December 2005, after the WQPP became operational. As 

a result of this delay, the continuous pumping recommendation made by the EPA 

would carry our operation into 2014, which is why we are requesting additional 

funding by amending H.R. 123 to include us. 

Again, given the substantial federal investment in both Whittier Narrows and 

WQPP, if the WQPP facility is shut down, and maximum contamination levels are 

exceeded in the future in the area south of Whittier Narrows Dam, it would leave 

the cities with no recourse and would threaten water quality in the Central Basin. 

Therefore, on behalf of the cities of Santa Fe Springs, Pico Rivera and Whittier, 

we strongly urge the subcommittee to include $11.2 in additional funding in 

H.R. 123 for continued operation of the WQPP. The cities and Central Basin believe 

this funding is critical to the continued protection of water quality for the more than 

2 million people living in and around the impacted cities. 


38016.005.eps
18 


38016.006.eps 38016.007.eps
19 


38016.008.eps
20 


38016.009.eps
21 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Jensen. 

Mr. Aguilar, do you have any statements for the record? 

Mr. AGUILAR. No. I am available to answer questions of the committee and to support Mr. Jensen, and we do believe that the 

WQPP is strongly needed, still needed within the community, and 

are glad to be working with the cities on continuation of this 

project. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. And for those that might not 

know, there is a rendering on our right, your left, in regard to the 

wells and where the spreading grounds are and how it has already 

managed to penetrate the spreading grounds. 

Some 15 years ago, I got involved in this issue, and we knew that 

it was coming, and for whatever reason, as I explained before, it 

didn’t get addressed in time to keep it from going past the spreading grounds and has been a problem for our communities. 

What you really haven’t addressed is that the spreading grounds 

then flow to many cities below that will affect their drinking water 

supply if that were to continue to effectively pollute the aquifers 

that feed the wells that the cities use south of my area. So it is 

really a key issue for not only our area but those below us in the 

many cities and the millions of people that live below us too. 

So with that, let me move forward to questions. Cathy? 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Question for Mr. Whitehead. I understand that the bill is increasing the 

Federal authorization for another $50 million. The question is, how 

much does this represent in comparison to what the state and local 

entities and other companies are paying into the cleanup? 

Mr. WHITEHEAD. That is a very good and timely question. The 

first part of your question is what portion of the total cost is being 

borne by the State of California. Unfortunately, we have been far 

less successful in obtaining financial commitment from the State of 

California. I can assure you it is not for lack of effort. A great deal 


38016.010.eps
22 

of effort has been extended. We think that progress is right now 

being made in the California Legislature’s Special Session on 

Water Issues. I have reason to believe that a great deal of attention 

is being focused on groundwater contamination not only in the San 

Gabriel Valley but elsewhere in the state, including the inland and 

Fontana/Rialto area. 

I am cautiously optimistic that the state will take up more of the 

responsibility for this, and I can assure you that we are devoting 

an extraordinary amount of time and resources to help make that 

happen. 

The other part of your question, I am very pleased to report that 

we have been uniquely successful in drawing funds from the responsible parties, and I might add that we have achieved that success with a minimum amount of costly, time-consuming litigation. 

Part of that success I think is in large measure the product of the 

Water Quality Authority’s ability to marshal numerous resources 

and numerous constituencies. 

Certainly the restoration fund is an enormous incentive for the 

polluters to step forward and put their money up. After all, as Mr. 

Dreier pointed out, the Federal portion has to be matched by nonFederal sources in order to qualify for the restoration funding, and 

we have achieved literally hundreds of millions of dollars in commitments and actual payments from the responsible parties to back 

up the funding from the restoration fund and to provide the nonFederal source. 

Also, the authority itself has been able to raise funds and to 

apply that to the planning and development, construction and even 

operation of water treatment facilities, taking early action when 

polluters couldn’t be found to assure that large quantities of contaminants are removed from the groundwater to either prevent or 

minimize the migration of those contaminants, as we have heard, 

across the Whittier Narrows. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. What is your current estimation as to 

when the cleanup will be completed for purposes of Federal funding? 

Mr. WHITEHEAD. The unfortunate aspect of the San Gabriel Valley, as I mentioned in my remarks, is that it covers 167 square 

miles. It is a big place. If you add onto that portions of the Central 

Basin, it goes up exponentially. 

The EPA declared the area a Superfund cleanup site and divided 

it into five or six, maybe seven, subareas called operable units. 

That is a lot of jargon to mean that the EPA attacks the contamination in the various parts because it doesn’t all come from the 

same source. It comes from multiple sources in that area. So it is 

very important that we continue to plan. 

I might add that the water authority’s role in large part has been 

planning and developing remedial solutions. I wish I could give you 

a definite and certain answer. My guess is it won’t be sooner than 

10 years. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. OK. Very good. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I am familiar with the challenge that the San Gabriel faces, and 

you have for many years been a tremendous advocate and spoken 

23 

with great passion as to the desire to address the challenges of this 

groundwater resource, and I certainly am supportive of your efforts 

and frankly feel that this groundwater basin, like others in California and other parts of the country, need to be addressed and certainly want to provide full support in your efforts. 

So my questions have really been answered as we have done our 

due diligence on this in years past, and I just want to commend 

you again for doing your very best to focus in an area that truly 

needs to be responded to. And anything we can do to be of help, 

we are one state and we need to address these issues. So I thank 

you for your good work. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. I have no questions. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your comments. Appreciate it. 

Mr. Baca. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The question is for Mr. Whitehead. Given the success of the San 

Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, you know about the perchlorate problems in Fontana and in my district, how will H.R. 123 

help the surrounding areas? 

Mr. WHITEHEAD. I think that even though H.R. 123 as written 

is intended to increase the authorization for the San Gabriel Valley 

Restoration Fund, I continue to believe, Mr. Baca, that it serves as 

a very compelling model. Both the funding arrangements and the 

Water Quality Authority structure itself represent a very compelling model for addressing regional groundwater contamination 

problems and the need for regional remedial solutions to be done 

in a unified and focused fashion as opposed to numerous entities, 

water companies, water districts, cities, what have you, essentially 

trying to do it all on their own. 

The success that we have achieved, to the extent that we have 

had success in the San Gabriel Valley, has been the result of a unified effort. I would strongly urge and I would strongly participate 

in an effort to do likewise in your district and the surrounding area 

that has been confronted with this awful problem of perchlorate 

and other contamination in your water supplies. 

Mr. BACA. Currently we have about 31 to 32 or maybe 33 contaminated wells in the surrounding areas, specifically in the Rialto 

area, and so it does present a problem, and you said at the very 

beginning we will have a health and safety crisis if we don’t deal 

with remediation of water and the contamination that we have in 

that area, especially as we look at the shortage of the rainfall that 

we have had, and thank God we had some rainfall this week. As 

we look over the decades, cleanup activities in San Gabriel Basin 

were repeated and hindered by the discovery of new contaminants. 

How confident are you that we have a clear handle on the problem 

so that we can start making greater progress in the cleanup? 

Mr. WHITEHEAD. Well, I wish I could give you as optimistic an 

assessment, Congressman, about the Fontana/Rialto issues as I am 

today in the San Gabriel Valley. The problem, as I said, is a fractured effort. I would again repeat my willingness to work with you 

or anyone else who would like to foster a unified effort there. 

With respect to your specific question about additional contaminants, unfortunately, we have had to deal with new and emerging 

24 

contaminants. Technology being what it is, we are able to identify 

these contaminants in our public drinking water supplies that in 

the past were invisible to us, and this includes contaminants like 

perchlorate, dioxane, volatile organic compounds and a veritable 

litany of contaminants that are endangering our public water supplies. 

I might add that the EPA in declaring the San Gabriel Valley a 

Superfund cleanup site, far from the stigma that most people might 

attach to that designation, provided extraordinary resources and 

brought an extraordinary effort to enforce the development of a regional remedy for the San Gabriel Valley, which we have been able 

to implement in conjunction with the EPA through the Water Quality Authority. 

My concern is that we haven’t seen a vigorous effort by the EPA 

in the Fontana/Rialto area, and I dare say the area has suffered 

as a result. Again, I think we have a model. I think we have a 

model of success in the San Gabriel Valley with the restoration 

fund and the Water Quality Authority. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. Mr. Aguilar, with the cities forming a 

JPA, what would the Central Basin Municipal Water District’s role 

be with regard to any additional funds? 

Mr. AGUILAR. The Central Basin looks forward to working with 

the cities as part of a JPA. We would continue to administer the 

project and do the day-to-day work on the project as well as monitor the funding, but unlike the past where it was all contained 

within the district, it would now be monitored in conjunction with 

the three cities. 

We would develop a structure that would provide for interaction 

for meetings and monitoring so that we can make sure that the 

project is serving the needs of all the parties involved. We are fully 

supportive of a JPA and feel that this goes with our new mission 

at Central Basin, which is to work with the communities within 

our particular district. 

In the past, many water districts have looked at it from above 

and made decisions based solely on what their knowledge would be 

and their efforts would be. The time has come, as Mr. Whitehead 

has said, to focus regionally, to focus locally, to take care of our 

problems. We believe in now working across with our partners and 

making sure that their needs are served first by us, and that is a 

big part of our mission. 

Mr. BACA. Madam Chair, I know my time has expired, but if I 

may ask one final question, and this pertains to Mr. Jensen and 

Mr. Aguilar. 

Since you are asking for additional funds in the bill for H.R. 123, 

what kind of timelines are on in forming this JPA? 

Mr. JENSEN. We believe that the JPA could be formed within a 

matter of six months, and we are already actually three months 

into that six-month period under a MOU. So we believe that by the 

end of the year we could reasonably have a structure for the JPA 

ready to be adopted by all of the parties. 

Mr. AGUILAR. I concur with that. One of the first things we did 

upon this discussion was to formulate that Memorandum of Understanding so that we would delineate what the goals would be, and 

this would form the framework for a JPA. We are now at the point 

25 

where we are extending that three-month MOU for an additional 

three months, and we believe that we can formulate it during that 

time period. 

Mr. BACA. Would that also help in the area of the perchlorate if 

a JPA or Memorandum of Understanding was done in that area, 

Mr. Whitehead? 

Mr. WHITEHEAD. I think it would. I think it would. Even though 

we have heard today that the concentrations in that area have 

tailed off, we remain very concerned about the migration of contaminants, including perchlorate and other contaminants, through 

Whittier Narrows and into the Central Basin, and I think that Mr. 

Aguilar and Mr. Jensen are doing the right thing in working cooperatively as a collaboration to deal with this in a unified way. 

Mr. BACA. OK. Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me the extended time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You are very welcome. 

Mr. Nunes, do you have any questions? 

Mr. NUNES. Not at this time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. My turn. 

There are many things that I want to bring out, and as you have 

heard, there are questions that have not quite been addressed, especially with the Bureau of Reclamation not requesting enough 

funds to be able to continue moving forward on the projects that 

are so essential, and I will continue to harp on that and I will continue to make efforts to increase the budget. 

We tried and were unsuccessful this year, but let me tell you 

next year is another year, and that goes not only for our area but 

for the whole of the United States, especially the West where we 

are facing drought. We need the help. We don’t need hindrances. 

I think we need to revisit the mission of the Bureau of Reclamation 

as stated, because water is water. Whether it is water quality, 

water production, water safety, all of it is tied into your mission 

we hope. 

With that said, I just have a number of questions that have been 

formulating in my mind in regard to this particular bill. Mr. 

Aguilar, when the Central Basin announced their intent to shut 

down the project and dismantle the facilities, why was I not notified or somebody else? 

Mr. AGUILAR. We were in the process of studying the closure, and 

we were putting together what we were contractually required to 

with the USBOR. We were down to the final amounts of money, 

and so when we got to that point, we had to do that. We notified 

the cities that this was going to take place on a staff level, and the 

communication line at that particular time broke down in terms of 

bringing it upward. We should have followed up and notified you 

as well. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I can understand that things do happen, 

but in order for us to be effective, we need to be availed of the information so that we can move forward and not react at the last 

minute to whatever is necessary. And I understand you were shut 

down? You actually did shut down? 

Mr. AGUILAR. We had a planned shutdown that was going to be 

coming up to replace the carbon vessels as it was. They were at the 

point where they needed to be checked and possibly replaced. So 

26 

the timing was at that time the right time to consider and to shut 

down while we studied the question. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The original recommendations or actually the 

2001 design indicated that WQPP would operate until 2014, and I 

know that EPA is not as involved in monitoring and all because I 

have called them and spoken to them, but I would like to have a 

better understanding of your relationship with EPA and the monitoring of the contaminants, especially the perchlorate and the new 

contaminants. What is your relationship? 

Mr. AGUILAR. The relationship with the EPA has been primarily 

on a regular and systematic reporting of what they are finding and 

what contaminant levels they feel may have gotten through the 

Whittier Narrows. We likewise are sharing data back with them, 

and it has been primarily a data sharing back and forth as time 

has gone by. 

In addition, we have a reporting system set up to let us know 

if they have problems with the Whittier Narrows unit, and if they 

do, then we can be aware of the fact that we may see a spike at 

that particular time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Do you also share that same information with 

the Bureau? 

Mr. AGUILAR. The Bureau is kept updated on a regular basis on 

all our activities. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Considering the long history of the contaminants and the uncertainty of those monitoring, and I don’t hear 

anybody say that they are looking at new areas to check to test, 

it is such a wide area it could conceivably be more either migration 

or new spots, and I can tell you from the tank farm in Norwalk 

that has happened. They found new contaminants even though 

after 15-20 years they thought they were well underway of being 

able to contain it and clean it, and yet they found new areas of migration. 

So is anything being done to be able to try to see that there is 

reason to be able to continue doing the not only monitoring but also 

the extension of cleanup? 

Mr. AGUILAR. At this particular moment, we are continuing on 

the original cleanup plan and the original monitoring of the area. 

We have not gone beyond that. We are trying to see where the containment is at this particular time. Certainly, once we get this JPA 

together, once we get the operation back into order, then we can 

consider that as a possibility. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. When you were considering the shutting down 

of the facility, did it come into play the amount of time, trouble, 

money and effort that it would take should a new contaminant be 

found or additional contaminants be found and have to go back online? 

Mr. AGUILAR. We did take into consideration the possibility that 

that would happen, and we did have some very preliminary figures 

available as to what the cost would have been to restart. The fortunate part would be that the infrastructure would be in place, but 

in all likelihood, the internal parts of it, the filters, the actual active part of the purification system would have to be redone totally, 

and that would have been running in about the $500,000 to $1 million range just for that. 

27 

We would probably have had to sink a couple of more monitoring 

wells as well at that particular time. That would have been a more 

sizable expense of about a million, $2 million. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Did you take into consideration how hard it 

would be for us to try to get something moving here in Congress 

after we expended the amount of money and then shut down without notification? 

Mr. AGUILAR. We certainly did, and we certainly did not want to 

take that option if we could avoid it, and fortunately, the cities 

came forward and said we would like to develop this partnership 

and keep this project going, which was really quite a godsend. We 

very much appreciate it. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. In your testimony, you have attached a 

chart indicating the amounts utilized for the $10 million that have 

been expended toward your particular project, and I see there is a 

little bit of an interesting scenario in the last two years. You are 

spending more money and producing less water. Why? 

Mr. AGUILAR. I believe that we have increased through the years 

as we have taken more water out of the ground, the expenditures 

have increased. At various times, there may be an increase in cost 

simply because it is a maintenance schedule. You will pull less 

water during maintenance and your costs will go up. In addition 

to that, we have had increased power costs in the last few years 

that hadn’t been expected. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How often do you maintain? 

Mr. AGUILAR. Well, it is a constant monitoring and it depends on 

what the readings are at each quarter. So I don’t have the maintenance schedule with me, but I can provide that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I would certainly like to have an idea as 

to why there is less water produced for the more money that you 

are expending on those projects. 

Mr. AGUILAR. I can provide the schedule for that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Jensen, one of the attachments in the testimony shows the location of the contaminated 

plume. Would you describe the impact it would have on the water 

supply, the number of cities involved, probably the residents and 

possibly the impact on the economy? 

Mr. JENSEN. Yes, Madam Chair, I would like to respond to that 

question. As indicated in our testimony, both the San Gabriel and 

Rio Hondo spreading grounds are directly in the path of the contaminated plume, and we are deeply concerned that if the contamination reaches those two areas, the impacts on not only three cities 

but also all the cities in the Central Basin will be catastrophic. 

Going back to your question about the cost if you were to shut 

down the facility, quite honestly, the bigger cost is what happens 

if you shut down the facility with respect to the local communities 

and their water systems. 

Both Santa Fe Springs and Pico Rivera are investing a lot of 

local taxpayer dollars in trying to upgrade our systems to make 

sure that we have reliable water sources, and if the contamination 

were to continue to migrate, Pico Rivera’s wells are very close to 

the plume as it is right now, those wells could be shut down. They 

could have to incur expenses for treatment. They would most likely 

have to begin to buy even more expensive water from metropolitan, 

28 

which would lead to a horrendous cost increase for just that city, 

and that is just one example of what could happen to all the cities 

in the northern part of the Central Basin area. 

Ultimately 2 million people are at risk if we prematurely shut 

down the WQPP without making sure that the problem that was 

really built to address has gone away. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Could you give me a comparison of the cost of 

the imported water per acre foot as regards to your produced by 

the well? 

Mr. JENSEN. Metropolitan water currently costs $527 an acre 

foot. It is going up in January. It goes up every six months, so the 

projections for several years out are that the cost of water will be 

well into the $600 per acre foot. Groundwater produced by the cities, which is our most reliable and most cost-effective source, runs 

about $250 an acre foot. So you can see there is a substantial difference in cost there between those two sources of water. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That is quite telling. 

To both Don Jensen and Art Aguilar, the cities that form the 

JPA, the three cities that we have been discussing, have you discussed with the Bureau how they would administer the funds? 

Mr. AGUILAR. What will be the actual role in terms of how the 

funding would take place, it appears that the Central Basin would 

continue to be the agency through which the funds would go 

through, and from that point, we would work with the cities as to 

the application of the same. We would still need to work with the 

Bureau in terms of some of the technical aspects of it, but we don’t 

anticipate that there will be a great deal of problems because we 

really won’t be changing any of the basics of the contract with the 

Bureau. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Quint, does the Bureau charge administration fees for administering the fund? 

Mr. QUINT. Yes, we have a small fee that is part of our administration of the grants. To date, we have spent approximately 

$700,000 toward administering these grants, which total now, as 

was stated earlier, around $70 million. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You charge by percent. What percentage 

would that be? 

Mr. QUINT. About 1 percent. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Your statement—this is what I was referring 

to earlier, Mr. Quint—references the Bureau’s traditional mission. 

To me, reclamation means all of it, the whole picture of water. 

Would you try to explain what the Bureau’s mission is and who decides what the agency’s mission is? It is certainly not the cities. 

And when was it decided that the Bureau’s mission is limited to 

delivering water and power in an environmentally responsible and 

cost-efficient manner? 

Mr. QUINT. I think that statement is our written mission statement which has developed over the years. It is not just limited to 

those types of things. As Congress authorizes other projects, as 

Congress gives us direction to both authorize and through the appropriations process, we use that direction to help decide which 

and what we go forward to do. 

29 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, that is all well and good except I can remember I think only one bill that is before this Subcommittee that 

the Bureau approved of. 

Mr. QUINT. And it really comes down to a matter of resources. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Then why doesn’t the Bureau say when you 

come before this committee that you don’t have the money and we 

need to increase the budget? 

Mr. QUINT. I believe our testimony does say that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, in a round-about way. 

Mr. QUINT. We will try to be more explicit with that in the future. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It would be very much appreciated, sir. 

Do you oppose Mr. Dreier’s bill because of the mission statement, 

or is it something else that you feel is not as important in the management of the lower Colorado River? 

Mr. QUINT. No, we fully support the intent of the bill. It is just 

a matter of resources and not having the budget ability to support 

all the needs in the West. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Is Southern California dependent on the 

Colorado River imported water? 

Mr. QUINT. Absolutely. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And would Mr. Dreier’s bill decrease our dependence of imported water from the Colorado? 

Mr. QUINT. As I understand the project, yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And again, I am confused by the mission of 

the Bureau and the position they take on our bills that are so critical to our Western states specifically. I would think the bill would 

improve the traditional mission management of the lower Colorado, 

so I am really confused when it comes to the stance that the Bureau takes on the projects. 

Mr. QUINT. And I understand that. To restate, we agree with the 

intent of this bill. It really comes down to, with the backlog of 

projects that we have already authorized, we just don’t have 

enough budget to cover all those needs in the West. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am beating a dead horse, I know. 

I would like to submit some more questions in writing because 

I have a slew of things that really do not make sense to me and 

I am sure to some of the members of the Subcommittee, and hopefully maybe we can meet with the Commissioner and some of the 

administration to find out how we can increase the budget so then 

the Bureau doesn’t take a beating every time they come before the 

Subcommittee. 

Mr. QUINT. We would appreciate that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So would we. 

With that, does anybody have any questions? No. 

Well, thank you very much for your presence. The record is open 

for 10 business days for any additional testimony, and we really 

appreciate your forthrightness and your ability to be helpful in 

these matters. Thank you. 

We will continue with the second panel, and while we are taking 

our respective places, H.R. 2498 is the next bill we will consider 

that provides the study to develop an integrated regional water 

management plan and H.R. 2535, the Tule River Tribe Water Development Act. We have again Mr. Quint on the hot seat who will 

30 

testify on both bills on behalf of the Bureau, and on H.R. 2498, testifying will be Sargeant Green, Manager of the Westside Resource 

Conservation District and Consultant for the California Water Institute, and third, Mr. Richard Moss, P.E. with the Provost & 

Pritchard Engineering Group in Visalia. 

Testifying on H.R. 2535 will be Alec Garfield, Director of Water 

Resources Department for the Tule River Tribal Council from 

Porterville, California, and fifth, Philip Gregg Larson, the President of South Tule Independent Ditch Company, also from Porterville. 

I would like to have Mr. Costa begin with the introduction since 

it is his bill. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for all 

of your good work, for your leadership in this committee and for 

the passion that we share to try to address our nation’s water resources. In particular, I want to note that since taking the chairmanship of this Subcommittee, you have taken your time to visit 

all areas throughout California. In particular, your visit to the San 

Joaquin Valley this summer in July to look at both of the problems, 

or multitude of problems I should say, in the valley, both on the 

east side and the west side, is a testimony to your passion and to 

your desire to try to address the challenges we face in California 

as it relates to our water needs. 

The purpose of this bill is straightforward and contained in the 

descriptive. It is to develop a regional plan, a roadmap so to speak, 

for our long-term water needs on a regional water planning basis 

to include the local water agencies, the counties and the cities in 

the San Joaquin River Hydrological Region, the Tulare Lake Region, inclusive of the current Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Madera and 

Merced Counties as well as Stanislaus and San Joaquin. This roadmap when the plan is completed would be used as a mechanism 

to solve long-term water needs in sustaining our water on an equitable basis. 

This is a bipartisan bill. It is supported in the region by Congressman Cardoza, Congressman Nunes, Congressman Radanovich 

and Congressman McCarthy and myself. The five members representing the eight counties in the area are all coming together to 

work on this important effort. 

When this study is complete and we get buy-in, hopefully we will 

break it down into the four water challenges facing our region and 

I might say facing the entire West as well as California. That is 

water supply, that is water quality, that is environmental restoration, and that is flood control-related issues. And if we are successful, it will provide the basis for innovative financing that could include but not be limited to a joint powers authority that would include all the water agencies, the counties and the cities, in essence 

finance much of what needs to be done in our long-term water supply needs, our water quality, our environmental restoration as well 

as our flood control. 

I don’t need to tell the Chairwoman or the members of this committee that we are in a water crisis in California. We are in a 

water crisis, and we have been living on borrowed time. We have 

a water system in California that I would estimate is currently designed to support 20 million people. Yet today in California, we 

31 

have over 37 million people. By the year 2025, it is estimated that 

we will have an additional population growth of 15 to 17 million 

more people. That will put California with over a population of 50 

million people, and we therefore are living on borrowed time. 

We have an interesting confluence in this water crisis of what is 

a Mother Nature potential drought, the last drought we had was 

1988 to 1992, a six-year drought. Last year we had 28 percent normal precipitation and snow pack, and if that continues in the next 

year or two, it will be a magnitude that I think will pale in comparison to the last drought we had in California. 

That, coupled with a manmade drought, I think creates a perfect 

storm. We have judicial decisions that have resulted in reduction 

of water. I have noted that in the last 17 years as a result of judicial decision and legislative decision, and I will submit this for the 

record, there has been a redirection of water from the San Joaquin 

Valley in dry years of over 2 million acre feet of water; in wet 

years, approximately 1.2 million acre feet of water. That is water 

that has gone to other parts of the state for meritorious reasons. 

The water has left the San Joaquin Valley. Therefore, you have the 

confluence of a manmade drought together with Mother Nature. 

Now this proposal, this plan before you was a vision in 2002 

when the Federal government completed its effort with the State 

of California in what was known as the CALFED decision. The 

record of decision envisioned that all the regions of California 

would come up with a regional water management plan. As my 

other witnesses will testify today, other regions of California are 

ahead of us in developing their regional roadmap. 

We know climate change is taking place. It is impacting all portions of the United States and the Southwest, particularly California. Not making a decision could result in a reduction of another 

potential million acre feet of water not just to the valley but between 12 percent of water to Southern California in wet years, 37 

percent of water in dry years; the Santa Clara Valley, potentially 

12 percent in wet years, 37 percent in dry years. So this is timely. 

This is necessary. It is long overdue. It also couples together with 

the Governor’s plan on a water bond, which I support. 

Now let me close by saying that this is a partnership like other 

good efforts. We have local efforts, some of these witnesses will testify from the local level. They are providing in-kind support. We 

also have the State of California, the Department of Water Resources has committed approximately a million dollars to support 

this study. We are looking for a similar effort from the Federal 

level, which is why this authorization bill is before you. This will 

be undertaken by the California Water Institute at Fresno State, 

that will be the facilitator of this effort, together with the local 

water agencies. 

For all of those reasons, I ask this Subcommittee to support the 

effort, and I respectfully would like to submit another letter for the 

record by the Association of California Water Agencies that also 

supports this legislative effort as well. 

With that, I want to thank my witnesses for coming here. I want 

to thank the Chairwoman for her time and her patience and for 

visiting the valley once again to meet with my constituents and to 

hear their concerns as she knows so well. 

32 

So, with that, I would like to defer to the witnesses who are here 

today to testify on behalf of the bill. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Costa. 

Next, Sargeant ‘‘Sarge’’ Green, Manager of the Westside Resource Conservation District and Consultant to the California 

Water Institute. 

STATEMENT OF SARGEANT ‘‘SARGE’’ GREEN, MANAGER, 

WESTSIDE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND CONSULTANT TO THE CALIFORNIA WATER INSTITUTE, FRESNO, 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Sarge Green. I am the Manager of Westside Resource Conservation District. That is 1,100,000 

acres of western Fresno County. We are here to ask for your support on H.R. 2498. 

Backing up what Congressman Costa talked about, native water 

in the San Joaquin Valley is very unpredictable. We go from wet 

to dry in a heartbeat, and 2006 and 2007 are perfect examples. 

2006 was very wet. I had a levy break in my area in western Fresno County. 2007 has been one of the driest on record. 

Water in the San Joaquin Valley is a competitive item. It is not, 

as in our sister area in the great Central Valley, the Sacramento 

Valley, it is not a surplus commodity, and any time you have competition, it creates adversity and it is difficult at times to come together. The contrast in the Sacramento Valley is that there are net 

surplus and organized very well in terms of their water supply, and 

they have large regional organizations that have been around for 

a number of years and have performed admirably in that regard. 

We have been less successful. 

The loss of water that we are talking about has worldwide implications from the San Joaquin Valley. We are, as you know, a net 

exporter of fruits and vegetables. We also have some unique crops 

like almonds and canning tomatoes that are world leaders. The 15- 

year decline that we have had has forced a shift of permanent 

crops. For example, many people criticize cotton. We are down from 

1.5 million acres of cotton to 500,000 acres of cotton in the San Joaquin Valley, and most of it is Pema, an unsubsidized variety. 

The water actions that the Congressman talked about have been 

devastating, and frankly, the greatest impacts have been on the 

small communities, and I am here to discuss those impacts also. 

I have participated in western Fresno County in an economic development organization called the I-5 Business Development Corridor, and it is made up of some of the poorest communities in the 

State of California and the San Joaquin Valley. Huron, San Joaquin, Mendota, we bootstrap and help ourselves. We have done 

things like forming this regional organization to advance business 

development through loans, vocational education, transportation 

corridors to diversify and improve our economy. 

We have 15 to 30 percent unemployment in these communities. 

You had a Congressional Research Service report a few years ago 

that outlined the problems in the San Joaquin Valley. The problem 

was that it blended the larger cities with the small communities so 

it doesn’t truly reflect what has happened in those small commuVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:31 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\38016.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
33 

nities, and a specific example in my area near Tranquillity is that 

if you saw an aerial photo, there is 43,000 acres of land retired between Mendota and Tranquillity. 

We have proposed some remedies for this, and that is the regional water planning process. We need to help ourselves in the 

San Joaquin Valley, and that is what the regional plan is all about. 

The Federal actions that have been previously mentioned all contribute to the dramatic drop in water supply, and the only way we 

can do anything is to help ourselves by integrating all the potential 

opportunities that we have. 

There is a compelling Federal interest in this matter because not 

only do we have the actions, the Delta from Northern California, 

but also the Bureau and the Corps operate and maintain and/or 

contract out the operation and maintenance of many in-valley facilities, and a lot of the storage reservoirs. 

One might ask, why Fresno State and California Water Institute 

at Fresno State? Well, one of the things I mentioned earlier is that 

the competitive nature in the San Joaquin Valley has led to adversity and hardship and, quite frankly, bad feelings in the past 

amongst the water entities, and we believe that by facilitating 

through the California Water Institute we can transcend some of 

our problems in the past and then perhaps move the whole integrated plan forward much more smoothly. Thank you. That concludes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:] 

Statement of Sargeant J. Green, Secretary-Manager, 

Westside Resource Conservation District, on H.R. 2498 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

H.R. 2498 proposes to provide for the development of a ‘‘San Joaquin Valley Regional Water Plan’’. The following testimony posits the rationale and describes the 

Federal interests in developing such a plan. 

BACKGROUND 

The San Joaquin Valley portion of the Great Central Valley area of California has 

chronically been water short since broad-scale irrigation of the area began in earnest with the development of the deep-well turbine pump in the early twentieth century. The San Joaquin Valley watersheds and their inclusive river systems have always been unpredictable as to their supply availability. This in turn has impacted 

the ability to effectively manage those supplies. There has been no such thing as 

‘‘average’’. Many times in the recorded water history of the San Joaquin Valley the 

rivers and streams have been wet or dry, period. The 2006 and 2007 water years 

are perfect examples. The 2006 water year was extremely wet with flooding and 

levee failures up and down the San Joaquin Valley. 2007, on the other hand, has 

been so dry it will hit the record books. 

The southernmost portion of the San Joaquin Valley, the Tulare Basin (Fresno 

south), is a closed hydrologic basin. Only in rare large flood years does it connect 

to the San Joaquin River Basin (as in 2006). As a result, much of that hydrologic 

area has naturally accumulated salt in significant portions of its inclusive groundwater basins, especially on the western side of the Valley. Imported northern California Delta water brings additional salts to the Basin. The result of these conditions is that native good quality surface or ground water has been relatively scarce 

in the Valley as a whole and therefore a competitive commodity. Competition has 

historically spurred adversity and protectionism between the haves and have-nots. 

In contrast, the northern portion of the Great Central Valley, the Sacramento River 

Basin, has historically enjoyed a surplus of water that became the envy of the balance of the State and ultimately a source of export water for both State and Federal 

water projects for that critical resource. 

When the Sacramento Valley water interests became alarmed that eventually the 

exports could impact their future needs they collectively organized. That pattern of 

organization continues today. When new water resource management programs or 

34 

‘‘externalities’’ come along such as the relatively recent ‘‘integrated regional water 

management planning’’ (California Water Code Sections 10540 to 10546) or the California Central Valley Waterboard ‘‘Irrigated Lands Program’’ (a regulatory program 

for control of irrigation return flow pollutants), the Sacramento Valley galvanizes 

and has been very effective at developing basin-wide, collective organizations such 

as the ‘‘Northern California Water Association’’. In contrast, the San Joaquin Valley 

has not had any such region-wide collective force. However, with the continuing loss 

of significant portions of the imported supply from northern California over the last 

15 years, the time has come for the San Joaquin Valley to lay down arms and work 

together. That is one of the main purposes of the San Joaquin Valley Regional 

Water Plan; to create an environment where the San Joaquin Valley communityat-large can work together to optimize every opportunity for in-Valley water management without cannibalizing other portions of the State. 

The impact of the loss of water to the Valley has State, national and world-wide 

implications. The San Joaquin Valley is one of the most important agricultural 

areas in the world and a significant source of fruits and vegetables for the nation 

and export market. It produces unique crops that dominate world markets such as 

canning tomatoes and almonds. The loss of water has changed the cropping pattern 

by reducing the amount of traditional row crops and shifting it to permanent crops. 

Many critics have complained about the production of subsidized crops such as cotton. This year Valley cotton acreage is down to 500,000 acres from a historical average of 1.5 million acres and the dominant variety grown is Pima, a fine-fiber, unsubsidized variety. The impact of these changes to some of the rural communities 

is the loss of agricultural jobs. A shift to permanent crops reduces the labor demand, 

further impoverishing already disadvantaged communities. Recent immigration 

issues have tightened the labor availability but what people fail to understand is 

the permanent rural resident population used to move from crop to crop cobbling 

together an entire year’s worth of labor. Now they only have very seasonal opportunities. That impacts their total income in a year. 

The loss of imported northern California water into the San Joaquin Valley has 

come as the result of State, Federal and local agreements, State administrative findings, Federal statute changes and far-ranging Federal court decisions. The following 

is a summary of some of the related major actions over the last 15 years. 

1. CVPIA, 1992—Federal statute, diverted up to 1 MAF from the San Joaquin 

Valley to environmental purposes. 

2. Monterey Agreement, 1994—CA State Water Project Contractors internal 

agreement, diverted 130 TAF from Valley agricultural to urban water contractors, water transferred mostly from Kings and Kern Counties. 

3. Winter Run Salmon Federal ESA listing, 1994, lead to numbers 4 to 7 below. 

4. VAMP, 1995—Vernalis Adaptive Management Program agreement, joint StateFederal administrative decision, derived from CA State Water Resources Control Board, Water Rights Decision 1641—diverted San Joaquin River Basin 

flows to anadromous fisheries management in the Delta, includes a substantial 

portion of water stored in the Federal facility New Melones Reservoir, on the 

Stanislaus River, precluding its use for other project purposes. 

5. Trinity River Adaptive Management Program, 2000 Federal administrative action, diverts additional Trinity River flows as necessary above CVPIA mandate 

of 340 TAF. 

6. San Joaquin River Settlement, 2006, Federal court settlement of NRDC vs. Interior, restoration of the San Joaquin River for salmon with estimated flow of 

160 TAF to be released down the main stem. 

7. Delta Smelt ESA Federal court decision, August 2007, an implementation plan 

is under development, initial estimates of loss of one-third of pumping capacity 

windows of State and Federal Delta pumping plants in normal year-types. 

The results of these various actions have had, and will have, the most impact on 

agricultural water supplies in the San Joaquin Valley and the rural communities 

that depend overwhelmingly on agriculture for their economic engine. The larger 

metropolitan areas in the San Joaquin Valley have been somewhat hardened from 

these impacts because of explosive population growth and attendant construction 

and business development during the last ten years. In addition, almost all of the 

large cities are on the eastern side of the Valley which lay over or near substantial 

ground water and surface water sources of excellent quality. 

I can specifically relate the practical impacts of the losses of agricultural water 

supplies to smaller, disadvantaged Westside Valley communities in Fresno County 

as I have participated in a rural area economic development effort known as the 

I-5 Business Development Corridor which includes many of the small communities 

in that area. That organization was started in 1994 by the City of Firebaugh in response to both the impacts of the implementation of CVPIA and the six year 

35 

drought in California that occurred from 1988 to 1994. The purpose of the organization was to speak with one regional voice on the changing conditions and to 

prioritize regional activities that would assist in diversifying the economy of the 

member small cities and communities. The group has championed vocational education, transportation improvements and business loans to adapt to the new conditions with mixed success. The communities that joined besides Firebaugh included: 

Kerman, Mendota, San Joaquin and Tranquillity. Several years later, the communities of Firebaugh, Mendota and San Joaquin dropped out as their treasuries could 

no longer support the dues, however, Huron and Coalinga joined in their stead. 

The practical impact of the drought and the parallel permanent surface water 

losses in the ensuing 15 years has been low median household income, high unemployment and low education attainability in western Fresno County. The average 

unemployment for communities like Mendota, San Joaquin and Huron has hovered 

between 15 and 30% since the beginning of the natural and man-made drought. 

Some of these findings were documented in a special Congressional Research Service (CRS) report completed on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Congressional delegation in 2005, however the statistics were blended for the entire region, somewhat 

masking the actual difference in rural communities because of the data from the 

five large metropolitan areas. Nonetheless, the information is consistent for all rural 

communities from the entire north to south and east to west transects in the San 

Joaquin Valley. From Vernalis in San Joaquin County to Hilmar, Gustine and Dos 

Palos in the San Joaquin River area; from Firebaugh to Huron in the Fresno County 

Westside, Avenal to Alpaugh in Kings and Tulare Counties; Chowchilla to Orange 

Cove and Lindsay to Richgrove on the Eastside of the Valley and Delano to 

Buttonwillow in Kern County, the greatest impact from changes in the water-dependent economy have been in the small rural communities. All these communities 

are poverty-stricken and deficient in many of the amenities we all take for granted, 

ranging from clean drinking water to parks and reasonably effective schools. An important comparison made in the report is that the San Joaquin Valley is the ‘‘Appalachia of the West’’. In fact the data presented indicates that much of the rural Valley is in worse economic condition than Appalachia. The CRS report is included as 

a reference for this testimony. 

My personal experience is that many of the growers in Tranquillity also farmed 

in Westlands and during my tenure as manager of Tranquillity Irrigation District, 

I saw the number of farm operators in Tranquillity drop from over 50 to less than 

25. Many of them gave up on their ground in Westlands; they were bought out for 

the water supply so it could move upslope to the permanent crop ground. Coincidentally, it was clear that the workers from these operations were not making the incomes they had previously as the ‘‘city’’ drinking water accounts went from less than 

5 delinquencies per month and a ‘‘clean up your bill when you get a chance to’’ attitude to more recently as many as 20 to 25 per month that were forced to pre-pay 

or have their water shut off. A high percentage of ‘‘deposit-required’’ and pre-pay 

accounts continue to this day. Many of the community agricultural workers have become so destitute they have to carefully juggle their finances to pay to for such a 

basic service as running water. 

Another clear physical impact of the change in water supply, which resulted from 

the above-mentioned significant internal policy changes in Westlands, was the 

amount of fallowed land between the communities of San Joaquin, Tranquillity and 

Mendota. A noticeable swath of over 43,000 acres is unmistakably visible when you 

drive State Highway 33 south of Mendota or see an overhead aerial picture. That 

area is more than the combined acreage of the adjacent James and Tranquillity Irrigation Districts, both of whom are very mature Districts (1920 and 1918 respectively) on old ‘‘Fresno Slough’’ (the northern flood channel of the Kings River) and 

the eastern border neighbors of Westlands (hence the co-mingling of owner/ 

operators). 

Many of us close to the water business in the San Joaquin Valley are cognizant 

of the inevitability of the changes that are occurring in the availability of imported 

water. That is all the reason more we need to carefully plan for the optimization 

and utilization of what the Valley can expect and/or properly manage its own native 

resources. Some specific examples that need to be rationally explored and should be 

included in the Regional Plan include: 

1. Development of new infrastructure for rural communities including high quality water for drinking and up-to-date waste treatment disposal capacity so as 

to assist small communities in attracting new business and diversifying their 

economies. Many Valley community and individual drinking water systems are 

plagued with poor quality ground water from naturally occurring contaminants 

such as arsenic and uranium while others have anthropogenic contamination 

36 

from legacy chemicals such as DBCP or nitrates from animal wastes and fertilizers. 

2. Environmental restoration of permanently fallowed lands, with some potential 

economic gain through eco-tourism and/or fee-for-service ecosystem mitigation 

banks for land use changes elsewhere in California. 

3. Ground water banking; the good news is vast areas of empty space exist in San 

Joaquin Valley ground water basins from eastern San Joaquin County to 

northern Kern, the bad news is vast areas of empty space exist in San Joaquin 

Valley ground water basins. 

4. Finding and exploring new technology in water treatment to allow use of broad 

areas of brackish ground water and manage salt residuals in environmentally 

friendly ways; this technology has to be married to other technology that keeps 

energy costs reasonable such as photovoltaics, biofuel and carbon management 

technologies. 

5. Identifying future reliable surface water management alternatives such as inValley conveyance and storage facilities. Capturing more flood water and storing it on retired lands or flood plains where we can obtain easements are examples of alternate methods of storage, however we cannot ignore looking at 

expanding existing reservoirs or adding new ones. 

THE COMPELLING REASONS FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION 

As noted above, many of the changes in water supplies for the San Joaquin Valley 

can be directly related to the changes in Federal water policy and the need to shift 

the water to other uses. Federal environmental laws and the related circumstances 

in the complex Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta aquatic environment have engendered many of the water supply changes. However, the impacts of these ongoing 

changes on some of the third parties have not been adequately mitigated, especially 

in rural communities. These changes have occurred in a relatively short period of 

time, 15 years. Also, we have gone from a time of completion of the implementation 

of the original Federal Central Valley Project purposes and full use of their associated water supplies to a shrinking back of almost one-third of that peak in one and 

a half generations of rural citizens. 

In addition, many of the water management facilities in the San Joaquin Valley 

continue to be under the control or operated by Federal agencies. Most of the water 

storage reservoirs on all the river systems in the San Joaquin and Tulare Basin hydrologic areas are either under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers or 

the Bureau of Reclamation. In addition, those same agencies assist in the management of the stored water resources either through cooperative agreements for operating delivery systems or through regulatory responsibilities such as levee integrity 

and flood control. For this reason those agencies need to participate in any Valley 

Regional Plan. 

Those of us testifying before you today are asking our Congressional and Federal 

Executive Branch partners to take a step back and recognize all the water loss in 

the San Joaquin Valley. The combined Federal and State policy issues such as Delta 

and San Joaquin River environmental restoration has to be acknowledged and interest you in investing in a process that provides the opportunity to address the realities of the job losses, poor education attainment and impoverishment in the rural 

communities as well as the opportunity to restore the natural environment in a sensible way. That process is a ‘‘San Joaquin Valley Regional Water Plan’’. 

One might ask why California Water Institute (CWI) at Fresno State? The answer 

is related to the earlier mentioned problems of the history of contention amongst 

water entities in the San Joaquin Valley. CWI can transcend those parochial 

chasms and hopefully find solutions for the benefit of all Valley residents. Secondly, 

CWI competed for the role under Governor Schwarzenegger’s ‘‘California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley’’ and won the position with a seed grant to provide 

the coordination and facilitation of the water work under that program. It makes 

sense to integrate that role with any Federal efforts. I have attached an organizational chart of CWI and its leadership for your perusal. 

Thank you for this opportunity and please give all due consideration to our request so the San Joaquin Valley Regional Water Plan process can be developed and 

implemented to provide a sensible transition to the new realities and opportunities 

of the 21st century. 

Attachments: 

1. Map of ‘‘integrated regional water management planning’’ efforts underway in 

the Great Central Valley 

2. Staff organizational chart and biographical sketch of Dave Zoldoske, Executive 

Director of the California Water Institute at Fresno State. 

37 


38016.002.eps
38 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. OK. Next is Richard Moss, Provost & 

Pritchard Engineering Group. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. MOSS, P.E., PROVOST AND 

PRITCHARD ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., VISALIA, 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MOSS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. 

My name is Richard Moss, Vice President for Water Resources 

for a civil engineering firm in the Central Valley known as Provost 

& Pritchard Engineers. I have had the fortunate pleasure of having 

my entire career spent, 30-year career, in the San Joaquin Valley 


38016.003.eps 38016.004.eps
39 

doing largely water planning-related activities and water management. 

I have experienced really what I think are three eras of water 

management planning in the Central Valley. I got on the tail end 

of what was the big project era, coming in near the completion of 

the state water project and much of the Central Valley project. 

Then most of my career I had the opportunity to spend in what I 

call the ‘‘holding onto what we have got’’ era where we have been 

trying to maintain the water resources that were previously developed by our forefathers and trying to hang onto the water supplies 

that we had. Really the era of big projects was deemed to be dead, 

and we were more focused on district-by-district kinds of projects. 

We are now entering a new era of water management planning. 

We have new needs for the valley, different needs. We have a quite 

frankly different constituency than we had earlier, a much more diverse constituency. The result of this new era or the way to define 

it I think or the definition of it is really one of an integrated regional planning era, and this is focused by or this comes to being 

by focusing on a variety of needs and getting more people involved 

and more effort placed from a variety of entities, trying to apply 

multiple strategies, different kinds of strategies to solve many 

problems at once. 

It certainly involves a much broader public involvement in the 

deliberations and the planning that is going forward. It is I think 

especially effective and can be even more effective if we have state 

and Federal funding to support these efforts, but it is very important to allow the local initiatives to take place and local prioritysetting to be what controls. 

While the San Joaquin Valley, as has been mentioned, is lagging 

somewhat in terms of this planning effort, it certainly wasn’t the 

fault of our local congressman who called for the development of a 

San Joaquin Valley plan a couple of years ago. Congressmen Costa, 

Radanovich, Cardoza and Nunes and most recently Congressman 

McCarthy have all supported this effort and have really beat the 

drum, if you will, with the local water agencies to come on board. 

They have promoted this effort today on what I would call a shoestring budget, having been facilitated largely by Cal State, Fresno 

and the California Water Institute. 

Our work is really cut out for us given the size of the region and 

the number of water management entities. I have passed out a 

map, and I have a map here on the left which shows the San Joaquin Valley and the huge number of water management entities, 

and those I should note are just the public agencies. That doesn’t 

show the community services districts and the public utility districts that are often run by the counties. It doesn’t show the private 

water companies that own significant portions of the water rights 

for most of our local streams, and it doesn’t show the tens of thousands of groundwater pumpers, those individuals, companies, farmers, homeowners that have wells that pull from this resource that 

by and large are unregulated and kind of doing their own thing, 

if you will. 

As has been talked about, we face many issues here in the San 

Joaquin, including San Joaquin River restoration, the collapse of 

the Delta and the pumping curtailments that are being imposed as 

40 

a result of Delta smelt. We have all heard in the past about ag 

drainage and some of its issues. I think it is safe to say that this 

is the most significantly impacted region of the state, suffering in 

terms of reductions in what had been their historic water supply. 

Other issues of significance are the tremendous growth that is 

facing the region and water quality for, in particular, our poorer 

and more disadvantaged communities that really need improvements to their water quality. Another issue close to my heart is the 

loss of wetlands in the region and the need to protect and restore 

water supplies to much of the remaining private wetlands. 

I am here today obviously in support of this legislation and look 

forward to answering your questions. I believe this planning effort 

can be a critical link in making the outlook for San Joaquin Valley 

brighter in terms of its sustainability of the resource and ultimately the sustainability of this economy. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moss follows:] 

Statement of Richard M. Moss, P.E., in Support of H.R. 2498 

MADAM CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

I very much appreciate being given the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee to provide insight as to the need for H.R. 2498 and the water management planning it would provide. I am testifying today on my own behalf as a consulting civil and water resource engineer that has spent my entire professional career in the San Joaquin Valley assisting many water agencies and cities in their 

water resource planning. I am also here as a small citrus grower dependent upon 

local and regional surface and groundwater supplies to grow my oranges and mandarins and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Tulare Basin Wildlife Partners, a non-governmental, non-profit organization focused on the protection and restoration of native habitats, including wetlands, in the Tulare Basin portion of the 

San Joaquin Valley. 

I am Richard M. Moss. I am a professional registered civil engineer and the Vice 

President for Water Resources for the engineering firm of Provost and Pritchard Engineering Group, Inc. with offices in Fresno, Visalia, and Bakersfield in the San Joaquin Valley. We hope to soon be expanding our offices to the more northern part 

of the San Joaquin Valley as we do have numerous clients in that part of the Valley 

as well. I have been in the consulting business for the past six years. Prior to that 

I was the General Manager of the Friant Water Users Authority for over 15 years. 

The Friant Water Users Authority is a joint powers authority formed under state 

law comprised of 25 member agencies that serve the irrigation water needs of approximately one million acres of the worlds richest farmland, receiving water from 

the Friant Division of the federal Central Valley Project (CVP). I have had the opportunity to testify before this Committee on a couple of occasions in my past capacity as General Manager of the Friant Water Users Authority. 

I have had the great pleasure and a wonderful career of being directly involved 

in the water resource planning for much of the area to be directly benefited from 

the passage and implementation of H.R. 2498. I can attest to the benefits to be had 

from taking a more coordinated approach to such planning. 

Overview of Integrated Regional Water Management Planning 

The fundamental planning for the water resource needs of the San Joaquin Valley 

has been around for a very long time, including the notion of developing plans on 

more of a regional basis. Some of the earliest planning was done on the grandest 

of scale. For example, the planners of the CVP (originally conceived by the State 

and later assumed and carried out by the federal Bureau of Reclamation) laid out 

a project of statewide significance, importance and involvement. While the CVP has 

grown and expanded several fold in terms of its structures and its benefits, the earliest configurations of the CVP conceived of two large dams, one on the Sacramento 

River in the far northern part of the State and the other on the San Joaquin River 

in central California and a system of canals and water exchanges that could serve 

several million acres of existing and new farmland. The subsequent additions to the 

CVP, as well as the later development of the State Water Project, all involved water 

resource planning on a truly large, large scale. 

41 

However, since those early days of water resource planning and water development, most of the water resource planning has come as the result of addressing a 

specific need within a region (or more likely within a specific water district) and the 

planning has consisted of little more then developing a plan to implement a project 

to address a specific need. As water resource engineers, we were told that the era 

of big projects was dead and to focus our thinking on making better use of the resources that our forefathers had already developed. 

We have now entered into yet another era of water resource planning. While for 

the first time in a long time there is active discussion of larger scale development 

of dams and conveyance facilities in the State, there remains the idea that before 

such new facilities can be constructed, or at least in conjunction with their construction, proof needs to exist that the existing water resources, as well as the proposed 

new water resources, are being optimally used and that the coalition of interests to 

be benefited by new water development needs to be very broad in nature; all with 

little or nor displacement of interests, obviously including environmental interests. 

This idea of an integrated and comprehensive approach to water management 

planning, encompassing a variety of water management needs with the potential for 

a variety of entities which have water management responsibilities to engage, is 

thus a relatively new idea and has caught on with great fervor within California. 

The thought behind this approach is that, unlike traditional water resource planning documents, an integrated regional water management plan (IRWMP) does not 

focus on one—or even just a few—facets of water resource planning. Rather an 

IRWMP investigates a broad spectrum of water resources issues, involving diverse 

interests through public and stakeholder involvement and attempts to integrate 

multiple water management strategies to solve multiple priority challenges. By 

building a broader coalition in support of an array of projects, the hope is to leverage that regional cooperation to successfully address multiple water resource objectives. This approach can be especially effective if the principle state and federal 

funding agencies for such water projects support this approach and are willing to 

defer the prioritization of how the their money gets spent to the local planning interests. 

At least some of the current focus on IRWMPs in California can be traced back 

to the development of the Santa Ana River Watershed Project in Southern California. This was a region rife with conflict over the management of their water resources and saddled with litigation that was costing millions of dollars annually to 

pursue with little in tangible results. After much struggle it was determined to address the various needs of the parties in a comprehensive manner and to try to do 

so using non-local financial resources. Their integrated regional approach, born out 

of conflict, has served as the basis for significant political will to address some 

pressing water resource needs. Their effort is now serving as the preferred model 

for addressing water resource issues where the need for assistance outweighs the 

ability of the state agencies to provide help and thus regional priorities need to be 

set; who better to set those priorities then the local folks. 

The State of California has really been emphasizing the need for this kind of 

water resource planning. In 2002, the state legislature passed and the Governor 

signed into law the ‘‘Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Act,’’ which 

lays out the legal basis providing for regional water management planning. Subsequently, the Californian Department of Water Resources prepared guidelines for the 

preparation of IRWMPs following the requirements of this law. 

Then the State put money behind their intentions of emphasizing regional planning via the grant funding processes coming out of Proposition 50 (the ‘‘Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act’’) and Proposition 84 

(the ‘‘Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act’’), 

water resource planning and construction monies that were made available by general obligation bond acts. Being part of an IRWMP, or at least involved in the process of developing an IRWMP, is a prerequisite to receiving implementation grant 

funding under these propositions. 

Some obvious advantages to planning water resource management on a more regional scale include: 

• Addressing the apparent prerequisite for accessing future state grant monies for 

local water projects; 

• Broader political support for multi-purpose projects; 

• Packaging of otherwise single purpose projects together as a single multipurpose project and reaping the benefits of broader political support for everyone 

involved; 

• Cost savings from development of multipurpose projects; 

• Pre-mitigation of project impacts by packaging of multiple projects providing 

benefits to potentially impacted resources; 

42 

• Local setting of priorities to avoid competing projects at the regional level where 

competitive grants or funding is involved; • Spreading the burden of grant application costs and other ‘‘front-end’’ costs associated with public works construction funding; • Broader public involvement and awareness of local water issues and needs; • Involvement and understanding of land use planners and decision makers on 

the regional availability (or lack thereof) of water supplies to support new development or the water related impacts of other land use changes; • Urban constituency awareness of the local social and economic value brought 

by agricultural water agencies; • Support from local advocacy groups due to their involvement in project formulation which lessens the opportunity for and effect of out-of-area advocacy groups; • Development of inter-agency agreements for cooperation and service interconnection during drought of other emergencies. 

Unfortunately, the San Joaquin Valley has been slow to embrace the concept of 

IRWMPs and as a consequence is behind much of the rest of the State in development of IRWMPs. This slowness is not a result of recalcitrance or of lack of water 

management insight. I believe it is largely a result of the diversity of underlying 

water and contractual rights, the diversity of kinds of projects and the nature of 

these projects serving the area, and importantly, because of the defensive posture 

that most of the San Joaquin Valley water community has been in relative to trying 

to protect their existing water supplies and unfortunately suffering significant reductions in those supplies. Having said all of that, a number of what I would term 

as ‘‘sub-regional’’ planning efforts have emerged and the level of communication and 

of activities to begin the development of a regional plan, or plans, is clearly catching 

hold. 

The San Joaquin Valley Regional Water Plan 

Congressmen Jim Costa, George Radanovich, Dennis Cardoza, and Devin Nunes 

initiated the development of the San Joaquin Valley Regional Water Plan almost 

two years ago. Congressman McCarthy has now also joined in support of the Plan’s 

development. They could see the need for their constituents to work together in addressing the region’s collective water management needs. The California Water Institute (CWI) at California State University, Fresno was asked to facilitate the regional planning effort. Development of the San Joaquin Valley Regional Water Plan 

was organized into four sub-working groups. The four sub-working groups were organized by four water-related needs within the region: (1) Water Supply, (2) Water 

Quality, (3) Flood Control, and (4) Environmental Enhancement. Members of the 

water community, representatives of industries and communities relying on water, 

and organizations dedicated to the enhancement of the environment populated the 

working groups. The working groups also included irrigation district managers, 

water agency members, water resource engineers, government officials, agribusiness 

representatives, public works managers, and environmentalists. I have personally 

had the opportunity to chair the Environmental Enhancement sub-working group. 

Subsequently, Governor Schwarzenegger convened the San Joaquin Valley Partnership. The Partnership brings state agency secretaries and Central Valley representatives together to make recommendations to the Governor regarding changes 

that would improve the economic well being of the San Joaquin Valley and the quality of life of its residents, including recommendations regarding water resources. 

The 26-member Partnership, led by the Secretary of the Business, Transportation 

and Housing Agency, is composed of eight state government members, eight local 

government members and eight private sector members, along with two deputy 

chairs. With the comprehensive nature of the already started congressional regional 

water planning effort, the Partnership agreed to synchronize its water planning efforts with the ongoing process in its development of the Partnership’s water action 

plan and associated recommendations to the Governor. 

The San Joaquin Valley Regional Water Plan under the leadership of the CWI 

has made good progress in identifying and polling the various interests of the region 

as to their water needs and the projects they believe are needed to meet those 

needs. This initial cataloging of the various interests, their needs and their projects 

was done on a shoestring budget and needs to be updated and further refined. The 

requirements of integrating the water planning requirements for the Partnership 

into the balance of the Partnership activities has also required the under-funded attention of the CWI staff. 

Meanwhile, as noted earlier, sub-regional planning efforts have been started within a couple of watersheds in the San Joaquin Valley. They clearly are in need of 

help in integrating their efforts into a bigger regional plan. These efforts are typically being lead by agricultural water interests that have a limited perspective as 

43 

to all of the needs of their area given they are largely in the business of supplying 

water to just agriculture. They have been struggling with how best to engage and 

address the other water management needs of their areas such as drinking water 

quality, environmental water needs, and flood control. 

The Need for H.R. 2498 

Others on this panel in support of this legislation will describe for you the water 

management crisis that is facing much of the San Joaquin Valley. Since the creation 

of the San Joaquin Valley Regional Water Planning effort by our four local congressmen, much has changed to lessen the reliability of water supplies for all users of 

water in the San Joaquin Valley. While the supplies and their reliability are shrinking, at the same time the demands for water, particularly clean drinking water, are 

increasing, as the region is one of the fastest growing in the State, if not the Nation. 

There are also many small, unincorporated communities that are struggling to provide clean, affordable drinking water. To try and tackle their relatively small (but 

hugely significant if you are the ones having to drink this water) problems community-by-community is nearly impossible. To plan and operate regional solutions for 

these problems, like regional surface water treatment plants, is clearly what is 

needed. 

A lesser-discussed crisis is the one of the loss of wetlands in the San Joaquin Valley. Virtually all of the wetland loss occurred prior to the time when wetland protections came into being with the passage of laws such as the federal Clean Water Act. 

There are remaining wetlands outside of the state and federal refuges that typically 

are in private ownership. However, these wetlands are struggling due to the lack 

of available and affordable water supplies and are at risk to selling out to the development of other uses for these native habitats. Unfortunately, Tulare Basin wetlands have, until very recently, been ignored by the large-scale wetland protection 

and enhancement efforts such as those in the Sacramento Valley and elsewhere in 

the San Joaquin Valley. This is one of those ‘‘other water needs’’ that the San Joaquin Valley Regional Water Plan has cataloged and is intending to address and to 

integrate into the solutions for the region’s other water problems. 

The need to coordinate the diverse and at times parochial water interests of the 

San Joaquin Valley is clear. The need for new, integrated solutions to the region’s 

water problems is even clearer. The leadership of the State in partnering with the 

San Joaquin Valley to address its water needs as well as the other economic needs 

of the region is finally happening and is poised to make a real difference. The federal government has a real interest to see that this most productive agricultural region of the Nation continues to flourish and to move to a position of sustainability 

in the management of its water resources. We are in unprecedented times where 

we are faced with population increases, drought, climate change, endangered species 

issues, major river restoration programs, and the desire to maintain a certain way 

of life, that necessitates the need for a well thought out, comprehensive regional 

water plan. The passage of H.R. 2498 and the funding of the continued development 

of the San Joaquin Valley Regional Water Plan would be tremendously helpful. 

In closing, let me extend my appreciation for the invitation to appear before the 

Committee today. I appreciate the efforts of our five local congressmen in sponsoring 

this legislation and for the Committee’s consideration of its passage. Thank you. 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS. OK. I would like to yield to my colleague, Representative Nunes, to do the introductions for the next 

bill. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you. I would like to thank you for holding a 

hearing on this bill. Myself and Mr. Costa introduced this bill, and 

I will be very brief because we have a series of votes on the Floor, 

but then we will come back to hear the testimony n H.R. 2535. 

I first want to introduce two people who have spent a lot of time 

working on this, and one individual in particular is Alec Garfield, 

who has worked on this now I think for 30-40 years, and he spent 

his whole lifetime dedicated to providing water for the Tule River 

Indian Tribe that is just on the eastern side of Tulare County, just 

east of Porterville. 

Mr. Garfield was born and raised on the reservation. He has 

spent most of his adult life involved with the political aspect of the 

44 

Tule River Tribe. He has sat on the Tule River Tribal Council for 

25 years and holds the longest tenure for tribal chairman. He is 

currently serving as the Director of Water Resources Department 

of Tule River Tribe as well as the Chairman of the Tule River 

Water Rights Negotiations Team. So I would really like to welcome 

Mr. Garfield here and I look forward to hearing his testimony when 

we get back. 

I also want to introduce Mr. Larson, who is a third-generation 

citrus grower in the San Joaquin Valley downstream from the Tule 

River Indian Reservation. He is also President of the South Tule 

Independent Ditch Company, a company which supplies water to 

approximately 50 shareholders in the San Joaquin Valley. Mr. 

Larson has been working with members of the tribe since 1998 on 

this, and I know they have put a lot of effort into it. 

And I think just to be very brief, Madam Chairman, this is really 

an important bill. And I know that the Bureau is short of funds 

to deal with this, but what we are looking at here is an issue where 

Tule River does have rights to this water and they are willing to 

work with all the parties. They have all the parties within Tulare 

County to agree on this legislation as well as myself and Mr. Costa 

to introduce the bill. So I hope to avoid any type of lawsuit or any 

type of problem, that if we can move this bill forward, I think it 

would go a long way to solve a lot of problems ahead of time, be 

proactive instead of reactive. 

With that, we will be back shortly I guess. Thank you. I yield 

back. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. We are going to recess for votes, 

and we will return probably in 20 to 30 minutes. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The Subcommittee will continue. The Ranking 

Member was unable to stay, so Mr. Nunes will be sitting in her 

stead when he returns. 

I would like to move on to the testimony on H.R. 2535, and the 

first witness on that is Mr. Alec Garfield, Director of Water Resources Department for the Tule River Tribal Council in Porterville, and welcome, sir, for your testimony, please. 

STATEMENT OF ALEC GARFIELD, DIRECTOR, WATER 

RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, TULE RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL, 

PORTERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. GARFIELD. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Napolitano and 

Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers and all the members of the 

committee. My name is Alec Garfield. I am a member of the Tule 

River Tribe of Tulare County, California. I served on the Tribal 

Council for 25 years, 13 as its chairman. I have been working on 

the tribe’s water rights since 1971. Currently, I serve as the Director of Water Resources Department of the Tule River Tribe as well 

as the Chairman of the Tule River Water Rights Negotiation Team. 

With me today is Ryan Garfield, Vice Chairman of the Tule River 

Tribal Council. I also bring greetings and best wishes from the 

Chairman, Neil Peyron, and members of our Tribal Council. I am 

grateful for this timely scheduling of this hearing on H.R. 2535, 

the Tule River Tribe Water Development Act. We appreciate the 

45 

opportunity to appear before the Water and Power Subcommittee 

supporting H.R. 2535. 

The Tule River people are descendants of Yokut Indians, a large 

group of Native Americans who occupied Silicon Valley in California for thousands of years prior to contact with settlers. With 

the discovery of gold and California becoming a state in 1850, Congress refused to ratify 18 treaties negotiated with California tribes, 

including our treaty, the Treaty of Paint Creek of June 3, 1851. 

In 1856, a small reservation was established on prime San Joaquin Valley farmland in Tulare County. The location of this original reservation was purposefully selected by the Federal government to provide our tribe with good farmland and water resources 

necessary to establish a self-sufficient homeland for our people. 

Within a few years, however, this reservation was stolen from us 

under fraudulent circumstances by two Federal agents. 

In January 1873, President Grant issued an executive order creating a new reservation for the tribe. For over 125 years, we have 

lived on this reservation, which now includes 58,000 acres of land. 

The reservation is located on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, east of Porterville and lies almost entirely within 

the South Fork Tulare River Drainage Basin. Because of the failure 

of the United States to provide adequate water storage and irrigation facilities, we have been unable to reap benefits of agricultural 

homeland promised to us through the original 1856 reservation. 

H.R. 2535 authorizes funding necessary for the Secretary of the 

Interior to study the feasibility and suitability of constructing a 

storage reservoir, outlet works and a water delivery system for the 

tribe’s reservation. H.R. 2535 is consistent with and carries out a 

critical part of the United States trust responsibility to Indian 

tribes to protect and advance and reserve water rights under the 

Winters Doctrine. 

For several years, the tribe has negotiated with our Federal negotiation team and local water interests represented by the Tule 

River Association and the South Tule Independent Ditch Company. 

Very recently the tribe and the local water users reached a settlement which has as its cornerstone the water storage project and 

delivery system, which will be investigated by H.R. 2535. This settlement is unique. It is one of the very few Indian water settlements ever achieved without a tribe or the United States first filing 

litigation to secure water rights. 

Our current water supplies consist of limited groundwater and 

springs. These sources have managed barely to serve the current 

needs of the tribal community on the reservation. There are growing concerns about the long-term reliability of our water supply. 

The South Fork Tule River has the potential to provide the tribe 

with long-term water supply, but the river is unreliable in its natural state. The hydrology of the South Fork is similar to most western rivers in that the flows are generally much higher in the spring 

months than the rest of the year. Over time too, the hydrology of 

the South Fork is marked by periods of drought, sometimes spanning several years. 

To address these issues, we have spent several years assessing 

our future water needs. We concluded the tribe could not meet its 

current or long-term water needs without the construction of at 

46 

least one reservoir on the reservation. Given that our reservation 

sits at the headwaters of the South Fork Tule River, it made perfect sense to us to build a water storage project to capture part of 

the high flows of the river when downstream users were not diverting those flows. We approached the solution to our problem with 

the attitude we wanted to work with and not at odds with our 

downstream and non-Indian neighbors. 

After nine years of negotiations, we are very proud of the settlement agreement we have reached. It avoids the cost, delays and 

disruption of water rights litigation. The eventual construction of 

a water storage project will enable us to meet our domestic, commercial, municipal, industrial and agricultural needs without disrupting the current water uses of the South Fork Tule River. 

We are pleased to report to the Subcommittee that we have 

gained the endorsement of the National Congress of American 

Indians and the Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association. 

We are disappointed that our Federal trustee is not joining us in 

securing a brighter future for the Tule River Tribe and its people 

by supporting H.R. 2535. This bill is the first step in enabling the 

tribe to bring water to our lands in sufficient quantities to make 

our reservation a viable homeland now and forever. 

I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to express the Tule 

River Tribe’s support of H.R. 2535. In closing, I will ask that my 

testimony and supporting materials be made part of the record of 

this hearing. I or my associates would be more than happy to respond to any questions which members of the Subcommittee may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garfield follows:] 

Statement of Alec Garfield on behalf of the 

Tule River Tribe of California, on H.R. 2535 

Introduction 

Good morning Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member McMorris-Rodgers, 

and fellow members of the committee. My name is Alec Garfield, and I serve as the 

Director of the Water Resources Department of the Tule River Tribe, as well as the 

Chairman of the Tule River Water Rights Negotiation Team. I also send greetings 

and best wishes from Chairman Neil Peyron and all the members of the Tribal 

Council. We are very grateful for the expeditious scheduling of this hearing on 

H.R. 2535, the Tule River Tribe Water Development Act. We also appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Water and Power Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee to present testimony supporting H.R. 2535. This bill authorizes funding necessary for the Secretary of Interior to conduct a study on the 

feasibility and suitability of constructing a storage reservoir, outlet works and a 

water delivery system on the Tribe’s Reservation in Tulare County, California. 

H.R. 2535 is consistent with and an effectuation of the United State’s trust responsibility to Indian tribes, to protect and advance their reserved water rights under 

the Winters doctrine. Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908). 

For several years the Tribe has negotiated with the representatives of the Departments of Interior and Justice, including Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation, and local 

water interests represented by the Tule River Association and the South Tule Independent Ditch Company. Very recently the Tribe and the local water users reached 

a settlement which embodies the shared goals and visions for the future of the community of parties who live together in the South Fork Tule River watershed. This 

settlement is quite unique—indeed, it is one of the very few Indian water settlements ever achieved without a Tribe or the United States on its behalf filing litigation to enforce its federal water rights. Despite this unique feature, once the settlement is fully carried out, the Tribe will join other Indian nations in the United 

States, by turning its ‘‘paper’’ federal reserved rights to water from the South Fork 

Tule River into actual ‘‘wet’’ water. 

47 

We anticipate that this settlement agreement will also be considered in the forthcoming months for Congressional approval. The Tule River Water Development Act, 

under consideration by you today, is the first step in implementing that settlement 

agreement. We ask the Subcommittee to favorably and swiftly mark-up and pass 

H.R. 2535 on to the full Committee. Once enacted and signed into law, H.R. 2535 

will enable the Tribe and its neighbors to complete the necessary technical background work to bring the final settlement agreement to life. 

The Struggle of the Tule River Tribe to Secure a Sustainable Homeland 

Prior to discussing the terms of the bill, I would like to take a brief minute to 

educate the Subcommittee about the history of the Tule River Tribe and Reservation, to help illustrate the need for The Tule River Water Development Act in our 

community. I have also attached a two-page historical timeline which chronicles our 

efforts to secure a sustainable homeland with the necessary water supplies. (Exhibit 

A.) 

The Tule River Reservation is the homeland of the Tule River Tribe. We are descendants of the Yokuts Indians, a large group of linguistically-related people who 

occupied the San Joaquin Valley in California for thousands of years prior to contact 

with Euroamerican settlers. Following the discovery of gold, and California becoming a state in 1850, there was enormous pressure on Congress to reject the 18 treaties negotiated with the several hundred Indian tribes found there. Congress relented to this pressure and in 1852 rejected these 18 treaties, including the Treaty 

of Paint Creek of June 3, 1851, which included leaders from our Tribe. In 1853, 

however, Congress established the Superintendency of Indian Affairs in California, 

to relocate Indians to reservations. In 1856, the California Superintendency established our reservation pursuant to the 1853 authority, on approximately 2,240 acres 

of prime San Joaquin Valley farmland in Tulare County. The land was transected 

on the southwest corner by the mainstem of the Tule River. It included part of what 

is today the eastern portion of the City of Porterville. The location of this original 

Reservation was purposefully selected by the federal government to provide our 

Tribe with the arable land and water resources necessary to establish a self-sufficient homeland for its people. Upon being promised this land as our homeland—ostensibly forever—we built homes and began to actively cultivate crops. It was a relatively prosperous period of time for our people. 

Despite our relative prosperity in those years, two of the federal Indian agents 

assigned to reservations in the area nonetheless saw fit to capitalize upon the distance and ignorance of the Indian officials in Washington, D.C. Thomas Madden, a 

federal Indian agent assigned to the neighboring Tejon Indian Reservation, applied 

for and was issued a land patent under fraudulent circumstances to 1,280 acres of 

the Tule River Reservation land from the State of California. Four years later under 

a similar arrangement another land patent for 1,160 acres of Tule River Reservation 

land was issued to Mr. John Benson, another Indian Agent. These two state land 

grants encompassed all of our Reservation lands. The federal government was fully 

aware that these lands were expressly reserved to us, but it made no effort to challenge the Madden and Benson land grants. Because the lands had been set aside 

for the Tribe, the State of California, of course, had no legal basis upon which to 

issue the patents. The land transfers were also a violation of the federal Trade and 

Intercourse Acts, which expressly prohibited Indian agents from having ‘‘any interest or concern in any trade with the Indians.’’ Rather than setting aside the 

issuance of these patents, the federal government actually paid rent to Madden and 

Benson for at least a dozen years to enable my ancestors to continue farming what 

was in actuality our land. 

Gradually, over the years, hostility increased between the Indian farmers and the 

settlers in the area. In response to the tension, and rather than enforcing our rights 

to what should have been our Reservation land, in January 1873, President Grant 

issued an Executive Order creating a new reservation for the Tule River Tribe. It 

was comprised of mostly mountainous lands located about fifteen miles to the east 

of our original Reservation. The Tule River Indians and the Indian agent protested 

the removal; the new lands would be difficult to cultivate. The Indian agent, J.B. 

Vosburgh, stated ‘‘The new reservation is not suited to the wants of the Indians for 

whose benefit it has been set apart, if the intention be, as heretofore, to teach them 

to become self supporting by means of agriculture, the soil of the reservation being 

insufficient both in quantity and quality for their need.’’ He further requested that 

the government inquire into the legality of Madden and Benson land patents and, 

if necessary, requested the federal government to purchase the property from them 

for the benefit and use of the Indians. However, no such action was taken, and our 

people were forcibly removed away from their homes and cultivated fields. 

48 

The removal was very hard on our people. The new Reservation, though it contained 48,000 acres, was determined by the federal agents, based on the knowledge 

and technology of the time, to have scarcely 100 acres of arable land. Even that land 

was deemed by the agents to be of poor quality, and thought to be able to support 

only six families, far below the needs of our people. An Indian agent reported, ‘‘Year 

by year our number has decreased by death and removal, until now there are only 

143 Indians, embraced in 30 different families, residing on the reservation.’’ Our situation was so dire that, in response, President Grant, in October 1873—just 9 

months after the initial Executive Order—signed another Executive Order almost 

doubling the Reservation’s size to 91,837 acres. Again, very little of these additional 

lands were deemed by the federal agents to be suitable for agriculture, and the few 

acres which were proven arable were coveted or settled by settlers, and history 

again repeated itself. In August 1878, President Hays issued an Executive Order reducing the reservation back to the January 1873 size. 

For over a century, then, we have lived on the Reservation established in 1873, 

a mountainous land where because of the failure of the United States to provide 

adequate water storage and irrigation facilities, we have been unable to fully reap 

the benefits of the agricultural homeland promised to us through the original 1856 

Reservation. The Tule River people are a proud people, and I tell this story not to 

complain or to blame anyone for these past injustices. They do, however, make a 

compelling argument that now is the time for the United States to help begin the 

healing process through the enactment of H.R. 2535. H.R. 2535 is the first step in 

enabling the Tribe to bring water to our lands in sufficient quantities to make our 

new homeland—not the one promised to us originally in the mid-19th Century—a 

viable homeland now and forever. 

The Modern-Day Tule River Indian Reservation 

Today, our current Reservation includes about 58,000 acres. The reservation is located in south-central California, approximately 75 miles south of Fresno and 45 

miles north of Bakersfield in Tulare County. The Reservation is situated on the 

western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, east of Porterville, and lies almost 

entirely within the South Fork Tule River drainage basin. The topography is generally steep, with elevations ranging from about 900 to 7500 feet above sea level. 

Most of the inhabited land is along the lower reach of the South Fork Tule River 

on the western side of the Reservation. The Reservation is drained by the South 

Fork Tule River. The South Fork Tule River flows into the Tule River at Success 

Reservoir, at a distance of about ten miles west of the Reservation. There are no 

significant uses of water upstream of the Reservation. (Exhibit B.) 

The estimated average annual flow of the South Fork Tule River at the western 

boundary of the Reservation is 38,500 acre-feet per year, with a probability of 

24,600 acre-feet over 50% of the time, and 11,800 acre-feet available over 80% of 

the time. Surface water supplies consist of the flow available from the South Fork 

Tule River and its tributaries on the Reservation, while underground supplies consist of a groundwater aquifer and springs. The groundwater sources have managed 

barely to serve the current needs of the Tribal community on the Reservation. There 

are growing concerns about the long-term reliability of these sources, both in terms 

of quantity and quality. The hydrology of the South Fork is similar to most western 

rivers in that the flows are generally much higher in the spring months than the 

rest of the year, other than occasional high water events following rainstorms. Over 

time, too, the hydrology of the South Fork is marked by periods of drought during 

which the entire flow of the river is significantly depressed by the lack of rain for 

long periods of time, sometimes spanning several years. These two general characteristics are depicted on the two graphs attached to this testimony. (Exhibit C.) 

The injustices and inequities of the past are still present and are still affecting 

our people. We have been plagued with unemployment and mortality rates substantially higher, and a standard of living substantially lower, than is experienced by 

the surrounding non-Indian communities. While the on-Reservation socio-economic 

conditions have improved over time, as recently as 1999 the estimated poverty rate 

on the Reservation was still 50% higher than Tulare County as a whole. To this 

day, the Reservation residents generally continue to suffer from a relatively low 

standard of living in substantial part due to the absence of an adequate and reliable 

potable water supply and system. 

Contemporary Negotiations to Secure a Reliable Source of Water for the 

Tribe 

To address the inter-related issues of lack of water and resulting economic, political and social limitations facing the Tribe, we have spent several years assessing 

its future water needs for domestic, commercial, municipal, industrial and agriculVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:31 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\38016.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
49 

tural purposes. We concluded that, in view of existing uses downstream of the Reservation, the Tribe could not meet its water needs, especially over the long-term, 

without the construction of a reservoir or reservoirs on the Reservation. Given that 

our Reservation sits at the headwaters of the South Fork Tule River, it made perfect 

sense to us to build a water storage project to capture the high flows of the river 

when downstream users were not capturing or using those flows. 

We approached the solutions to our problems with the attitude that we wanted 

to work with, and not at odds with, our downstream non-Indian neighbors. Too 

often—in the more typical situation where a general stream adjudication is commenced in a given state—the Indian and non-Indian interests are pitted against one 

another. Here, by reaching out to our neighbors with the intent of respecting their 

needs and looking for solutions to our own, we were able to avoid the costs, delays 

and disruptions of water rights litigation. We entered into negotiations with interested parties seeking to establish the Tribe’s reserved water rights through an 

agreement settling our federal reserved water rights claims. 

For nine years, the settling parties have diligently negotiated the terms of a settlement agreement which, upon Congressional approval, will finally establish the 

federally reserved water rights of the Tule River Tribe. The negotiations have been 

very productive. The settling parties have been able to reach an agreement-in-principle on all major issues, including the magnitude of the Tribe’s reserved water 

right, the Tribe’s rights to use water both on and off the Reservation, and the operation rules of on-Reservation storage reservoirs, including the near-term Phase I 

Reservoir primarily intended to serve municipal and domestic water needs. We are 

very proud of the settlement agreement we have reached, which allows the South 

Fork Tule River water users to continue their historic uses while providing the 

Tribe with a firm water supply, primarily for its domestic, commercial and municipal needs. 

The remaining major issue prior to submitting the agreement to Congress is securing the support of the Department of the Interior, and the Administration, to authorize and fund the construction, operation and maintenance facilities anticipated 

by the settlement agreement and to compensate the Tribe for releasing water related claims against the United States. 

H.R. 2535 Lays the Foundation for Moving Forward With the Settlement of 

the Tule River Indian Tribe’s Water Rights 

Moving to the terms of the bill under consideration today, H.R. 2535 authorizes 

the Secretary of Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility and suitability of constructing a storage reservoir, outlet works, and delivery system on the reservation. 

H.R. 2535 also authorizes the appropriation of $3 million to the Bureau of Reclamation to fund the study. The storage facility feasibility study is the most recent step 

in a several-decades-long effort by the Tribe to secure both title to and quantification of its federal reserved water rights, and to actually deliver ‘‘wet’’ water to our 

members for domestic, agricultural, municipal, commercial and industrial purposes. 

Notably, the eventual construction of a water storage project will enable us to meet 

our needs without disrupting the current water uses of the South Tule River. 

As part of our lengthy and detailed negotiations with our neighbors and with the 

United States spanning the past decade, we have commissioned technical studies of 

the South Fork Tule River watershed within our Reservation boundaries. This analysis by the firm of Natural Resources Consulting Engineers of Ft. Collins, Colorado 

and Oakland, California, led us to the present site of a proposed water storage 

project at the confluence of Cedar Creek and the mainstem of the South Fork Tule 

River. The site of the proposed project, and the existing and proposed expansion to 

the Tribe’s water service area, are depicted on the map marked as Exhibit D. 

In short, the analysis we have commissioned to date, while rigorous and thorough, 

is not sufficiently detailed to support and justify a final decision to authorize and 

appropriate federal funds from which to initiate actual construction activities. Thus, 

the authority and funding delivered through H.R. 2535 would enable the Tribe, acting in concert with the Department of the Interior and its Bureau of Reclamation, 

to ensure that this Cedar Creek site is the optimal site at which to build the project. 

We are pleased to report to the Subcommittee that we have gained the endorsement of the National Congress of American Indians and the Southern California 

Tribal Chairman’s Association, for the enactment of H.R. 2535. Copies of the resolutions of these organizations are also attached to my testimony to be made a part 

of the record. (Exhibits E and F.) We have also provided the Subcommittee with letters and resolutions of support from the City of Porterville, CA; the Tulare County, 

CA Board of Supervisors, the Tule River Association and the South Tule Irrigation 

Ditch Company, and we believe these documents are being made a part of the 

record of this hearing. 

50 

Conclusion 

It is now time for our federal partners to join us in securing a brighter future 

for the Tule River Tribe and its people by supporting H.R. 2535. I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to express the Tule River Tribe’s support of 

H.R. 2535. 

In closing, I would ask that my testimony and supporting materials be made a 

part of the record of this hearing by unanimous consent. 

I, or my associates here at the witness table with me, would be happy to respond 

to any questions which the members of the Subcommittee might have. 

Ms. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Garfield. 

Next, we have Mr. Larson, President of the South Tule Independent Ditch Company of Porterville, California. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF PHILIP GREGG LARSON, PRESIDENT, SOUTH 

TULE INDEPENDENT DITCH COMPANY, PORTERVILLE, 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. LARSON. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and Subcommittee members. It is a pleasure to be here to be able to share 

this information with you. 

My name is Phil Larson. I am a third-generation citrus grower 

in the area of Success Valley, which is a community downstream 

from the Tule River Indian Reservation near the city of Porterville. 

I am also President of the South Tule Independent Ditch Company, 

a nonprofit mutual water company which supplies water to approximately 50 shareholders in Success Valley by means of a 10- 

mile-long irrigation ditch. 

I am here today to speak in support of H.R. 2535 and to inform 

the Subcommittee as to the progress, the successful progress of 

nearly 10 years of water rights negotiations with the Tule River 

Tribe. 

South Tule Independent Ditch Company diverts its water from 

the South Fork of the Tule River approximately a half-mile downstream from the reservation’s western boundary. The ditch company claims rights to water from this fork of the river dating to 

1854. These water rights were adjudicated and fixed by a judgment 

of the Superior Court of Tulare County in the case of Popular Irrigation Company v. A.A. Howard, et al., in 1916. This right was established as 10 cubic feet per second under most circumstances. 

However, during a typical irrigation season, the South Fork’s total 

flow is often much less. Also, the tribe was not a member to the 

1916 case. 

In 1922, the Secretary of the Interior of the United States representing the tribe and South Tule Independent Ditch Company 

entered into an agreement which was intended to definitely fix for 

all times the respective water rights of the tribe and the ditch company. This agreement established a proportional sharing of available water basically on a 3-to-1 ratio in favor of the ditch company. 

It did not quantify the Federally reserved water right of the reservation nor address the tribe’s right to water storage. It did recognize that South Tule Independent Ditch Company’s water rights 

were initiated at various times between the years 1854 and 1872. 

I have found no evidence that the United States considered the 

water rights of the reservation at the time of its establishment in 

1873. The government also failed to consider apparently or evaluVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:31 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\38016.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
51 

ate the pre-1873 priority claims of other water users which would 

be superior to the Federally reserved water rights of the reservation. 

It is with this history along with the limited seasonal flows of the 

South Fork of the Tule River that prompted the tribe to request 

formal water rights negotiations with the downstream water users 

in an effort to quantify their water rights for their current and future needs. 

Since March of 1998, representatives of the tribe, South Tule 

Independent Ditch Company, the Tule River Association, riparian 

users and various governmental stakeholders have been meeting to 

negotiate an amicable solution to the multiple demands for the limited waters of the South Fork of the Tule River. 

An agreement in principle has been reached among the primary 

water users. The agreement is far more than just a handshake. It 

is already drafted in its final form, and we expect it to be signed 

within 30 days. This water agreement was written with the intent 

of the parties that the water allocations of the 1922 agreement continue to be fulfilled. This would be accomplished through the construction of a water storage facility and distribution system on the 

reservation which would in simple terms capture winter and spring 

high water flows for use by the tribe and require the flow-through 

of the lesser summer and fall river flows. 

I and the Board of Directors of South Tule Independent Ditch 

Company have concluded that the agreement and the tribe’s proposed water storage facility is the only practicable solution that 

will provide the tribe with a sustainable supply of water. We therefore encourage your support and a favorable vote for H.R. 2535 to 

provide funding for the feasibility study for the tribe’s water storage and distribution system. 

I would also like to point out on the chart over here just how limited the flow is on that fork of the Tule River during the summer 

and fall months of the year. It gets at times near zero, if not zero, 

so it is imperative that water storage be considered as the only 

practicable solution. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:] 

Statement of Philip G. Larson, President, South Tule Independent Ditch 

Company, Porterville, California, on H.R. 2535 

Good Morning. 

My name is Phil Larson. I am a third generation citrus grower in Success Valley, 

an area downstream from the Tule River Indian Reservation near the city of Porterville, California. I am also President of South Tule Independent Ditch Company, a 

mutual water company which supplies water to approximately 50 shareholders in 

Success Valley by means of a 10-mile long irrigation ditch. I am here today to speak 

in support of H.R. 2535 and to inform the Subcommittee on Water and Power as 

to progress of nearly 10 years of water rights negotiations with the Tule River Tribe. 

South Tule Independent Ditch Company diverts its water from the South Fork of 

the Tule River approximately a half mile outside the Reservation’s western boundary. The ditch company claims rights to water from this fork of the river dating to 

1854. These water rights were adjudicated and fixed by a judgment of the Superior 

Court of Tulare County in the case of Poplar Irrigation Company vs. A.A. Howard, 

et al., in 1916. Said right was established as 10 cubic feet per second under most 

circumstances. However, during the typical irrigation season, the South Fork’s total 

flow is often much less. The Tribe was not a party to this 1916 case. 

In 1922, the Secretary of the Interior of the United States, representing the Tribe, 

and South Tule Independent Ditch Company entered into an agreement which was 

intended to definitely fix for all times the respective water rights of the Tribe and 

52 

the ditch company. This agreement established a proportional sharing of the available water between these two entities. It did not quantify the federally reserved 

water right of the Reservation, nor address the Tribe’s right to water storage. It did 

recognize that South Tule Independent Ditch Company’s water rights were initiated 

at various times between the years 1854 and 1872. 

I have found no evidence that the United States considered the water rights of 

the Reservation at the time of its establishment in 1873. The Government also apparently failed to consider or evaluate the pre-1873 priority claims of other water 

users which would be superior to the federally reserved water rights of the Reservation. 

It is with this history, along with the limited and seasonal flows of the South Fork 

Tule River, that prompted the Tribe to request formal water rights negotiations 

with the downstream water users in an effort to quantify their water rights for the 

current and future needs of the Tribe. 

Since March 1998, representatives of the Tribe, South Tule Independent Ditch 

Company, the Tule River Association, riparian users, and various governmental 

stake holders, have been meeting to negotiate an amicable solution to the multiple 

demands for the limited waters of the South Fork Tule River. 

An agreement-in-principle has been reached among the primary water users. It 

is the intent of the parties that the water allocation agreements memorialized in 

the 1922 Agreement continue to be fulfilled. This would be accomplished through 

the construction of a water storage facility and distribution system on the Reservation which would, in simple terms, capture winter and spring high water flows for 

use by the Tribe and require the flow-through of the lesser summer and fall river 

flows. 

I and the Board of Directors of South Tule Independent Ditch Company have concluded that the agreement-in-principle and the Tribe’s proposed water storage facility is the only practicable solution which will provide the Tribe with a sustainable 

supply of water. We therefore encourage your support and favorable vote for 

H.R. 2535, to provide funding for the feasibility study for the Tribe’s water storage 

and distribution system. 

Thank you. 

Mr. NUNES. Could you explain that chart? 

Mr. LARSON. Certainly. That chart is an average water flow of 

the South Fork of the Tule River, and I don’t know if you can see 

the dates at the bottom of the chart, but from about August 

through November, the water flow is very minor and oftentimes 

zero if it is a dry year. That chart I think clearly illustrates the 

requirement for water storage. Absent water storage, there is insufficient water supply for either the tribe or the other uses on this 

stream of the river. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. You are welcome. Thank you for the opportunity. 

Mr. NUNES. Next, we have Mr. Quint from the Bureau of Reclamation. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT QUINT, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. QUINT. Thank you. I am actually going to provide testimony 

on both the bills if that is OK. I am here to provide testimony on 

H.R. 2498 and H.R. 2535. 

H.R. 2498 would direct Reclamation to provide a grant to the 

California Water Institute located in Cal State, Fresno, to conduct 

a study and create a regional water management plan. The plan 

would look at water quality, supply, conveyance and reliability, 

flood control, water resource-related environmental enhancement 

and population growth. 

53 

While we acknowledge the need for integrated planning by local 

communities and do support the intent of the bill, we have a couple 

of concerns and are unable to support the bill at this time. 

First, the bill raises budgetary concerns which we have discussed earlier because it directs Reclamation to issue a $1 million grant 

without reference to a necessary appropriation. This would continue to strain Reclamation’s limited budget. 

In addition, the bill requires that Reclamation assure that the 

grant recipient submit a report to Congress within two years without a clear means for Reclamation to ensure that this directive is 

met. 

On H.R. 2535, that would authorize $3 million for a feasibility 

study to look at the construction of a storage reservoir, outlet 

works and delivery system for the Tule River Tribe in California. 

As envisioned, the storage facility would provide water supply for 

domestic, municipal, industrial and agricultural purposes. 

The administration feels that this legislation is premature and 

cannot support H.R. 2535 at this time. Currently, settlement negotiations are ongoing and not all issues related to the Federal participation have been fully resolved. The outcome of these negotiations may affect the scope, schedule and cost of the feasibility study 

that is proposed in the legislation. In addition, the legislation does 

not specify a local cost share for the authorized study. Because of 

the budgetary concerns and timing, the administration is unable to 

support this feasibility authorization. 

This concludes my verbal remarks, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Quint follow:] 

Statement of Robert Quint, Acting Deputy Commissioner, 

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2498 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert Quint, Acting Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here 

today to provide the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 2498, a bill to authorize a study on coordinating and integrating sub-regional interrelated regional 

water management plans into a unified integrated plan in the San Joaquin River 

and Tulare Lake Hydrologic Regions in the San Joaquin Valley of California. 

Ongoing activities in Reclamation’s Central Valley Project in California are currently addressing the need targeted by this proposed study. Furthermore, the legislation does not identify a Reclamation funding source for the study and without an 

additional appropriation, it would be drawn from other existing programs, compromising that work. As such, the Administration does not support H.R. 2498 at this 

time. 

This legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to award a grant to the California Water Institute, not later 

than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. The Institute would prepare an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Plan) for the eight counties 

encompassed by the two hydrologic basins that would address issues related to 

water quality, water supply (both surface and groundwater banking, and brackish 

water desalination), water conveyance, water reliability, flood control, water resource-related environmental enhancement, and population growth. 

H.R. 2498 also directs the Secretary to ensure that a report containing the results 

of the Plan is submitted to this Committee and the Senate Committee on Energy 

and Natural Resources not later than 24 months after the grant is awarded and authorizes the appropriation of $1 million to carry out the Act. 

There are many water supply issues in the San Joaquin Valley and many of these 

issues have a Federal nexus. It is important for local communities to evaluate and 

address the future needs and find solutions for potential shortfalls. Through the existing Acts authorizing various units and divisions of the Central Valley Project, 

Reclamation is already actively working on issues that could be evaluated by the 

54 

Plan. These issues include water quality and supply, surface and groundwater banking, water conveyance, water reliability, flood control, and water resource-related 

environmental enhancement. 

Reclamation has concerns about the budget impact of H.R. 2498. H.R. 2498 also 

does not identify a specific Reclamation program or activity responsible for the Institute’s grant. Potential sources include CALFED, Upper San Joaquin River Basin 

Storage Investigation, San Joaquin River Restoration Program, San Luis Unit 

Drainage, and the Salinity and Boron Total Maximum Daily Load on the Lower San 

Joaquin River. 

In addition, the legislation does not specify actions Reclamation should take to ensure that the Institute submits a report to Congress within the 24-month timeframe 

referenced in the bill. 

That concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

Statement of Robert Quint, Acting Deputy Commissioner, 

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2535 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert Quint, Acting Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here 

today to provide the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 2535, the Tule 

River Tribe Water Development Act. Due to ongoing settlement negotiations with 

Tule River Tribe as well as the need for a complete appraisal level study to precede 

a feasibility authorization, the Administration feels that it is premature to authorize 

this study and cannot support H.R. 2535 at this time. 

This legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior ‘‘to conduct a study on 

the feasibility and suitability of constructing a storage reservoir, outlet works, and 

a delivery system for the Tule River Indian Tribe of California to provide a water 

supply for domestic, municipal, industrial, and agricultural purposes, and for other 

purposes.’’ The Act would authorize $3 million for Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study to be completed within 2 years after funds are appropriated or the signing of a reserved water rights settlement agreement by the Tule River Tribe and 

other settling water users, whichever is later. Without a completed appraisal level 

study, it is premature to authorize this study. The authorization of $3 million for 

this study would further compete with the funding needs of other already authorized projects. Additionally, the legislation does not specify a local cost share for the 

authorized study. 

Settlement agreement negotiations have been taking place for several years between the Tribe, downstream water users, and the Federal negotiation team regarding the Tribe’s federally reserved water rights. These negotiations are ongoing and 

not all issues have been resolved, including issues relating to Federal contribution. 

Until the Administration has completed its analysis of the proposed settlement 

under the Criteria and Procedures for the Participation of the Federal Government 

in Negotiations for the Settlement of Indian Water Rights Claims (‘‘Criteria’’) (55 

Fed. Reg. 9223 (1990)), which are the framework we use to evaluate settlements, 

it is premature to take a position upon the scope, schedule, and cost of the feasibility study that is proposed in this legislation. An appraisal level study is also a 

necessary part of the process; Reclamation generally requires completion of an appraisal level study before considering whether the project warrants continuing to a 

feasibility-level analysis. Reclamation understands that the Tribe has conducted a 

substantial amount of reconnaissance/appraisal-level technical, planning, and environmental work over the past decade; however, Reclamation has not reviewed these 

documents nor determined that they would fulfill the requirements for an appraisal 

study. 

Typically, a feasibility study of this size and shape and National Environmental 

Policy Act compliance takes from 3 to 5 years to complete with significant costs. Actual costs for this study would be determined via a Plan of Study, which would be 

developed after study authorization and appropriations are provided. The time and 

cost to complete the feasibility study and environmental documentation for the Tule 

River Tribe Water Development Project could be shortened if the Tribe’s technical 

and environmental analyses and documentation are sufficient and compatible with 

Federal requirements. The costs of a feasibility study are significant and may exceed the $3 million authorization in this bill. 

Reclamation understands the importance of a reliable water supply and will continue to work with the Tribe toward this goal in addressing the issues described 

above. 

That concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

55 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Quint. At this time, I think we will 

proceed with questions. Are you going to go first, Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You are there. Go ahead. 

Mr. NUNES. OK. Well, thank you. All right. 

I think we have Mr. Costa’s bill, questions on it too, but first I 

want to thank Mr. Garfield for being here today. Mr. Garfield, 

could you just testify before the committee on what happens when 

those flows drop like that? Where does the tribe have to go to get 

their water? 

Mr. GARFIELD. At this time, we have about maybe six wells that 

serve the reservation community. Every one of those are working 

during the summer months. We also have one spring that we utilize during the year. But sometimes on a very hot summer, we 

have to get water from the South Fork Tule River. We just concluded putting in an expansion to our water treatment facility and 

are getting water from the South Fork, but just a matter of years 

ago, our wells weren’t sufficient in supplying water to the community, and we were out of water during the summer months. 

Mr. NUNES. And so you had to truck the water to the reservation? 

Mr. GARFIELD. We had to truck the water and some individual 

families had to buy their water themselves. 

Mr. NUNES. Just for drinking? 

Mr. GARFIELD. Yes. 

Mr. NUNES. Yes. Madam Chairwoman, I think it is important to 

note that this tribe during certain times of the year runs out of the 

water, and so that is why this is so important, because they do 

have the rights to the water. They could have gone the route of the 

court system, but they have decided not to. They work with all the 

agencies. 

I would like to call on Mr. Larson to just comment on how it has 

been to work with the tribe, where you think you are at this point 

in terms of finishing the agreement and what you are waiting for. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you. Actually, the process has been a nearly 

10-year process. We came together with some apprehension as to 

if we were going to be litigating issues, but we came together as 

a community. We have a common problem. The problem is the limited water supply. We have competing interests in that, but we 

came together for a solution. 

That stream flow constitutes the life blood of our communities, 

and our communities, our neighbors, so essentially we are the same 

community under different hats you might say, but the process has 

been successful. The water users, including Tule River Association, 

which is the water users downstream from Success Reservoir, 

agree. I think you have a letter to that statement that they are in 

support of this finding and that the agreement is ready for final 

ratification by the various boards to put a signature page on it and 

it is ready to go. So we are that close with respect to the agreement 

itself. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Larson. 

So, Mr. Quint, you have heard the testimony of Mr. Garfield and 

Mr. Larson. They have been working very closely with you. They 

basically say that all that is left is to cross the t’s and dot the i’s. 

What is the holdup from the Bureau’s point of view and what are 

56 

the outstanding concerns? I think it is important to lay those out 

before the committee so that these gentlemen can figure out what 

those concerns are and address those concerns so that the Bureau 

would then be supportive of this language. 

Mr. QUINT. Let me address that. The department has a process 

they go through for all Indian water rights settlement. This is one 

of 19 the department is currently working on, and once this settlement is all put together, an assessment team does a report. That 

report then goes through a criteria and procedures process for review by the Indian Water Rights Settlement Office. That then 

needs to be approved by the department. Then that has to go to 

OMB for approval. So all those processes need to take place to 

make sure that this project is what it needs to be. Also during that 

process, that will determine the appropriate Federal role in this 

overall settlement. 

Mr. NUNES. So I don’t know all 19 different tribes that have 

these issues, but in this case, it seems to be that everyone agrees 

that the problem needs to be solved. They have worked with all the 

surrounding community, proper community agencies that need to 

approve this and are essentially just waiting on the Bureau. So I 

would hope that you could somehow speed the process up. I mean, 

this has been a long time in the works. 

Mr. QUINT. And we have been involved in the process all the way 

through and will continue to work with the entities to move this 

as quickly as we can. 

Mr. NUNES. So in OMB, who in OMB brought up concerns with 

this? 

Mr. QUINT. Nobody has yet because OMB has not been involved 

in this at this point. It is our process for getting settlements approved. It requires that we go to OMB to get their input and review 

of those. 

Mr. NUNES. So how much more time do you think it will be? 

Mr. QUINT. I can’t give you a specific time because all these vary 

depending upon the complexity of the problem and where it is, priority and reviews. Typically, these things can take several months, 

though, to get through that process. 

Mr. NUNES. Well, hopefully several months is better than several 

years. 

Just one more question. In those 19, who is the priority? How do 

you decide who the number one priority is? 

Mr. QUINT. I don’t have that information with me, but I would 

be glad to submit that information for the record. 

Mr. NUNES. OK. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. Mr. Garfield, how would you describe economic 

conditions facing the Tule Tribe? I know that Congressman Nunes 

does a great job in representing your issues and is concerned about 

the long-term viability of the tribe. But if you could give a little descriptive of the current economic conditions you are facing. 

Mr. GARFIELD. One of the big concerns of the Tribal Council over 

the years has been employment opportunities for the members of 

the tribe. 

Mr. COSTA. Your unemployment level is? 

57 

Mr. GARFIELD. At this time, I would say it is probably around 40 

to 45 percent. The tribe currently has a small casino on the reservation, which is about maybe 20 miles east of Porterville. We also 

have an Economic Development Corporation at the City of 

Porterville’s airport. We have 40 acres there that we are trying to 

develop. We have a small airplane facility there that we are trying 

to currently license as a charter service for the community. 

But I think that part of the problem that we have also is in our 

planning process, a lot of things that we want to do we need water 

to do, and without knowing how much water we have or can plan 

on, that certainly puts a damper on our planning process. 

Mr. COSTA. Those below the poverty line, what is your current 

number that you use that make up the tribe? 

Mr. GARFIELD. The tribal membership I believe is probably 1,588 

at this time, which includes all men and women and children. 

Mr. COSTA. And those below the poverty line? 

Mr. GARFIELD. Those below the poverty line, I would say around 

50 percent. 

Mr. COSTA. So obviously the economic conditions facing the tribe, 

it has a long history. Your efforts to try to improve the opportunities for future tribe members is really contingent in large part to 

this proposal providing sufficient water over the long term to sustain the other economic activities for the tribe. 

Mr. GARFIELD. That is correct. We currently have about a 200- 

member waiting list for homes on the reservation. 

Mr. COSTA. But you can’t build them without water. 

Mr. GARFIELD. Correct. 

Mr. COSTA. Very good. Mr. Quint, I just want to make reference 

to your testimony on both bills. It indicates to me, frankly, that 

there needs to be a better communication, and the Chairwoman 

spoke of that earlier in her comments with regards to the Bureau’s 

testimony on all three bills today, but I know reference to other 

legislation. I can understand where you may support in concept or 

understand the need. 

Actually, I believe you have been involved in this effort on the 

regional study plan as it relates to the San Joaquin Valley, and you 

have been both at the regional level and understand the importance of it. What you are saying is that you would like the language to have 120 days after appropriations, not authorization, because you want to have the money to further see them continue 

your efforts with the legislation, is that correct? 

Mr. QUINT. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA. OK. Well, again, I think the Chairwoman’s comment 

earlier on that if you don’t ask for our support financially, it makes 

it awful difficult for us to give it. And we need to, I think, have 

better communication as it relates to assessing the challenges we 

face, whether it is three pieces of legislation we are talking about 

today or whether it is other efforts that are ongoing that involve 

the Bureau’s jurisdiction. Clearly, water we all understand is the 

life blood of mankind, and nowhere is that more critically faced 

than in the West. So we need your focus, we need your support. 

My time has expired. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Costa. I think we might be 

going a second round, so you might want to start thinking of someVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:31 Sep 30, 2008 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\38016.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
58 

thing else because I have questions, and I would like to start with 

my favorite, Bureau of Reclamation. 

Mr. Quint, is it necessary for the Secretary to support the proposed settlement in the Tule River situation simply to do the study, 

and can you tell us how this compares with other studies the Bureau has done and the cost-share for them and can they afford it? 

Mr. QUINT. Could you state the question again? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is it necessary for the Secretary to support a 

proposed settlement in the Tule River situation simply to do the 

study, and how does that compare to the studies previously done 

by the Bureau and the typical cost-share for this feasibility study, 

and do you think the tribe could afford it? 

Mr. QUINT. Let me try to address as much of that as I can. Typically, the Secretary has responsibility for approval of settlement 

agreements throughout the process. Whether that settlement is 

necessary to be signed before a feasibility study can be done, not 

always, but since there are still some outstanding issues about 

what the responsibility and liability of the Federal government is 

in this case, we feel it is premature to authorize this feasibility 

study until some of those issues are sorted out. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You haven’t done other studies with this 

amount of work already done on them? 

Mr. QUINT. We have done some. I don’t have all the details of 

those obviously in front of me, and I know the tribe and the team 

have done a number of studies, maybe appraisal level is what we 

refer to them as, already as part of this. We haven’t had an opportunity to review those at this point in time, but we would be glad 

to work with the tribe and with the other stakeholders out there 

to look at that data and see how close we are to being able to go 

forward with a feasibility study. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And that is a commitment? 

Mr. QUINT. Absolutely. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Garfield, your response? 

Mr. GARFIELD. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I think that, first of all, the Office of Management and Budget 

does not have to approve the settlement agreement as we try to 

move forward on this project. 

Second, I think the Bureau of Reclamation mentioned earlier 

that this event here has not been followed as per the criteria and 

procedures. The Chairman of the Federal Negotiating Team at that 

time was Mr. Chris Kenney. He was the Chairman of the team 

throughout most of that period, and Mr. Kenney was also involved 

in writing those criterion procedures. He is also here with me today 

as a technical witness on behalf of the tribe should the committee 

like to hear from this person. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I think that would help this committee to be 

able to address it, because my next question to Mr. Quint was what 

is the process in which these settlements are approved by the Federal team, and explain the criteria and procedures for which the 

settlement is being analyzed. 

Mr. Kenney, would you step up? 

Mr. KENNEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you identify yourself, sir, please, for 

the record? Identify yourself. 

59 

Mr. KENNEY. My name is Chris Kenney. I am retired from the 

Federal government as of January 2007. Prior to that time, I was 

the departmentally appointed Chairman of the Federal negotiation 

team which involved representatives from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of Justice and in this case the Bureau of Reclamation. 

I think the best way to approach this question, Mr. Quint I think 

is substantially correct in his statement that the criteria and procedures which were a policy that was established by the department 

in 1990 was a set of criteria and a structure by which the Office 

of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior and 

the Department of Justice could evaluate and take a look at water 

rights negotiations, any water rights negotiations, and how to 

evaluate those. They were guidelines that would allow all three 

agencies to be able to have one common language in approaching 

all the many varied activities that are involved in any water rights 

negotiation. 

I would take issue with the fact that the criteria and procedures 

are applied after the negotiations are done. Quite the contrary. Criteria and procedures were established to give guidance to the 

teams in the field so that they would understand the arena and the 

structures within which they were to negotiate these settlements. 

So I would submit to the Subcommittee that, while the administration has yet to finish its analysis under criteria and procedures, 

as the negotiation team was going forward, they were mindful of 

the criteria and procedures and how those would be applied as the 

administration took a look at the settlement. 

Those criteria and procedures have lots of issues and elements 

in them, but foremost is the appropriateness of a negotiated settlement, which usually is identified when the department decides to 

put a team in the field. These include whether all the parties that 

we believe are appropriate to the settlement are at the table so 

that we know we have all the people that have equities involved 

available. Also, the criteria and procedures set up equitable ways 

to take a look at how the settlement is going to benefit the tribe 

and how it is going to resolve a lot of the problems in the basin. 

In my opinion, I think that the settlement agreement that has 

been finished to date does that and is in a position to serve the 

needs of all the water users in the basin. I think it is appropriate 

that the administration take a look at the settlement and tell us 

what they think. It is time for them to do that because most of the 

issues have been resolved. 

One of the reasons that the tribe and South Tule Ditch would 

like to see this bill and the monies to do the feasibility study was 

that this negotiation had less resources available to it than many 

of the other negotiations because of its size, and we know that the 

Congress is going to ask for details about the facilities and the arrangements and the structure of the settlement and how it is going 

to work. 

In order for the tribe and even the administration to be able to 

answer those questions, we need resources to evaluate those issues 

so that you will have the answers that you request because the administration is going to require as much detail in its evaluation as 

the Congress I am sure will ask for. Unless the tribe and the local 

60 

parties have those resources to do that study, you are not going to 

be able to get the kind of detail that you need to answer the questions that you have. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So it sounds like a Catch-22 boiling down to 

money. 

Mr. KENNEY. It is the United States Federal Government. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your honest answer, sir, and I 

would like to ask a further question that you might possibly have 

some answers to, and that is, the Bureau has been dealing with 

this issue for how long? 

Mr. KENNEY. This specific issue? I think it is appropriate to say 

the Bureau has been with this negotiation from the very beginning. 

I think it is important to understand that the Bureau was there 

as one of the resources that the Secretary of the Interior has. The 

Secretary of Interior is charged with trust responsibility to the 

tribes. The Secretary has a number of resources available, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but he also has a substantial 

technical resource in the Bureau of Reclamation. And when the 

Secretary thinks that that is an appropriate resource to apply, then 

the Secretary uses those resources. 

So we have used Reclamation’s expertise from the very beginning 

in a lot of the technical work that we have done. It is also true that 

as resources become available, the Bureau of Indian Affairs would 

provide as much resources as they could to the tribes, but I am 

sure the Chairwoman knows that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has 

a very broad mandate with Indian Country and sometimes those 

resources are just not available. So the Bureau of Reclamation is 

trying to do what the Secretary asks them to do. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And I was looking for a timeframe, and from 

reading some of the testimony, it has been at least nine years. 

Mr. KENNEY. Yes, ma’am. We started an appraisal of the potential for the negotiated settlement in 1998. Mr. Larson made reference to the fact that when you don’t have litigation the local parties are very cautious because it is a bit more of an open forum. 

To their credit, they did their homework, they studied, they asked 

questions, and they found common ground so that they could have 

a consensus agreement, and that is to be applauded. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And I am sure the Subcommittee also agrees 

to that. But in your expert opinion as a former member of the Bureau’s team, what would you feel is the timeframe to be able to get 

this accomplished if everybody were to come to the table? 

Mr. KENNEY. I think that the timeframes that have been put forward are reasonable. I have been gone for about six months, but 

my understanding is the Department of Justice still has some legal 

analysis that they traditionally do in these water rights settlements. I don’t think there is any reason why they shouldn’t be able 

to do that in the next 30 to 60 days at the most. 

I know all the parties are ready to move forward because they 

have resolved their major issues, and except for some of these more 

demanding details as far as the technical questions that will arise 

around a storage facility and distribution facilities and how the 

river is going to perform when we put those facilities in place, I 

61 

think that most of the major issues are done and we could see an 

agreeable consensus settlement within the next 30 days. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you very much for stepping up to the 

plate and I appreciate your input, sir. 

Mr. KENNEY. You are very welcome. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so very much. I will continue in a 

second round. Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Just a couple quick questions to H.R. 2498 to my 

witnesses, who again I want to thank for coming all the way from 

California for the hearing today, and you can both comment on this 

if you want. Mr. Moss, you might begin. 

I described in my opening statement the fact that we are in a 

perfect storm, and that is that Mother Nature gave us a tremendously dry year last year and then, of course, with the reduction 

of water availability as a result of the San Joaquin River restoration that you are familiar with as well as the Wanger decision that 

took place in August. Describe the impact, the long-term impact of 

the loss of water over the last 17 years notwithstanding whatever 

merit that water, the redirection of that water may have taken in 

terms of what is the fastest-growing region in California? 

Mr. MOSS. A couple of things come to mind. One is relative to 

the short-term. It is on the verge of panic in much of the valley 

right now for those growers who are farming lands with tenuous 

water supplies, especially permanent plantings where they really 

don’t know where their next water supply is going to come from. 

Much of the state water project’s intent, much of the Central Valley project’s intent was to provide a balanced water supply to the 

region, enough water to meet the long-term needs of the region, 

and that clearly is not the case anymore. We have been borrowing 

from our savings account. Our savings account is the groundwater, 

and it tells our balance on an ongoing basis of how good a job of 

water management we are doing, and it is going down. There is no 

question about that. It is a critically overdrafted area, and the consequence of that is eventually we will be in litigation. 

I mean, we have heard a lot this morning about trying to avoid 

litigation, but an adjudication of the groundwater basin is clearly 

in the offing as people chase groundwater down and it becomes economical to pump. So on a long-term basis, it is not a good picture. 

We need more water for the region to sustain our growth. 

Mr. COSTA. For the population growth in the cities and to maintain the farms? 

Mr. MOSS. Absolutely. All of our cities are dependent, virtually 

all of them are dependent upon a depleting groundwater source, 

and quite frankly, I am concerned that they won’t be able to find 

that they have a long-term sustainable supply to support new development. People want to put holes in the ground to support new 

subdivisions and are not able to. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, we have legislation I passed on the state legislation years ago a requirement that local entities have to first identify their water source before they provide a will serve letter to 

allow the permit for the building to take place under the theory 

that you don’t build a subdivision without building the roads. 

Mr. MOSS. Right. 

62 

Mr. COSTA. Why would you build a subdivision without making 

sure you have the water? 

Mr. MOSS. Well, that legislation has served, quite frankly, as a 

wake-up call to a lot of our communities. For example, I just finished helping the City of Porterville with their urban water management plan, and they are projecting that they need to have new 

surface water sources to meet all of their future growth. 

Mr. COSTA. The City of San Diego, I understand, attorney talked 

about a potential moratorium in light of the Wanger decision. 

Mr. Green, before my time expires, you want to quickly comment? 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. 

It is not a very well-kept secret, but there is a private water 

transfer process that occurs as a result of scarcity, and I can report 

reliably that water went up to $500 an acre foot for water that was 

needed to be put on permanent crops this past summer, and that 

is a real stiff bill to pay for irrigated agriculture. 

Mr. COSTA. I understand. I would just make a comment to my 

friend with the Bureau as it relates to their earlier questioning on 

the Tule River and the length of time. I am just trying to understand the logic of this. 

Parties cooperate, they don’t litigate, and it takes longer, so am 

I to deduce that if in fact people sue you that you act quicker? That 

is a rhetorical question, but frankly, it makes no sense. If folks are 

working with you that you wouldn’t want to expedite the process 

and reward good behavior as opposed to putting that on the back 

burner, so that is one of the other things that I will add to my list. 

Thank you very much. I yield the balance of my time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Costa. 

I have a couple of questions and then I will defer to Mr. Nunes. 

To Mr. Green and Mr. Moss, what is your view of this assertion 

that the Bureau is fulfilling this need already? 

Mr. MOSS. I quite frankly make a living out of interfacing with 

the Bureau of Reclamation on behalf of a number of clients, and 

they try very hard. Unfortunately, they are not that successful in 

terms of making CVP supplies a resource that can be used in an 

integrated fashion in some of this planning that we need to do and 

some of the implementation of those plans. 

It is very hard, for example, to do water transfers where we can 

move water to its highest and best use on a cooperative basis. Another example would be groundwater recharge and banking programs. The Central Valley project in 1992 proposed groundwater 

banking for the CVP, and we have yet to get rules and regulations 

to implement groundwater banking, and still waiting, which makes 

it very difficult to know how to put together groundwater banking 

program, which is everybody’s solution for new storage in the San 

Joaquin Valley. Supported broadly, but yet we can’t use Federal 

water, have difficulty in using Federal water to do so. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Quint, the same to you. 

Mr. QUINT. In reading the language of the bill, we currently feel 

like a lot of the objectives of the bill are being met through other 

avenues out there, the various other authorities out there. So we 

respectfully disagree. The intent of it is good, but we figure most 

of those things are already being covered. 

63 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You heard Mr. Moss indicate that there are 

certain provisions that are not being addressed. Am I correct, sir? 

That is what I was asking. 

Mr. QUINT. And we would be glad to talk with him and work 

with him in understanding that better. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you ensure that this Subcommittee also 

gets a copy of that update, please, sir? 

Mr. QUINT. Certainly. 

Mr. COSTA. Madam Chairwoman, if you would yield for a moment. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Quint, I beg to differ with you. The problem is, 

yes, you have certain water districts that are doing different things 

within their area, but there is no coordination in a regional effort, 

and it is a region, and we get dewatered or we get water reallocated as a region, not on a district-by-district basis. 

So while it is accurate for you to say that some of this is taking 

place on a district-by-district basis, I would say it is very vague in 

terms of the degree, Madam Chairman. But the fact of the matter 

is, while we act locally oftentimes, we have to act as a region. That 

is what the CALFED record of decision stipulated. It is very difficult to get all these water agencies to act as a region. They don’t 

have the umbrella of the Metropolitan Water District that brings 

everybody together. 

So for you to say, yes, some of this stuff is being done, well, yes, 

some of this stuff is being done, but there is no effort to coordinate 

that area in an eight-county basis. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for yielding. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Nunes. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I just want to follow up on Mr. Costa’s question there. 

Mr. Quint, I do want to say please ask the political appointees 

down there at the Interior Department to come out of hiding and 

come and testify. This is an important issue, and I know that they 

put you in a very awkward situation. But there is no question that 

in fact, no one is paying attention to the very points that Mr. Moss 

brings up, which is that in parts of the San Joaquin Valley, you 

have a massive overdraft of the water supply, which is why Mr. 

Costa and the rest of the valley delegation have said, look, we have 

to look at this because no one is doing this work, and if we don’t 

start doing this work, we are going to have major environmental 

problems because of this problem of the overdraft of the groundwater aquifer. 

So I hope that you will take this message back to your people 

over there that are hiding in the Interior Department, ask them to 

come out of their hole. These political appointees should not be 

sending you up here. They are supposed to make tough decisions, 

and they have made some tough decisions that I hope you will take 

this back too also, that without, and I don’t want to get in the San 

Joaquin River fight here, but the San Joaquin River settlement, 

which has not been implemented by this Congress, has now been 

funded. They are funding that settlement as you speak. You guys 

have put a contract out there on this and you are funding it. 

64 

I think it is outrageous because you are going to take an additional 22 percent of Class 2 supply and 8 percent of Class 1 supply, 

and I think, Mr. Moss, I mean, if you can comment on this. If you 

take 22 percent of Class 2 supply and 8 percent of Class 1 supply, 

what is it going to do to the groundwater table in the east side of 

the San Joaquin Valley? 

Mr. MOSS. Well, every acre foot of surface water that you remove 

from the system is another acre foot of overdraft. It directly 

equates. 

Mr. NUNES. It just adds to the problem. 

Mr. MOSS. It makes it significantly worse. 

Mr. NUNES. And in your opinion, I mean, no one is looking at 

this right now. That is why Mr. Costa has tried to bring this plan 

forward, because no one is dealing directly with this problem. 

Mr. MOSS. Not in an integrated comprehensive way across the 

valley. You are right. There are groundwater management plans 

under state law that many districts are implementing and looking 

at, but nobody has that big picture, broad San Joaquin Valley view 

that we will look at all of these problems in an integrated fashion, 

and that is what this effort is all about. 

Mr. NUNES. All right. Well, I just want to thank Mr. Costa for 

his leadership on this effort, and I am glad to be a part of it, and 

Mrs. Napolitano, thank you for having me back at your committee. 

It is great to be back. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir, and I appreciate that. A few 

other questions and then I will be done with this, and these questions will be for Mr. Green and Mr. Moss. How does the Federal 

funding authorization fit in the state and local funding? They 

maintain that there is no match, no support. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, we beg to differ. In my testimony, I had an attachment that showed a map that represents what is happening in 

the State of California. As the Subcommittee is undoubtedly aware, 

California has passed a number of bond issues that have significant—yes, that is the map. There are a number of bond issues that 

have invested heavily in water in California, 1350, 84, 1E, and now 

there is another one being proposed in the very near future. 

And if you look at that map down in the left-hand corner, there 

is specific funding designated for the San Joaquin Valley, the San 

Joaquin River Hydrologic Region and the Tulare Lake Region for 

the total amount of $117 million, and that is for integrated regional 

planning to do the very thing that we are discussing today. 

What we are asking for is to assist in the facilitation process to 

spend some of that money. And at California Water Institute of 

Fresno State, we have already received a seed grant of $167,000 

from the Governor’s Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley. He 

has commissioned a more holistic approach to the problems in the 

San Joaquin Valley, much like the Federal Interagency Task Force 

that has worked on the San Joaquin Valley for a number of years. 

In fact, those two processes are being merged to the extent we can. 

So we already have at the California Water Institute some 

money to proceed on this. We have also invested our time and 

energy in talking with the California Department of Water Resources. They have made some preliminary commitments, and we 

65 

intend to fully match the $1 million with funds from the State of 

California to assist in this facilitation effort. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And the relationship between your process 

and the California’s Bulletin 160 water planning process? 

Mr. MOSS. I might address that. The Bulletin 160 process occurs 

once every five years and really takes a snapshot of how the state 

in its entirety is doing in making its water supplies meet its needs, 

so it is a look at the needs and a look at the available supplies to 

see how well they are matching up. It really isn’t a plan of action, 

and the integrated regional plan that we are intending to put forward is one which will define actions and activities that go on to 

meet our San Joaquin Valley needs. So one is a snapshot and the 

other is an action plan. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But how does the study prepare for water 

changes both because of climate change and the company decreases 

in the water supply and then of course a drought? 

Mr. MOSS. Those are all issues that add to the list of things that 

we need to deal with and will have to be addressed as part of our 

integrated regional planning efforts. The potential of climate 

change to call for the reoperation of our rivers, of our dams to provide more flood protection is a real concern for the water supply 

folks, and that is why we need to have ongoing discussions between 

the flood control interests and the water supply interests on an integrated fashion to be able to address these issues. Otherwise, 

there is the potential for somebody’s ox to get gored for the benefit 

of someone else, and we have to work those issues out regionally 

and locally. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you then think that Congressman 

Costa’s bill of being able to bring everybody to the table would be 

helpful in being able to address some of those concerns? 

Mr. MOSS. Absolutely. It is the only thing that is out there right 

now in terms of the region truly acting on an integrated fashion. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is there any precedent for such a study? Have 

you heard? 

Mr. MOSS. Well, kind of the model that everyone is trying to follow is the Santa Ana River Watershed Project model, the SAPA 

model that really took interests that were pretty diverse and in the 

middle of litigation, and quite frankly, my understanding is they 

got tired after 15 or 18 years of litigation to start working cooperatively and created their integrated regional water management 

plan, and that is the model, quite frankly, that most of the state 

now is trying to track, including ourselves. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you so very much for your assistance in giving the testimony that sheds more light onto these 

pieces of legislation. 

Mr. Costa, any further? Mr. Nunes, any further? 

Mr. COSTA. Three good bills, that is what I think. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Did you hear that, Mr. Quint? 

Mr. QUINT. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir, and they know they are on the 

hot seat when they come into this committee, so that is nothing 

new to them. I know it is not your fault and I know that it goes 

further up, but we need to impress upon the administration and all 

in DOJ, OMB and BOR and Interior the importance of preparing 

66 

our communities for global warming and the drought cycles that we 

are facing and the 100-year proposed or projected hotter weather. 

Somehow this is now being equated with economy, with peoples’ 

health, with just a whole slew of things, and you can hear the same 

thing over and over again. I hear it every committee hearing, and 

somehow we need to bring everybody to the table and begin to look 

at how we can work together to increase the budget and put priorities on those areas that are going to be specifically in dire need 

of assistance. 

This concludes the Subcommittee’s legislative hearings on 

H.R. 123, on H.R. 2498 and H.R. 2535. I thank all of our witnesses for being with us and for traveling to be with us to offer 

their perspectives on these three bills. Your expertise has been 

very helpful, and you have shed a lot of light on some of the issues 

that we have gone through. 

Under Committee Rule 4[b], additional material for the record 

should be submitted within 10 business days after today, and appreciate your cooperation and the witnesses by responding as 

promptly as you may. 

The hearing is now adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 1:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

Chronology of Events Affect CVP/SWP Water Supplies 

1992 — Enactment of CVPIA 

Section 3406(d) — Reallocated water from south-of-Delta CVP ag service contractors to Level 2 Refuge Supplies: 156,000 acre-feet 

1994 — Bay-Delta Accord 

South-of-Delta CVP and SWP contractors agreed to dedicate, on a temporary 

basis, water to Delta fisheries restoration: 500,000 acre-feet for both CVP and SWP 

contractors in a dry year. The Accord provided that management of CVP water 

under the Accord to be counted toward section 3406(b)(2) obligation. (Reduced southof-Delta CVP and SWP contract reliability by approximately 25%) 

1997 — Decision on Implementation of CVPIA section 3506(b)(2) 

November 1997 and subsequent decisions prescribed management of section 

3406(b)(2): 183.000 - 275,000 acre-feet. (Reduced south-of- Delta CVP contract reliability by an additional 10- 15%.) 

2000 — Trinity River Record of Decision 

Prescribed new flow criteria for Trinity River: 100,000 - 600,000 acre-feet depending on year type (Average supply reduction for south-of-Delta CVP contractors approximate 5% (91,500 acre-feet).) 

2006 — Proposed San Joaquin River Restoration Agreement Impact - 

165.000 acre-feet. 

2007 — Wanger Decision 

Prescribed additional actions to protect Delta smelt: Water cost uncertain, but 

projections for 2008 south-of-Delta CVP contract allocations are 10 - 45%, with similar to greater reductions in allocations for SWP contractors. (Est. - 900,000 to 1 Million acre-feet) 

Impacts of Wanger Decision on other regions. 

• Southern California estimated to be losing 12% of their supply in a wet year 

and up to 37% in a dry year. 

• Santa Clara likewise is estimated to lose 12% in a wet year and up to 37% in 

a dry year of their State contracted water. Santa Clara has the distinction of 

being impacted by both State and Federal Contracts, so there will be loss on 

the Federal side as well. 

67 

• Areas such as East Bay Mud and Contra Costa who receive supplies from the 

Delta will be unaffected. • San Francisco which sources its water supply from the same tributary system 

north of the Delta that the exporters rely on will have no impact. • The near 1800 unscreened in-Delta diversions taking as much as 5000cfs during 

peak months are not addressed. • Power plants take up to 3200cfs on an on-going basis through unscreened diversion. (Status and Trends of Delta -Suisun Services, DWR May 2007, pg 18,19) 

Not addressed. 

[A letter submitted for the record on H.R. 123 by Charles P. 

Fuentes, City Manager, City of Pico Rivera, California, Frederick 

W. Latham, City Manager, City of Santa Fe Springs, California, 

and Steve Helvey, City Manager, City of Whittier, California, 

follows:] 

August 16, 2007 

The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano 

Representative, 38th District of California 

1610 Longworth Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

SUBJECT: WATER QUALITY PROTECTION PROJECT (WQPP) AND H.R. 123 

Dear Congresswoman Napolitano; 

For nearly 30 years, the federal government and local water agencies have been 

working to address an underground plume of contaminated -water that has been 

slowly moving southeast from the Upper San Gabriel Valley region, which is a 

Superfund site. The contamination resulted from the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), e.g., chemicals for degreasing, dry cleaning, metal cleaning, etc., 

into the soil. 

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the 

initial discovery of contamination occurred in 1979. USEPA began investigating 

groundwater in the Whittier Narrows area of the San Gabriel Superfund sites in 

the late 1980s. A remedial investigation/Feasibility Study was completed in 1992. 

During 1997-98, increasing VOC concentrations led to additional fieldwork by 

USEPA. 

Whittier Narrows Operational Unit (WNOU) 

Design of a remedial facility in the Whittier Narrows area was completed by 

USEPA in 2001. Construction of extraction wells, conveyance pipelines, and a treatment plant began in 2001 and was completed in May 2002. The treatment facility 

was designed to clean up contamination in the Whittier Narrows and to prevent 

contaminated groundwater from moving into the Central Basin. 

However, even before construction of the WNOU treatment plant began, groundwater monitoring data showed that the level of PCEs (tetrachloroethylene) exceeded 

the maximum contaminant levels (MCL) in wells south of the Whittier Narrows 

Dam, i.e., the underground plume of contaminated water had already migrated past 

the site of the WNOU’s extraction wells. Moreover, the WNOU treatment plant did 

not become fully operational until December 2005. (The City of Whittier receives the 

treated water from the WNOU treatment facility.) 

The San Gabriel and Rio Hondo Coastal Spreading Grounds are located south of 

the Whittier Narrows Dam and are adjacent to the cities of Pico Rivera, Whittier, 

and Santa Fe Springs. These spreading grounds, operated by Los Angeles County, 

utilize storm water, imported water and recycled water to replenish the groundwater supply in the Central Basin. Thus, we have been concerned for many years 

that the source of the cities’ drinking water could be contaminated by the underground plume of contaminated water migrating south from the Whittier Narrows 

area. 

Water Qualify Protection Project (WQPP) 

The Southeast Water Coalition (SEWC), a joint powers authority, was formed by 

local cities and the Water Replenishment District (WRD) in 1991 to improve the 

quality and quantity of the regional water supply. The Cities of Pico Rivera and 

Whittier are founding members of SEWC. SEWC was then, and is now, very concerned about the passage of the underground plume into the Central Basin and the 

Montebello Forebay. 

SEWC approached Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD) several 

years ago and requested the District’s assistance regarding this issue. CBMWD was 

68 

able to obtain $10 million in funding from the federal Bureau of Reclamation for 

the WQPP, which meant that local cities did not have to pay for the project. 

The WQPP was constructed to monitor and intercept water entering the Central 

Basin from the Upper San Gabriel Valley region. CBMWD designed and constructed 

two extraction wells, a treatment facility, and distribution lines, all located in the 

City of Pico Rivera. Each of the three cities entered into agreements with CBMWD 

regarding purchase of treated water from the WQPP project. Under the agreement, 

the Cities agreed to convey a certain amount of its water rights to the CBMWD, 

which pumps the conveyed rights from the extraction wells and treats the pumped 

water. 

For example, the City of Pico Rivera agreed to take a maximum of 2,800 acre- feet (AF) of water from CBMWD each year for 10 years at a cost of $40 per AF. 

In addition to this fee the City also pays a fee to WRD for every AF pumped. 

In October 2004, CBMWD received its domestic drinking water permit from the 

State to distribute the treated water to the cities of Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs 

and Whittier. Distribution began in December 2004.In May 2007, after nearly three 

years of operating the WQPP, CBMWD announced that, due to the cost of operating 

the WQPP, it would cease water production. CBMWD cited two reasons for the stoppage in production: the Levels of VOCs that were originally cited to be a concern 

had not exceeded allowable levels for the last two years; and, operating costs were 

much higher than expected. 

After initial discussions with the three cities, who remain concerned about the potential threat to groundwater in the Central Basin, CBMWD agreed to work with 

the cities regarding formation of a joint powers authority (JPA), comprised of the 

three cities, that would own and operate the WQPP. The three cities have three 

months to determine the viability of a JPA, including whether additional customers 

for WQPP water could also be identified. In addition, during that three-month period, CBMWD would operate the WQPP facilities with the cities paying $250 per 

AF. CBMWD would pay for any net operating losses. 

Groundwater monitoring data from the WQPP shows that allowable levels of 

VOCs have not been exceeded during the last two years; however, the prudent 

course would be to continue operating the WQPP due to the potential harm to the 

Central Basin and the Montebello Forebay from the underground plume of contaminated water. For example, as recently as January 2005, the level of PCEs 

(tetrachloroethylene) exceeded the MCL. 

The 2001 Design Report for the WQPP states (Page 1-3): 

It is estimated that continuous pumping would be required for S to 7 years assuming that EPA begins operation of the containment extraction wells in the Whittier Narrows within 2 years. 

However, the WNOU treatment facility did not become fully operational in 2003; 

as stated previously, that occurred in December 2005, after the WQPP became operational. Again, given the substantial federal investment in both WNOU and WQPP, 

if the WQPP facility is shut down, and MCLs are exceeded in the future in the area 

south of Whittier Narrows Dam, it would leave the cities with no recourse and 

would threaten water quality in the Central Basin. 

Although the cost of WQPP water would still be significantly higher for the cities 

of Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs and Whittier than the current $40 per acre-foot, 

it would still remain lower than the cost of imported Metropolitan Water District 

(MWD) water, which is currently $527 per acre-foot and scheduled to increase to 

$557 in January 2008. In addition, if the member cities of the JPA cannot use all 

the treated water available from the WQPP, other local water agencies, e.g., Pico 

Water District, which serves 1/3 of the City of Pico Rivera, would be able to purchase water for less than the MWD rate. 

Therefore, on behalf of the cities of Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs and Whittier, 

we strongly urge inclusion of additional federal funding for operation of the WQPP 

in H.R. 123, which is before your committee. Note: it may be necessary for such 

funding to ‘‘pass through’’ CBMWD to the JPA in the first year, but in subsequent 

years, the funding could go directly to the JPA. 

Sincerely, 

Charles P. Fuentes 

City Manager, City of Pico Rivera 

Frederick W. Latham 

City Manager, City of Santa Fe Springs 

Steve Helvey 

City Manager, City of Whittier 

cc: Art Aguilar, General Manager, CBMWD 

69 

[A letter submitted for the record by The Honorable Owen 

Newcomer, Mayor, City of’ Whittier, California, follows:] 

City of’ Whittier 

13230 Penn Street 

Whittier, California 90602-1772 

(562) 945-8200 www.cityofwhittier.org 

July31,2007 

The Honorable Grace Napolitano 

Congresswoman, 38th District 

1610 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congresswoman Napolitano: 

We are seeking your support for inclusion into H.R. 123 funds for the Water 

Quality Protection Project constructed and operated by Central Basin Municipal 

Water District. The WQPP, which has been the recipient of federal funding throughout its existence thanks largely to your efforts, is essential to protecting the groundwater quality of the Central Basin. 

The WQPP was constructed to monitor and intercept water entering the Central 

Basin from the highly contaminated Upper San Gabriel Valley region, which is a 

Superfund site. The project came about when the Southeast Water Coalition, a consortium of cities which utilize groundwater in the Basin, realized that if such contaminated water were to reach the Basin’s spreading grounds in Pico Rivera, the 

results could be catastrophic for some cities. The Central Basin is blessed with a 

good supply of quality groundwater for our residents. If contamination of the Basin 

water was to occur, the results would be a scarcity of drinking water that would 

force us to rely on more expensive, lower quality imported water that is subject to 

supply shortages during this time of drought. 

Additional funding is needed now to keep the WQPP going to protect our Basin’s 

water supply. Since the main EPA wells intercepting pollution in the Upper San Gabriel Valley have been running for a relatively short time, it is too early to determine when, if and how much contamination may yet enter our Basin. The WQPP 

will ensure that this area’s spreading grounds will remain clean and safe and that 

our-residents can be-assured of a safe, clean water supply. 

We thank you for your consideration to include additional funding for the WQPP 

in H.R. 123. Please feel free to contact our City Manager, Steve Helvey, at (562) 

464-3301 if you need any further information. 

Sincerely, 

Owen Newcomer 

Mayor 

70 

[A letter submitted for the record on H.R. 2498 by David 

Reynolds, Director of Federal Relations, Association of California 

Water Associations, follows:] 


38016.001.eps
71 

[A letter submitted for the record on H.R. 2535 by R.L. Schafer, 

Tule River Association, follows:] 


38016.011.eps
72 

[A letter submitted for the record on H.R. 123 by Hon. Joseph 

D. Serrano, Mayor, City of Santa Fe Springs, California, follows:] 

City of Santa Fe Springs 

11710 Telegraph Road * CA * 90670-3679 

(562) 868-0511 * Fax (562) 868-7112 * www.santafesprings.org 

August 3, 2007 

The Honorable Grace Napolitano 

1610 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Attention: Dan Chao 

Subject: H.R. 123—Water Quality Protection Project 

Dear Grace: 

We are seeking your support for inclusion into H.R. 123 funds for the Water 

Quality Protection Project constructed and operated by Central Basin Municipal 

Water District. The WQPP, which has been the recipient of federal funding throughout its existence thanks largely to your efforts is essential to protecting the groundwater quality of the Central Basin, particularly for our City. 

The WQPP was constructed to monitor and intercept water entering the Central 

Basin from the highly contaminated Upper San Gabriel Valley region, which is a 

Superfund site. The project came about when the Southeast Water coalition, a consortium of cities which utilize groundwater in the basin, realized that if such contaminated water were to reach the Basin’s spreading grounds in Pico Rivera the results could be catastrophic for cities such as ours. The Central Basin is blessed with 

a good supply of quality groundwater for our residents. If contamination of the basin 

water was to occur the results would be a scarcity of drinking water that would 

force us to rely on more expensive, lower quality imported water that is subject to 

supply shortages during this time of drought. 

Additional funding is needed now to keep the WQPP project going to protect our 

basin’s water supply. Since the main EPA wells intercepting pollution in the Upper 

San Gabriel Valley have been running for a relatively short time, it is too early to 

determine when, if and how much contamination may yet enter our basin. The 

WQPP will ensure that this area’s spreading grounds will remain clean and safe 

and that our residents can be assured of a safe, clean water supply. 

We thank you for your consideration to include additional funding for the WQPP 

in H.R. 123. Please feel free to contact Fred Latham, City Manager if you need any 

further information. 

Respectfully, 

Joseph D. Serrano, Sr. 

Mayor 

cc: Honorable City Council 

Fredrick W. Latham, City Manager 

Donald K. Jensen, Director of Public Works 

Æ